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



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

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

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries


    by , 05-17-2011 at 07:25 AM (Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy)
    ICE has published an expanded list of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs that qualify students seeking a 27 month post-studies employment authorization card rather than the usual 12 month card. The expansion includes a number of new fields which is welcome though the absence of clinical health care fields that are facing critical shortages is not. Given the demand for H-1B visas, the ability to work for 27 months in Optional Practical Training should give American-educated foreign graduate students an advantage over their counterparts overseas, something that makes sense given the fact that the US provided some or all of their advanced education.
    The Obama Administration is touting the move by ICE in a new White House Immigration Report that ties in to the renewed attention being given to the issue. Of course, there's a contradiction between the President's rhetoric and what he has just done. This move is precisely the kind of action that the President stated he was powerless to do because it is Congress' role, not his. And as I've noted, as the Chief Executive, his role is more than to just sign and veto bills. He has been given broad powers by Congress to administer the immigration system and can do much to fix things without Congress having to do anything other than authorize money.
    President Bush was very creative in using his executive authority in 2008 to solve the problem of students being shut out of the H-1B quota when he established the STEP OPT program and I am glad that President Obama is building on what is a successful initiative. Hopefully, our President will use a similar approach to address other broken parts of the US immigration system.
  2. LGBT Immigration Update

    by , 05-17-2011 at 05:15 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
  3. Negative Judicial Metaphors Harm Immigrants

    A recent article in the Fordham Law Review posits that negative metaphors used by judges to describe immigrants contribute to negative public perceptions of immigrants and lead to adverse judicial decisions. 
    Before now, I never metaphor that I didn't like.
    In Alien Language: Immigration Metaphors and the Jurisprudence of Otherness, Keith Cunningham-Parmeter discusses different metaphors used in judicial decisions related to immigration.  The most common metaphors can be classified into three categories: (1) Immigrants are aliens; (2) Immigrants are a flood; and (3) Immigrants are invaders.  Each of these metaphors carries negative associations-for example, floods cause us to drown; invaders try to kill us.  Employing these metaphors, writes Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter, affects how we think about immigrants, which in turn affects judicial decisions.
    One set of figures cited in the article struck me as particularly noteworthy--In examining 4,200 federal cases related to immigration, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter found that the phrase most commonly used to describe immigrants was "illegal alien:"
    "[I]llegal alien" was "by far the most common term, appearing in 69% of opinions (2905 cases).  No other term appeared in more than 10% of opinions, except "undocumented alien," which accounted for 16% of the results in 670 cases.  
    It seems likely that the overwhelming use of negative metaphors for immigrants would impact how judges think about people who are in the U.S. illegally.  This, of course, could result in more adverse decisions.  
    To counter these negative metaphors, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter proposes some positive metaphors; words that connote entrepreneurial economic migrants (i.e., people with the get-up-and-go necessary to cross borders and start new, productive lives):
    [M]igrants are neither criminals nor invaders, but instead people who cross international borders in order to survive.  As such, the economic sanctuary metaphor brings focus to the human consequence of globalization.
    I certainly appreciate the effort to de-stigmatize immigrants (and in writing this blog post, I find myself avoiding the term "alien," a term of art defined in the INA, but also a metaphor with negative connotations).  In the end, though, I am skeptical that we can replace existing metaphors with something more benign.  There is a tribal aspect to these metaphors that is deeply ingrained.  We do tend to view outsiders as "invaders" and as a threat.  Maybe that is just the way of human nature.  Or, hopefully, I am wrong, and Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter's article will help plant a seed that will lead to a more positive--and constructive--view of people who immigrate to the United States.
    Originally posted on the Asylumist: 
  4. Bloggings: The right wing spin machine goes into high gear against Obama on immigration reform. Roger Algase

    Thanks to Matthew Kolken, whom I greatly respect and admire,  for drawing attention, in his comment in the May 16 issue of ID, to Michael Barone's article: "Obama's Hypocritical Rhetoric on Immigration Reform",  published in Real Clear Politics on May 16. If there were a publication with the name "Real Down and Dirty Politics", Barone's article would be a good fit, because it shows what kind of an attack we can expect from the right against Obama on immigration reform, and beyond that, what kind of vision of immigration reform we can expect from a Fox News commentator and American Heritage Foundation analyst.
    First, Barone makes the charge that Obama helped to kill the immigration reform bill in the Senate in 2007 by voting for union backed "bill killing" amendments. We should believe this only when Donald Trump produces Obama's original birth certificate - from Kenya.  The amendment that is now being denounced by the right ex post facto as a "bill killer", or poison pill, is one that would have sunset the guest worker program after five years. OK, so maybe the unions were against making this program permanent. Many other pro-reform Democratic Senators also voted for guest worker sunset, including Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. They were not trying to kill CIR.
    And did this amendment actually kill the CIR bill? What an absurd rewriting of history. First, let's remember that many Republicans were against any guest worker program at all. They didn't trust the "guest workers" to go home after their stay in the US was up. Therefore, sunsetting this program after five years was more likely to attract Republican support than to earn Republican opposition. But more importantly, the guest worker program, while important, was not the issue that killed the CIR bill. What killed it was the legalization provision, which was overcome by a tsunami of denunciations under Lou Dobb's (remember him?) slogan "No Amnesty for Illegals" (so close in spirit and intent of another famous anti-immigrant slogan of 150 years ago, "No Irish Need Apply"). Barone's article correctly points out that the Republicans will never agree to any form of legalization or "amnesty".  That was the way the Republican base felt in 2007 as well, and that was the real reason that CIR died. How typical of the right wing distortion machine to kill CIR and then try to blame Obama and other Democrats who were aactually in favor of it.
    But was the 2007 CIR really a good bill? Does anyone on either side remember what was actually in it? In fact, it was an awful bill for immigrants, after all the Republican amandments that has been adopted. It would have drastically cut family immigration and abolished employment-based green cards as we know them, to be replaced by a super-elitist point system that would have made immigration difficult for anyone who was not a native English speaker with an advanced degree. True enough, legalization was still in the final version of the bill - for anyone who would have been able to make it through a moat filled with alligators - I am exaggerating only slightly.
    This final bill was so terrible for immigrants that I remember calling the offices of all three Senators mentioned above to ask them to vote against the bill.  These calls obviously had no effect, because all three Sanators voted for the final version. But if the bill had passed, it would have been one of the saddest days for immigrants in our history. Yet, an immigration proposal along those lines is exactly what Michael Barone is suggesting in his article. For the right wing, immigration "reform" means letting in a few highly educated people, most likely mainly from Western Europe, and slamming the door against  Latinos and other minority immigrants. That is not the kind of reform that America needs.
    But given Obama's sorry record of compromise and cave in on other issues (take the budget and extending tax breaks for the rich, for example) and his even worse record on immigration so far, there is a real danger that he might agree to  "bipartisan reform" that would be exactly what the Fox News people and other right wing anti-Latino and anti-Asian bigots are hoping for. No legislative reform at all would be better than this. Reform should begin at home, in Obama's own administration. More specifically, it should begin at the airport in Washington, with a plane taking off to Arizona carrying Janet Napolitano as a passenger on a one way ticket.
    We should not let ourselves be misled by the false siren song of "reform" into forgetting what it really means in today's anti-immigrant environment - an excuse for Obama to continue his draconian administrative policy of deportation and visa denials by pretending that he has no power to change anything without Republican support, while the Republicans pursue their even more one-sided "enforcement-only" agenda.  If immigration advocates start taking someone like Michael Barone seriously, we are all in for almost as much trouble, if not even more trouble, than we would be if we take Barack Obama seriously. The only difference between them on immigration is the one between a Democratic hypocrite and a Republican one.
  5. Letters of the Week: May 16 - May 20

    Please email your letters to or post them directly as "Comment" below.
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: