Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, on the basis that it conflicted with the federal immigration policy set by Congress. Since being struck down in federal court, the law hasn’t been enforced. The town’s lawyers have now brought an appeal in federal appeals court. If successful, the case will have national implications for similar laws across the nation.

Source: http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/US-appeals-court-weighs-local-Pa-law-on-illegals

At issue is whether the random selection of an identifying number that in fact belongs to a real person qualifies as knowing use for purposes of the aggravated identity theft statute. The defendant in the case, Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen, used a counterfeit Social Security card bearing his real name and a false Social Security number in order to obtain employment. Although it was unknown to Flores-Figueroa, the Social Security number belonged to a minor. The Court will decide whether the knowing use of false information is sufficient for a conviction or whether the accused must know the false information belongs to a real person.

Source: http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap102108a.html

The government spent $41,000 in advertising the program, and claimed the costs of detaining the six participants during the first week of the trial alone would have been $37,000. The director of ICE’s detention and removal operations, Jim Hayes, claimed that failure of the program emphasizes the need for enforcement. Critics of the program blame its failure on its lack of incentives for immigrants and the fact that many of the immigrants have family ties in the U.S. Under the program, immigrants were given up to 90 days to plan their deportation, but many would have been prohibited from reentering the country for up to ten years.

Of the eight participants, three persons applied at an office in Chicago, two in Santa Ana and one each in Phoenix, Charlotte, North Carolina, and San Diego.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1152/08-22-2008/20080822035007_14.html

In 1996, an asylum law was enacted for victims of China’s policy on children. The Bush administration has supported asylum for women, but has resisted the male partners’ efforts to get asylum. U.S. immigration authorities and some courts have used the distinction between traditional and legal marriage to deny asylum. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny the appeal was made without comment from the justices.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154//05-12-2008/20080512085004_15.html

The new law, effective January 1, 2008, punishes employers who hire illegal immigrants. Prosecutors who had previously agreed not to bring charges against violaters of the new law prior to March 1 may now do so.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/federal-appeals-court-denies-injunction.php

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/federal-judge-denies-injunction-against.php

The court rejected a lawsuit by business groups that claimed the law is unconsitutional as only the federal government, not the state, can regulate immigration. According to the court, federal pre-emption applies to civil or criminal penalties other than licensing laws. The court previously dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by civil rights groups on the basis that the law had not yet gone into effect. Representatives of the 15 county attorneys earlier agreed not to prosecute employers who violate the law prior to March 1, 2008 until the case could be heard.

Source: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/224165; http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/federal-judge-upholds-arizona.php