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 immigration lies endanger America's democracy. Roger Algase

    On September 20, Immigration Daily published an editorial with the simple, and all too accurate title: Liar Trump.

    The comment lists fourteen specific lies that Trump has told during his campaign, most of which relate to immigration, and it also made clear that "the list goes on and on".

    History shows that all dictators take and hold onto their power by using the Big Lie strategy, based on Adolf Hitler's theory that as long as one repeats a lie often and loudly enough, people will start to believe it.

    Are Donald Trump's lies connecting Muslim immigrants, or even immigrants in general, with terror any different?To give just one example, after last weekend's New York bombing attack, which was made by an unknown person at the time, and is known to have been made by a disturbed Muslim US citizen who was already previous known to the FBI and had no known connection with any terrorist group (much like the Orlando killer) Donald Trump claimed:

    "There have been Islamic terrorist attacks in Minnesota and New York City and New Jersey. These attacks and many others were made possible because of our extremely open immigration system which fails to properly vet or screen the individuals coming into our country."

    (Italics added.)

    The truth (as it later turned out), is that the bombing suspect, born in Afghanistan, was brought to the US as a child by his father, who later, in 2014 asked the FBI to investigate his own son for possible terrorist sympathies!

    Does this show that the father was not properly screened when he entered the US? And what kind of screening could anyone have done on the child?

    But Trump's rush to blame "open" immigration, allegedly led by "ISIS founders and MVP's" Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (another huge Trump lie) is typical of his strategy of blaming all Muslims, and by extension, immigrants in general, for every mass or attempted mass attack in America, is not by any means new.

    Richard Cohen, in a September 20 Washington Post article: Trump's Hitlerian disregard for the truth, describes how this happened in Germany.

    See (same article but with a slightly different title):

    This does not mean to say that Trump is the same as Hitler. As Cohen points out in his article, Trump is not anti-Semitic.

    I was among those who defended Trump against what I considered to be an unfair charge of anti-Semitism, based in the resemblance between a sheriff's badge used in one of his campaign ads against Hillary Clinton and a Jewish six-pointed Star of David.

    As Cohen also points out, Trump has never suggested invading any other countries. Nor, it is important to add, has Trump ever proposed mass extermination.

    Trump is certainly not Hitler. The man with the blond mop of hair is not the same as one with the mustache.

    But there is a very close, and uncomfortable, similarity between Trump's repeated false attacks on immigrants, including but not limited to Muslim ones, as agents of terror, and Hitler's attacks on the Jews for "declaring war on Germany" as described in Richard Cohen's article.

    As Cohen says:

    "There is no lie that cannot be believed. Even after Germany had murdered most of Europe's Jews...many Germans believed...that their country's defeat only 'confirmed the "power of world Jewry."'"

    He concludes:

    "At the advent of the Hitler era, [Germany] was a democracy, an advanced nation...It had a unique it cannot easily be likened to the contemporary US. But it was not all that different either. In 1933, it chose a sociopathic liar as its leader. If the polls are to be believed, we may do the same."
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been representing mainly skilled and professional immigrants in work visa and green card cases for more than 35 years. Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-22-2016 at 09:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. New I-9 Form to be Effective January 22, 2017

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uscis_logo.gif 
Views:	59 
Size:	6.1 KB 
ID:	1122

    The USCIS is finally going to be issuing a new I-9 form, which will be effective January 22, 2017. The current I-9 form continues to be in effect even though it states that it expires on March 31, 2016.

    This new I-9 form has cleared its final hurdle – approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Although the new form will not be for mandatory use until January 22, 2017, the USCIS must publish it by November 22, 2016. If it follows the pattern of the 2013 I-9 form, employers will be able to use either the 2013 I-9 form or the 2017 I-9 form for the period between November 22, 2016 and January 21, 2017. The new I-9 form will have an expiration date of August 31, 2019, which is consistent with previous I-9 validity periods.

    To date, the USCIS has not published a draft of the new I-9 form although it has stated changes that will be included in the 2017 I-9 form. Some of these changes are:
    (1) Replacing the “Other Names Used” field in Section 1 with “Other Last Names Used.” This will avoid employees writing their nicknames in this field;
    (2) Modifying Section 1 to request certain employees to enter either their I-94 number or foreign passport information, rather than both;
    (3) Providing a box for employees to check if they did not use a preparer or translator;
    (4) Modifying the I-9 form to enable the use of multiple preparers and translators; and
    (5) Adding an area in Section 2 to enter additional information for TPS extensions, OPT STEM extensions and H-1B portability in order to avoid having to note this information in the margins of the I-9 form.

    Stay tuned as I will publish the new I-9 form as soon as it is released, which hopefully will be before November 22, 2016.
    Tags: 2017, i-9 form, uscis Add / Edit Tags
  3. Overall Number of Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009

    by , 09-20-2016 at 02:15 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Media contact: Brian Mahl, 202-419-4372,

    Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009
    Decline in share from Mexico mostly offset by growth from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 20, 2016) – The U.S. unauthorized immigrant population – 11.1 million in 2014 – has stabilized since the end of the Great Recession, as the number from Mexico declined but the total from other regions of the world increased, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on government data.

    Mexicans remain the majority of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population, but their estimated number – 5.8 million in 2014 – has declined by about half a million people since 2009. Meanwhile, the number of unauthorized immigrants from all other nations – mainly those from Asia and Central America – grew by 325,000 since 2009, to 5.3 million in 2014. The decline in unauthorized immigrants from some parts of the world, mainly Mexico, was roughly balanced by an increase in unauthorized immigrants from other parts of the world, so the total U.S. unauthorized immigrant population had no statistically significant change from 2009 to 2014.

    Most states saw no statistically significant change in the size of their unauthorized immigrant populations from 2009 to 2014. In the seven states where the unauthorized immigrant population declined – Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina – falling numbers of unauthorized Mexican immigrants were the key factor. Meanwhile, among the six states that had increases in their unauthorized immigrant populations, only one – Louisiana – could trace this to a rise in the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico. The other states with increases were Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.

    As the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population has stabilized, it also has become more settled. In 2014, two-thirds of unauthorized immigrant adults (66%) had lived in the U.S. for 10 years or more, compared with 41% in 2005. An estimated 14% of unauthorized immigrant adults had lived in the U.S. for less than five years in 2014, compared with 31% in 2005. Overall, unauthorized immigrant adults in 2014 had lived in the U.S. for a median of 13.6 years. In 2009, the median had been 10 years, compared with eight years in 2005.

    Among the report's findings:

    • Unauthorized immigrants accounted for 3.5% of the overall U.S. population and 26% of the nation’s 43.6 million foreign-born residents in 2014.
    • The country of birth that saw the greatest increase in unauthorized immigrants since 2009 is India – with a rise of about 130,000, for a total of 500,000 in 2014. Overall, the top five birth countries of unauthorized immigrants are Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, India and Honduras.
    • In 2014, 59% of unauthorized immigrants lived in just six states – California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. More than a third (36%) lived in California and Texas combined.
    • The states with the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their overall populations in 2014 were Nevada (7%) and California (6%).

    Read the report:

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Brian Mahl or 202-419-4372.

    Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. Subscribe to our daily and weekly email newsletters or follow us on our Fact Tank blog.
  4. Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" vs. Trump's "Basket of Deportables". Roger Algase

    Hillary Clinton has recently drawn a lot of flak for calling Donald Trump's supporters, most, if not all of whom can, without much dispute, be called anti-immigrant, a "basket of deplorables".

    It would not be unfair, on the other hand, to say that Trump regards up to 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the US as a "basket of deportables".
    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, of diverse nationalities and ethnic/religious backgrounds, obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-20-2016 at 04:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Deportation Without Due Process? by Nolan Rappaport

    Our immigration court system is in the midst of a crisis. The number of cases awaiting resolution reached 496,704 as of the end of June 2016, and the flow of new cases exceeds the number of cases completed each month so that the backlog will continue to grow. The end of June figure represents an average backlog of 1,819 cases for each of the 273 immigration judges. It would take about 2.5 years to clear up this backlog even if there were no new cases coming in. The House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing on this on December 3, 2015. The solution considered at the hearing was to increase the number of immigration judges. Certainly, that would help, but I do not believe that the supply of qualified lawyers is big enough to make a sufficient increase. Even if it were possible, the resulting increase in decisions from the immigration court would greatly increase the backlog at the Board of Immigration Appeals. An alien who is dissatisfied with the decision of an immigration judge can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and his deportation will be postponed while the appeal is pending.

    The Board faced a similar backlog crisis in 1999 during the Administration of Bill Clinton. Unsuccessful attempts were made to handle the backlog by adding Board members and increasing support staff. When it became apparent that a different approach was needed, Attorney General Janet Reno changed the regulations governing the Board to reduce the number of cases that would receive a full review by creating a “streamlining panel.” Cases that can be disposed of quickly are directed to the streamlining panel for expedited processing by a single Board member. The rest of the cases are directed to a merits panel where they will be reviewed by three members. On the streamlining panel, a staff attorney reviews the file, prints out a form order that affirms or reverses the judge’s decision, and then a member signs the decision or sends it back to the staff attorney for a different disposition.

    I predict that something similar will be done to reduce the caseload of immigration judges. The obvious choice would be a modified stipulated removal program. Stipulated removal permits an alien in removal proceedings who does not want to fight deportation to waive his right to a hearing. When an alien has agreed to stipulated removal, an immigration judge will sign a deportation order without a hearing if he is satisfied that the requirements for a stipulated removal order have been met.

    I asked Wayne Stogner, a retired immigration judge, about this practice. He told me that stipulated removal orders were not common in his court, but he could recall times when 25 or so stipulated removal orders would be handed to him in chambers. The aliens were not present when he reviewed the orders. He only signed stipulated removal orders when he was satisfied from reviewing the documents that the aliens knew their rights and that their agreement to stipulated removal was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

    Stipulated removal was authorized by section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Initially, the implementing regulations specified that immigration judges could only accept such stipulations from individuals who were represented. In 1997, this language was amended by the Clinton Administration to allow the immigration judge to accept stipulations from unrepresented aliens.

    Former President Bill Clinton signed IIRIRA into law. It was included in a larger bill. In those days, it was possible to oppose “illegal” immigration without being called a racist or a bigot. When his chief of staff, Leon Panetta, gave a briefing on IIRIRA, he said, “We were able, I think, as a result of this negotiation to be able to modify — eliminate the large hits with regards to legal immigrants while keeping some very strong enforcement measures with regards to illegal immigration.” Moreover, Bill’s formal statement at the signing ceremony includes the following comment.

    This bill, ... includes landmark immigration reform legislation that builds on our progress of the last three years. It strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system—without punishing those living in the United States legally.

    The pertinent part of the stipulated removal provision, section 240(d) of the INA, reads as follows:

    (d) Stipulated Removal. The Attorney General shall provide by regulation for the entry by an immigration judge of an order of removal stipulated to by the alien (or the alien’s representative) and the Service. A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien’s removability from the United States.

    The essential elements of a stipulated removal order are specified in, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25, which provides that the stipulation must include an admission that all factual allegations contained in the charging document are true; a concession of deportability or inadmissibility; and a waiver of the right to appeal the order. The objective of the regulation is to make sure that the alien knows what he is doing when he signs a stipulated removal agreement.

    The stipulated-removal program was rarely used until President George W. Bush ramped up immigration enforcement in 2004. From 2004 to 2010, more than 160,000 aliens were deported on the basis of stipulated removal orders. I was not able to find more recent statistics.

    According to the American Immigration Council, the vast majority of the 160,000 aliens who agreed to stipulated removal orders between 2004 and 2010, were in detention and were not represented by an attorney. Consequently, it is doubtful that their agreements really were voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

    There were strong objections to the streamlining panel too.

    Published initially on Huffington Post.

    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 twenty 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.
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: