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. How Halloween Helps Save the World (or at Least Some Refugee Children)

    World War II left approximately 75 million people dead and up to 20 million displaced. Many of these displaced persons, or DPs, could not return to their countries. Hundreds of thousands were resettled to new homes in Western Europe and the United States. Two years after the war, there were still 850,000+ people living in DP camps. And as late as 1953--eight years after the War--more than 250,000 people continued to live as refugees. Of course, many DPs during the post-War period were children.

    Through Trick-or-Treat UNICEF, the undead can help the living.

    The civilian response to the DP crisis was led by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, which helped resettle hundreds of thousands of refugees. Private individuals were moved by the humanitarian tragedy as well.

    In the Autumn of 1949, Mary Emma Allison was in downtown Philadelphia when she bumped into a children's Halloween parade. She followed the parade into Wanamaker's Department Store where she met a cow (yes, a cow). She then followed the kids and the cow to a booth for UNICEF, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. It turns out, the parade was promoting a campaign to send powdered milk to needy children overseas (hence, the cow).

    After her chance encounter, Ms. Allison and her husband, Clyde Allison, a Presbyterian Minister, organized Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF. The idea was that if kids were already going around the neighborhood collecting candy, they might as well do some good while they're at it.

    The venture started modestly enough during Halloween in 1950, when the Allison's three children collected money from their community. That first year, they raised $17.00 in nickels and dimes, which they donated to UNICEF (although the acronym has remained the same, UNICEF is now the United Nations Children's Fund). The money went to help children displaced by World War II. In those days, a dime was all it took to buy 50 glasses of milk for needy children in Europe.

    The effort grew from there. In 1960, President Kennedy noted "UNICEF has captured the imagination of our people, especially our nation's children... ” Seven years later, President Johnson signed a proclamation that designated Halloween as National UNICEF Day. By the time Ms. Allison died, a few days before Halloween in 2010, Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF had raised more than $160 million. The program has continued since then, and by last Halloween, it had raised over $175 million. The money buys food, clean water, milk, medicine, and much else for children in more than 150 countries. These days, a $5-donation to UNICEF buys five days of food for a malnourished child; $100, measles protection for 100 kids; $400, a pump to give an entire village water.

    Many of the children helped by UNICEF are refugees, and they have special needs. In Syria, for example, UNICEF is trying to prevent millions of children displaced by the war from becoming a lost generation. The agency has been on the ground since the conflict began, working with other organizations to provide education, physical protection, psychological support, and clothing to Syrian refugee children in Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and other countries. UNICEF also helps immunize children against disease and provides millions of people with access to safe drinking water.

    Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF is a great way for kids to help kids. After 65 years, the reasons for the program remain constant: To make Halloween meaningful as well as fun, to protect the lives of the world's youngest and most vulnerable, and to inspire kids to discover their own ability to help other children like themselves. If you'd like to learn more, please visit the UNICEF website, here.

    Originally posted on the Asylumist:
  2. BALCA Determines that State Workforce Agency “Matches” are not Applicants for the PER

    The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”) recently considered whether candidates that a state workforce agency matched to an open position must be considered applicants for purposes of preparing a recruitment report as part of the PERM process. In Matter of Lakha Enterprises, Inc., the employer submitted a labor certification case for the position of “Cook.” The case was selected for supervised recruitment. The employer submitted documentation that a job order was placed with the Illinois State Workforce Agency (“ISWA”) and that the number of matches was 0 and the number of recruiting outcomes was 20. In preparing the recruitment report, the employer did not list the candidates who were listed by the ISWA as part of the recruiting outcome because these candidates did not affirmatively apply for the job. Rather, these candidates only “inquired about the job posting by viewing it, and did not actually apply for the job.” The Department of Labor denied the case on the basis that these 20 candidates were not listed in the recruitment report. In reviewing the case, BALCA considered the DOL’s FAQ’s which state that an “employer is responsible for considering / contacting those applicants who have affirmatively provided a response as specified by the employer in the job order.” BALCA found that the job order in this case instructed applicants to apply through submitting a resume to the employer. However, none of the 20 candidates submitted a resume. Thus, they did not affirmatively apply for the position. BALCA reversed the denial on the basis that these 20 individuals were not actually candidates for the position because they did not affirmatively apply for it. This case establishes that individuals who are matched to an employer who has submitted a job order as part of the PERM recruitment process will not be considered applicants unless they actually apply for the posted position. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views blog by Cadence Moore.


    by , 10-27-2015 at 11:29 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    Staffing Industry Analysts US Staffing Industry Forecast predicts that US healthcare staffing will grow by 17% in 2016. All four healthcare staffing sub-segments: -travel nursing, per diem nursing, locum tenens and allied health, showed double digit growth in 2015.

