ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. In Phoenix, Trump Paves the Way for Dictatorship With Support for Border Wall, Promise to Pardon Arpaio and Attacks on the Press. Roger Algase

    In an earlier comment which I posted just before the beginning of Donald Trump's August 22 Phoenix rally, I suggested that the president might use the occasion to renew the attacks on legal immigration from non-white parts of the world which he began in another speech in Phoenix almost exactly a year ago, on August 31, 2016.

    However, in his most recent Phoenix speech, delivered at a rally with his base supporters, Trump, instead of attacking non-European immigration in general, as he did in Phoenix a year ago, focused his attacks on a particular group of immigrants, namely Latinos, and did so in terms which showed that his attacks on immigration are paving the way for an assault against democracy itself.

    He did this in three ways: First, he threatened to shut down the US government if Congress doesn't provide funding for his Mexican border Wall, which from the start, has been the centerpiece of his agenda of animosity against and attempts to humiliate immigrants from Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

    Not only would shutting down the government render the duly elected representatives of the American people in Congress totally impotent, but Trump's obsession with building the Wall no matter what the cost may be, not only in money but in damage to our democratic system, can only bring back memories of other Walls which became the symbols of totalitarian societies.

    I refer to the infamous Berlin Wall of Communist tyranny, and to the even more infamous Wall which the Nazis built around the Warsaw Ghetto as part of their plan to exterminate the entire Jewish people.

    In this regard, the contrast could not be more dramatic between Trump and and a previous Republican president, Ronald Reagan. Reagan urged the Russians to tear down the Berlin Wall.

    Trump, on the other hand (who is now under investigation by a special counsel and two grand juries for alleged possible illegal connections with Russia by himself and/or his close associates) is evidently willing to tear down America's functioning of a democratically elected government in order to build a Wall against targeted minority immigrants.

    To be continued

    Updated 08-23-2017 at 02:22 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. One Year Ago, in Phoenix, Trump Called for a Drastic Reduction in Legal Immigration. Will He Do The Same on August 22, 2017? Roger Algase

    In all the excitement over trying to guess whether, at his August 22 Phoenix rally scheduled to begin less than an hour after this comment is written, Trump will or will not pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for defying a federal court order in a case related to Arpaio's alleged racial profiling and other mistreatment of Latino immigrants in the name of "immigration enforcement", the media have largely overlooked the significance of another speech that Trump gave in Phoenix almost exactly one year ago, on August 31, 2016.

    In that speech, Trump, for the first time in a major address during his campaign, "pivoted" away from his previous campaign speeches promising mass deportation of Latino "criminals", "rapists" and "drug dealers" and actions against Muslim "terrorists" (meaning almost all Muslims worldwide, in his view).

    Instead, he focused on his plans for drastic cuts in legal immigration, completely apart from the issues of alleged immigrant "crime" and "terrorism" which eventually helped him win the electoral vote tally for the presidency (while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by less than 3 million votes).

    In a speech loaded with ominous implications for the America's future as a nation of immigrants based on equal opportunity for qualified applicants from every part of the world, without regard to ancestry, skin color or religion, and heralding a return to the whites-only immigration policies of the 1924 Coolidge-era Johnson-Reed "national origins" immigration act, Trump returned to the same kind of thinly concealed language of prejudice and exclusion against non-white immigrants which was also used to justify support for the 1924 law at the time it was enacted.

    The Los Angeles Times described Trump's speech at that time as follows:

    "After four decades of high levels of immigration, Trump said, the country needs to 'control future immigration' to 'ensure assimilation'."

    The LA Times report continued:

    "The model, he [Trump] said, should be what the US did after 'previous immigration waves' - a reference to the restrictionist legislation passed under President Calvin Coolidge that remained in place until 1965.

    The goal should be 'to keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historic norms'."

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html

    The above reference is obvious to any one who has the slightest knowledge of US immigration history. The "previous immigration waves" that Trump was referring to involved large scale immigration by Eastern European immigrants, including millions of Jewish immigrants (my own grandparents among them) in the three decades between 1890 and 1920.

    The same period also saw large scale immigration by Italians and other immigrants from mainly Catholic Southern Europe, as well as strenuous (and largely successful) attempts by the US Congress to keep out Asian immigrants, beginning with the 1880's Chinese exclusion laws.

    As every immigration law scholar who deserves to be taken seriously knows full well, the 1924 law was heavily influenced by the bogus racial thinking of that time known as "Eugenics", which, boiled down to its essence, regarded white Europeans as inherently superior to all other ethnic groups; and, within that group, northern Europeans, known as "Nordics", as superior to all other Europeans.

    This thinking was reflected in the law itself, which, to give just a couple of examples, set the annual US immigration quota for Germany at approximately 50,000, and the annual quota for Great Britain (as the UK was known in those days) at slightly over 30,000, while providing an annual quota for India of 100 (one hundred) immigrants per year, the same as the annual quotas for China, Japan and just about every other Asian, Middle Eastern and African country!

    (There were no quota limits in that law for people from "Western Hemisphere" countries such as North, Central and South America or the Caribbean.)

    It is also a well documented historical fact that Adolf Hitler had high praise for America's 1924 law, writing in Mein Kampf, and he claimed that America was ahead of Europe at that time in "recognizing" racial differences.

    This makes it all the more troubling and disturbing that Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) one of Trump's earliest Congressional supporters and now his attorney general with enormous power over immigration enforcement, also praised that same law as recently as in his January, 2015 in his immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans (ostensibly for different reasons - though he also unquestionably must have known about the background and history of that infamous law as well as any other immigration law specialist).

    Will Trump, who has recently supported the so-called "RAISE" Act introduced by two Republican Senators which would effectively abolish the 1965 immigration reform law that put an end to 40 years of discrimination against non-European immigrants, and take America a long way back toward the white supremacist spirit of the 1924 immigration act, return to the theme of making America whiter by restricting legal immigration from outside Europe in his August 22, 2017 Phoenix rally?

    We will find out beginning in less than an hour after this comment is written.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-22-2017 at 08:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. OCAHO Finds State Employer Had Sovereign Immunity

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Attachment 1213

    In Ugochi v. North Dakota Dept. of Human Service, 12 OCAHO no. 1304 (July 2017), the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) dismissed Chiaha Ugochi’s complaint that she was discriminated because of her citizenship status and national origin, the employer retaliated against her and committed document abuse.

    The case began with Ugochi filing a charge against her employer, North Dakota State Hospital, alleging it discriminated against her. Immigrant and Employer Rights Section of the Department of Justice dismissed her case due to insufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation and referred the national origin claim to the EEOC, who has jurisdiction on national origin claims involving employers with more than 14 employees.

    Thereafter, Ugochi filed a complaint with OCAHO alleging she was fired because her employer asked for excessive documentation in the I-9 and E-Verify process. The employer responded that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination - she failed a background check.

    In analyzing the employer’s defenses, OCAHO noted the employer in question is the North Dakota State Hospital, a state agency. Due to the employer being a state agency, one must review the 11th Amendment which states, “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court “has consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” There are two exceptions to a state’s immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment. The first exception is where Congress has statutorily abrogated such immunity by “clear and unmistakable language.” The second exception exists when the state has expressly waived its immunity.

    OCAHO found sovereign immunity applied to the North Dakota State Hospital, a state agency; thus, it enjoyed immunity from these proceedings pursuant to the 11th Amendment. Neither exception to immunity is present in the instant matter. Accordingly, because Ugochi’s complaint is barred, the Motion to Dismiss was granted.

    On a personal note, last week the immigration bar lost a true advocate for immigrants, Yvette Sebelist, my law partner. May she rest in peace.

    Updated 08-22-2017 at 11:11 AM by BBuchanan

  4. OCAHO Finds State Employer Had Sovereign Immunity

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FLAGUS_north_dakota.jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	13.2 KB 
ID:	1213

    In Ugochi v. North Dakota Dept. of Human Service, 12 OCAHO no. 1304 (July 2017), the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) dismissed Chiaha Ugochi’s complaint that she was discriminated because of her citizenship status and national origin, the employer retaliated against her and committed document abuse.

    The case began with Ugochi filing a charge against her employer, North Dakota State Hospital, alleging it discriminated against her. Immigrant and Employer Rights Section of the Department of Justice dismissed her case due to insufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation and referred the national origin claim to the EEOC, who has jurisdiction on national origin claims involving employers with more than 14 employees.

    Thereafter, Ugochi filed a complaint with OCAHO alleging she was fired because her employer asked for excessive documentation in the I-9 and E-Verify process. The employer responded that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination - she failed a background check.

    In analyzing the employer’s defenses, OCAHO noted the employer in question is the North Dakota State Hospital, a state agency. Due to the employer being a state agency, one must review the 11th Amendment which states, “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court “has consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” There are two exceptions to a state’s immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment. The first exception is where Congress has statutorily abrogated such immunity by “clear and unmistakable language.” The second exception exists when the state has expressly waived its immunity.

    OCAHO found sovereign immunity applied to the North Dakota State Hospital, a state agency; thus, it enjoyed immunity from these proceedings pursuant to the 11th Amendment. Neither exception to immunity is present in the instant matter. Accordingly, because Ugochi’s complaint is barred, the Motion to Dismiss was granted.

    On a personal note, last week the immigration bar lost a true advocate for immigrants, Yvette Sebelist, my law partner. May she rest in peace.
  5. Trump's DOJ Went Back to Supreme Court, But Failed, to Bar Muslim Grandparents, Bringing Back Memories of 1936 Nuremberg Laws. Roger Algase

    POLITICO reported in July that Trump's Department of Justice, in an apparent effort to make sure that not one single more Muslim immigrant is allowed to enter the US than absolutely required by the courts, appealed to the Supreme Court from a ruling by a Honolulu federal judge that Muslim grandparents should be considered "close relatives" and therefore exempt from Trump's six Muslim country ban executive order.

    Since grandparents are not in an age group generally associated with the danger of terrorist attacks, and, to the best of my knowledge, there have few if any reports of terror attacks by seniors in America, Europe, or anywhere else in the world, the "national security" pretext for barring Muslim grandparents from the US is so absurd that the whole dispute would verge on comedy - if there were not also a very dark historical precedent for obsession over grandparents in a legal enactment.

    I refer to the 1936 Nazi Nuremberg laws. These laws, which were the prelude to the ultimate goal of total exterminations of the Jewish people, had very precise definitions of who was Jewish, and therefore subject to discrimination and eventual elimination.

    http://www.britannica.com/topic/Nurnberg-Laws

    One of the best known features of that law was determining how many Jewish grandparents a person needed to have in ordered to be considered Jewish.

    This does not in any way imply that the Trump administration is anti-Semitic or supports genocide or extermination in any form. Of course it is not and does not. But using grandparents as means to advance an agenda of discrimination against any targeted minority group, whether German Jews nine decades ago or Muslim immigrants to America today, sets an unfortunate precedent and brings back memories of some of the world's darkest history.

    My respectful suggestion to the president, and to his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who already raised eyebrows less than three years ago by praising the same US Coolidge-era "Nordics" only 1924 immigration law in Sessions' January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans that Adolf Hitler praised some 90 years earlier in Mein Kampf, would be to let Muslim grandparents well enough alone, and to focus on real national security issues instead.

    The world has already been there about targeting grandparents of unpopular minorities. We do not need to go there again.

    The POLITICO report is at:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...vel-ban-240543

    Fortunately, on July 19, the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ's appeal and ruled that grandparents and other close relatives of US citizens are exempt from the Trump-Sessions Muslim entry ban.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/politi...nts/index.html

    The above month-old story (as of this writing) might seem like ancient history to some readers, but it is still very much relevant as Trump heads to Phoenix later today, August 22.

    He will be leading a rally at which there is widespread fear by supporters of racial equality and justice in America that the president could inflame feelings of animosity and prejudice by his followers even further against another targeted immigrant minority, Latinos, by issuing a pardon to the notorious, anti-immigrant, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joe Arpaio.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-arpaio-241870

    See also:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lly-doug-ducey

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 08-22-2017 at 05:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: