Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) reached an agreement with Crookham Company, of Caldwell, Idaho, whereby it agreed to pay $200,000 to resolve allegations that the company discriminated against work-authorized non-U.S. citizens, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The investigation found Crookham discriminated against non-U.S. citizens by requiring them to produce either a permanent resident card (green card) or employment authorization card to prove their work authorization, whereas U.S. citizens were permitted to choose whichever valid documentation they wanted to present to prove their work authorization. Under the INA, all workers, including non-U.S. citizens, can choose whichever valid documentation they would like to present from the lists of acceptable documents to prove their work authorization. It is unlawful for an employer to limit employees’ choice of documentation because of their citizenship or immigration status.
Under the settlement agreement, Crookham will be subject to monitoring for a three-year period. Prior to the settlement, Crookham proactively underwent department-provided training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and
Update, July 28, 1:41 pm:
In my list of Trump's immigration "enemies" described below, i omitted to mention members of two legal visa categories that were definitely on Trump's list of "friendly" ones while they were useful to his businesses, but are no longer so in terms of his current objective of winning the presidency.
I refer to skilled and professional green cards through labor certification and H-1B visas, the latter of which he has sponsored over 1,000 foreign workers for, mainly from Mexico.
Trump now wants to abolish both of these legal visa categories, which he now says are unfair to American workers, even though this issue never bothered before he started running for the presidency.
But I also want to be fair to Trump. Did he not also say that, in addition to the alleged "criminals" and "rapists", Mexico was also sending some "good people" to America as well? Now we know who those good people were - the ones who were working for Trump and, there is good reason to believe from his own statements, helping him keep his labor costs down.
My original post appears below:
What does Donald Trump's alleged support for purported Russian hacking into thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee and their release to Wikileaks on the eve of the Democratic National Convention say about his immigration policies?
The short answer would be not very much, and this would justify asking whether this topic is even worth writing about in a blog devoted to discussion of immigration law.
Moreover, just as I previously argued that the charges that Trump was anti-Semitic, based on his use of a sheriff's badge image which happened to look like a Star of David in one of his attacks on Hillary Clinton were vastly overblown and with scant foundation in reality; there is no justification for the hystrical shouting that we have been hearing coming from some people on the Democratic side that Trump has allegedly committed "treason" by endorsing the purported hacking by Russia.
I respectfully suggest leaving the "treason" insanity to some of Trump's own supporters who have been calling for Hillary Clinton to be hanged in public. I say this even though no one who has been reading my posts could possibly mistake me for a Trump supporter myself.
But this is not to say that Trump's statement on July 27 about alleged Russian hacking of the DNC, as quoted in numerous media stories, is totally irrelevant to drawing some conclusions about what might be in store for immigrants in America under a Donald Trump administration.
First, let us look at Trump's actual statement, as quoted in POLITICO:
"It would be interesting to see, I will tell you this. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
Trump has since tried to dismiss the above comment as merely being "sarcastic", and I do not see any reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt. While it is certainly reprehensible to give any support or endorsement, for whatever reason to an attempt by any foreign dictator, let alone one as dangerous as Putin, to manipulate America's electoral process, there is nothing in the above statement to indicate that Trump was encouraging or recommending the alleged Russian hacking, or that he bears any responsibility for it.
If the above is the case, then what relationship does Trump's statement about the DNC hacking incident have to how he might carry out immigration policies as president? As the ancient Greek poet Hesiod, who some scholars believe may have been a contemporary of Homer, wrote in the introduction to his Theogonia ("Theogony"):
alla tiei moi tauta peri dryn ei peri petrein;
("What is all of this to me any more than a tree or a rock?")
There is a good argument that the answer lies in what the above statement says about Trump's obsession which showing that Hillary Clinton, the only person who stands between him and his taking over control of the United States government and being able to impose his will on the entire country, if not the world, is allegedly a criminal who deserves to be locked up.
This is despite the fact that the FBI, after a lengthy and exhaustive investigation of her email activities as Secretary of State, one which led to its strong criticism of some of her practices, still found no basis to bring criminal charges against her.
But Trump is not willing to let this issue go - because Clinton is a political opponent. Therefore anything that can be done to get her out of the way must be done, just as Trump has shown he would like to do with other political and media opponents during this campaign; and, perhaps even more to the point, just as Putin has done with his political and media opponents in Russia by jailing and, allegedly, murdering some of them.
See: Fox News, May 29. 2015:
Putin opponent near death in suspected poisoning
This ruthless attitude applies to anyone whom Trump considers to be an enemy, and that is where his attitudes toward immigration come into the picture. Trump has made it clear in numerous speeches, over and over again, that he considers entire classes of immigrants as enemies, whether they may be Mexican "criminals", "rapists" and "drug dealers", or Muslims from around the world who are filled with "hatred" for America.
What does one do with "enemies"? One builds walls against them; one bars them from entering the United states from many, if not all, countries of the world; one carries out mass incarceration and expulsion against them on a scale unprecedented in US history, and one seeks to amend the US Constitution to deny birthright US citizenship to their American-born children.
This is why Trump's statement about alleged Russian hacking, and his statement's implied support for a ruthless dictator who has been accused of handling his political enemies the same way that Trump has recommended handling Hillary Clinton, while supporting neo-fascist anti-immigrant movements in Europe (see my previous post) should be of such great concern to those who care about immigration, and immigrant rights, in America.