    Reasons for the increase in staffing are many, including tightening US labor supply and Obamacare allowing previously uninsured patients to avail themselves of healthcare services. More details on the report are accessible on their webpage.

    MU Law has seen greatly increased demand for foreign-trained nurses, and Physical and Occupational Therapists in 2015, confirming this study's conclusions.

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at or You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  4. Letters of the Week: October 26 - October 30

    Please email your letters to or post them directly as a comment below.
  5. Taiwan "Birth Tourist" Sent Back From US Without Newborn Baby. By Roger Algase

    The attacks against so called "birth tourism" by Chinese women on the part of Jeb Bush and other politicians in what even Donald Trump has called an example of anti-Asian prejudice* have led to severe consequences for one woman from Taiwan. CBS reports that the woman, known only as "Jian", gave birth in midair over Alaska on a China Airlines flight to the US after allegedly concealing her pregnancy from airline officials.

    According to the report, she was denied admission to the US after the plane landed at Anchorage and was sent back to Taiwan without her baby, who appears to have been born in US airspace and is therefore an American citizen. See:

    What was the legal authority for taking the drastic step of sending the mother back and separating her from her new-born child? She may have concealed her pregnancy from the airline, though one has to wonder how that could have been possible, but was there any evidence that she concealed it from US immigration officials?

    When she arrived at the airport in Alaska, the baby had already been born, so it would have been impossible to lie about her pregnancy to the CBP. And suppose she had misrepresented her pregnancy, say, in order to receive a US tourist visa - though there is no indication in the CBS story that she actually did this - how would that have been material?

    Whether certain demagogic American politicians like it or not, "birth tourism" is absolutely permitted under US law. The only legal grounds for denying a pregnant woman or new mother admission as a visitor would be if there were reason to believe that she was planning to remain in the US rather than return home after the baby was born.

    There is no evidence from the CBS story that the mother had any such motive, which would have been the total antithesis of what is meant by the phrase "birth tourism". What law did the mother violate by seeking to give birth in the US before returning home with her child?

    Thus it would appear that the real motive for denying the mother admission and sending her home without her child may have been nothing more than a political or ideological objection by a CBP officer to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship all US-born children, as upheld 117 years ago by the US Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

    Under the First Amendment, US politicians have the free speech right to rant and rave against "birth tourism" as much as they want. They also have the right to advocate in favor of changing the US Constitution to take away US citizenship from the children involved.

    But the Constitution has not been changed and Wong Kim Ark is still the law. The baby is a US citizen and the there is no evidence that the mother did anything illegal by seeking to come here with her newborn child until the baby was well enough to travel home with her.

    This particular method of using anti-Asian prejudice to gain votes (yes, Donald Trump was right about Jeb Bush, though Trump has not exactly been free from appealing to prejudice against Asians himself) can also have destructive consequences on the lives of real people.

    The CBS story states that there is no indication when or even if the mother and child will be reunited. What happens if, for example, this new mother never sees her child again, merely because some American politicians think they can attract anti-Asian votes by attacking the 14th Amendment?

    As Lucretius wrote 2,000 years ago:

    tantum religio potuit suadere malorum ("Myths can lead to so much evil".)

    In this case the myth that there is something wrong or illegal about "birthright tourism" has separated an American baby from his or her mother and an innocent mother from her newborn child. tantum religio potuit suadere malorum indeed.

    The administration should investigate this evident abuse by the CBP and should promptly arrange to bring the mother back to the US so that she can be with her American child until the child is able to return with her to Taiwan.

    *For other examples of how prejudice against Asian immigrants and Asian-Americans is being used in this year's presidential campaign, see Kumar Rao: Why The GOP Is Going to Lose the Asian-American Vote Again...And Why It Matters

    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas, green cards and US citizenship for more than 30 years.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 10-23-2015 at 11:57 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: