Home Page

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books



VIP Lawyer Network


High Net Worth

Custom Content

Dubai Events

Find HNW People

Custom Events

Custom Services

Professional Services


Connect to us


Make us Homepage



ilw.com VIP

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Illegal Immigration Bonanza For Economy (Border Security Sector) By Roger Algase

    Who says that illegal immigration isn't good for the economy? Try telling that to what The Guardian calls the "border industrial complex'. This refers to companies that are looking to market their high tech drones, sensors, advanced radar and i-phones with fingerprint apps to the Department of Homeland Security at events such as the "Border Security Expo" trade fair in Phoenix.

    The Guardian writes in its April 26 article:
    Inside the US 'border security industrial complex: spy tech meets immigration crackdown as follows:

    "In a big conference room in the Phoenix Convention Center this week, senior Homeland Security officials gave statistics-heavy speeches to a rapt audience of executives, sales reps and law enforcement officials, each listening for hints about policy shifts and strategic goals that could make their products just what the government is looking for. Then, in the afternoon, attendees crossed the lobby to the exhibition room, where private companies hawk their wares."

    Move over, Fashion Week, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    The Guardian

    "' This is the border-industrial complex,' said James Cooper, a professor at California western School of Law, who was attending the conference to research a book. 'This is like Dwight D. Eisenhower meets the medieval fortress, You're seeing this privatization of what is essentially a governmental function.'

    (For the sake of younger ID readers, the above is a reference to a warning that President Eisenhower gave just before leaving office in 1961 against allowing the "military-industrial complex" to have too much power - a warning which has obviously been totally ignored in the ensuing more than half a century.)

    The Guardian continues:

    "Business is clearly booming.One estimate expects revenues from the global border security and biometrics market to double to $32 billion by 2021 - roughly half the size of the Department of Homeland Security's 2015 budget."

    With huge amounts of money coming into the private border security companies, one might think that their biggest nightmare would be for the Mexican border actually to become secure, as many of our politicians claim to have as their policy objective.

    But not to worry: The Guardian concludes:

    "But it's not in the interests of any of these companies to agree that the frontier is tight and that the threat from criminal gangs or terrorists is being tackled correctly. 'Obama says he's tough on the border, but everybody knows he's not,' one vendor said.'"'

    Nor, one might add, is it in the interests of the groups that are opposed to immigration reform on the grounds of "border security first" for the border in fact to become secure. Then immigration opponents would lose their main argument for blocking reform.

    But, one might imagine, there could be an even worse nightmare for the border security complex, as well as the booming private immigration prison industry, which is now being accused of being responsible for abuses at the family detention centers at places such as Karnes, Texas.

    What would happen if large numbers of people stopped trying to come to the US without authorization? Then, America's economy might really have a problem - at least in its private border security sector.

    The Guardian's report is at:


    Updated 04-27-2015 at 11:42 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Europe's Inhumanity Toward Mediterranean Refugees Becomes Worse. By Roger Algase

    Despite the call from McGill University (Montreal) Law Professor Francois Crepeau, the UN's special rapporteur for human rights, for rich countries to take in one million refugees from Syria over the next five years in order to end the boat disasters in the Mediterranean, which have claimed more than 1,750 lives this year, and reduce the booming market for immigrant smugglers from North Africa, Europe appears to be moving in the opposite direction of taking a hard line against immigrants, according to two recent articles inThe Guardian.

    On April 22, The Guardian reported that, according to Professor Crepeau, Europe's inaction in the face of the refugee crisis is actually creating the market for smugglers. The Guardian also stated:

    "Crepeau said that the west had to acknowledge the refugees were 'stuck in a place where there's no future for themselves or their children' and had to change policy'

    'This is going to be a long term commitment and we should go at it together. It's a much better system for everyone - you reduce the number of deaths, you reduce the smuggling business model, and you reduce the cost of asylum claims.'

    The plan would allow Syrian refugees to apply from places such as Istanbul, Amman and Beirut to come to Europe, North America and Australia 'for a meaningful chance to resettle, instead of paying smugglers thousands of Euros [only to] die with their children in the Mediterranean.'"

    Crepeau also stated that for the UK, Canada and Australia, under his plan, the number of refugees they would need to take in each year in order to accomplish the above goal would be "a drop in the bucket."

    See:UN expert: rich counties must take in one million refugees to stop boat deaths


    Unfortunately, it looks as if this sensible and humane proposal is falling upon deaf ears among European leaders. The Guardian also reports on April 22 that Europe is planning to accept only 5,000 of the 150,000 boat refugees who actually made it across the Mediterranean last year - with another 36,000 survivors estimated to have reached Italy, Greece and Malta so far this year. The rest, according to a confidential draft statement of European leaders, will be sent back.

    See: Most migrants crossing Mediterranean will be sent back, EU leaders to agree


    Exactly where will these desperate men, women and children be sent back to? To Assad, one of the world's most brutal dictators? To ISIS, which makes even Assad look humane by comparison? To Libya, which has no government at all except arguably for parts controlled by ISIS?

    The Guardian quotes the EU statement as follows:

    Our immediate priority is to prevent more people from dying at sea. We have therefore decided to strengthen our presence at sea, to fight the traffickers, to prevent illegal migration flows and to reinforce internal solidarity.

    The Guardian
    also reports:

    "Increased support is also to be given to Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Mali and Niger
    to monitor and control their land border to prevent potential migrants getting to the shore of the Mediterranean." (Bold added.)

    In other words, the emphasis is not to save lives or protect refugees from persecution, but to keep them out of Europe at all costs.

    In contrast to the above inhumanity by EU leaders, The Guardian also reports that a letter to them signed by more that 50 former European prime ministers foreign minsters and business leaders:

    "condemned the death toll of migrants in the Mediterranean as a 'stain on the conscience of our continent' and demanded the immediate restoration of expansive search and rescue operations.'"
    ​ (Bold added.)

    The parallels between this inhumane attitude toward some of the most desperate people on earth, the millions of victims of war torn Syria, as well as of war, poverty and instability in North Africa, and the Obama administration's harsh approach to last summer's influx of unaccompanied children and other refugees from drug violence ridden Central America cannot be ignored.

    It is time for the rich countries of the world to show more respect for the basic human rights of the millions of people displaced by war and poverty in less fortunate parts of the world, instead fof trying to seal their borders against them at all costs.

    Even in the arena of legal employment-based immigration by well educated, highly skilled IT, business and other professional who arguably come from the elite and more privileged sectors of society in at least some countries, there are human rights and humanitarian concerns which deserve more attention than they are currently receiving.

    While none of the approximately 175,000. or about 75 per cent of the beneficiaries of this year's cap subject H-1B petitions which will be rejected this year because of lack of visas are likely to drown at sea as a result, many of them will see their hopes for careers in America which they have studied and worked hard for sink to the bottom, and will be forced to return to their countries, or pursue their careers in some other country with a more hospitable and rational skilled immigration system.

    I know personally about the intense anxiety and uncertainly that some of my own H-1B cap clients have gone through or are now experiencing due to the H-1B visa crisis, and I am sure that many other H-1B lawyers are hearing about similar concerns from their clients as well.

    It is time that America stops looking at the most highly qualified would-be immigrants as mere statistics, or even worse, as threats, and starts to recognize them as individuals who also have human rights, as well as the overriding potential and motivation to contribute to our economy and our society.

    It is not only Europe which needs to renounce narrow parochialism and xenophobia in its policies toward immigrants, including the most desperate who are endangered by wars which they did not start and are beyond their control. America also, needs to overcome the anti-immigrant stereotypes and prejudices which have bedeviled our society from the beginning and are now responsible for turning away many of the most qualified immigrants of all from our shores.
    Roger Algase is a New York lawyer and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who has been helping skilled, professional and family-based immigrants overcome the obstacles of our complex immigration system for more than 30 years.

    Roger believes that immigration is not merely a collection of technical laws and regulations, but is also meant to recognize the basic humanity and human rights of people from every part of the world who want to come to this country in order to make a positive contribution to our society.

    Roger welcomes comments and questions addressed to algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 04-23-2015 at 10:51 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Girl Happy to be Back In Mexico After Being Forcibly Sent to US. By Roger Algase

    The Guardian reports on April 22 that that there is at least one Mexican "immigrant" who is delighted to be back home in Mexico with her family after being taken to the US by force and against her will.

    In its story: Mistaken identity: girl pulled screaming from Mexican school and sent to Texas, the newspaper relates that in a case of apparent mistaken identity, a 14-year old Mexican girl, Alondra Luna, was dragged screaming and struggling from her school in Mexican city of Guanajuato by (US?) federal agents and taken to the United States based on a judge's order mistakenly identifying her as an allegedly kidnapped daughter of an American woman living in Houston, Dorotea Garcia.

    After DNA tests showed that Alondra was not the daughter of Ms. Garcia, who had apparently confused her with another girl also named Alondra, Alondra Luna was repatriated back to Mexico, where she has been happily reunited with her real parents, Mexican citizens Gustavo Luna and Susana Nunez.

    The Guardian also questions why DNA tests were not performed on Alondra Luna before she was forced to "immigrate" to the US under such harrowing circumstances. Hopefully, more careful DNA testing will protect other Mexican children from being torn away from their families and dragged off to the US against their will.

    I am sure that all ID readers will join me in wishing Alondra well in her native country after her traumatic experience in being forced by legal procedures to come to the United States, a country which she had no connection with and no wish whatever to enter or reside in.

    The full story is at:


    Updated 04-22-2015 at 08:07 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Anti-Union Gov. Walker Opposes Work Visas "To Protect US Workers". By Roger Algase

    Arguably no one in America is better known for preventing US workers from bargaining for higher wages or more benefits than Wisconsin Governor and Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker, whose union-busting tactics forced him into a recall election which he narrowly survived not too long ago (with the alleged help of "dark money" from the Koch brothers, who are now backing him for president in the full light of day and pledging to spend nearly a billion dollars to elect him).

    See: Huffington Post: The Koch Brothers Are Reportedly Ready To Back Scott Walker (April 20)


    Therefore, if there were any truth to the claim that employment based legal immigration, such as H-1B and L-1 visas, lowers the wages of American workers, one would logically expect Scott Walker, more than anyone else, to be on the side of increasing legal work visas in order to bring in more foreign workers and keep US workers' wages down.

    But, to the contrary, Walker has now joined the far right wing members of his party who not only want to prevent reform of illegal immigration, but who also want to restrict legal immigration.

    As the Huffington Post points out in its April 20 article: Scott Walker Tacks Far Right On Immigration


    Walker is now putting himself at odds with his own party's other announced or likely presidential candidates, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush, and Senators Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY) and Ted Cruz (TX). All of these, except for Walker, have either supported or refrained from criticizing legal skilled and professional worker immigration.

    Indeed, while most Republican politicians are well known for their hard line on illegal immigration, they have, in general, been outspoken and consistent in their support for employment-based legal immigration.

    The most recent example of this is the bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) which would increase H-1B visas to reasonable levels more in line with actual demand, and also do much to end the unconscionable backlogs in employment-based green card quotas. A more detailed analysis of this worthy and badly needed bill, which is now being opposed by the extreme anti-immigrant wing of the GOP, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Charles Grassley, will appear in a future post.

    Gov. Walker, who as mentioned above, is known more than anything else for being on the side of keeping American wages low, is now arguing against legal immigration because of a sudden, very new-found interest in "protecting American workers and American wages". One can only wonder how genuine Walker's sudden conversion to the cause of keeping American wages high and preserving American jobs is.

    If that is his real motivation, rather than pandering to nativist anti-immigrant feeling in order to gain right wing votes, one can assume that Walker will take prompt steps to repeal the anti-union legislation in his own state which he himself so eagerly pushed through.

    While waiting for Walker to act (which might be a very long wait indeed), advocates of a fair and rational employment-based immigration system (which, to their credit, most Republicans support) would do well to take the vocal right wing opposition to raising the H-1B visa cap and reforming the green card quota system in the avowed interest of "protecting American wages and jobs" with more than a few grains of salt.

    Few if any of the politicians who now want to restrict employment-based immigration in order to "protect American workers" have ever voted for real worker protections, such as supporting union rights or raising the minimum wage.
    Roger Algase is a New York lawyer and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who has been practicing employment-based and family-based immigration law for more than 30 years. He has helped immigrants from many different parts of the world overcome the obstacles of our complex immigration system and achieve their goals of living and working in America.

    Roger welcomes comments and questions sent to algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 04-21-2015 at 06:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. AAO Provides Clarification on the Meaning of “Doing Business” for EB-1 Petitions

    On April 9, 2015, the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) issued a decision in which it discussed the meaning of “doing business” for EB-1 petitions. In Matter of Leacheng International, Inc., the Petitioner filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker in the classification of multinational manager or executive. To qualify for this classification, it must be established that a petitioner has been doing business for at least one year. Doing business is defined as the “regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and / or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity.” See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). The Petitioner is an affiliate of an entity based out of Hong Kong. Both organizations are owned by a Chinese parent company. The Petitioner was responsible for importing and selling the parent company’s products in the U.S. Starting in 2012, the Petitioner began “providing marketing, sales, and shipping services in the United States pursuant to a service agreement with its Hong Kong affiliate.” The case was initially denied on the basis that the evidence “does not indicate ‘doing business’ with independent corporations or entities’ for a full year preceding the filing of the petition, but rather ‘only demonstrate[s] the shipment of goods from the foreign company to the U.S. company.” In reviewing the case, the AAO determined that there was nothing in the regulations that requires that a “petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must provide goods or services to an unaffiliated third party.” Rather, a petitioner may prove that it is doing business “by demonstrating that it is providing goods and / or services in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner to related companies within its multinational organization.” In reviewing the evidence, the AAO instructed that the totality of the record should be reviewed and “the fact that a petitioner serves as an agent, representative, or liaison between a related foreign entity and its United States customers does not preclude a finding that it is doing business.” This case provides important information on what types of activities will qualify as “doing business” for purposes of an EB-1 filing. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views blog by Cadence Moore. http://www.hammondlawgroup.com/blog/

Page 1 of 151 1231151101 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: