MINNEAPOLIS -- A federal court has temporarily halted a massive fee hike for U.S. citizenship applications. But Minnesota immigration advocates say the threat remains.

The fee was scheduled to increase on Friday by more than 80%, to nearly $1,200. But Tuesday's ruling pauses that, for now.

Veena Iyer, director of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, said the state's immigrant population already has dealt with issues such as travel bans under the Trump administration. If the ruling is reversed, she said, she worries this latest obstacle would be too difficult for many to overcome.

"For those folks who are already here," she said, "we're afraid that this is really going to stop people from taking that last step - from changing from being a lawful permanent resident to becoming a citizen - and being able to get all of the rights that that entails."

The agency handling applications said most of its revenue comes from the fees, and without the increase, it would be underfunded by $1 billion annually. It's unclear yet if the federal government will appeal the ruling, issued by a judge in California. In Minnesota, more than 65,000 immigrants are eligible for citizenship.

Attorney Evangeline Dhawan, who handles naturalization cases for the Immigrant Law Center, said many clients already struggle to meet the current fee structure. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the deadline, she added, they're working on applications at an accelerated pace.

"We're trying to get as many out as we can," she said, "so people still have that opportunity for a fee waiver if they're eligible, or the filing fee that's lower than it's going to be."

Iyer said it isn't just about people who are here trying to become naturalized citizens. She's worried they'll also have trouble connecting with family members still living outside the United States.

"That importance of family and that importance of supporting family," she said. "And we see time and time again, immigrant and refugee families who are giving up so much for themselves in order to, for example, support a family member abroad, or to be able to bring over a child or a spouse, or a parent."

She added that if the changes ultimately go through, there's also concern that some immigrants would resort to risky loans to cover the added costs. Also under the plan, a number of fee waivers would be eliminated. The International Institute of Minnesota said most of its clients qualify for those waivers.

Details of the fee increase are online at amazonaws.com.


get more stories like this via email

The future of Senate Bill 4 is still tangled in court challenges. It's the Texas law that would allow police to arrest people for illegally crossing the border. But groups are speaking out about the impact of "Operation Lone Star" on the youngest migrants. Governor Greg Abbott continues to bus migrant families to other states, many with young children - more than 100,000 families so far.

Robert Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, works to improve the quality of life for boys and girls in Texas, and contends the policy has put trauma on top of trauma.

"We never want children to be political pawns. We don't want maximum chaos on the backs of children. We want children to grow up and be assets for our community," he contended.

Sanborn points out that 2.2 million children in Texas are immigrants, and said it would be less stressful for kids if families were not bused in the middle of the night, and if they were allowed to pick their destination.

When immigrants arrive at the border, they are evaluated to determine if they're eligible for asylum.

Beatriz Zavala, clinical coordinator at El Paso-based Humanitarian Outreach for Migrant Emotional Health, or "HOME," said the children in this situation are at higher risk for mental health disorders.

"What is particularly troubling is the profound disregard for the stability and protection these families need. The impact on their mental health is undeniable. These are not just statistics. These are children, real children," she said.

As part of Operation Lone Star, families have been bused to Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. The governor has said the practice is needed to keep the Texas-Mexico border safe.


get more stories like this via email

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email

Story has been updated to reflect late-night 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.(8:01 a.m. MST, Mar. 20, 2024)


The U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a big but temporary win Tuesday in his battle to stop the flow of migrants crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

Late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals put the law known as Senate Bill 4 on hold again. It would give state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants as they cross into the U-S.

The Biden administration argued that the law would interfere with federal immigration law and is unconstitutional.

David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas, said if the state gets the authority to make arrests, he thinks it will move with caution.

"I think that Texas will want to make some very high-profile moves under this statute," Coale predicted. "But they also don't want to potentially expose themselves to massive civil rights liability if it turns out they're wrong."

Under SB-4, crossing the border illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The appeals court hears oral arguments in the case today. Meanwhile, a Mexican government official said his country won't accept migrants deported under SB-4.

The Supreme Court justices did not issue a reason for allowing the law to go into effect and there's been no clear timetable for how or when Texas will start enforcing it. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a similar law in Arizona, saying an impasse in Congress over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

Coale noted if the law is ultimately upheld, it would give each state the right to make its own immigration laws.

"If you give Texas a pass, you know, New York will have a different policy and California will have a policy and Montana will have a policy," Coale pointed out. "And they will not be consistent."

All six of the court's conservative justices agreed with the decision to allow the law to take effect - a ruling that, at least for now, was in effect for only a few hours.


get more stories like this via email