ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. Grassley Admits Senate Bill is Not "Amnesty"

    by , 08-28-2013 at 08:49 PM (Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy)
    America's Voice reports

    During a meeting today with constituents in Rock Rapids, Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)—one of the chief opponents of the Senate immigration bill—conceded that the legislation is not amnesty.

    In response to a constituent’s question—“Do you consider the Senate immigration bill amnesty?”—Grassley replied, “I don’t use that word. [The Senate bill] is a little bit different than what we did in 1986. I would call the immigration bill in 1986 amnesty.”

    Grassley went on to explain the flaws in the 1986 bill and its inadequate provisions for border security. In comparison, the Senate bill as written by the Gang of 8 earlier this year contained clauses that required strict border security before legalization could begin. And that was before the Corker-Hoeven amendment was added to the bill, and nearly $40 billion more in funds for immigration enforcement was attached.

    Rock Rapids is located deep in Steve King's congressional district, one of the most conservative parts of Iowa. But even there, 65% of likely voters--King's own constituents--support a pathway to citizenship. While anti-immigrant blowhards like Steve King continue to rail against all immigration reform as "amnesty," Grassley’s insistence that the Senate bill is not that puts him closer to immigration reform supporters like Jeff Flake and John McCain, who said just yesterday that the Senate bill’s

    13-year wait and strict penalties precludes the legislation from being amnesty.
    As Grassley himself said today, “Putting conditions ahead of legalization”—which is what the Senate bill does, via onerous requirements like a 13-year-wait, the payment of back taxes, learning English, and other provisions—“would preempt the use of the word amnesty.”

    Grassley also said that House Republicans do not intend to kill immigration reform, but rather to pass bills that increase border security. With at least 24 House Republicans and 200 House Democrats supporting comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship, advocates this fall will be mobilizing harder than ever to ensure that real immigration reform--one that includes not just border security but a path to citizenship--becomes a reality.

    The link to the video can be found here.
  2. NATIONAL NURSING DATABASE

    by , 08-28-2013 at 08:37 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Chris Musillo

    The National Council of State Boards of Nursing has just launched Nursys. Nursys is a national database for verification of nurse licensure, discipline and practice privileges. There are three Nursys services publicly available via www.nursys.com: Licensure QuickConfirm, Nurse License Verification, and Emergency Responder Service.

    Data is available on Registered Nurses and Licensed Professional Nurses. All 59 NCSBN's (RN and PN) Member Boards share disciplinary data into Nursys and 51 share licensure data.

    Read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com or www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  3. #United4Families: Stopping the Bus

    by , 08-28-2013 at 06:39 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
  4. From African-American Rights to Immigrant Rights in 50 yrs. By Roger Algase

    On this 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's March on Washington and "I Have a Dream" speech, I want to begin by congratulating and applauding Immigration Daily for its August 27 editorial comparing King's fight for equality and freedom from persecution for African-Americans with today's fight for equality and freedom from persecution for immigrants.

    This editorial makes me prouder than ever to be one of the bloggers for this unique and irreplaceable publication.

    As I mentioned in a recent post, my first law office job after graduating from law school was in a small New York civil rights firm where, in 1963, I was working for a partner who was a close advisor to Dr. King.

    As I also mentioned, I played a small role in helping prepare a successful copyright infringement lawsuit based on the "I Have a Dream" speech; in fact I actually prepared the copyright application for the speech for filing.

    The fact that my first law firm job involved civil rights does not make me an authority or expert in the history of the civil rights movement by any means, but it did help to put me in touch with people who were directly involved in the movement and give me a window into the way they were thinking and what they were trying to accomplish.

    Immigration Daily
    is absolutely correct in stating that the civil rights movement, and Dr. King himself, were concerned with the larger issue of human equality, not just redressing specific grievances involving the African-American community, important as they were.

    The essence of the civil rights movement grew out of the fact that black people (the term "African-American" was not yet in wide use at that time) were not considered as full human beings - certainly not in the South, where they were persecuted and humiliated in every possible way, and subject to the constant threat of violence - but in the North as well.

    But Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders never lost sight of the fact that their movement was not only for the rights of black people in the United States, but for persecuted people all over the world.

    Ironically, prejudice against immigrants, while definitely real, was not as big a factor at that time - at least not in my experience growing up in New York and going to college and law school in Cambridge, Massachusetts - for the simple reason that the racist 1924 national origin quotas were still in force and most immigrants - at least on the East Coast, were white. It would be two more years, in 1965, before these quotas were abolished and the demographic sea change in immigration which is still taking place, and which House Republicans are bitterly resisting today by trying to kill CIR, began.

    This is also not to say that prejudice against Asians and Latinos, US citizens and immigrants alike, was nonexistent at that time - far from it.

    But there cannot be the slightest doubt that if Martin Luther King were alive today, he would be speaking out for equality and against persecution of immigrants now. Just as the fight for "integration", i.e. doing away with the racial segregation laws, was at the center of the civil rights movement on August 28, 1963, the fight for immigration, including but not limited to legalization and full citizenship for 11 million immigrants of color, is at the heart of the battle for civil rights - and human rights - today.

    This is not to say that full equality has been obtained for African-Americans by any means today, 50 years after Martin Luther King's speech.

    The struggle for equality and human rights includes African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, GLBT people and all persecuted minorities, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Those who would seek to divide minority group from minority group do not have the interests of any of them at heart.

    The fight for human rights, justice and equality also includes the rights of women, who are, of course, openly persecuted in many parts of the world and are also on the right wing hit list here in America over issues such as abortion, contraception and equal pay. I am also sure that the full story of how women are victimized by this administration's immigration detention and deportation madness has yet to be told.

    In an upcoming post, I will look at some of the worst examples of persecution of immigrants and other minorities in America today: including the targeting of Muslims, the militarization of the Mexican border, the appalling immigration detention system fed by the greed of private prison operators, and, above all, the deportation mill which continues on unabated at the highest rate in our modern history.

    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s work is not yet finished. It has only just begun.

    Updated 08-28-2013 at 11:33 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Manager pleads guilty re: undocumented workers; Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser

    Thomas Gard, a manager of Hallmark Industrial Services Inc., pled guilty in federal district court in August 2013 to harboring 42 undocumented workers, who were engaged in cleanup work on an oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Previously, the owner of Hallmark Industrial, Philip Hallmark, had pleaded guilty to similar crimes. According to Gard’s guilty plea, Hallmark Industrial was contracted by Garner Environmental to clean up a ruptured pipeline that resulted in an oil spill in Kalamazoo. Hallmark Industrial knowingly employed undocumented workers to clean up the oil spill, and fraudulently completed work authorization forms on their behalf. As a part of the conspiracy, the undocumented workers were housed in hotels, provided meals and transported to and from the worksite while they worked to clean the oil spill. Gard admitted he conspired with Hallmark to transport the undocumented workers back from Michigan after a now former U.S. Congressman accused Hallmark Industrial of hiring undocumented workers to clean up the Kalamazoo oil spill. To further the employment of the undocumented workers, Hallmark and Gard paid the undocumented workers in cash. The investigation also revealed the undocumented workers received less than what the contractor paid the company. Both Hallmark and Gard face a maximum of 10 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 fine.This criminal case is just another of numerous instances of managers and/or owners receiving criminal penalties due to immigration-related violations of the law.
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: