Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
President Trump’s revised travel ban hit another roadblock last week as the federal district court for Hawaii ordered a stop to implementing the travel ban. The decision was made on the ground that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in court on the merits of their claim that the executive order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by discriminating against Muslims on the basis of their religion.
But the court’s objection to the travel ban, which would impose a 90-day suspension on the entry into the United States of nationals from six countries which were designated by Congress and the Obama administration as posing national security risks, is that President Trump wrote it. The court even acknowledges this in its decision:
“It is undisputed that the Executive Order does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion, or for or against religion versus non-religion.
“There is no express reference, for instance, to any religion nor does the Executive Order — unlike its predecessor — contain any term or phrase that can be reasonably characterized as having a religious origin or connotation.”
The court writes that “any reasonable, objective observer would conclude … that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.” This “assessment rests on the specific historical record,” which “focuses on the president’s statements about a ‘Muslim ban,’” including on the campaign trail and the fact that he asked Rudolph Giuliani how to do it legally.
According to Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, the courts are creating a “Trump exception” to settled law on presidential powers by ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition that courts may not “look behind” a “facially legitimate” reason, which with respect to the order, is the national security interest in stricter vetting.
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.
by Chris Musillo
There is a mystery afoot at the northern border. Last week reputable news organizations, such as the CBC, reported that advance practice nurses were being told that they no longer qualified for the TN-1 visa at the Canadian-Michigan border.
The TN-1 visa is a visa authorized under NAFTA. All of the jobs on the NAFTA occupations list are eligible for TN-1 visas. The NAFTA list is purposely vague. It does not list job descriptions for the occupations. Any rational job description includes advance practice nurses under the registered nurse domain. For instance, the State of Michigan law on registered nursing, includes advance practice nurses as a subset of registered nurse. Advance Practice nurses have been using the TN-1 for 20+ years.
US Customs and Border Protection has been silent on the issue. Immigration attorneys are unsure if the denials are based on one rouge officer’s mistaken understanding of law, or if it is a policy-wide decision.
Either answer is problematic. If it is a rogue officer, then the US CBP ought to acknowledge their error, re-train the officer, and announce that advance practice nurses are eligible for the TN-1.
If not, the administration ought to explain the rationale behind its policy-decision. The administration’s own Department of Labor says that for US workers, ”job opportunities for advanced practice registered nurses are likely to be excellent.” Protectionism may be a valid policy argument in some areas, but plainly not for advance practice nurses, who are the forefront of treating American patients.
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.
Updated 03-20-2017 at 11:00 AM by CMusillo
By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
Two related janitorial companies, Paragon Building Maintenance, Inc. and Pegasus Building Services Company, Inc., of Long Beach, California have settled claims with Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) (formerly known as the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practice) of the Department of Justice by agreeing to pay a penalty of $115,000 and to create a back pay fund of $30,000 to compensate eligible workers who lost pay due to these documentary practices. The settlement resolves the IER’s investigation into whether the companies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating against work-authorized immigrants when checking their work authorization documents.
The IER concluded Paragon and Pegasus routinely requested that lawful permanent residents show their permanent resident cards (green cards) to prove their work authorization while not requesting specific documents from U.S. citizens. Lawful permanents residents often have the same work authorization documents available to them as U.S. citizens, and may choose other acceptable documents besides the Permanent Resident Card to prove they are authorized to work. The investigation further revealed that the companies required lawful permanent resident employees to re-establish their work authorization when their permanent resident cards expired, even though federal law prohibits this practice.
Under the settlement, the companies also have agreed to post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s antidiscrimination provision, train their human resources personnel, and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements.
This settlement is one of the first for the IER since President Trump took office. It will be interesting to see if the IER is as aggressive toward employers under the new president as they were in the last few years of the Obama administration.
Via the Associate Press:
The Justice Department said Friday that it will temporarily transfer immigration judges to six detention centers mostly near the border with Mexico in an effort to put President Donald Trump's immigration directives into effect.
The department's Executive Office for Immigration Review said the transfers to four locations in Texas and one each in Louisiana and New Mexico will occur Monday. Judges were previously moved to two immigration detention centers in California.
Trump's executive order on border and immigration enforcement in January says judges should immediately be assigned to immigration detention centers. Many courts are for immigrants who are freed before their cases are heard.
The clogged immigration courts have gotten less attention than other aspects of Trump's orders, such as construction of a wall on the 2,000-mile border with Mexico and the addition of 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 10,000 Immigration and Customs and Enforcement officers and agents. There was a backlog of 542,646 cases at the end of January, including 20,856 people who were being held in custody.
Click here for the full story.
Please email your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org