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. OSC Settles with Staffing Company Who Required U.S. Birth Certificate

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	At Work.png 
Views:	71 
Size:	19.2 KB 
ID:	1119

    The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) reached a settlement agreement with Cumberland Staffing Inc., doing business as AtWork Cumberland Staffing (ACS), a temporary staffing agency located in Cookeville, Tennessee, to resolve an allegation that ACS engaged in citizenship discrimination by requiring a U.S. birth certificate in order to be considered for employment. This requirement discriminated against work-authorized immigrants and naturalized U.S. citizens in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    The OSC initiated its investigation after a Tennessee resident notified it of an ACS job posting that included a U.S. birth certificate requirement. The investigation found that between December 2015 and February 2016, ACS created and published a job posting stating that applicants for machine operator positions at a client company must present a U.S. birth certificate. The discriminatory posting was published on several job search engine websites during this time period.

    In the absence of a legal basis to do so, such as a law, regulation or government contract that requires U.S. citizenship restrictions, employers, recruiters and referrers for a fee may not limit job opportunities or otherwise impose barriers to obtaining employment based on an individual’s citizenship, immigration status or national origin. By requiring a U.S. birth certificate – a document that only non-naturalized U.S. citizens possess – to be considered for an employment opportunity, ACS’s job posting created a discriminatory barrier for work-authorized individuals, such as naturalized U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, asylees and refugees.

    Under the settlement agreement, ACS will pay a civil penalty of $1,200, remove all specific document requirements from its job postings except where required by law, train staff on proper employment verification and reverification procedures, including attendance at a OSC webinar on anti-discrimination, and ensure that trained staff or legal counsel review future job advertisements.
    The takeaway from this settlement is do not require certain documentation, such as a U.S. birth certificate, that will discriminate against other work-authorized indiduals
  2. Former Mexican President Calls Trump a False Prophet

    by , 09-13-2016 at 10:38 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)

    File this in the 'for what it's worth' category.

    Via The Washington Post:

    Former Mexican president Vicente Fox said Donald Trump is "a false prophet" in the model of 20th-century Latin American dictators and charged that the Republican presidential nominee was a messianic figure trying to dupe U.S. voters by playing to their fears and worst instincts.

    "Wake up, America!" Fox implored repeatedly in a wide-ranging interview Monday at The Washington Post's headquarters. "I want to warn people here in the United States to watch out for this false prophet that promised gold, that promised paradise, that promised everything."

    Updated 09-13-2016 at 10:43 AM by MKolken

  3. Immigrant Mother and Son Both Celebrate Birthdays in Deportation Jail

    by , 09-13-2016 at 09:44 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via immigration lawyer Carol Anne Mauer Donohoe:

    SEND A BIRTHDAY MESSAGE: Today an unbelievably courageous and strong young mother turns 23 years old in detention. She and her 6 year old son have been held in detention now for 380 days and counting. Her son already had a birthday in detention. With no party, no piñata, no photos to commemorate entering into his 6th year. Only a birthday cake that could only be bought through the county for which they charged Karen $70.00.

    Because she is vocal, the government labeled Karen 'disruptive' and took the unprecedented step of trying to transfer her and her son to yet another detention center in Karnes, TX in order to isolate them. Thankfully, the judge denied that request.

    I have set up an email account for those who want to send Karen Happy Birthday messages. It is Oh and it can be in English or Spanish because she has learned English too.

    Please let her know you are thinking of her and that you will be vocal in demanding that she, her son, and all of the other Madres Berks get released and no one has to spend another birthday in prison!
    Tags: detention, karnes Add / Edit Tags
  4. Is Hillary Clinton Really Responsible For Enacting or Supporting IIRIRA? Roger Algase

    In his September 12 Immigration Daily blogging post, Attorney Nolan Rappaport, a distinguished immigration law expert and former Congressional immigrant staffer who was active in the subsequent effort to remedy some of the harsher and more draconian anti-immigrant provisions of the 1996 Republican - originated immigration law IIRIRA (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act), tries to connect Hillary Clinton with that statute on the basis of the fact that it was signed by her husband, then president Bill Clinton.

    In his comment posted in response to someone else's comment on his post, Nolan goes ever further in trying to tie both Clinton's to approval of, if not endorsement of a bill which Nolan himself accurately calls a one-sided Republican immigration law in the same article.

    Specifically, quotes statements by both Bill Clinton and his chief of staff, Leon Panetta, as signifying approval of the immigration enforcement aspects of the bill. In his comment on his own article, he then elaborates as follows

    "Hillary talks about Trump breaking up American families by deporting undocumented aliens, but I don't hear her talking about families being broken up by aggravated felony removals for offenses that weren't aggravated felonies when they were committed. " [an obvious reference to one of the harshest and most unfair immigration enforcement provision of IIRIRA]

    In the same comment on his own article, Nolan also writes:

    "Isn't it interesting that Bill Clinton signed the bill that had IIRIRA in it? Apparently he liked the Republicans' get tough on illegal immigration approach. If he expressed the same opinion today, he would be called a bigot, a racist, and who knows what else."

    The obvious implications are that a) Bill Clinton signed IIRIRA voluntarily because he agreed with this harsh Republican immigrant bill;, and, b) Hillary Clinton, whose husband signed this law 20 years ago, is allegedly reluctant to criticize one of its worst and most notorious provisions, namely that making deportation mandatory for lawful permanent residents who have, even before the law was enacted (think ex post facto) committed "aggravated felonies" (a term which can also include relatively minor misdemeanors in certain instances).

    Nolan must be given credit for his ingenuity in devising an attack on Hillary Clinton's alleged immigration policies from the left for what he suggests is her implied support for IIRIRA, signed by her husband 20 years ago, or at least her alleged reluctance to criticize one ot is worst and most draconian provisions. But there us only one problem with Nolan's thesis:

    His above suggestions are not supported either by the history of how IIRIRA came to be enacted into law, or by anything that Hillary Clinton has said or proposed.

    To begin with the obvious, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton, who was First Lady in 1996 and had not yet begun her own political career, had anything whatsoever to do with the enactment of IIRIRA. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has she ever done or said anything which could possibly be interpreted as indicating support for IIRIRA's notorious "aggravated felony" mandatory removal provision.

    Her only possible connection to IIRIRA as that she was married to the president who signed it.

    Therefore, we have to look at the question whether Bill Clinton signed IIRIRA because he really thought it was a good bill, or whether he did so because he had no choice - that IIRIRA was, in effect, a Republican gun pointed at his head, in the form of a rider attached to an omnibus government appropriations bill with important funding for government agencies, anti-terrorist, anti-crime, pro-education and other essential government activities that were not directly related to immigration policy and had nothing to do with IIRIRA.

    As Nolan points out in his article, IIRIRA was part of a larger bill. Indeed it was part of a much larger bill - one that was virtually veto-proof, reaching President Clinton's desk just a little over a month before the 1996 presidential election.

    For a fuller description of the many other, non-immigration related issues covered in this large appropriations bill, vetoing which might even, conceivably, have led to a partial government shutdown just befrore the election, see the statement of Bill Clinton's Chiof Staff, Leon Panetta:

    Yes, Bill Clinton and Leon Panetta may have tried to put a favorable gloss on some of the enforcement provisions of IIRIRA, while at the same time taking credit for weakening or watering down the bill.

    But did Bill Clinton sign IIRIRA because he enthusiastically supported it, as Nolan suggests? Or was it because Hillary's husband had little or no choice but to sign it?
    Roger Algase is New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skillied and professional immigrants obrain work visas and green cards.Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-14-2016 at 11:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. CBP Family Unit and Unaccompanied Children Apprehension Stats For 2016

    by , 09-12-2016 at 03:33 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)

    Via Customs and Border Protection:

    Overall apprehensions by the Border Patrol in August along our southwest border – which include apprehensions of single adults, unaccompanied minors, and family units -- increased somewhat from the previous month. For the year to-date, overall apprehensions continue to be somewhat higher than in Fiscal Year 2015, but lower than FY 2014 and FY 2013.

    The Department of Homeland Security and its federal government partners continue to closely monitor current migration trends and are working aggressively to address underlying cases and deter unauthorized migration, while ensuring that those with legitimate humanitarian claims are afforded the opportunity to seek protection.

    DHS and its components continue to enforce U.S. immigration laws and to do so consistent with our enforcement priorities, which were revised as part of the President’s executive actions in November 2014. These priorities more sharply focus our limited enforcement resources on public safety and border security.
    We also recognize the need to provide a safe, alternative path to our country for individuals in need of humanitarian protection. Recently, the Government of Costa Rica announced its agreement to enter into a protection transfer arrangement with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration to help address this regional migration challenge. For cases not requiring immediate transfer to Costa Rica, the U.S. is establishing an in-country referral program in countries of origin including Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. This will enable vulnerable residents in the region to be considered for refugee protection in the United States after being screened and interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officers. The U.S. Government has also announced expansion of the categories of individuals eligible for participation in the Central American Minors program, when accompanied by a qualified child. Further information is available here.

    While we believe this expanded capacity for refugee processing is an important step, we recognize the ultimate solution to the humanitarian situation in Central America is long-term investment to address the underlying conditions there. We continue to work closely with our federal partners and the governments in the region, and we are pleased with the $750 million in support Congress provided this year in aid to Central America.

    Click here for more information.
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: