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

  1. Trump's "Extreme Vetting" Destroys American Values, Recalls 1924 Act. Roger Algase

    The following is Part 1 of my comments about Turmp's August 15 "terrorism" speech which, for the reasons outlined in this series, should more accurately be called his "fear-mongering and immigrant scapegoating speech".

    On August 15, Donald Trump tried to revive his flagging campaign, which the New York Times had described as being in deep trouble, causing Trump to lash out with threats to abolish the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press. See my August 15 Immigration Daily blog: Legal Scholars Blast Trump In NY Times; Trump Hopes Paper Will Close:

    In order to try to bring his campaign back to life, Trump went back to using what can only be described as his Trump card - stoking fears of terrorist attacks on America and demonizing Muslim immigrants. The full text of his speech can be found at

    Trump began his speech with a recitation of ISIS instigated or otherwise Islamic terrorist linked- linked horrors and atrocities perpetrated in America and Europe. These, unfortunately have not been in short supply.

    However, Trump did not mention the many other ISIS attacks, also outside the "war zones of the Middle East (i.e. Syria, Iraq, Libya and, arguably, Afghanistan), referred to in his speech, attacks which have targeted hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful, innocent Muslim civilians in places such as Istanbul, Bangladesh, and Indonesia; and which have, together with the Putin-backed Syrian dictatorship, been a major cause of the attempt by four million Syrian refugees to seek safety in Europe.

    Then, after opening with this appeal to fear, and even before turning to any of his proposals to defeat ISIS militarily (which few Americans would disagree needs to be done urgently), Trump immediately turn his verbal guns - not on ISIS' weapons and capacity to organize terror attacks, but on the "hateful ideology of Radical Islam - its oppression of women, gays, children, non-believers" which, he stated, must not "be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries."

    (All bold quotes are taken directly from Trump's speech, as published in the above POLITICO link )

    Therefore, according to Trump, the terrorist enemy must not only be defeated militarily, but ideologically as well. There is, in principle, nothing wrong with this statement. America defeated both fascism and communism by combating their ideologies, not just opposing their weapons (even though, of course, America suffered a crushing defeat in 1975 in our last military conflict with a communist nation).

    But there are two problems with Trump's statement so far. The first is one of massive hypocrisy. Trump talks about "oppression of women [and] gays' as constituting a danger to America's safety.

    As Trump himself has reportedly recently said in a different context: "Give us a break!"

    Maybe someone should remind him that he is the presidential standard bearer of a party that for has been bitterly fighting against women's abortion and other reproductive rights for many many years and is still doing so.

    His party also consistently votes against women's equal pay laws at every possible opportunity, and Trump's own comments during this campaign against various women have been so offensive that, arguably even many people who have been brought up in some societies which have a long way to go in respecting women's rights migt find them shocking.

    And as for oppression of gays, Trump might want to have a chat with his own Vice-Presidential pick, Gov. Mike Pence, who recently signed a law in Indiana allowing private businesses to discriminate against gays on "religious" grounds, and eventually had it repealed only after nationwide outrage threatened to tarnish the image of his state and hurt its businesses (link to be provided).

    He might also want to have a friendly discussion with Republican officials in North Carolina, who have been fighting a last ditch legal battle to uphold that state's bigoted transgender "bathroom" law (link also to be provided).

    As will be shown in Part 2 of these comment, Trump's proposed "extreme vetting" ideological test for immigrants seeking admission to the United States, could result in denying visas to people from various parts of the world (including Europe, which is obviously not the intended target of Trump's proposal), merely because they might happen to believe in essential parts of Trump's own Republican party platform!

    However, as will be discussed in more detail in Part 2, the main danger in Trump's proposal to deny admission to immigrants based on ideology is that it opens the door to excluding immigrants from entire countries or parts of the world where religion or social customs may have features that are perceived to be incompatible with "American Values" whether or not the individual applicant for admission in fact subscribes to such beliefs.

    This would take America back to the days of the bigoted Immigration Act of 1924, when immigrants from entire parts of the world, Including Southern and Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and all of Asia, were presumed to be incapable of adopting "American Values" or assimilating to "American culture".

    In addition to targeted nationalities and regions of the world, entire ethnic or religious groups, notably Jews, were considered at that time to be incapable of becoming fully American, as well as being allegedly dangerous to America because of their presumed ideology.

    Part 2 of these comments will show the very disturbing similarities between Trump's proposed ideological test for immigrants seeking admission to the US, outlined in his above August 15 speech, in the asserted interests of protecting America against radical Islamist terror, and the infamous "national origins" immigration quotas of the 1924 law, which were also adopted in the wake of a fear campaign known to history as the "Red Scare"​.