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from different parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.
Roger believes that respecting and protecting immigrant rights is essential to preserving our democracy and keeping America great His email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 07-28-2016 at 03:30 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
The International Crisis Group (ICG) has issued a report entitled Easy Prey: Criminal Violence and Central American Migration. The report determined that the strategy employed by Mexico and the U.S. to deport waves of people has been ineffective to stop refugees from Central Americans from "fleeing endemic poverty" and "epidemic violence". They conclude that building a wall will merely deepen the humanitarian crisis while strengthening criminal networks that have turned Central America into a "criminal battleground".
From the executive summary:
Massive deportations from Mexico and the U.S. have failed to stem the tide of Central Americans fleeing endemic poverty combined with epidemic violence. Stepped up enforcement has diverted undocumented migration into more costly, circuitous and dangerous channels. Criminal gangs and the corrupt officials who enable them are the beneficiaries of a policy that forces desperate people to pay increasing sums to avoid detention, extortion or kidnapping. Beefed-up border control inadvertently fuels human smuggling and fortifies criminal gangs that increasingly control that industry. Governments must guarantee those fleeing violence the opportunity to seek asylum through fair, efficient procedures, while launching a major regional effort to provide security and economic opportunity in home countries. Central American leaders, especially in the northern triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, must in turn address chronic insecurity more effectively while monitoring and assisting those deported, especially children and adolescents, so they have an option other than fleeing again.
Click here to read the entire report.
Updated 07-28-2016 at 07:52 AM by MKolken
Thank you Bryan Johnson for doing the leg work on this:
Updated 07-27-2016 at 10:27 AM by MKolken
Last night I watched Michelle Obama’s eloquent and persuasive speech in Philadelphia that many will remember as the highlight of the Democratic National Convention. The First Lady invoked vivid images of her children, and the joy she experienced watching them grow from “bubbly little girls” into poised young women. I couldn’t help but think to myself, where has Mrs. Obama’s powerful voice been over the last two years when an entirely different set of children were under the watchful eye of “big men with guns” and “black SUVs.”
No, I’m not talking about Trump’s kids, but children from Central America who have been locked away in remote deportation internment camps, where they are held in substandard and life threatening conditions by Mrs. Obama’s husband, the President. Only for these vulnerable children, the big men with guns aren’t there to shuttle them off to school, but to keep them locked in cages, or to tear them from the safety of their beds and deport them in the middle of the night.
I’m talking about the scared nine-year-old little boy suffering from a dislocated shoulder that shrieked through the night in pain and was told by facility doctors to drink more water. I think about three-year-old Catherine Checas, whose t-shirt was stained from the blood in her vomit, and the victims of sexual assault. I also think about children being caged in cold concrete cells where they sit shivering, scared, and alone.
All I can think about is State sponsored child abuse.
See, because that is what immigration lawyers in the trenches think about every day as we try to protect these kids through the challenges of this unusual life in the dark shadows of deportation jails, and how we urge them to ignore those who question their humanity. And yes, I just intentionally paraphrased Mrs. Obama’s speech. Deal with it.
In all fairness, maybe Mrs. Obama’s silence was mandated by the powers that be, a.k.a. her husband. With the Wikileak release of DNC emails we recently learned that Democratic insiders viewed advocate’s calls for temporary protection of Central American children to be “irresponsible.” This is as troubling as it is outrageous, but not as outrageous as the shadow war that the Obama administration has waged against the children fleeing for their lives, or Hillary Clinton’s call to deport them in the height of the refugee crisis in order to send a clear message.
But there is hope, if not change.
On July 6, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Obama administration must immediately move to release detained immigrant children “as expeditiously as possible.” The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL) who represents the immigrant children in the lawsuit, has issued a demand that the Obama Administration “reassess” its “inhumane” practices of caging children in deportation jails.
CHRCL Executive Director, Peter Schey released the following statement to the Court’s decision: "We hope this decision by the Federal Court of Appeals convinces the Obama Administration that its policy of detaining immigrant mothers and children is inhumane and illegal and must come to an end. During the past two years this Administration has wasted over one hundred million dollars unnecessarily detaining thousands of refugee children commingled with unrelated adults in unlicensed secure facilities in violation of well-established child detention standards. This disgraceful policy should now be brought to an end by President Obama."
Victor Nieblas, the past President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) was similarly disturbed. He remarked that: "Detaining and re-traumatizing children and their mothers fleeing widespread violence in Central America is a shameful legacy for President Obama to leave behind. This detention and rapid deportation policy is fundamentally inhumane, undermines refugees' access to legal counsel and fair process, and is in violation of federal Court Orders issued in the Flores class action case. It has already resulted in the wrongful deportation of children and families back into the very violence from which they fled and must end once and for all."
Immigration lawyer and whistleblower Bryan Johnson was not so political in his response to the members of the Obama administration who he accuses of being complicit in the commission of crimes against thousands of children: “We will hold you accountable. We will not stop. Justice will be had, however long it may take.”
So, Mrs. Obama, as your daughters set out on the world, let’s hope that when they look back they can see that their mother had the courage to fight for all children, especially the most vulnerable among us. There is still time. Please use your voice to help put an end to your husband’s shameful and illegal family detention practices.
Updated 07-26-2016 at 04:28 PM by MKolken