Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
by Chris Musillo
Over the last few weeks many news outlets have been reporting that the minimum salary for an H-1B worker will rise from $60,000 to $130,000. This is false. There is not a minimum floor salary for H-1B workers. There is no proposal to raise that nonexistent floor to $130,000.
There are proposals that seek to raise the minimum salary floor for companies who seek an exemption to the H-1B dependent attestations. This is significantly different than minimum floor salary for H-1B workers.
Companies that employ more than 15% H-1B workers (so-called ďH-1B dependent employersĒ) have to make two attestations for employees who either (i) do not earn $60,000 or (ii) do not hold a US equivalent masterís degree.
Displacement Attestation 20 CFR 655.738: The Displacement Attestation is ensures that U.S. workers are not being terminated or laid off in order to make room for an H-1B worker. H-1B dependent employers who are seeking to employ an H-1B worker who is to earn less than $60,000 (or does not hold a US equivalent masterís degree) must make the Displacement Attestation.
Recruitment Attestation 20 CFR 655.739: The Recruitment Attestation proves that an H-1B employer is attempting to make a good faith effort to recruit U.S. workers. H-1B dependent employers who are seeking to employ an H-1B worker who is to earn less than $60,000 (or does not hold a US equivalent masterís degree) must also make the Recruitment Attestation.
Again, these attestations do not have to be made if the employer offers a salary in excess of $60,000 or if the H-1B worker holds the equivalent of a US masterís degree.
There are two different pieces of proposed legislation that have been introduced into Congress that seek to raise the exemption floor from $60,000. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)ís proposal raises the $60,000 to $100,000. Rep. Zoe Lofgrenís bill proposes that the exemption floor could be raised to $130,000. It is the Lofrgren bill that is the cause of the headlines.
Please read the Musillo Unkenholt Healthcare and Immigration Law Blog at www.musillo.com and www.ilw.com. You can also visit us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.o
Please email your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
A chilling February 25 report in the New York Times should cause great concern, not only in immigrant communities throughout America, but among every American citizen who is concerned about our the preservation of our freedom and the survival of our democracy.
This report describes the "fun" that some immigration enforcement agents now think they are having as a result of their new "freedom" from previous Obama-era restrictions as to which categories of immigrants they are allowed to arrest and deport according the latest DHS immigration enforcement memos. According to the Times:
"Two officials in Washington said that the shift - and the new enthusiasm that has come with it - seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen, or even gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming 'fun.' Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said."
This latest attempt to "rig" the deportation system against 11 million mainly Laitino, Asian, Middle Eastern and black immigrants (to use Trump's favorite word when an election result goes against him) brings back disturbing memories of another police agency which was established more than 80 years ago in Germany with a mandate to carry out its work without restraints of any kind by the courts or administrative bodies. This agency was known in English as the Secret State Police, or in German, Geheime Staatspolizei, more commonly referred to as the Gestapo.
According to the above site, The History Place, the Gestapo was entirely free from legal restrants of any kind:
"On February 10, 1936, the Nazi Reichstag passed the 'Gestapo Law' which included the following paragraph: 'Neither the instructions nor the affairs of the Gestapo will be open to review by the administrative courts.' This meant that the Gestapo was now above the law and there could be no legal appeal from anything it did.
Indeed, the Gestapo became a law unto itself."
The Gestapo agents no doubt thought that their work was "fun", too. As the same site relates:
"The Gestapo prison center in Berlin (the Columbia-Haus) became notorious as a place where pedestrians strolling outside the building could hear screaming coming from inside."
Will we, before long, be hearing stories in America about how ICE agents, or guards employed by the private prison system, which Jeff Sessions' DOJ has now ordered to be revived and expanded,
are having "fun" or being enthused by the cries and tears of anguish and despair of millions of Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern and black immigrants, most of whom are law-abiding, productive members of our society whose only "crime" is not having the right legal documents, being wrenched away from their spouses, children, parents or other close family member or friends to be handcuffed, thrown into prison and held there indefinitely without any hope of release before they are finally expelled from Donald Trump's America?
Attorney at Law
Updated 02-27-2017 at 06:46 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
There are more indications that Trump's central argument to the 9th Circuit and other federal courts when the DOJ tried to uphold his January 27 Muslim travel ban was bogus, in bad faith, and (to use one of Trump's favorite words when he doesn't like an election result) amounted to little more that an attempt to "rig" America's visa and entry system against all Muslim immigrants, not just those from seven named countries, and against refugees from every part of the world.
According to POLITICO (which was among the many news media banned from a February 24 White House press conference because of opposition to Trump), the AP is now reporting that the DHS has drafted a memo (admittedly "incomplete" in its words) refuting Trump's claims that citizens of the seven, (close to 99 percent Muslim) countries pose a special threat of terrorism in the US.
In the words of the POLITICO report:
"A draft [DHS] document obtained by the Associated Press concluded that citizenship is an 'unlikely indicator' of terrorism threats to the US and that few people from the countries that Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the US since Syria's civil war started in 2011."
Go to the above link for the full POLITICO story.
What is the Constitutional remedy when a United States president, allegedly, misrepresents to or acts in bad faith in a federal court about something as vital as America's national security, an issue which Trump's DOJ claimed in front of the 9th Circuit and other federal courts was the sole and essential basis for the travel ban order?
Does not a certain word beginning with the letter "I" come to mind?
Attoerney at Law
Updated 02-27-2017 at 06:41 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Knowing that an alien in the United States who is charged with being deportable has a statutory right to a hearing before an immigration judge and that there is a backlog crisis in our immigration courts, I predictedthat President Donald Trump would not be able to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
Since then, the backlog has gotten even higher. As of the end of January 2017, it was 542,411 cases and the average wait time for a hearing was almost 700 days.
Even if the immigration judges did not receive any additional cases, it would take them more than two-and-a-half years to catch up.
But President Trump has finessed his way around this problem by implementing a little-known expedited removal provision in his executive order (EO), ďBorder Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.Ē The provision is section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Read more at --
Published originally on The Hill.
About the author.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.
Updated 02-24-2017 at 04:41 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs