ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



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

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Texas Legislator Calls ICE to Intimidate Immigrants and Americans From Exercising Free Speech Rights to Protest Against S.B. 4. Roger Algase

    Update. June 2, 12:35 pm.

    The danger to America's democracy that the call by a Texas Republican state legislator to ICE to break up a demonstration by US citizens, not only immigrants, against S.B. 4 is underscored by a frightening report in that Americans who protested against Trump's inauguration are now facing up to 70 or 80 years in prison for their actions in expressing their views.

    If a campaign of terror and fear against immigrants at both the federal and state levels is allowed to continue unchecked, how much longer can American citizens expect to keep their freedoms?

    The Nuremberg laws in 1930's Germany were aimed ostensibly against the Jews, but all of that country's non-Jewish Germans eventually wound up losing their freedom as well.

    My original comment follows: reports that on May 29, when hundreds of pro-immigrant activists, including many mainly Hispanic American citizens, appeared at the Texas legislature to protest against the recently enacted Texas S.B. 4 law, which has been criticized as arguably even harsher and more punitive against immigrants than Arizona's notorious discredited S.B. 1070 law, key parts of which were struck down by the Supreme Court, a Republican State legislator, Matt Rinaldi, announced that he had called ICE in order to intimidate the protesters from exercising their Constitutional free speech rights.

    The story is available at:

    Salon reports as follows:

    "Hundreds of protesters showed up at the state capitol to register their anger with the statute [S.B. 4]...

    The protesters unnerved Republican legislators who support the bill, and Rinaldi, in an obvious fit of rage, declared on Facebook that he had called ICE on the protesters."

    The report continues:

    "Democratic state Rep. Cesar Blanco, in a phone conversation, accused Rinaldi of trying to 'intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment Rights,' adding that the protests had been peaceful.

    'It's a form of intimidation, agreed Lizet Ocampo, the political director of People for the American Way, in another phone conversation. 'It's offensive too, to see a group of protesters who obviously look Hispanic and call ICE on them.'...

    Ocampo noted that Rinaldi's action 'provides
    a visual of what's behind this legislation, which is an animosity toward Latinos and Mexican immigrants in the state.'

    Blanco argued, 'Because individuals in the gallery were majority Hispanic, [Rinaldi] assumed people there were undocumented...The fact that a Republican member assumed that people who were protesting there were undocumented says everything about SB4.'

    Aguirre, whose group helped organize the protests, said, "The reality is that it was a mix of folks who were immigrants and folks who were US citizens...'"

    There can be little doubt that calling in ICE to stop a peaceful, Constitutionally protected protest is just as intimidating for American citizens as for immigrants, particularly when most or all of the protesters may have the same ethnicity, putting American citizens at risk of being arrested or asked to show their papers along with immigrants.

    But none of this is new. In 1936, Germany enacted the Nuremberg Laws against the Jews, just as states such as Texas and Arizona, to name only two, have tried to pass harsh and punitive laws against Latino immigrants. In the case of Germany, all Germans wound up losing their freedom, not only the Jews.

    If the state and federal governments are free to ramp up arrests, incarceration and mass deportation of Latino and other non-European immigrants, how long will it be before American citizens also lose their free speech rights and Constitutional freedoms in the "Era of Donald Trump"?
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants receive work visas and green cards.

    Roger's principal areas of practice include H-1B specialty occupation and O-1 extraordinary ability visas, and green cards through Labor Certification or through marriage. His email address is

    Updated 06-09-2017 at 08:43 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. It's time to put the travel ban aside and take another look at the rest of the Executive Order its in.

    You will know why I said that if you read my article,

    Trump’s Seven-country Travel Ban Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg.
    By Nolan Rappaport

    It was published by Huffington Post and has been posted on, but its message is even more important now.

    Nolan Rappaport

    by , 05-30-2017 at 04:53 PM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    MU Law is aware that the USCIS has been denying/issuing RFE/NOIDs on I-140s when nurses hold a BSN. The USCIS somehow has been finding that BSN nurses are not qualified for nursing positions that require an Associate’s degree in nursing (ASN). USCIS claims that the I-140 should be denied because the BSN does not meet the exact requirements on the ETA Form 9089.

    This is ridiculous decision-making by USCIS. The BSN is, of course, a higher degree than an Associate’s degree. BSN nurses are more than qualified for these positions. The law is clear that any I-140 beneficiary can have additional skills, experience, or education beyond the requirements stated in the ETA Form 9089 and still meet the minimum requirements of the position.

    MU Law and others have reached out to USCIS through AILA, suggesting that this is a training issue at USCIS . As per a recent AILA update, USCIS is looking into this issue. We hope to have a positive update soon.

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at and You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

    Updated 05-30-2017 at 05:02 PM by CMusillo

  4. SCOTUS Rules Consensual Sexual Conduct with Partner over 16 Not Sexual Abuse of a Minor

    by , 05-30-2017 at 12:32 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions:

    In an 8-0 decision the Supreme Court has held that: In the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16.

    The facts and procedural history of the case are as follows:

    The case involved a citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident who pleaded no contest in California to a statutory rape offense that criminalizes the “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator.” Cal.Penal Code Ann. §261.5(c). California defines “minor” as “a person under the age of 18.” §261.5(a). Based on this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which makes removable “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony,” 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), including “sexual abuse of a minor,” §1101(a)(43)(A). An Immigration Judge ordered petitioner removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that petitioner’s crime constituted sexual abuse of a minor and dismissed his appeal. A divided Court of Appeals denied his petition for review.
  5. Criminal Complaint Filed Against Trump Officials For Endangering Welfare of Children

    by , 05-30-2017 at 08:29 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via immigration lawyer Bryan Johnson:

    “Mr. Kelly continues to knowingly detain child #1; child #2; and child # 3 in clear violation of 55 PA Code § 3800.283(7); 237 Pa. Code. 200.1(a); which, taken together, expressly prohibit placing non-delinquent children, non-dependent, or children under the age of 10 in a secure facility.

    In doing so, Mr. Kelly has caused each child severe and potentially fatal harm, including but not limited to causing children to suffer from 309.81 Post traumatic Stress Disorder, Delayed Onset, Chronic.; 309.81 Post traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic; 309.28 [F43.23] Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; Suicidal Ideation; and Suicidal Gestures.

    Mr. Kelly has and continues, through his agents in DHS and contracted staff at BCRC, to intentionally and unlawfully deprive children of sleep by flashing bright lights
    on their faces at 15 minute intervals from 8:30 pm to 6:30 am, a total of 40 interruptions in sleep per night, 280 interruptions in sleep per week; & 14,560 interruptions per year.”

    Click here to read the criminal complaint.
Page 1 of 12 12311 ... 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: