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.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This does not yet take us to the point where offering to give a ride a an unauthorized immigrant or tipping a waiter or car driver who turns out to be in this country without permission could send American citizens to jail.

    But if A.G. Jeff Sessions' pronouncements are to be believed, America could be moving in that direction.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It's interesting to note that Roger, in typical fashion, is only concerned about the aliens who want to come to the United States. And Mat blames the governments for allowing the practice to continue. Neither mentions the perpetrators of this horrific practice, the families that subject their young daughters to it.

    I see the same thing with respect to bringing refugees from places like Syria. Concern about the refugees, which I do agree with, but little, if any, interest in making sure that the people causing the problems in those countries don't come here with the refugees we are trying to help.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 04-27-2017 at 10:38 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. MKolken's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    The danger is that a US visa offer could say to a wholly innocent applicant:

    "Well, I see you're from a part of this country where FMG is said to be common, so I assume that you must support or advocate doing it too. Now prove to me that you don't!"

    And if the totally innocent person can't prove a negative - Visa Denied!
    I agree, and I don't really care so long as governments of these nations allow these practices to continue by neglecting to seriously address the problem.
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I would have no objection to Matt's proposal. No one who practices or assists in FMG, or intends to do so should be allowed to enter the US.

    The danger is that a US visa offer could say to a wholly innocent applicant:

    "Well, I see you're from a part of this country where FMG is said to be common, so I assume that you must support or advocate doing it too. Now prove to me that you don't!"

    And if the totally innocent person can't prove a negative - Visa Denied!

    Same, by the way, for honor killings.

    This is by no means a fantasy situation. In Trump's two Muslim ban executive orders, the underlying assumption is that everyone in the listed countries is presumed to be a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer merely because they are a citizen of the country in question.

    With that kind of thinking, we are well on the way back to 1924, which, not by coincidence, is exactly where Jeff Sessions in a couple of his recent statements of record would like this country to be, and which Stephen Bannon's Breitbart News has also, at least indirectly, supported returning to.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  5. MKolken's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    What about things to come? Trump is telling us, over and over again, on deportation: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

    Should we disregard him entirely? If so, why?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Why should we believe anything that Trump says?
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    What about things to come? Trump is telling us, over and over again, on deportation: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

    Should we disregard him entirely? If so, why?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    This is a patently self-contradictory argument. On the one hand, Nolan is arguing that FGM is so horrible that the laws against performing it in the US must be enforced strictly - a point on which I totally agree.

    There is at least an implication in Nolan's argument that immigrants seeking entry to the US should be carefully screened to make sure that they are not likely to perform or assist in performing this horrible procedure either in this country. There again, I would agree with Nolan in principle.

    But to argue that while this procedure is so terrible that we should protect ourselves against people who perform it, while doing nothing to provide refuge or asylum to victims or potential victims of this heinous practice doesn't make any sense.

    Roger
    Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I never said we "should" not provide refugee status or asylum to the victims or potential victims. I said someone who has already had FGM USUALLY DOES NOT QUALIFY for refugee status or asylum. They have to show additional circumstances relating to not wanting to remain where it was performed.

    Girls who haven't had the procedure yet and have a well founded fear of having it done would have a good chance of qualifying.

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. MKolken's Avatar
    As someone who has won FGM based asylum claims by expanding the ruling in the Board's decision in Matter of Kasinga to individuals who have already been subjected to the practice and face persecution for their unwillingness to mutilate their daughters I have thought long an hard about Roger's question.

    The United States must take a clear and unwavering stand against the torture of children. And that is exactly what female genital mutilation is: torture. It isn't female circumcision as the whitewashing in the NY Times article would lead you to believe. Just to be clear FGM is the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia, which includes the ********, *****, mons pubis (the fatty tissue over the pubic bone), and the urethral and vaginal openings. Oftentimes the torture is performed with blunt unsterilized instruments without anesthesia and complications often result in death. In the most severe form of FGM, Infibulation or Pharaonic Circumcision (Type III), the remaining skin is stretched across the vagina from both sides and stitched together with either thread, thorns or catgut. This leaves only a small opening through which the woman can urinate, and which menstrual blood can come through. A girl with this third form of FGM has her previously sewn shut vagina opened to allow her to have intercourse with her new husband, and then has it sewn back up in order to ensure that she remains loyal.

    Our country, the greatest country that has ever existed, must send a clear message that those who practice barbarism are not welcome on our shores. The United States immigration law should specifically exclude individuals from admission who participate in the mutilation of girls. Period.

    A question should be added to all immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications asking whether the individual has assisted or participated in the performance of FGM on any individual, and as you are aware the applicant for admission has the burden of proof. The question should also be added to applications for adjustment and naturalization. This may be motivation for the governments of these countries where child torture is prevalent to eradicate it when they find out that large percentages of nationals of their country are deemed inadmissible. And if nationals of those countries choose not to eradicate it, I'm perfectly content in the national interest closing the gates on barbarians. See INA 212(f).
    Updated 04-27-2017 at 09:18 AM by MKolken
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This is a patently self-contradictory argument. On the one hand, Nolan is arguing that FGM is so horrible that the laws against performing it in the US must be enforced strictly - a point on which I totally agree.

    There is at least an implication in Nolan's argument that immigrants seeking entry to the US should be carefully screened to make sure that they are not likely to perform or assist in performing this horrible procedure either in this country. There again, I would agree with Nolan in principle.

    But to argue that while this procedure is so terrible that we should protect ourselves against people who perform it, while doing nothing to provide refuge or asylum to victims or potential victims of this heinous practice doesn't make any sense.

    Roger
    Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-27-2017 at 03:58 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, there is a huge difference between FGM and other types of persecution. FGM isn't done to hurt the person. The idea is to help the little girl to become a desirable woman. It is much easier to explain why this is not a good idea than it would be to persuade someone not to persecute a person or some group of people that he hates and wants to hurt.

    I never said or indicated in any way that I am not sympathetic or that I am opposed to giving asylum to FGM victims. My point is that it won't solve the problem. You solve the problem by stopping FGM, which I think can be done through education. In any case, giving a few of them asylum or refugee status won't help the ones who remain in jeopardy. Those are the ones I am trying to help.

    And as I have tried to explain, very few of them will be eligible for asylum or refugee status anyway. If FGM has already been performed, they don't need asylum or refugee status. It's not a prize that we give to people who have suffered. It's to provide refuge for people in danger of being persecuted.

    If it hasn't been performed yet and they can show a well founded fear that it will happen if they are returned to their country, they probably will be eligible for asylum or refugee status. But I doubt that there will be many applications like that.

    The thing that makes FGM different is the fact that it is done for cultural reasons, not to persecute the little girls. It was a stretch to call it persecution at all, but that's the law....as it has been interpreted by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 04-26-2017 at 09:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    That is an excellent idea, Nolan. Let's teach everyone in the world who wants to persecute someone or violate their basic human rights that it is wrong to do that, and then neither America nor any other country on earth will need to have asylum or refugee laws.

    I really like Nolan's proposal. I haven't agreed with him so much and on so many things in a long time, if ever.

    If Nolan could also make some suggestions about how to put his wonderful idea into practical effect, I am sure that all of his readers, along with myself, would be interested in hearing about it.

    I also have to express a little surprise, however, that despite his great sympathy and compassion for FMG victims or potential victims, he seems so opposed to the idea of giving them refuge or asylum in the United States, as we do with other victims of persecution.

    That is just a little disappointing.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Thanks to Nolan for exposing the horrors of this practice. Definitely, the US needs more liberal laws and procedures to provide asylum for what must no doubt be thousands of women throughout Africa and the world who have been victims of this terrible form of persecution and who would be suffering severe social and psychological damage by staying in or returning to their countries.

    The U.S. also needs a far more liberal asylum/refugee policy to many more thousands of women who have a credible fear of being subjected to this type of gender-based persecution.

    I am sure that calling attention to the need for an expanded, more liberal asylum policy in this area was Nolan's main reason for writing this article.

    Congratulations and Kudos to you, Nolan! Keep up the good work!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I appreciate Roger's comment, but I don't entirely agree with his interpretation of my article. We may need more liberal asylum/refugee laws, but that would just increase the number of woman coming here on the basis of FGM claims. It might make Roger feel better, but it wouldn't address the FGM problem in a significant way.


    1. As I point out in my article, there are 200 million of them now. And surely more will be subjected to FGM in the future. We could only help a tiny percentage of them, and it would be at the cost of not taking other people who could establish eligibility for asylum or refugee status on the basis of other types of claims.
    2. The perpetrators of FGM are family members with the cooperation of the parents. Anyone who participated in the FGM would be ineligible for admission to the US as someone who has engaged in persecution. This means in most cases, relief would make the child or young woman an orphan.
    3. The practice is widely accepted by people in the places where it is practiced. I doubt that many children or young women hate their parents because of the FGM. In other words, they aren't trying to get away from them. I suspect that most would choose to stay with their parents rather than to come here.
    4. If the FGM has already occurred, it would be past persecution. This is okay in special circumstances, e.g., where the person will suffer terribly if she is not taken away from the place where the persecution occurred or the people responsible for it. I wouldn't expect to find that reaction in this situation.


    I know Roger always wants to solve problems people are having in other countries by bringing them here. In this case, they would be bringing the problem with them. Children in families that practice FGM are likely to want their own children to have that procedure too. And children who haven't had the procedure yet are likely to have it done here when their families move to the US.

    The only way to address this situation effectively is by teaching the people who practice FGM that it is wrong. And I am not optimistic about the prospect of doing that.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 04-26-2017 at 04:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Thanks to Nolan for exposing the horrors of this practice. Definitely, the US needs more liberal laws and procedures to provide asylum for what must no doubt be thousands of women throughout Africa and the world who have been victims of this terrible form of persecution and who would be suffering severe social and psychological damage by staying in or returning to their countries.

    The U.S. also needs a far more liberal asylum/refugee policy to many more thousands of women who have a credible fear of being subjected to this type of gender-based persecution.

    I am sure that calling attention to the need for an expanded, more liberal asylum policy in this area was Nolan's main reason for writing this article.

    Congratulations and Kudos to you, Nolan! Keep up the good work!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As this article points out, there is no legal authority for replacing the random lottery with selection based on salary, and, based on lottery results received in my office so far, I see no evidence of any attempt to have done that in this year's just completed lottery.

    However, a related question is whether between now and the beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2017, the Trump administration might try to change the regulations governing approval of H-1B petitions in order to deny petitions which are in compliance with current prevailing wage standards but still have a relatively low annual salary.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com
    Updated 04-27-2017 at 02:25 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I will be continuing with my full explanation of this issue shortly. The full text of Federal District Court Judge William Orrick's decision and order is available by going to the POLITICO story about the decision and then clicking on the link to the decision itself.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-blocks-237597

    See also my April 14 ilw.com comment about this same litigation:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9823
    Updated 04-26-2017 at 11:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. MKolken's Avatar
    What were the arguments and how were they in bad faith?
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Good comment. However, if Trump puts up a Mexican Wall, then he will already have torn down the Statue of Liberty in spirit.

    Not that he is incapable of tearing the Statue of Liberty down and building an immigration detention facility (or maybe just a statue of himself) on the site.

    Fortunately, Trump appears to be backing away from provoking a government shutdown over the Wall, at least for now, according to the latest news reports.

    If these reports are accurate, that would be a welcome sign of reason and humanity coming from the White House - there have not been too many of those since Trump took office as president, and the entire nation, not just our immigrant communities, could use a few more of them.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-25-2017 at 04:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I do not normally belong to the school of thought along the lines of "How can Trump get to be any worse than Obama already was" which Matt Kolken has been arguing in favor of with regard to Trump's mass deportation agenda, but as the recipient of at least my fair share of biased and otherwise ludicrous RFE's during the Obama administration, it is hard for me to see how Trump could make decision making on the merits of H-1B cases any worse or more unfair that it already was during the Obama years.

    If this happens, however, one should expect an increase in federal court litigation in order to force USCIS to follow the H-1B rules.

    Having said that, the executive branch has a great deal of power to change the H-1B regulations under the APA, and use of that power by the Trump administration in support of its apparent goal of the whitening of America by cutting back of all forms of immigration under one pretext or another should not be ruled out.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-26-2017 at 03:21 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationDaily's Avatar
    Isn't it anti-constitutional to build a border wall, while Lady Libery, on the other end of this nation welcomes all immigrants with a torch, offering safe haven???
    Relying on laws and regulations, it is important to also rely on justice and liberty to all who seek them

    - L Galy
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Will Donald Trump shut down the federal government if Congress refuses to fund his Mexican Wall of Hate?

    Among other things, this would cause a halt in all PERM cases and LCA's for H-1B cases.

    It could also bring America one step closer to dictatorship, as is happening in Hungary with its anti-immigrant Wall put up by a proto-fascist government.

    See my latest ilw.com post, in the April 24 Immigration Daily issue.

    In the last century, we had the Berlin Wall and the Warsaw Ghetto Wall.

    Hasn't the world already had enough Walls? Do we need another one from Donald Trump to show how much he loathes and despises, not only Mexicans, but all non-white immigrants?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-25-2017 at 04:23 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: