ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. Canada wakes up to immigration reality after 'refugees welcome' dream. By Nolan Rappaport


    © Getty

    Justin Trudeau tweeted this message to people ďfleeing persecution, terror & war,Ē which appears to have been a reaction to Trumpís order.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Trudeau tweet.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	17.0 KB 
ID:	1231


    This tweet illustrates the need to be careful about what one says on a social media website. With a few key strokes on his computer, the Canadian prime minister insulted the president of the United States by implying that his travel ban order, which included a suspension of refugee admissions, was based on religious discrimination.

    Also, it gave false hope to desperate, displaced people. People fleeing terror and war are not necessarily ďrefugees.Ē They arenít going to be given refuge on that basis in Canada.

    People fleeing persecution may be refugees, but only if their persecution is based on race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.

    According to UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, 65.6 million people have been displaced from their homes by conflict and persecution, but only 34 percent of them are refugees.

    Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...-welcome-dream

    Published originally on The Hill.

    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.





  2. DHS Waits Outside Hospital Room to Arrest Cerebral Palsy Child for Deportation, While Immigration Prison Executives Enjoy Trump's Resort. Roger Algase

    Update, October 27, 11:20 pm:

    Here is what the Washington Post has to say in an October 27 editorial about the horrifyingly cruel treatment described in my original comment below by the Trump administration of an undocumented Mexican 10 year old girl with cerebral palsy who was brought to the US as a baby in the hope of finding better medical treatment for her. (Please go to Google to access the full editorial. I do not have a direct link.)

    "The girl, brought across the Mexican border to Laredo, Texas when she was 3 months old, was being transferred from a medical center in Laredo to a hospital in Corpus Christi when the ambulance was stopped at a border patrol interior checkpoint. Agents allowed the girl and an adult cousin who accompanied her to proceed to the hospital for the child's gallbladder surgery."

    So far, a fairly normal reaction. But then the horror begins. The editorial continues:

    "But several armed border patrol agents, according to the girl's family, were posted outside the operating room and then her hospital room until she was transferred to a federal facility for migrant children. Keep in mind that this is a frightened child who has never been away from her family, that her doctor recommended discharge to a family member familiar with her condition, and that her cousin and grandfather, both legal residents, offered to take care of her."

    The Post continues:

    "...It's unusual for federal agents to detain a child already living in the United States. Who could have possibly imagined that a 10-year old with such disabilities being rushed to the hospital would be the target of federal enforcement? The harm done extends beyond Rosa Maria and her family to other parents who will now have to think about the risk of detention and deportation in deciding to seek medical treatment for their children...

    Is this the image we Americans want for ourselves?"

    This leaves only one final question, which the Post doesn't ask out loud, but which is obviously the real point of the editorial:

    Is this the image that Donald Trump, who began his campaign almost 2 and a half years ago by unleashing a vicious, demagogic torrent of hate against Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists", and who is now fighting tooth and nail to build a wall of humiliation and contempt along the Mexican border, wants to stamp forever on his presidency?

    Judging by the shockingly inhuman treatment of this seriously disabled child by Trump's Department of Homeland Security, this country's 45th president has no qualms about dragging America further and further down into a cesspool of nationalism and white supremacy in the name of "immigration border enforcement".

    My original comment appears below:

    In yet another example of how no one, no matter how young or sick, is evidently being spared from Donald Trump's program of ethnic cleansing through mass deportation, a 10-year old girl with cerebral palsy, who was brought to the US from Mexico as a 3-month old baby, was apprehended by CBP officers on her way to the hospital for an operation, and is now in custody at a government children's shelter after surgery during which the officers waited outside her hospital room. She is now in danger of being deported.

    https://theguardian.com/us-news/2017...palsy-hospital

    Meanwhile, in an indication that deporting seriously ill Mexican children is coinciding with a gilded age for private prison companies with lucrative government contracts, the Washington Post reports that executives of GEO, a major contributor to Trump's campaign, and which has just been awarded a 10-year contract to run a 1,000 bed immigration detention facility that is expected to generate $44 million a year in revenue, held four days of meetings, dinner receptions and golf outings at the luxurious 800-acre Trump National Doral resort last week.

    The same report states that in April, the company, which has hired two lobbyists who were former aides to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of Trump's top deportation policy-makers and enforcers, was awarded the first immigration detention facility contract to be issued under the Trump administration.

    No wonder the company's executives (and prison wardens, according to the article!) must have enjoyed their rounds of lavish dinners and golf games. They had good reason to celebrate.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...025-story.html

    It has yet to be shown how deporting chronically sick Latin American children will make America a safer or better country. But there can be little doubt about one thing - mass deportation in the Donald Trump era is good business for the private immigration detention industry - and for the president's luxury golf resorts.
    ______________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work permits and green cards.

    Roger's practice is concentrated primarily in H-1B specialty occupation and O-1 extraordinary ability work visas, J-1 training visas, and in green cards through Labor Certification (PERM) and through marriage and other family relationships.

    Roger believes that racial or religious discrimination, or lack of fundamental fairness on the part of the government toward any classes of immigrants, affects the rights of all other immigrants as well; and it also endangers the institutions on which democracy for all US citizens depends.

    Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com


    Updated 10-27-2017 at 11:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Refugee Organizations Condemn Trump Over New Screening Barriers Against Refugees From Nine Muslim Countries. Roger Algase

    The Trump administration has issued a new order placing additional screening barriers in the way of refugee admissions, which have already been reduced to the lowest worldwide level in many years (45,000 per year) from 11 countries, all but two of which are Muslim. For details see,

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...-muslim-244135

    In response, two leading refugee organizations, including a well known Jewish one, issued condemnations. POLITICO quotes Naureen Shah of Amnesty International as saying:

    "Our big concern is that the refugee ban continues by another name."

    The same story also quotes Mark Hatfield, president of HIAS (formerly Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) as accusing the president of

    "decimating the refugee program at a time of unprecedented global need."

    It appears that Trump is not giving up easily on his original campaign promise to ban Muslims from around the world from the United States, as well as turning a cold shoulder toward people who are in the most desperate need of all, whether refugees fleeing war, violence and persecution around the world, or 3 million American citizens in hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 10-25-2017 at 10:09 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. The Self-Fulling Prophecy of Demonizing Immigrants

    In his book, American Homicide, Professor Randolph Roth of Ohio State University argues that homicide rates correlate closely with four distinct phenomena: political instability; a loss of government legitimacy; a loss of fellow-feeling among members of society caused by racial, religious, or political antagonism; and a loss of faith in the social hierarchy. He examines 400 years of American history and concludes that these four factors best explain why homicide rates have gone up and down in the United States and in other Western countries, and why the United States today has the highest homicide rate among affluent nations.

    Prof. Roth recently elaborated on his theories in the Washington Post. He writes--

    When we lose faith in our government and political leaders, when we lack a sense of kinship with others, when we feel we just canít get a fair shake, it affects the confidence with which we go about our lives. Small disagreements, indignities and disappointments that we might otherwise brush off may enrage us ó generating hostile, defensive and predatory emotions ó and in some cases give way to violence.

    He goes on to detail the varying homicide rates for different communities within the U.S., and how those homicide rates track with the particular community's faith in our governing institutions--

    The homicide rate peaked for African Americans during the Nixon administration, at 43 per 100,000 persons per year, when their trust in government was at its lowest and their feelings of alienation were highest. And it peaked for white Americans in 1980, at 7 per 100,000 persons annually, when accumulated anger over busing, welfare, affirmative action, defeat in Vietnam and humiliation in Iran boiled over into the Reagan revolution.

    During the 2008 election, Prof. Roth predicted that "the homicide rate in Americaís cities would drop because of what [Barak Obama's] candidacy would mean to African Americans and other minorities, who live disproportionately in urban areas." Prof. Roth also "worried that the homicide rate would rise in the areas of the country most resistant to the idea of an African American president." Data from President Obama's time as president now seems to support the Professor's prediction (at least according to Prof. Roth--and I believe him).

    So what does this mean for immigrants and asylum seekers?

    Maybe the answer is fairly obvious--If we demonize and disenfranchise non-citizens, we increase the likelihood that they will engage in violent behavior, and perhaps other anti-social or criminal conduct as well. And of course, this is a vicious cycle--the more we alienate such people, the more likely they are to engage in bad behavior, and the more they engage in bad behavior, the more we will alienate them.

    We also have to remember who we are talking about. Many aliens already feel, well, alienated. Many asylum seekers and refugees have already suffered trauma and feel insecure and victimized. Adding to that sense of alienation by labeling them terrorists or rapists, and by treating them as criminals, will only increase the likelihood of anti-social behavior in this population.

    Prof. Roth, writing after the massacre in Las Vegas, notes that "most mass murderers have been deeply affected by the distrust, disillusionment and enmity that pervade our society.... We have all played a part in creating them."

    If the violent outliers of our society in some ways reflect who we are, then the obvious solution is for us to do better. To be more civil, more inclusive, more compassionate. To disagree respectfully. To listen more and talk less. Frankly, it's not all that difficult. It's what teachers teach in our schools every day. It's what we require in our workplaces. It's what we see in our places of worship.

    Unfortunately, it is not what we have in the immigration debate. Read the comments section of any news article about immigration and you'll see what I mean. Politicians--most notably our Commander-in-Chief--have taken the visceral feelings about immigration and amplified them. This creates its own vicious cycle, and empowers extremists groups, like we saw in Charlottesville.

    Prof. Roth's work (and common sense) suggests that if you keep hammering away at vulnerable people, a few of them will eventually react negatively. Hopefully, this will not take the form of violent behavior, but the likelihood of a problem seems greater in such a toxic and threatening environment.

    I do think there are things that ordinary people can do to help. Many individuals and organizations have been working to support immigrants, Dreamers, Muslims, and other targets of xenophobia. Giving people hope, and showing them that they are not alone, can mitigate the damage. Government attorneys, Immigration Judges, Asylum Officers and USCIS Officers who continue to do their jobs, and who enforce the law fairly and treat non-citizens with respect, also help counter the harm caused by haters.

    Most research suggests that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, but if Prof. Roth's theory is correct, the current Administration's nativist language and policies might help cause an uptick in criminal behavior in our immigrant communities. And of course, if immigrant crime goes up, the Administration can use the increase to justify its anti-immigrant policies. It's up to us--those of us who stand with immigrants--to continue offering them help and hope, and to try to break this cycle before it begins.

    Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.
  5. IER Settles Immigration-Related Retaliation Claim Against InMotion Software

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	InMotion.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	6.0 KB 
ID:	1230

    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Department of Justice has reached a settlement with InMotion Software LLC (InMotion), a software developer and recruiter in Texas, resolving their investigation into whether the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Actís (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    Based on its investigation, the IER concluded InMotion retaliated against a work-authorized job applicant (Charging Party) after she protested InMotionís requirement that she provides a Permanent Resident Card (green card) even though she had a valid employment authorization card issued by the USCIS. After the Charging Party complained that InMotionís request constituted discrimination under the INA, InMotion removed her from its pool of candidates available for job placement. The INAís anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from retaliating against or intimidating workers because they have opposed employer conduct that may violate that provision or have participated in the IERís activities to enforce it.

    Under the settlement agreement, InMotion will pay $3621, the maximum civil penalty for an instance of retaliation, to the U.S. government, remove any references to the investigation or settlement from the Charging Partyís personnel file, post notices informing workers about their rights under the INAís anti-discrimination provision, provide all newly hired employees with a Lists of Acceptable Documents to provide with the I-9 form, train its staff, and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for one year.

    Companies need to be aware of the laws relating to retaliation if an employee files an anti-discrimination claim or alleges such discrimination. For the answers to these issues and many others related to employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
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: