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 Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase

    Update: October 31, 12:50 pm:

    The Hill reports that at an October 30 rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Donald Trump made the following statement about Hillary Clinton's immigration policies:

    "[Hillary Clinton] wants to let people just pour in...You could have 650 million people pour in...You triple the size of our country in one week."

    He didn't say what the source of this information was. Perhaps in one of Hillary Clinton's emails which even the FBI has overlooked and which is known only to Donald Trump?


    A Happy Halloween to all Immigration Daily Readers!

    My original post appears below.

    The following comments have been revised as of October 31 at 6:00 am:

    In the light of media speculation over an October 28 FBI letter concerning purported newly discovered emails which, according to the letter, might or might not be related to the FBI's previous investigation of alleged but unproven "national security" lapses involving Hillary Clinton, it is instructive to look at the immigration proposals of the two presidential candidates to see what effect they might have on America's national security.

    What does "national security" mean? It can mean many things, but one thing is axiomatic: America's national security begins with supporting and upholding our Constitution, as was emphasized by 50 Republican former national security officials who publicly expressed doubts about Donald Trump's adherence to or belief in that document in a recent statement. See New York Times, August 8:

    50 G.O.P. Officials warn Trump Would Put Nation's Security 'at Risk'

    I will begin by looking at the alleged national security implications of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals, especially her support of legalization for certain unauthorized immigrants.

    Hillary Clinton's legalization proposals have come under criticism as allegedly favoring "amnesty" and "open borders", and inviting or enabling criminals, drug dealers and terrorists to come into into the United States.

    Typical of this rhetoric is the inflammatory language about the alleged dangers of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals contained in the statement of the unabashedly pro-Trump Border Patrol Union. See:

    Trump himself has also accused Hillary Clinton of being a "co-founder and MVP of ISIS", and (at the October 19 presidential debate) of bringing untold numbers of Syrian refugees into the US who are "definitely ISIS-aligned".

    In his August 31 Phoenix, Arizona speech on immigration, Trump was also quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying about Clinton that:

    "She doesn't know what she's doing except open borders and let everybody come in and destroy our country."

    Allegations such as those quoted above do not need or deserve any further comment.

    Regarding the possible effect of Trump's immigration proposals on America's national security, Trump claims that by engaging in mass deportation of mainly Latino and other nonwhite immigrants on a scale previously unheard of in US history, by building a Wall with Mexico and by banning most, if not all, Muslim immigrants on the basis of either religion (his original proposal), or national origin (his more recent version), he would protect America's national security against a lot of "bad hombres".

    For those who do not know Spanish, I will translate Trump's above words with the Latin term gens invisum, which Virgil uses in Book I of the Aeneid to mean a despised race or nationality.

    But even assuming that banning members of an entire nationality, race or religion (as was done, for example, under the Chinese exclusion laws, and by America's refusal to accept more than a small number of Jewish immigrants who were trying to flee Hitler in the 1930's - the parallel with today's attitudes toward Syrian refugees which I have discussed in previous comments), might keep out some bad people, it is also important to consider the national security issues raised by adopting immigration policies that would tend to undermine the values, or even in some cases, the specific provisions, of the US Constitution mentioned above.

    These are discussed in depth in a July 13 statement by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D Romero as reported in the Washington Post, see:

    ACLU Director: We will defend the constitution against a President Trump

    See also the companion ACLU report:


    Director Romero's statement about the potential danger that Trump's immigration-related proposals could pose to the Constitution, which is the undisputed foundation of America's national security, begins as follows:

    "Donald Trump's proposed policies, if caried out, would trigger a constitutional crisis. By our reckoning, a Trump administration would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth amendments if it tried to implement his most controversial plans."

    Romero then turns specifically to immigration:

    "On immigration policy, there is simply no way a Trump administration could deport more than 11 million within two years of taking office. To achieve such a feat, Trump's deportation machine would have to arrest 15,000 people a day on immigration charges, seven days a week, 365 days a year."

    Romero then discusses the effect of such actions on constitutional rights:

    "The only way to accomplish this would be to shred the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. To carry out such an order, immigration agents would have to engage in suspicionless interrogations and arrests, unjustified traffic stops, warrentless searches of workplaces and homes, and door-to-door raids in immigrant neighborhoods. There can be little doubt that agents would relay on racial profiling and target people of Latino and Hispanic descent disproportionately, violating their right to equal protection of the law regardless of their race or national origin."

    He continues:

    "After rounding up undocumented immigrants...that would inevitably include U.S. citizens by mistake - the Trump administration would run face-first into the due process protections afforded every person inside the United States under the Fifth Amendment. It is inconceivable that 11 million undocumented immigrants could go before a judge in any reasonable amount of time...

    And if Trump keeps them locked up, as he has proposed, he'll deprive these people of their liberty - possibly for years, without due process of law. The Southwest border under Trump's proposals would become a police state."

    At this point, with all due respect to Mr. Romero and the ACLU, I would offer one point of disagreement with his last quoted sentence. There are unauthorized immigrants who have settled in every part of the United States.

    It is not only the Southwest border area that would become a police state in a Trump administration.

    (I am sorry - I am unable to find a working link for the above Washington Post story - please look it up on Google.)

    To be continued in Part 2 of this series.
    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 obtain work permits and green cards, based solely on their qualifications and without regard to their ethnic background or religious affiliation, in accordance with the race-neutral immigration system which America has had in place for the past half century, since 1965, and which may now be in danger as well.

    Roger believes that any attack on the constitutional rights of immigrants puts the freedom and national security of all Americans, including protection against authoritarian governmental power, at risk.

    His email address is

    Updated 10-31-2016 at 01:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs


    by , 10-28-2016 at 08:28 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Maria Schneider

    In a recent decision, USCIS demanded FCCPT issue Type 1 Certificates ONLY to graduates of university programs whose diploma reads “Master’s Degree” and who have at least 202.1 credit hours. Any graduate of a program that is equivalent to a US Master’s Degree will no longer be eligible to enter the US and practice Physical Therapy. In 2017, applicants will need a DPT to obtain a Type 1 Certificate.

    Type 1 Certificate renewals will not be subject to this new ruling. Renewal applications do not examine education, but only licensure and verification of English proficiency. PTs with a current Type 1 can renew the Type 1 Certificate without being subject to the new standard. However, if the Type 1 expires, the PT will have to make a new application and will be subject to the new standard.

    Type 1 Certificates are valid for five years from the date of issue. MU strongly advises PTs to timely renew their Type 1 Certification so that they can continue to maintain their immigration status and their ability to work in the US.

    Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at and You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  3. Stop the Deportation of the Workers in the Buffalo Restaurant Raids

    by , 10-27-2016 at 09:31 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)

    On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) raided several Mexican restaurants in and around the City of Buffalo, detaining at least 25 people connected to the restaurants. This petition requests that DHS exercise discretion in terminating their deportation proceedings.

    Sixteen of the twenty-five individuals arrested have not been charged with any crime. At least four of these workers have been placed in deportation proceedings despite appearing to be the victims – not the perpetrators – of their employer’s criminal scheme. The criminal complaint states that these workers were working 16 hours per day, 6 days per week and being paid as little as $500. This amounts to far less than the minimum wage and no overtime pay.

    DHS claims that it raided these restaurants in part to protect workers from exploitation. In addition, DHS has recognized that effective “enforcement of labor law is essential to ensure proper wages and working conditions for all covered workers regardless of immigration status.” Revised Memorandum of Understanding between the Dept. of Homeland Sec. and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Dec. 7, 2011).

    Consequently, we request that DHS exercise discretion and terminate the deportation proceedings against the workers who were not criminally charged in the raids. DHS has broad prosecutorial discretion to enforce immigration law, and to exercise discretion to terminate deportation proceedings. According to DHS guidance, this is an appropriate circumstance to do so - and as early in deportation proceedings as possible. DHS has ruled that termination of deportation proceedings is appropriate when individuals are victims of certain crimes, or are victims of civil rights and labor violations. Memorandum, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs (June 17, 2011). ICE has made clear that it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible to preserve government resources.

    The arrest and deportation of these low-wage workers is both out of line with the clear enforcement priorities of DHS and a gross misuse of government resources. The individuals arrested during the raids are hardworking members of the community. Their families have been severely impacted by the raids; some of the children of those arrested have been placed into the custody of Child Protective Services. DHS should not target contributing members of the community and their families when they have committed no crimes and are, in fact, the victims of unfair labor practices. Justice can be carried out in this case by terminating these workers' deportation proceedings and allowing the Department of Labor to investigate the allegations of abusive labor practices. We ask that DHS take these steps immediately.

    Click here to sign the petition.
  4. Justice Department to announce significant law enforcement action

    by , 10-27-2016 at 07:49 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    WASHINGTON – Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas and other law enforcement officials will hold a press conference TODAY, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, to announce a significant enforcement action.

    Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Criminal Division
    Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations Executive Associate Director Peter T. Edge
    U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George
    Department of Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth

    Press conference announcing a significant law enforcement action.

    11:00 a.m. EDT

    Department of Justice

    7th Floor Press Conference Room
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530



    NOTE: All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials.
    Media must enter the department at the visitor’s entrance on Constitution Avenue NW between 9th and 10th Streets. Media may begin arriving at 10:00 a.m. EDT and cameras must be pre-set by 10:45 a.m. EDT. Press inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to the Office of Public Affairs at (202) 514-2007 or

    by , 10-26-2016 at 10:00 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Maria Schneider

    Earlier this year in May the USCIS published a proposed rule to increase fees. On October 24, 2016, the final rule was published adjusting the fees for most immigration applications and petitions. The new fees will go into effect on December 23, 2016.

    The new fees are:

    Current Fee
    New Fee

    A full list of all of the new fees can be found on the USCIS website.

    The USCIS is almost entirely funded by the fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The fee increase is the first in the last six years and. The fees will go up an average of 21 percent and will recover the costs associated with fraud detection and prevention and national security.

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