VIP Lawyer Network
High Net Worth
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
More than 100 years ago, at the turn of the 20th century, an Austrian politician by the name of Karl Lueger was elected mayor of Vienna by making anti-Semitic speeches and promising to enact measures aimed against the unpopular Jewish minority. However, in his personal life, Lueger was said to have many Jewish friends and to be free from prejudice.
One of his Jewish friends was said to have criticized Lueger for his opportunism. According to the story (which may well have been apocryphal), Lueger's Jewish friend told him that he would have had more respect for Lueger if he really had hated Jews instead of just pretending to do for political advantage.
Which category does Donald Trump belong in, hater or hypocrite? First, he attacked all Mexican immigrants, without distinguishing between those here legally and those who are here without legal status. In what have now become famous words, (as quoted by publications too numerous to mention within the past three weeks) Trump said:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
On July 11, Trump attempted to qualify this, by saying that his remarks applied only to illegal Mexicans. But the damage had still been done, and the qualification was no more accurate than his original comments. Few of even the most committed immigration opponents would deny that the great majority of Mexican immigrants who are here without legal status came in order to look for jobs or to reunite with their families, many of which include American spouses or children, not to bring drugs or commit violent crimes.
Now, according to Reuters on July 31, it turns out that Trump's own companies have legally brought over 1,100, immigrants, most of them from Mexico, into America, mainly as cooks, waitresses and vineyard workers in the H-2B program. While these people may no doubt belonged to the relatively few "good" Mexicans that Trump mentioned in his speech, if Trump had really believed that Mexican immigrants tend to be as dangerous as he is now claiming, why would he have been so willing to bring large numbers of them in? See:
Would Trump not have had reason to worry that even if these legal immigrants had clean records at the time of entry in the US, they might turn into "drug dealers, criminals and rapists" after arrival in this country? More to the point, what guarantee did he have that these temporary workers would leave the US and return home after their legal status expired?
How many of them have in fact returned to Mexico rather than overstaying their status? If Mexican immigrants have as little respect for the law as Donald Trump has been claiming, then is it not possible that he brought hundreds of people into the country who are now illegal immigrants, if not violent criminals?
If Trump really believed that Mexican immigrants have such a high propensity to becoming criminals and immigration violators, why did he bring so many of them here legally? What was he the most interested in protecting? The safety of America, or the profits of his own business empire?
And if Trump did not in fact believe that Mexican immigrants are more likely to become violent criminals, drug traffickers or immigration violators than anyone else, and is now just saying this for political advantage, then he should reach back in time to the beginning of the last century and shake hands with his fellow hypocrite, Vienna Mayor Karl Lueger.
Either way, it would be instructive to find out how many, if any, of the Mexican immigrants whom Trump sponsored for visas later went on to commit violent or drug related crimes in this country, or failed to return home. Perhaps some immigrant restrictionist group such as the Heritage Foundation, FAIR, or the Center for Immigration Studies would be willing to do a follow-up and issue a report.
Roger Algase is New York lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been helping primarily professional and skilled immigrants obtain work visas and green cards for more than 30 years. Roger's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 08-02-2015 at 01:30 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
This post has been deleted because it was a duplicate of my August 2 post: Trump Sponsors Mainly Mexican Immigrants: Hate or Hypocrisy?
Please see that post. Thank you.
Updated 08-02-2015 at 01:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Recently, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”) issued a decision that considered what type of evidence is needed to demonstrate that a U.S. worker is not qualified for a position being sponsored through labor certification. In Matter of Presto Absorbent Products, Inc., the employer had sponsored the position of “Engineering Manager.” The case was selected for audit and was denied because the Certifying Officer (“CO”) determined that the “employer’s recruitment report made only a generalized statement that U.S. workers did not meet the employer’s minimum requirements . . . Furthermore, the recruitment report did not contain the specific lawful job related reasons for rejection.” The employer’s recruitment report listed that eight resumes had been received for the sponsored role. It stated that the applicants lacked the required experience and “[a]ll applicants were reviewed to determine if they would be able and qualified to perform the duties of the position with a reasonable amount of on-the-job training. All applicants were determined not to have been able and qualified for the position even with a reasonable amount of on-the-job training.” BALCA reviewed the federal regulations and found that they did not “indicate a level of specificity beyond what the employer provided” in regards to disqualifying U.S. workers. BALCA also stated that it is permissible for employers to reject U.S. workers based upon lack of experience. Consequently, the CO’s decision was reversed. This case provides confirmation that U.S. workers may be rejected on the basis that they lack the necessary experience and would not be able to gain this experience through a period of on-the-job training. However, due to the Department of Labor’s recent focus on whether U.S. workers could become qualified for sponsored positions through a period of on-the-job training, the Hammond Law Group suggests that employers may want to provide detailed recruitment reports that specifically discuss why U.S. workers were not qualified and could not gain the necessary qualifications through a period of training. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views blog by Cadence Moore. http://www.hammondlawgroup.com/blog/.
Nolan Rappaport should be commended for the painstaking research and discussion of the issue of crimes committed by immigrants in his article: Analysis of Immigration Subcommittee's Sanctuary Cities Hearing in the July 28 issue of Immigration Daily.
This does not necessarily mean that I agree with his conclusions or recommendations.
In any discussion of immigration and criminal law, it is important to distinguish between serious crimes and minor or trivial ones. Does putting detainers on or deporting immigrants convicted of DUI or disorderly conduct really promote public safety?
A few years ago, one of my former clients, a woman who was in this country with a legal work visa who could have looked forward to a promising career and future in America, was arrested and ultimately deported for bathing together with her boy friend and his young son after being sentenced to pay a token fine. She was not aware that there could be any problem with mixed or family bathing when one of the parties was a child.
At her criminal court hearing, there were two ICE agents in the back of the room who took her into custody as soon as she had paid her fine, and locked her up for a in deplorable jail conditions, before eventually putting her on a plane back home.
Did that do anything to make America a safer and better place? Our elected lawmakers should be asking questions like this instead of exploiting the murder of an innocent young woman in San Francisco as an excuse to whip up anger and hysteria against immigrants in general.
Instead of trying to sensationalize this tragedy in order to demonize millions of Mexicans and other minority immigrants, would not our Congressional leaders be making better use of their time by investigating why so many African-American US citizens are dying in police custody? We may be waiting a very long time for those hearings to begin.
Roger Algase is a New York lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been helping primarily skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards for more than 30 years. Roger's email address is email@example.com
Updated 07-30-2015 at 07:54 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
This post is a continuation of my July 15 comments about former Maryland Governor and current Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley's proposals for immigration reform as contained in his 8-page manifesto: Welcoming New Americans To Rebuild The American Dream. My following comments will focus his proposal to overhaul the legal US immigration system, contained in the last page of his manifesto.
As is to be expected in a document which devotes only one page to legal immigration, compared to six pages to its unauthorized counterpart (not counting the first, introductory page) Governor O'Malley offers less in the way of specific proposals to reform the legal immigration system.
But, just as in the case of his proposals to reform the enforcement system relating to unauthorized immigration, O'Malley zeros in on some of the features of current laws or proposals which are arguably the most influenced by anti-immigrant prejudice, rather than sound or rational policy considerations.
For example, in his discussion of reforming the system for dealing with unauthorized immigration, O'Malley, as I mentioned in my last post, focuses on the need to reduce the number of people subject to the 3 and 10 "unlawful presence" bars to admissibility, an especially harsh feature of the 1996 IIRIRA statute.
As I have pointed out previously, IIRIRA was enacted in response to a "backlash" against the 1965 immigration reforms which had ended 40 years of discrimination against immigrants who were not from Western Europe. IIRIRA was also hardly a shining example of American democracy in action; it was rammed through Congress at the very last minute without debate or discussion, and attached to a veto-proof "must pass" military appropriations bill only a month before that year's presidential election.
It would have taken an enormous amount of courage to veto that bill, which was signed by President Clinton.
Also in the context of unauthorized immigration, Governor O'Malley calls for the end of a host of due process violations and similar abuses involving detention, removal and other enforcement policies which are arguably more reflective of anti-immigrant hysteria than of any real respect for basic rights under the rule of law.
Governor O'Malley's approach to reforming legal immigration reflects the same boldness and precision in combating proposals which, on their face, have more to do with pandering to prejudice than they do with making our immigration system more equitable and workable.
I begin with his last proposal: Protect the Diversity Visa. This may seem like a small thing; there are only 55,000 of these visas issued every year. This is not about the fate of millions of unauthorized immigrants of hundreds of thousands of foreign skilled and professional workers held up by antiquated and grossly inadequate H-1B or immigrant visa quotas which date from the last century, but are no more relevant to our society and economy today than they would have been if they had been established in the Middle Ages.
But as O'Malley points out, about half of the diversity lottery winners each year come from Africa. This is a far cry from the predecessor of the diversity visa, which was originally known as the "AA-1" program and was meant to benefit European, and especially Irish, immigrants exclusively. ("AA" meant "adversely affected" and referred to European immigrants who had lost their privileged position prior to the 1965 immigration reform).
Now that this program has morphed into one that is truly based on diversity, especially by making it easier for African immigrants who do not belong to the highly educated, privileged elite in their countries to come to America, there is a movement afoot to kill this entire program.
Shamefully, eliminating this visa was one of the provisions included in the bipartisan S 744 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill which passed the Senate in 2013. As everyone will recall, this bill was promptly pronounced "Dead on Arrival" in the House.
One would like to think that the opposition by House leaders to taking up S 744 was motivated by a desire to protect African and other non-white immigrants by keeping the diversity visa in place. Perhaps one day a scholar at Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, or Center for Immigration Studies will come up with evidence to this effect and share it with the rest of us.
In the meantime, Governor O'Malley should be commended for battling to keep this visa, instead of throwing an entire continent under the bus.
To be continued in an upcoming post.
Roger Algase is a New York lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been helping primarily skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards for more than 30 years. Roger believes that success in immigration cases depends not only on thorough knowledge of the law, but also on building relationships of trust and understanding with the clients whom he is dedicated to serving.
His email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 07-23-2015 at 03:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs