Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) has determined through a 2010 FOIA request that from 2008 to 2012 the Department of Homeland Security has maintained a practice of detaining children in adult detention facilities.
NIJC determined that from 2008-2010 children under the age of 18 were cumulatively held for a total of 36,598 days in 30 different adult detention centers. Four children were detained between
1,000 and 3,600 days, with one child being held for a decade after being detained at the age of 15.
It is believed this data has been under-reported, however, so there is no way of knowing how many undocumented children are actually being caged nationwide.
Click here for the report.
As the new Immigration Bill heads from the committee to the full
Senate, NPR turned for comment to a brilliant and seasoned asylum
lawyer. Unfortunately, he wasn't available, so they called me.
NPR listeners hear me explain the finer points of asylum law.
Yes, your humble blogger debuted earlier this week on the NPR show Talk of the Nation.
This was my first ever appearance on radio (though sometime in the
mid-1980s, I did appear on a local TV talk show as an example of a kid
who did not kill himself as a result of ****eons & Dragons).
While I am used to talking to judges, appearing on radio before a
live audience is quite terrifying. I assumed that I would fall into the
fetal position and cry for my mommy. But it was not to be. In fact, I
thought the interview went pretty well (you can hear it or read the
The title of the show was "Who Gets Asylum, Who Doesn't and How that
May Change." I was the only guest to appear in-studio, with host Ari
Shapiro. Other guests were Dan Stein of the restrictionist group FAIR
(which wits on the Left have dubbed "un-FAIR" - we need better wits) and
NPR Congressional Correspondent David Welna.
In the space of about 30 minutes, I managed to insult the governments
of Pakistan, China, Eritrea, Cuba, Indonesia, Serbia, and possibly
Mexico. I also (hopefully) made a decent argument for why the one-year asylum bar
should be eliminated (the current version of the Bill would eliminate
the bar). I tried to give many examples of asylum seekers who had been
persecuted and who were worthy of protection (hence the need to insult
numerous governments). And I hopefully made the case for preserving and
strengthening the asylum system.
Although I enjoyed my experience at NPR, I can't say I am
particularly optimistic that the current Bill will make it into law. The
most important aspects of the Bill are not related to asylum seekers,
but the main provision related to asylum-elimination of the one year
filing deadline-is important to many people, and thousands of legitimate
refugees would benefit if the bar were removed.
We'll see what happens in the coming weeks. At least one senator
predicts that the Bill will pass the Senate with 70 votes prior to July
4th. I hope he is right, but even if he is, the Bill still has to get
through the Republican-controlled House. To me, it seems like an up-hill
battle. But it is definitely a battle worth fighting.
Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.
Updated 07-16-2013 at 01:20 PM by JDzubow
When the bipartisan Senate Gang of Eight began the difficult task of negotiating Comprehensive Immigration Reform. it was assumed that this would be done in a genuine spirit of compromise, Everyone expected that there would be a good faith attempt to balance the Democrats' goal of relief from deportation and eventual US citizenship for millions of unauthorised immigrants with the Republicans' objective of securing the Mexican border and bolstering internal immigration enforcement.
To their credit, the GOE members worked long and hard to achieve a compromise which, while no one would call it perfect, at least arrived at arguably reasonable solutions on a great variety of issues. The same spirit prevailed during the markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the process, many deserving people were thrown under the bus, if not a whole fleet of buses - same sex couples, diversity immigrants from Africa and other low immigration parts of the world, unauthorized immigrants who had arrived after a cutoff date, and siblings of US citizens included.
But the American way of compromise and good will was obviously more than the traditional opponents of immigration reform, enraged at the prospect that millions of Latino and other non-white immigrants might not only be allowed to stay in the US legally, but might, horribile dictu, one day actually become US citizens and be allowed to vote, could tolerate.
The Roman poet Ovid wrote in his great poem, Metamorphoses:
In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora ("I will tell about changed forms in new bodies.")
2,000 years later, Congressional anti-immigrant Republicans, egged on by powerful anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR (the so-called "Federation for Immigration Reform") are transforming the issue of Border Security from its original form as a legitimate issue for discussion and compromise into its "new body" as a weapon of mass destruction against CIR in its entirety.
Here for example, is part of a statement by FAIR's president, Dan Stein, in support of a massive new ad campaign which it is running in order to defeat CIR.
"In 1986, the American people were promised border security. Today our borders remain unsecured. Another promise broken"
"It is up to Senator Rubio to begin rebuilding America's trust in our leaders' approach to immigration reform. And he can start by securing our country's borders and enforcing our immigration laws."
The pernicious falsehoods that the Obama admistration is doing nothing to secure the Mexican border and that the Senate Gang of Eight CIR bill is "weak" on border security (even through GOE member Charles Schumer, D-NY has accurately described its border provisions as "tough as nails") are now threatening to bring down CIR entirely.
Politico reports on June 5 that Congressional Republicans are making Border Security a litmus test for immigration reform. See Republicans: Border security a "litmus test" for immigration bill.
As for the Senate, Politico states:
"Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been shopping around an amendment that would require Congress to vote on whether the border is sufficiently secured, said conservatives are 'very worried' about plans to legalize the undocumented without adequate border security in place first."
And on the House side, Politico writes:
" 'I want to see border security front and center', said Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), chairman of the Republican Study Committee. 'And then you work on other areas.' ".
Just a look at the names of some of the Republican Senators and Representatives whom Politico reports as attending the Republican Study Committee meeting makes it obvious that they are never likely to be satisfied with any Border Security proposal, even if, as President Obama once said, this were to involve building a moat along the Mexican border and filling it with alligators.
These names include staunchly anti-immigrant Republicans such as Senator Jeff Sessions (AL) and Representative Lamar Smith (TX), as well as more moderate GOE members such as Senators Marco Rubio (FL) and Jeff Flake (AZ), who are evidently trying to persuade the hardliners to support a CIR bill which the latter are only looking for every possible excuse to defeat.
Immigration supporters need to speak out against the Big Shouts and Bad Solutions for Border Security, before all the anti-immigrant BS has a Big Success in Blasting CIR to Smithereens.
Tea Party favorite Raul Labrador (R-ID) quit the House Gang of Eight today after the bipartisan group could not reach agreement on health care access for legalized immigrants. Then shortly after he left, a deal was announced on the issue (which makes one wonder if Labrador was the one holding up a deal?
Ezra Klein has an interesting piece stating that going with small bills coming from the House Judiciary Committee migh actually be smarter than trying to pass either the Senate bill or the House Gang of Eight bill in the House of Representatives.
by Chris Musillo
The Foreign Credentialing Commission on Physical Therapy is tasked with reviewing the credibility of foreign educated Physical Therapist's transcripts. A recent News Item on their webpage says that they will require additional documentation before they will approve any transcript from Indira Gandhi National Open University.
FCCPT has apparently had a recent submission of fraudulent documents claiming schoolwork from this University. It is unclear if this was an isolated incident or a repeated problem. Graduates of Indira Gandhi National Open University should expect a delay in the processing of their FCCPT applications.
Read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com or www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.