How to Prepare for the U.S. Citizenship Test - Here is a complete, comprehensive Americanization manual, providing groundwork in reading, speaking and writing English, plus extensive reviews of U.S. history and government topics. Prospective U.S. citizens also get important information on citizenship application procedures. This includes up-to-date examples of the various forms encountered along with a step-by-step guide to the citizenship application process. An up-to-date chapter reviews the latest information on the rights of legal aliens.
U.S. Immigration Made Easy - Written by two immigration attorneys who have obtained visas and green cards for thousands of foreign nationals, this book covers every possible way to legally enter and live in the United States. Insiders Canter and Siegel explain how the U.S. immigration system really works, and show how to qualify for student visas, work visas, asylum, green cards, and citizenship. Step-by-step instructions show how to fill out and file all the forms and how to approach the enormous INS bureaucracy. U.S. Immigration Made Easy includes all the necessary forms.
Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell - Weissbrodt's Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell offers an expert overview of the history, source, and structure of immigration law. Visa standards, deportation and exclusion issues, refugee and asylum issues, citizenship, and the rights of aliens are also discussed.
January 29, 2002 - ACLU Files First Post-Sept. 11 Challenge To Closed Immigration Hearings on Behalf of MI Congressman and Journalists
In a case that could open the doors to legal proceedings of detainees around the nation, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit on behalf of two local newspapers and Rep. John Conyers, D-MI, saying that a categorical block on public access to immigration hearings is unconstitutional and un-American.
“If hearings of this nature are being conducted in secret, how can we be sure that our justice system is really working and that detainees are being treated fairly?” said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan.
The lawsuit was filed in federal district court here by the national and state offices of the ACLU on behalf of Rep. Conyers, the Detroit News, and the Metro Times, an alternative weekly. They were among hundreds turned away from three recent deportation hearings in the case of Rabih Haddad, a Muslim community leader from Ann Arbor who co-founded an Islamic charity suspected of supporting terrorist activities.
At issue is a policy set forth in a September 21, 2001 memo from Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy to all immigration judges, requiring the closure of all deportation proceedings to the public and the press when directed by the Justice Department. That policy was apparently invoked to close the hearings in Mr. Haddad's case.
“Under settled First Amendment law, there is a strong presumption that court proceedings must be open to the public and members of the press,” said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the national ACLU. “The Justice Department's policy of blanket secrecy is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free society.”
A ruling that the policy is unconstitutional could result in the opening of court proceedings in other deportation cases around the nation, Shapiro said.
Haddad was arrested on a minor visa violation on December 14, 2001, eight months after he had applied for permanent residency. Prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had generally refrained from initiating deportation proceedings against immigrants living in the United States while their applications for permanent residency are pending.
The ACLU is seeking a ruling from the court by Feb. 19, the date of Haddad's next scheduled hearing. The lawsuit also seeks access to transcripts of Haddad's previous hearings and any other documents related to the proceedings in his case.
Moss said that the ACLU challenge does not address Haddad's innocence or guilt - which is “a question that must be decided by the courts.”