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. Is Trump withdrawing Lady Liberty’s invitation to the poor, huddled masses yearning to be free? By Nolan Rappaport

    NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION



    In 1903, these lines were engraved on a plaque and placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:


    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
    But should our immigration system be based on a desire to help immigrants from around the world? Or should it be based or on our own national interests?


    The main difference between legal and illegal immigration is that with legal immigration, the government decides which aliens will be allowed to come to the United States. Whereas, with illegal immigration, the aliens decide themselves whether they are going to come.


    That distinction loses significance when the government does not base its immigration policy decisions on the country’s needs.


    President Donald Trump believes that the current system for legal immigration does not meet our national interests.


    Trump’s views on legal immigration.


    When Trump was still a candidate, he delivered a statement on his plans for immigration reform. He said that he would —

    Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0545a5c310004

    Published originally on the Huffington Post

    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.
  2. Federal Court Also Uses Trump's Statements in Refusing to Block Injunction Against Cutting off Sanctuary Cities' Funds. Roger Algase

    In a case with a parallel to the lower federal courts' use of the president's public statements against him in issuing injunctions against his Muslim ban order, which is now before the Supreme Court, a federal judge in San Francisco, William Orrick III, has refused to lift an injunction against the Trump administration's threat to cut of federal funding to "Sanctuary Cities" which refuse to comply with federal government requests to provide information about or honor detainers relating to unauthorized immigrants in their jurisdictions.

    In his refusal to lift a previous injunction against the threatened funds cutoff, Judge Orrick reportedly relied on broad statements that both Trump and Attorney General Sessions - whose job may now reportedly be in danger because of his principled decision to uphold the rule of law by recusing himself from the Russia related investigations - a decision which has evidently infuriated the president - see:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...message-240774

    - had made threatening a cutoff of all federal funds to the jurisdictions concerned.

    The court (as reported by POLITICO - I have not yet seen the actual decision) relied on these public statements as evidence of the administration's real intent to institute a legally impermissible broad cutoff of funds, despite the fact that Sessions subsequently issued a memo narrowing the scope of the threatened action in order make it more compliant with federal law and with the Constitutional separation of powers.

    The parallels with the Muslim ban lawsuits are unmistakable. In both cases, the federal courts are reacting to what they, with considerable justification, perceive as the reality of Trump's intentions, based on his own statements and those of his top officials.

    In contrast, many federal District and Circuit courts have been rejecting what Trump himself has described (in the Muslim ban litigation) as "watered-down", sanitized versions of his original executive orders or other policy statements as inaccurate or even misleading versions of his real intentions.

    This was apparent, especially, in the 4th Circuit's 10-3 full court decision in the Muslim ban case, and we are now seeing the same thing, only in a different context, in the Sanctuary Cities litigation.

    For the full POLITICO story about Judge Orrick's decision, see:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-cities-240780

    One might ask, ultimately, what difference does it make whether the federal courts look behind the narrow, but prima facie more legally acceptable rationales for Trump's policies regarding both excluding Muslim immigrants from the US and threatening retaliation against Sanctuary Cities for not falling in line behind his mass deportation agenda for Hispanic and Asian immigrants, or whether America's judges take Trump at his word concerning his stated broader objectives?

    The answer to this question involves whether America can continue to be governed as a democracy or whether it will become a dictatorship.

    If the courts are deprived of the power to look behind the surface of Trump's immigration policies and to examine their real objectives, as stated by the president himself, merely because, well, he is the president, then we will no longer have separation of powers in this country and the courts will be nothing more than a compliant rubber stamp for whatever the president says and does about immigration.

    And if America's judicial branch turns into nothing more than the president's doormat on immigration policy, how can the judiciary preserve its independence from one man rule by the president with regard to religious freedom, voting rights or any of the vital issues today which affect the rights and freedoms of the American people, not only foreign citizens?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 07-21-2017 at 05:04 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Meet the US Employer Who Openly Defies and Thumbs His Nose at Trump's "Hire American" Policy - Donald J. Trump. Roger Algase

    Update, July 21. 7:29 pm:

    In my original version of this comment, I inadvertently included a link to a vox.com article which inaccurately accused the president of taking advantage of a 15,000 annual increase in H-2B visas which he himself had put into effect using his own power as president.

    Joseph Whalen has kindly pointed out, and I thank him for bringing this to my attention, that the 70 H-2B visas that Trump's company, Mar-a-Lago is requesting are for fiscal year 2018, beginning October 1, 2017, and that therefore these visas would have been available even if the president had not ordered a 15,000 annual increase in the number of visas.

    I did not mean to imply at any time that Trump, or any of his companies, were benefiting from the annual increase in H-2B visas which he has ordered. I only intended to imply that Trump is benefiting from a foreign worker visa program in general, in direct conflict with his promise to promote hiring of American workers first and foremost.

    I have now deleted the link to the incorrect vox.com article, and instead I have substituted a link to an article in The Hill about Trump's use of the H-2B program, without any implication that he or his company benefited from the visa increase, as opposed to the H-2B program as a whole.

    My revised original comment follows:


    There is a least one American employer who is behaving as if he couldn't care less about Donald Trump's "Hire American" policy as announced in his inaugural address and in his "Buy American, Hire American" executive order. This employer is not only openly thumbing his nose at the president's "Hire American" policy, but he has actually picked Trump's "Made in America" week to announce that he is hiring 70 foreign workers under the H-2B visa program to work at a resort and golf club in Florida.

    According to US Department of Labor H-1B filings as reported in the media, this US employer is planning to hire foreign housekeepers, cooks and servers for a resort located in Palm Beach, Florida.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...oreign-workers

    One would think that the president would be outraged at this open and blatant attempt to sabotage his program of protecting American workers against competition from unskilled (and highly skilled, as witnessed by his statements regarding H-1B visas) foreign workers. However, since the news only broke a few hours ago as of this writing, maybe the president just hasn't had time to act against this open rebellion by an American employer against Trump's promise to put American workers first, which almost all observers agree played a large part in helping him win the presidency.

    So, while there has been no reaction so far, one cannot rule out a possible tweetstorm by the president later on against this American employer who so openly mocks the president by refusing to bend to his will on immigration policy.

    Just in case any reader is curious about exactly who would dare to engage in open defiance of our chief executive's pro-American worker policy, which he put at the center of his campaign and has continued to promote since becoming president, the above report also names the American employer who has shown so little respect for our nation's highest elected official.

    This employer's name happens to be Donald J. Trump, and the companies which will be employing the foreign workers are the Mar-a-Lago club and the Trump National Golf Club.

    Readers should stay tuned to see if the president or his administration takes any actions against this openly recalcitrant U.S. employer who evidently cares so little about the president's expressed desire to put American workers first.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 07-21-2017 at 06:32 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. VISA BULLETIN PROJECTIONS FOR THE REST OF 2017

    by , 07-20-2017 at 02:09 PM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    The Department of State’s Visa Bulletin guru, Charlie Oppenheim, hosts monthly meetings with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Charlie Oppenheim is the Department of State’s Chief of the Control and Reporting Division. He is the officer who is responsible for producing the Visa Bulletin each month.

    This month’s Check In With Charlie featured projections for EB2 and EB3, which are the most popular categories for readers of this Blog. Here are some of this month’s highlights, along with our analysis:

    EB-2 Worldwide. Although there may be a retrogression in September, the Worldwide EB-2 should return to current in October and remain there for the rest of this calendar year.

    EB-2 India. This category is expected to use the full allotment of visas in September, which may result in the category becoming temporarily unavailable. It should have a July 2008 date in October 2017.

    EB-3 Worldwide. This category will remain current or close to current for the foreseeable future.

    EB-3 India. This category will advance several months in September 2017. However, because of expected demand in FY 2018 for EB-3 Worldwide, we will not see fast progress after October 2017. India EB-3 benefited in FY 2017 because demand for Worldwide EB-3 was light, resulting in Worldwide EB-3 numbers spilling into India EB-3.

    EB-3 Philippines. In FY 2018, we will not see this category move nearly as fast as it did in FY 2017. We will have a better idea of where Phils EB-3 is headed with the publication of the October 2017 Visa Bulletin, which is the first of FY 2018.


    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 or LinknedIn




    0 Comments
  5. Litigation Involving Nebraska Beef’s Reneged Settlement Continues

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	steak.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	5.0 KB 
ID:	1207

    A U.S. District Judge in Nebraska has ruled in favor of the Department of Justice’s Show Cause Motion in the never-ending saga of Nebraska Beef Ltd. reneging on a settlement that it reached in August 2015 with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (now the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER)) of the Department of Justice.

    As you may recall, Nebraska Beef and the OSC reached a settlement concerning whether Nebraska Beef was discriminating against work-authorized immigrants by requiring non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility in violation of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA). In the settlement, Nebraska Beef agreed to pay a $200,000 civil penalty.

    However, before the civil penalty was due, a Department of Justice press release stated the government “found” Nebraska Beef to have violated the law. The settlement had stated the OSC had a “reasonable cause to believe” Nebraska Beef had violated the INA. Nebraska Beef asserted the press release’s inaccuracy materially breached the settlement agreement because Nebraska Beef did not admit liability and excused the company’s payment of $200,000.

    Thereafter, the OSC filed for enforcement of the settlement agreement in federal court in Nebraska. The District Court found no material breach occurred and ordered Nebraska Beef to pay the $200,000 and perform all settlement obligations. After an appeal of the order, the Court stayed the company’s obligation to pay the $200,000 civil penalty but not the company’s other obligations – training, reporting, and notifying potential back pay claimants and providing such information to the IER of the DOJ.

    Nebraska Beef did not timely comply with the non-monetary portions of the order even though these provisions had not been stayed. Thus, the DOJ filed a Motion to Show Cause as to why Nebraska Beef was not in contempt of court.

    The District Court granted the government’s motion and ordered Nebraska Beef to show why it should not be held in contempt of court. I will update this case when the Court decides whether Nebraska Beef is in contempt of court.
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: