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



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Staffing Company and IER Settle Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law, PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	staffing 2.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	6.6 KB 
ID:	1202

    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the OSC, has reached an agreement with Sellari’s Enterprises, Inc., a staffing company in Orlando, Florida. The settlement agreement resolves an investigation into whether Sellari’s violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating against work-authorized immigrants. The IER concluded Sellari’s requested that non-U.S. citizens present specific documents to prove their work authorization, such as a Permanent Resident Cards or Employment Authorization Documents, while not requesting specific documents from U.S. citizens. All work-authorized individuals, whether citizens or non-citizens, have the right to choose which valid documentation to present to prove they are authorized to work. The anti-discrimination provision of the INA prohibits employers from subjecting employees to different or unnecessary documentary demands based on employees’ citizenship, immigration status or national origin.

    Under the settlement, Sellari’s will pay a civil penalty of $120,000 to the United States, post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s antidiscrimination provision, undergo IER-provided training to HR employees on proper I-9 and E-Verify practices, revise employment policies and practices to be in compliance with the law, and comply with departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.
  2. Horrific Murder of Iranian in UK Shows the Real Reason Why the Supreme Court Must Strike Down Trump's Muslim Ban. Roger Algase

    A horrifying July 7 story in the Washington Post about an Iranian man who was stomped to death and burned four years ago in the UK after repeatedly calling for police protection in vain illustrates the most fundamental reason of all why it is so important for the Supreme Court to strike down Donald Trump's Muslim ban executive order in toto.

    Whatever the alleged "facially legitimate" (see Mandel v. US, 1972) "national security" pretext of the order might be - in this case, barring almost the entire population of six almost 100 per cent Muslim nations from entering the US so that the government can review its immigrant "vetting" procedures "temporarily" (i.e. as long as Trump is president - no rational person could possibly think that the ban order is meant to last for only 90 days), it is clear that the real purpose of the ban is to promote hatred and discrimination against all Muslims, including the estimated 3 or 4 million who are US citizens.

    Where this can lead to is illustrated, not only by the shocking increase in hate crimes against Muslims (or people who may be mistaken for Muslim, such as Sikhs) in the US, but by the appalling story of a disabled Muslim man in the UK who knew that his life was in danger because of repeated threats from his white neighbors, and who called the police over 70 times begging for protection only be have his pleas ignored and to be brutally murdered anyway.

    For the full story, see: Washington Post:

    Stomped to death and burned, a Muslim immigrant's fate offers a tragic lesson in U.K.

    (I do not have a link - please use Google.)

    See also the BBC story,

    One can only hope that the Supreme Court will rise above absurd legal quibbles such as the baseless argument to the effect that the courts cannot look into the real motives for Trump's Muslim ban because his executive order is, allegedly, "facially legitimate and bona fide" according to a non-binding dictum of the Supreme Court in the 1972 visa denial case mentioned above; or the almost comically absurd distinction that Trump's State Department is now making between Muslim grandparents, who are now barred from entering the US, and Muslim step-relations and in-laws, who are permitted, and strike down Trump's entire bad faith and meretricious (from the Latin word meretrix - look it up) Muslim ban order - including every single word of it.

    The current controversy over whether or not Muslim grandparents should be allowed into the US according to the Supreme Court's June 26 order regarding Trump's Muslim ban also has a far more sinister antecedent - namely the German government's obsession between 1933 and 1945 with how many Jewish grandparents a person might have had in order to be eligible for deportation to a concentration camp, extinction in a gas chamber and cremation in an oven. See:

    Jewish Virtual Library: The Nuremberg Laws: Background & Overview

    What starts of as a farce and object of ridicule, in this case Trump's ban on grandparents from the six targeted Muslim countries, can end in tragedy and horror.

    No one can rationally accuse Trump of anti-Semitism or supporting genocide against any group of people. That would, by far, be even more ridiculous and absurd than Trump's Muslim ban order itself.

    But scapegoating any racial or religious group as being dangerous and undesirable, whether as in Trump's March, 2015 interview with CNN when he said "I think Islam hates us", or whether some 80 years ago, in the 1930's, as Joseph Goebbels pronounced: "Die Juden sind unser Unglueck!", can have terrible consequences.

    This is what is really at stake in Donald Trump's Muslim ban executive order that is now before the Supreme Court.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-07-2017 at 08:24 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. US Citizen Sues after Being Detained by ICE

    by , 07-07-2017 at 07:47 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    A U.S. citizen is arguing that his detention pursuant to an ICE immigration detainer violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, violated his substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from false imprisonment, and constituted unlawful imprisonment under Florida law. He has requested compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and any other equitable relief the Court deems just and proper.

    From the Complaint for Damages:

    Miami-Dade County unlawfully arrested and detained Plaintiff Garland Creedle solely for civil immigration purposes, even though Mr. Creedle is a U.S. citizen who cannot be deported. The County voluntarily detained Mr. Creedle at the request of federal immigration authorities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The detention occurred pursuant to a directive from Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez that requires the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (MDCR) to deny release for 48 hours or more to any person who is the subject of a check-the-box immigration detainer request.

    Click here to read the full complaint.
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: