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. ICEís Inspection Costs Bakery 800 Employees in its Workforce

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cloverhill Logo.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	3.4 KB 
ID:	1241

    As I have discussing in this blog, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is ramping up it worksite enforcement activities. Recently, after ICE issued a Notice of Inspection (NOI) and Notice of Suspect Documents to an unnamed staffing company for Cloverhill Bakery of Chicago, Illinois, approximately 800 employees were terminated or quit due to being undocumented workers.

    Cloverhill Bakery, a part of the Swiss-based international company, Aryzta AG, lost about 35% of its workforce due to the staffing companyís employees being undocumented. As one can imagine, losing 35% of your workforce has made it difficult to meet production of products for its customers, fast-food chains and supermarkets.

    Although press reports referred to ICEís action as a raid, it was not such; rather it was an inspection of the staffing companyís employeesí I-9 forms. The inspection of the I-9 forms is accomplished by the delivery of a NOI/subpoena by ICE agents.

    The NOI was issued earlier in 2017 and caused one of the largest groups of employees to lose their jobs due to lack of work authorization in 2017. Since the NOI occurred earlier this year, ICE did not take any actions to detain the 800 undocumented workers. Recently, ICE announced that it planned to detain undocumented workers found at employersí facilities.

    If you are worried that your company is going to be the next ICE target, I recommend you get prepared now. The best way is to have an immigration attorney, well-versed in I-9 forms and worksite enforcement, conduct an internal I-9 audit. Alternatively, if you want to get a better understanding of immigration compliance for employers, I recommend you read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at
  2. SCOTUS Allows Full Travel Ban to go into Effect During Appeals Process

    by , 12-05-2017 at 06:16 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    It was a 7-2 decision. The two predictably are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by Barack Obama, surprisingly sided with the majority.

    Via SCOTUS Blog:

    In two brief orders (available here and here), the court permitted the Trump administration to enforce the September 24 order while the courts of appeals consider the governmentís appeals and, if necessary, during review in the Supreme Court. In doing so, the justices went further than they had in June, when they carved out the same kind of exception to the March 6 order that the lower courts imposed in this case Ė for travelers who can claim a relationship with the United States. In its most recent filings, the Trump administration had argued that the September 24 order is different from its predecessors not only because of the ďextensive worldwide review processĒ that led to its creation, but also because it applies to countries where Muslims are not a majority, while removing some majority-Muslim countries from earlier lists. Although the challenges are still in a preliminary stage of litigation, todayís orders nonetheless bode well for the Trump administration by suggesting that its arguments may have gained some traction on the court.

    Click here for the full SCOTUS Blog post.

    Updated 12-05-2017 at 10:00 AM by MKolken

  3. Supreme Court Ignores Trump's Islamophobic Tweets, Upholds Latest Muslim Ban and Moves US Back Toward 1924 "National Origins" Exclusion. Roger Algase

    Update, December 5 at 6:26 am:

    The Guardian newspaper quotes the Center for Constitutional Rights as issuing the following statement about the Supreme Court's December 4 decision to allow the full latest version of Trump's Muslim ban executive order to take effect pending that Court's final decision on the merits of the ban, while completely ignoring the president's retweets of anti-Muslim hate videos by a right wing UK extremist to Trump's 43 million Twitter followers; even though disseminating the videos showed beyond any possible dispute what Trump's real reason for the ban orders has been right from the start:

    "We will not allow this to become the new normal...Whatever the courts say, the Muslim ban is inhumane and discriminatory. We must continue to demonstrate that we reject and will continue to resist the politics of fear, anti-Muslim racism, and white supremacy."

    My original comment follows:

    In my two recent comments in reaction to Trump's horrifying retweets of anti-Muslim hate videos originally posted by a woman with a record of right wing extremism and Islamophobia in the UK, I contended (on November 29) that Donald Trump had demolished whatever claims to good faith national security reasons he might ever have had in issuing the various versions of his Muslim entry ban orders.

    I also argued that, in the light of these vicious presidential tweets, which brought back disturbing memories of the subsequently executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher's attempts to label all Jews as dangerous criminals in his infamous Der Stuermer publication, the Supreme Court should immediate reopen the Muslim ban litigation and strike down every word of the latest version of Trump's executive order on this topic from beginning to end.

    In a follow-up comment, posted on November 30, i also presented extracts from the ACLU's comment on the same issue. This comment also argued that Trump had irretrievably undermined his legal argument to the effect that the various Muslim ban executive orders were allegedly justified by genuine national security considerations by retweeting the hate videos to his 43 million Twitter followers.

    However, on December 4, the Supreme Court did the exact opposite of what I had urged and what the ACLU had also indicated was the correct legal approach. Instead, in a 7-2 decision, with only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting, the High Court upheld the latest version of the Muslim ban, without any exceptions or limitations, for the duration of the federal court litigation on the ban.

    This will, by the terms of the decision, last until the Supreme Court itself issues a final disposition, either by refusing to grant certiorari after the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts render their final decisions (which of course is extremely unlikely), or by granting certiorari from one or both of these anticipated decisons and issuing a final judgment (almost inevitable).

    While, ostensibly, this latest Supreme Court decision is not on the merits, and is only pendente lite, legal experts were quick to point out that the Court was very likely tipping its hand about how it is likely to rule on the merits of the entry ban executive order. For links to the two identical orders, each one relating to a different lower court case, see Scotus Blog at:

    For CNN's news story on the Supreme Court decision in the light of Trump's retweet of the UK ultra-nationalist anti-Muslim hate videos, see:

    In these two brief unsigned one-page decisions, without any written explanations, either for the majority decision or the dissent by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, the Supreme Court has, very arguably, struck a blow against the integrity and independence of the entire federal court system. It did so by appearing to take at face value a purported "national security" justification for the latest Muslim ban order which Trump, in his latest tweets of the despicably vile videos indended to label all Muslims as violent criminals, has now himself demolished as a total sham, if not an attempted fraud upon the court.

    But the Supeme Court has done more that merely making a decision potentially affecting the human rights of millions of people in the six affected Muslim countries (since adding two non-Muslim countries to the latest version of the ban order was never anything more than cynical window dressing that no one took seriously), and the constitutional rights of 2 or 3 million Muslim American citizens to have their religion treated on an equal basis with all others and not made into an object of scorn and contempt.

    This latest decision also goes a long way to sanction banning entire populations from entering the United States purely based on their citizenship or national origin, in a throwback to the openly bigoted 1924 immigration act which banned almost all Jews, Catholics, Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans, as well as Southern and Eastern Europeans, from immigrating to the United States on racial and religious grounds, using national origins as a transparent excuse.

    In the December 4 decision, therefore, in addition to striking a blow against the equal rights and status in our society of American Muslim citizens, and bolstering the claims of a president with pronounced authoritarian tendencies to dictatorial (or imperial) control over the entry by non-citizens to the United States, the Supreme Court has now taken a major step to resurrecting the practice of legitimizing bigotry on the basis of national origin, in a throwback to the discredited ideology of racial and religious prejudices of a century and more ago.

    2,000 years ago, a young 1st century A.D. Roman poet, Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (Lucan), writing about the murderous civil wars of the previous century in his epic poem De Bello Civile (before he himself was murdered by Nero, one of the worst tyrants the world has ever known), penned the immortal words: iusque datum sceleri canimus ("I sing of legality bestowed on infamy.") Nothing could better describe the attempts to legitimize the obvious bigotry which, as Donald Trump has made clear again and again, in every possible way, forms the basis of his Muslim entry ban orders, including the one which the Supreme Court has just upheld.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-05-2017 at 01:00 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Letters of the Week: December 4 - December 10


    by , 12-04-2017 at 12:28 PM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    The latest 2017 NCLEX statistics show that foreign-trained nurses are taking and passing NCLEX at the highest rates since the peak years of 2006-2007. Almost 10,000 foreign-trained nurses have taken and passed the NCLEX in 2017. US NCLEX pass numbers have been ticking upward since 2014, although at a much smaller rate than foreign-trained nurses

    These numbers are considerably lower than the peak years of last decade. In 2006, 20,907 internationally educated RNs passed the NCLEX exam. In 2007, the volume jumped; 22,827 internationally educated nurses passed the NCLEX exam. With the onset of retrogression, 2008 saw a slight decline; 18,905 internationally educated RNs passed the exam.


    Note that the 2017 statistics are MU Law generated estimates. The 2017 results will not be published until January.

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at and You can also visit us on Facebook, Twitter and LinknedIn.
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: