Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
If history tells us anything at all, it is that dictators don't like independent courts and will do anything they can to crush them.
See: Peter H. Solomon Jr.
Courts and Judges in Authoritarian Regimes
60 World Politics Number 1, p. 122 (2007)
Available through Project Muse, University of California at Berkeley
To access, go to Google or see the link below:
Donald Trump, evidently outraged by the California Federal District Court (not Circuit Court) decision against him regarding his broad January 27 executive order cutting of all federal funds to sanctuary cities (see my Immigration Daily comment for April 26) is now threatening to break up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in retaliation.
Nothing could be more in the spirit of the above article.
For the story about Trump's threat to break up the Circuit Court, see:
Meanwhile, contradicting the argument of own Justice Department before the District Court in San Francisco to the effect that Trump's January 27 Executive Order cutting off all funds for Sanctuary Cities was so narrow in scope that it in effect made no change in existing law, A.G. Jeff Sessions also weighed in against the Court's decision and continued his dark warnings that no one who has entered the US without permission will be safe from Trump's deportation dragnet.
As Solomon's article shows in full detail, democracy cannot exist without independent courts, free to decide cases without interference from those in power.
Is America's democracy on a collision course with the president's immigration agenda of mass exclusion, mass expulsion and, perhaps coming soon, judging from Sessions' repeated threats to step up immigration-related prosecutions, mass incarceration?
Attorney at Law
Updated 04-27-2017 at 09:23 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
The New York Times does not use the term “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) in its article about a Michigan doctor who is being prosecuted for allegedly performing that procedure on two seven-year-old girls. The Times calls the offense, “genital cutting,” despite the fact that the prosecution is based on a federal criminal provision entitled, “Female genital mutilation.”
If convicted, the doctor can be sentenced to incarceration for up to five years.
According to Celia Dugger, the Times’ Health and Science editor, “genital cutting” is a “less culturally loaded” term than “FGM.” It will not widen the “chasm” between “advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite.”
For reasons that are inexplicable to me, Dugger seems to think that there can be a legitimate difference of opinion on whether it is right to mutilate the genitals of a seven-year-old girl.
Also, her euphemism, “genital cutting,” makes FGM sound less horrific, which is a disservice to the victims and to the people who are trying to stop the practice.
Political correctness serves a valid purpose when it prevents a person from unnecessarily or unintentionally offending others, but I do not understand why we should be sensitive to the feelings of people who subject seven-year-old girls to genital mutilation.
Read more at---
Published originally on The Hill.
About the author.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.
Updated 04-26-2017 at 10:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Via Syracuse University's TRAC Immigration:
The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2017 the government reported 4198 new immigration convictions. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is down 16.7 percent over the previous month.
The comparisons of the number of defendants convicted for immigration-related offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (see Table 1).
When monthly 2017 convictions of this type are compared with those of the same period in the previous year, the number of convictions was down (-16.3%). Convictions over the past year are still much lower than they were five years ago. Overall, the data show that convictions of this type are down 27.4 percent from levels reported in 2012.
Via Syracuse University's TRAC immigration:
The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during February 2017 the government reported 4301 new immigration prosecutions. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is down 7.4 percent over the previous month.
The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with immigration-related offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (see Table 1).
When monthly 2017 prosecutions of this type are compared with those of the same period in the previous year, the number of filings was down (-14.7%).
Prosecutions over the past year are still much lower than they were five years ago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are down 26.2 percent from levels reported in 2012.
by Chris Musillo
One interesting legal question is whether the Trump administration could change the way that H-1B cap-subject petitions are allocated. Under the current system, if the H-1B cap is reached the USCIS conducts a random lottery of all H-1B cap petitions that are filed during the first week of April.
There is no Congressional authority for the H-1B lottery. One federal court has said that USCIS’ implementation of an H-1B lottery is reasonable because Congress did not instruct the USCIS what to do if the H-1B cap when oversubscribed. This case, Walker Macy v. USCIS, was just decided earlier this spring and is now on appeal.
The Trump administration says that it seeks reform to “help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.” Could the Trump administration attempt H-1B reform by replacing the H-1B lottery with an H-1B prioritization system based on the “most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries?”
My read is that it cannot. As noted in the Walker Macy case, “when Congress is silent about a particular agency (or judicial) interpretation for a long period of time after that interpretation while repeated amendments have been passed, this demonstrates legislative acquiescence to the interpretation.” In other words, the fact that the USCIS has long been using an H-1B lottery is compelling.
The random process of the H-1B lottery is also fundamentally fair since it treats all timely-filed H-1B petitions identically. Surprising to some, Congress has not spoken on the need to prioritize the “most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries”. In fact, Congress has set forth a different standard.
An H-1B is appropriate if a US employer is paying at least the prevailing wage of the occupational classification. There is nothing in the Congressional statute that favors employers who pay a greater wage. Therefore, it is dubious whether the Trump administration can implement this change to the H-1B lottery without Congressional action.
Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com and www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.