Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
Lost in all of the Trump deportation hysteria is the fact that on February 20, 2017, a memorandum was issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly that specifically reinforces protections previously issued in favor of individuals benefiting from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), as well as parents of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents (DAPA) by protecting them from deportation.
From the memorandum:
With the exception of the June 15, 2012, memorandum entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children," and the November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents," all existing conflicting directives, memoranda, or field guidance regarding the enforcement of our immigration laws and priorities for removal are hereby immediately rescinded- to the extent of the conflict-including, but not limited to, the November 20, 2014, memoranda entitled "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants," and "Secure Communities."
It should be noted that the November 20, 2014 memorandum was enjoined by a U.S. District Court Judge.
What this means is that Trump has not revoked DACA, those who have it may continue to benefit from work authorization, and President Trump has extended protections from deportations to people with citizen or green card holding children and they should also not be at risk of being deported.
I can also attest to the fact that government lawyers have acknowledged in open court that their new directive from Headquarters relating to individuals with DACA, or that are DACA eligible is to agree to continuances as the individuals are not a priority for deportation.
There is always a silver lining.
Updated 02-22-2017 at 08:17 AM by MKolken
By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
After pleading guilty to fraud in relation to H-1B visas, New York immigration lawyer Loreto Kudera, and his wife, Hazel Kudera, the owner of several medical staffing agencies, were sentenced to two years probation and fined $25,000 each. Previously, they had forfeited $1 million.
Hazel Kudera owned multiple staffing agencies in New York that specialized in providing nurses to hospitals, outpatient and skilled nursing facilities. According to the government, Hazel and Loreto Kudera submitted at least 100 fraudulent applications to authorities, and profited from filing fees collected from the nurses and from the health care facilities that paid Hazel Kuderaís staffing agencies.
Hazel and Loreto Kudera falsely stated that the foreign nurses would be working in specialty occupations at prevailing wage rates when in actuality they were going to work as licensed practical nurses (LPNs) or registered nurses (RNs) at much lower rates of pay.
As part of the alleged scam, Hazel Kudera falsified a staffing agreement between NYC Healthcare Staffing and Dewitt Rehabilitation listing job positions that did not exist, such as clinical coordinator and health care quality assurance manager, in order to cover up the false job titles she provided to USICS.
According to the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, the United States has an exceptional history of welcoming refugees.
Since 1975, it has welcomed more than three million refugees for resettlement from all over the world. Nevertheless, despite the efforts of the United States and 29 other countries that accept refugees for resettlement, less than one percent of the worldís 21.3 million refugees are resettled.
The United States conducts its own vetting process to decide which refugees it will accept, and this is in addition to the screening UNHCR does on the refugees. The entire process is conducted abroad. It can take up to two years to complete, but the processing time has been severely reduced on at least one occasion.
The United States reduced the processing time to three months last year to meet President Barack Obamaís goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees here by September 30.
And the value of security screening depends on the availability of information from a refugeeís country.
The threat of terrorism has caused many people to become suspicious of the refugees. In the minds of many Europeans, for instance, the current refugee crisis and the terrorism in the European Union are very much related to one another.
Read more at --
Published initially on The Hill.
About the author
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the 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. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.
Please email your letters to email@example.com
Update, February 21, as of 1:20 pm:
The Washington Post reports on February 21 that the DHS is trying to prevent "panic" in immigrant communities over its strict new enforcement guidelines signed by DHS Secretary John Kelly over the weekend. In a story entitled:
Trump administration seeks to prevent "panic" over new immigration enforcement policies
(I do not have a link - please go to Google to access the full story.)
a DHS official is quoted as saying:
"We do not need a sense of panic in the communities...
We do not have the personnel, time or resources to go into communities and round up people and do all kinds of mass throwing folks on buses...This is not intended to produce mass roundups, mass deportations."
People in immigrant communities will, no doubt, be greatly comforted to know that the DHS doesn't want anyone to panic at the new policies, which could make it easier to deport most, if not all, of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants now in the US.
It is easy to understand why the DHS doesn't want anyone to panic. That way, when ICE comes for them, up to 11 million immigrants will go quietly.
My original revised comment follows:
The following comment has been revised and rewritten as of February 20 at 8:57 am, with a few additional corrections as of 1:30 pm on February 20.
In the latest development in the controversy over the president's January 27 Muslim ban order, which, in Orwellian fashion, the White House insists is not specifically directed against Muslims, even though an estimated 99 percent of the people in the seven countries affected by the order belong to that religion, the AP and the Washington Post both report that Donald Trump is planning to "replace" his original seven Muslim country travel ban order with a new order which would contain the same ban on entry against the almost 200 million citizens of the seven countries, close to 99 percent of whom just happen to be Muslims, but with a few minor, essentially cosmetic, tweaks.
The first tweak, according the AP and WP reports, is that the new ban would not apply to US permanent residents who are citizens of the seven countries. However, this is a meaningless change.
After the initial chaos, confusion, fear and anxiety caused by lack of clarity from the White House over whether the original January 25 executive order applied to green card holders or not, the White House had already issued a "clarification" (reportedly over the objections of Senior Advisor Stephen Bannon, who is widely considered to be one of the main instigators of the entry ban order in the first place) stating that US permanent residents from the seven countries were exempt from the ban.
In its briefs filed with the 9th Circuit, the DOJ also took the position that the ban did not apply to green card holders from the seven countries. Therefore this first reported tweak would be no real change at all. See also:
Another tweak reported by the AP and the WP is that citizens of the seven banned countries who have already been granted visas, or who are already in transit to the US with visas (which one is not clear) will be allowed to enter the US.
Dual citizens of the affected countries may also be exempt from the revised ban. However, these changes will, at most, affect only a very small percentage of the nearly 200 million citizens of the above countries who are still being being barred from the US solely because of their religion.
(I will not dwell on the absurd argument that the above ban is not really a Muslim ban because there is a tiny handful of non-Muslims also affected by the ban. If there has been any presidential finding, or rational basis for such a finding, that the 1 per cent or less of citizens of these countries who are Jews or Christians pose a danger to the US, I have not seen it.
The ban is clearly not directed against non-Muslims, even if a very few may turn out to be "collateral damage" by being denied visas also.)
Therefore, the basic authoritarian premise of the Muslim ban, that one man, the president, accountable to no one but himself (as the DOJ has claimed in its 9th Circuit briefs) has unlimited power to ban as many people as he wants for any reason he sees fit, remains in place.
As The Guardian reports:
"The goal of the new [Muslim entry ban] order is to bolster a signature initiative against ongoing legal and constitutional scrutiny, rather than revise it in a substantive fashion, relax its restrictions or consider any deleterious consequences it has on national security, according to Guardian sources."
When this attempt to use authoritarian power is looked at in the context of the increased police state measures that the Trump administration is putting into effect to move toward increased mass arrests and deportations, in addition to the fear and panic in immigrant communities throughout America caused by stepped up ICE raids against unauthorized immigrants with no criminal records which took place last week, the danger to our democratic institutions becomes even greater. See:
Washington Post, February 18:
Memos signed by DHS secretary describe sweeping new guidelines for deporting illegal immigrants
I will discuss the details of these police atate measures, and the equal protection and due process issues they raise, in an upcoming comment.(Go to Google for a link to the above WP report.)
But while the Muslim ban clearly raises serious questions concerning the extent, if any, to which our laws and Constitution permit unfettered one-man control over our immigration system, or a major part of it, under the Plenary Power doctrine and INA Section 212(f) - which I will discuss in the light of the 9th Circuit's February 9 TRO decision in a forthcoming post - there is an even greater danger to our democracy that goes beyond the four corners of the Muslim ban executive order itself.
This danger arises from the way that the president has tried to delegitimize opposition to the Muslim ban order by the courts and the media, by claiming that anyone who opposes the ban is in effect supporting terrorists and will bear responsibility for any future attack that might take place in America. See:
As the above salon.com/alternet.org article states, Trump's attacks on the courts in connection with the Muslim ban order:
"...should utterly horrify every champion of democracy, whether on the left or right end of the political spectrum."
In addition, Trump's attacks against a free press as an "enemy of the people" for opposing his immigration policies recall the language of two of history's worst tyrants, Stalin and Mao.
When Trump's Muslim ban order is looked in the larger context of his police state actions against up to 11 million immigrants who are in the US without legal status, and his attempts to crush the independence of the courts and the media, just as another popularly elected leader did in Germany 8 decades ago, it becomes clear that it is not only not only the rights of Muslim immigrants (such as they are) and of American citizens who wish to sponsor and invite Muslim immigrants to come to this country, that are affected.
Trump's immigration executive orders and actions, including not only the Muslim and refugee bans, but his nationwide immigration raids and related activities in the direction of mass deportation of up to 11 million immigrants, are a dangerous movement toward one-man rule in America and the end of our democracy.
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 skiilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards.
Roger believes that any attempt to bar immigrants from the US, or to single them out for deportation, based on discrimination because of race, religion or national origin, or to exercise authoritarian, one man control over our immigration system, endangers the rights of every American, and puts the foundations of our democracy at risk.
Roger's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 02-21-2017 at 02:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs