appositive?

[Wookie]

They also can fail if they give “false testimony,” a term immigration lawyers say is subject to broad interpretation. (source)

Is the underlined part an appositive?
If so, I wonder why "is" is not left out. I think the underlined part should be a phrase, not a clause.
I think "a term (which is) subject to broad interpretation" is correct.

 

[Cagey]

Yes, the phrase you have underlined is in apposition to "false testimony". Within that phrase, "a term" is modified by the relative clause "[that] immigration lawyers say is subject to broad interpretation."

(You could leave out 'immigrations lawyers say', and have "a term which is subject to broad interpretation". This would be grammatical, but not mean the same as the original.)

 

[Wookie]

Yes, the phrase you have underlined is in apposition to "false testimony". Within that phrase, "a term" is modified by the relative clause "[that] immigration lawyers say is subject to broad interpretation."

(You could leave out 'immigrations lawyers say', and have "a term which is subject to broad interpretation". This would be grammatical, but not mean the same as the original.)

Do you mean the underlined part above is not gramatical?
I think even if you leave out "immigration lawyers say", using "is" is not gramatical.

..., a term subject to broad interpretation.tick
..., a term is subject to broad interpretation.cross

 

[Cagey]

The underlined part is grammatical. I was trying to answer your question about how it might be changed.

Does this help you see how the grammar works?

a term that [immigration lawyers say] is subject to broad interpretation.

 

[Wookie]

The underlined part is grammatical. I was trying to answer your question about how it might be changed.

Does this help you see how the grammar works?

As far as I know, you can leave "that" out only in these two cases.
1. "that" can be left out with "be":
a car (that is) bought at a local dealership

2. "that" can be left out if a subject and a verb come right after "that":
a car (that) I bought at a local dealership.

I don't think you can leave "that" out like the example above.
I think the one you provided "a term that [immigration lawyers say] is subject to broad interpretation" is correct, not the example above.

 

[Cagey]

I don't think you can leave "that" out like the example above.
I think the one you provided "a term that [immigration lawyers say] is subject to broad interpretation" is correct, not the example above.

Well, I had to look this one up. It seems acceptable to me, but I haven't memorized the rules that cover the omission of "that". Here is a discussion on BBC Learning English about when "that" may be omitted.

After the more common reporting verbs, (e.g. say, tell) it is also entirely natural to omit that in informal speech.​

Newspaper writing tends to be between colloquial speech and formal writing, so this sentence would be acceptable in context. Other people will agree with you that in formal writing, at least, there should be a "that". And I agree that it would make the sentence read more smoothly: I would have used it.