Today’s Immigration Headlines – July 21, 2015

Asylum Backlog Grows

“It’s been more than a year since Abdul, a 35-year-old Syrian native, last heard from U.S. officials holding on to his request for asylum, the last sliver of hope for his future in the United States. It’s been almost three since he last saw his wife and young son, who have no choice but to remain on the other side of the globe until his application gets resolved,” the IB Times reports.

“‘I have tried every trick in the book to speed up my process,’ said Abdul, who asked not to use his full name for fear of jeopardizing his case. But constant office visits, phone calls and letters to members of Congress have done him little good in the years since he first filed his asylum request. Meanwhile, his son is growing up without him.”

New Gallup Survey on Immigration

“Presidential candidate Donald Trump brought the issue of immigration back into the forefront of the news media focus with his June 16 announcement speech, including his widely-quoted views on illegal immigrants from Mexico. What do we know about the context of public opinion into which Trump’s comments were dropped? For one thing, we know that immigration is not seen as the top problem facing the nation today by most Americans, but it is perceived as an important issue,” says the Gallup Polling company

Illegal Immigration Supporters Fearful of Sanctuary City Crackdown

“A coalition of immigration advocacy and civil rights groups is urging lawmakers not to push forward with bills to crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities” — an issue that’s been catapulted into the 2016 campaign spotlight after an undocumented immigrant allegedly fatally shot a woman in California earlier this month. The groups are warning Congress against any measures that would “seek to undermine state and local law enforcement’s efforts to build and restore community trust” in the aftermath of the death of Kathryn Steinle, who authorities say was shot and killed by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican immigrant here illegally,” Politico writes.

Appeals Court Ruling on Detainers

“An appeals court has ruled that federal immigration authorities need probable cause to issue an immigration detainer, a decision that comes amid a national debate over immigration enforcement that was sparked by a deadly shooting in San Francisco. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed last year’s decision by a federal judge in Rhode Island, who found that a naturalized U.S. citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated when she was held on an immigration detainer,” the Washington Times reports.

How to View Immigration’s Impact on Apportionment

“Opponents of immigration constantly claim that unauthorized immigrants hurt Republicans electorally. The latest effort is from Ian Smith of Immigration Reform Law Institute, who inaccurately claims in a piece for National Review that illegal immigration gives more congressional seats to heavily Democratic states,” says David Bier in the Daily Caller.

“It’s true that immigrants increase the number of people counted toward apportionment in Congress under the Constitution. The problem with Smith’s claim, however, is that he defines “Democratic state” based on the presidential vote in 2012. But presidential elections don’t determine redistricting for Congress; state legislators do. The best way to determine if new seats in Congress will turn red or blue is to control the state legislature.”

Clinton Promises More Leniency for Illegal Aliens

“The Daily Caller has reported that the Clinton campaign has decided to change the eligibility requirements for a contest known as “Meet Hillary.” The chance to personally meet the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will now be opened to illegal immigrants as well as U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents,” One News Now writes.

“Bob Dane is a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He says the move to include illegal aliens in the contest isn’t surprising considering that Mrs. Clinton told amnesty activists that, if elected, she would go further than President Obama in granting executive amnesty to even more people who are in the country illegally.”

avatar About Dan Stein

Dan is FAIR's President after joining the organization in 1982. He has testified more than 50 times before Congress, and been cited in the media as "America's best known immigration reformer." Dan has appeared on virtually every significant TV and radio news/talk program in America and, in addition to being a contributing editor to, has contributed commentaries to a vast number of print media outlets.


  1. When You Get Older

    You aren’t afraid of telling the truth, like your Millennial Offspring are doing poorly [what American parent wants to admit that]. Trump is older and sick of the lies he hears.

  2. avatar Leland says:

    Trump is also right about all these so called “free trade” deals that always turn out to be the opposite of what was promised. Our trade deficit with Mexico under NAFTA is over 100 billion dollars. We have lost many manufacturing jobs to them. Now the president and most of the GOP wants a 12 nation deal, even though our last deal, with Korea, produced huge deficits. Trump is against it.

  3. avatar Leland says:

    It’s ironic that the Des Moines Register called for Donald Trump to withdraw from the race for the GOP nomination. Ironic because they should be calling for Hillary to withdraw.

    Whether Trump is loud or not, the fact is that he is saying what every politician in this country should be saying. Which is, Mexico is playing us for suckers. They encourage their poorest and least educated to come here, along with a good number of criminals who cross illegally, and then we end up with all the social welfare costs for that, while those people send a good portion of what they make back to Mexico. Trump says he will stop that and enforce the laws as written. Anything wrong with that? Nothing that I can see.

    Meanwhile, Hillary says she will bend the law to any degree she sees fit. And she wants to confer citizenship on people whose presence here is one continual breaking of the law after another. Crossing the border illegally, false or stolen identity to work, and collecting benefits they are by law forbidden to have. The constitution says the president will execute the laws “faithfully”. Sounds like Trump will do that and Hillary won’t, according to their own statements. So who should be withdrawing?