    To be continued.
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvad Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from various parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards. Roger's email address is

    Updated 08-16-2016 at 09:50 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs


    by , 08-15-2016 at 04:47 PM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    Musillo Unkenholt LLC (MU Law) is proud to co-sponsor a Cincinnati seminar with Graydon Head, Cincinnati’s premier full-service law firm. The event will be held September 13, 2016 on the campus of Xavier University. The program runs from 7:30 - 10:00 AM and will feature a panel of local Cincinnati business leaders. The seminar is free to attend.

    Join Graydon Head & Musillo Unkenholt as they lead an informative conversation about using immigration to solve staffing supply shortages - and the legal and practical issues that may arise. A panel of experts who have dealt with these situations will share their struggles and successes on using immigration solutions in a tight labor market.

    If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to Sam Rossell, 513.629.2727 or via email.

    This program is valid for 1.5 PDCs for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP. For more information about certification or recertification, please visit

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at and You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  3. Letters of the Week: August 15 - August 19

    Please email your letters to or post them directly as a comment below.
  4. 5th Circuit Overrules OCAHO Decision Concerning $226,000 Penalty

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law, PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ESSG larger.jpg 
Views:	49 
Size:	4.6 KB 
ID:	1105

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC v. OCAHO (August 11, 2016) reversed an OCAHO decision concerning the issue of personal versus corporate attestation of employee’s documents in Section 2 of the I-9 form; thus, it vacated the $226,000 civil penalty.

    ESSG is a staffing company based in Edina, Minnesota. It contracted with Larsen Manufacturing Co. in El Paso, Texas to provide employees. Then ESSG subcontracted with Flexicorps, Inc. to make all the hiring decisions for temporary employees at the Larsen facility.

    In so doing, ESSG had Flexicorps supervise the completion of Section 1 of the I-9 forms by employees and examine original documents presented by the employees for Section 2. However, instead of Flexicorps completing the employer certification at that time, ESSG had Flexicorps make color copies of the documents and send the I-9 forms and color copies of the documents to ESSG’s corporate headquarters. At that point, an ESSG employee examined the photocopies and completed Section 2, including the signed attestation that the employer examined the documents and they appeared to be genuine.

    In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) served a Notice of Inspection on ESSG for the Larsen facility and thereafter determined ESSG’s procedure in signing the certification was contrary to the law. After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of OCAHO, OCAHO agreed with ICE, found 242 violations and assessed a penalty of over $226,000.

    The 5th Circuit analyzed the statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the accompanying regulations, and any applicable case law. The INA states a “person or entity must attest… on a form” that it has verified the employee’s document(s). See § 1324a (b)(1)(A). Thus, ESSG argued corporate attestation is consistent with the INA.

    The regulations state “an employer, his or her agent, or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest thereof, must” complete Section 2 on the I-9 form and sign the attestation. § 274a.2(b)(1)(ii)(B). The Court said it did not read this regulation to require the same person who met the hired employee and examined the original documents to be the one to sign the attestation.

    The Court then reviewed whether ESSG had fair warning of OCAHO’s reading of the statute and regulations. It found it did not, especially given the fact there were no prior OCAHO decisions on the matter and the ALJ only cited “commonsense” for her ruling, not any statute, regulation or case law. Thus, given the language of the INA and its regulations, the Court found ESSG lacked fair notice of OCAHO’s position.

    The Court concluded a “reasonable interpretation” permits corporate attestation due to the language of the INA. Thus, the Court concluded ESSG did not violate the INA. However, before employers celebrate the victory, it must be noted the Court went on to state their holding “does not address whether ICE can lawfully prohibit corporate attestations”; only that ESSG was not given fair notice.

    Since this is a Court of Appeals decision, it does not change ICE’s and OCAHO’s position and they are free to clarify whether corporate attestation is prohibited.

    An interesting question is whether this decision may provide an avenue to resolve the remote hire issue where the employer does not view the original documents. Obviously, it will depend on ICE’s and OCAHO’s position on this issue going forward
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ESSG.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	2.0 KB 
ID:	1101   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ESSG.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	2.1 KB 
ID:	1102   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ESSG this one.jpg 
Views:	103 
Size:	2.2 KB 
ID:	1103   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ESSG this one.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	2.2 KB 
ID:	1104  
  5. Billion Dollar Deal to Jail Central American Mothers and Children

    by , 08-15-2016 at 06:19 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via the Washington Post:

    "As Central Americans surged across the U.S. border two years ago, the Obama administration skipped the standard public bidding process and agreed to a deal that offered generous terms to Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest prison company, to build a massive detention facility for women and children seeking asylum.

    The four-year, $1 billion contract — details of which have not been previously disclosed — has been a boon for CCA, which, in an unusual arrangement, gets the money regardless of how many people are detained at the facility. Critics say the government’s policy has been expensive but ineffective. Arrivals of Central American families at the border have continued unabated while court rulings have forced the administration to step back from its original approach to the border surge."

    Click here for the rest of the story.
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: