Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
The Obama administration has landed back in Court due to their policy of locking Central American mothers and children in jails where they are deprived of decent food, water and sanitary conditions, and forced to sleep on a concrete floors.
A motion was filed in the U.S. District Court of Central District of California last night that alleges that the Obama administration has violated U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee's previous ruling prohibiting the extended incarceration of children in jails. Judge Gee ruled that the Obama administration child detention policy was in direct violation of a settlement dating back to January 28, 1997.
Peter Schey, President and Executive Director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, commented that the Obama administration has engaged in conduct that is “lawless and contemptuous,” and has "consistently violated the Settlement since the summer of 2014 and this Court’s Orders since August 2015.” Mr. Schey remarked that "a detention system that is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in a civilized society."
Thank you Mr. Schey for your humanity.
Click here for the original source of this story.
Updated 05-18-2016 at 10:53 AM by MKolken
By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigrated-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), a division of the Justice Department, reached an agreement with NetJets Services Inc. (NetJets), a business that provides private aviation services based out of Columbus, Ohio. In resolving the allegations that that NetJets violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating against work-authorized immigrants, it agrees to pay a $41,480 civil penalties.
The investigation found that NetJets improperly required newly hired, work-authorized non-U.S. citizens to present specific documents to prove their employment eligibility while not requiring similarly-situated U.S. citizens. The investigation further found that existing employees who were legal permanent residents (green card holders) were subjected to unnecessary post-employment reverification of their employment eligibility because of their immigration status and that employees who had become naturalized U.S. citizens after they were hired were required to present more and different documents than necessary to establish their citizenship status. All of NetJetsí actions were citizenship discrimination, which is prohibited by the INAís anti-discrimination.
Besides paying the $41,480 civil penalty, the settlement agreement requires NetJets to have its human resources staff trained by OSC on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring by the OSC for a period of two years, including providing written reports to determine compliance upon the request of OSC.
Please email your letters to email@example.com or post them directly as a comment below.
Update, May 17, 2:35 pm
The Guardian reports on May 16 that far right Hindu nationalists in India are offering prayers to Donald Trump as the "Savior of Mankind" because of Trump's anti-Muslim attacks, while neo-fascist parties in Europe are also drawing inspiration from him. See, Amana Fontanella-Khan:
How Donald Trump emboldens bigots across the world
Update, May 16, 11:25 am:
AP reports on May 16 that Iran is arresting and jailing models who pose online without headscarves. See:
Iran cracks down on models posing without headscarves online
(Sorry, I do not have a link. Please go to Google.)
America should ask itself whether the best response to this show of hate and intolerance by officials of the Islamic Republic would be for America to become more like Iran by showing similar hate and intolerance toward people who do wear headscarves by banning them from admission to the US purely on the basis of their religion, as one of our major party presidential candidates is proposing to do.
My original post follows:
Any thoughts that Donald Trump's impending nomination might produce a "kinder, gentler" presidential candidate, as I suggested in a post last week about Trump's possibly "mellowing" on immigration policy issues, can be put to rest.
Recent media stories show that Trump's campaign continues to be fueled by attacks against Mexican and Muslim immigrants, and not without a dose of anti-Jewish hatred coming from some of his supporters.
A May 13 Washington Post article details Trump's latest, utterly false, charge that there has been an increase in crime by "illegal" immigrants, most of whom are Mexicans. See:
Donald Trump's unsupported claim that crime is 'through the roof' because of illegal immigration
(Sorry, I do not have a link. Please go to Google or to The Post's website.)
Trump's charge is contradicted by the fact, as pointed out in the above article, that illegal immigration rates at the Southern border in 2015 were at their lowest level since 1972, except for 2011.
The same article, citing relevant crime statistics, also states:
"The vast majority of unauthorized immigrants do not fit Trump's description of aggravated felons, whose crimes include murder."
The Hill also reports (on May 15), that Trump has launched another scare attack against Syrian refugees, very few of whom have actually been admitted to the US, even in relation to the Obama administration's tiny goal of 10,000. This is compared to 25,000 already admitted to Canada, a much smaller country, and a million Syrian and other mainly Muslim refugees in Germany alone.
For details about Trump's latest attempt to stir up fear and hatred against Syrian refugees, and by extension against all Muslim immigrants, see:
Trump predicts refugees will plan next 9/11.
Whether continuing to base his campaign on fear and hatred against Latino, Muslim and other minority immigrants in an increasingly diverse America in which white voters continue to shrink as a share of the electorate, and where 87 percent of Latino voters view Trump unfavorably, makes any sense for his campaign, is beyond the scope of these comments. Interested readers can explore this question further in the following article, also in The Hill:
Finally, as a reminder that a campaign which is more openly based on racial or religious prejudice than any other since Richard Nixon's notorious 1970's "Southern Strategy", even including George H.W. Bush's infamous "Willy Horton" ads in 1988, may not necessarily spare members or descendants of older, previously persecuted but now well established immigrant groups from its venom, Huffington Post reports that the pro-Trump site, breitbart.com, has called one of Trump's strongest critics on the right, William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, a "Renegade Jew". See:
If the above is any indication, America may look forward to increasing, not diminishing, hysteria and xenophobia directed against members of minority immigrant groups, past and present, coming from Donald Trump and his supporters as November draws closer.
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 ben helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards. Roger's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 05-17-2016 at 02:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Huffington Post reports on May 13 that a North Carolina man has pleaded guilty to a federal hate crime for ripping of a Muslim woman's hijab while shouting "This is America!" on an airline flight just a few days after Trump announced his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the US last December.
Assuming that it were possible to establish on the basis of statistics that there is likely to be a causal connection between banning Muslim immigrants from entering the US solely on the basis of religion, and an increase in hate crimes against Muslim US citizens, would that be sufficient reason to strike down such a ban on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment right of those US citizens to free exercise of religion?
To answer that question, it would be helpful to take a close look at the 1972 Supreme Court decision of Kleindienst v. Mandel, which I have referred to in recent posts but not yet discussed in detail. I will do this in Part 2 of this series.
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 obtain work visas and green cards. Roger's email address is email@example.com
Updated 05-16-2016 at 05:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs