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

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. "Chain Migration" Was Fine for Trump's and Miller's European Ancestors. Why is it so "Horrible" for Non-European Immigrants Now? Roger Algase

    On December 29, 2017, Donald Trump tweeted that he would get rid of "horrible" "Chain Migration" i.e. immigration by parents and siblings of US citizens, and he has made that demand a non-negotiable cornerstone of DACA related negotiations at all times since.

    But Philip Bump points out in the January 29 Washington Post that Trump would not be here at all, let alone the president of the United States, if it were not for the very same "Chain Migration" on both sides of his family that he now condemns so strongly.

    See:

    How 'chain migration' brought us the Trump White House

    (Direct link is available by going to:

    https://www.sbanews.info/2018/01/29/...p-white-house/

    and clicking the washingtonpost.com link provided on that page.)

    As Bump explains, Donald Trump's grandfather came to America from Germany to join his sister in the US, and Trump's mother came here from Scotland to join her sister.

    And it was not only Trump's ancestors who made today's White House possible through family immigration. Bump also reports that Vice-President Mike Pence's maternal grandfather came to America to join his brother, who had himself immigrated a few years earlier to join his aunt. Pence's grandmother's parents were also immigrants from Ireland.

    Bump's article also relates that the great-great grandfather of Stephen Miller, who is widely considered to be responsible for formulating and drafting many of Trump's proposals to sharply reduce immigration from outside Europe, immigrated to America from Belarus to join his brother-in-law.

    So far as is reported, none of these immigrants had the advanced education, special skills or high salaries that would be required to qualify them today under the RAISE Act which Trump and Miller so strongly support. Nor is there any reason to assume that Trump's German grandfather or Miller's Russian-Jewish ancestor had the level of English language proficiency that the RAISE Act would require today. Most immigrants at that time from continental Europe did not, and daily newspapers in German, Yiddish, Italian and other European languages were just as common on the newsstands then as Spanish, Korean and Chinese ones are now.

    What has changed since the time that these White House ancestors came to the US in the late nineteenth or early 20th centuries without any special skills or education, and America today? Was there such a shortage of unskilled workers in America then that America needed to import unskilled, uneducated people from Europe?

    Not according to any history book that I have ever seen. Or, maybe America did need some unskilled, uneducated workers, in those days. But, we can quite be sure, America did not "need" these workers unless they were white. That was the message of the late 19th and early 20th century Chinese exclusion laws.

    The reason why "Chain Migration" was accepted then and is under such ferocious attack by the president and his advisers now is clear. In those days most the immigrants who came to America because of family connections were primarily white Europeans.

    Today they are not. That is the difference.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com







    To be continued.

    Updated 02-05-2018 at 12:30 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. IER Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against CVS subsidiary

    By: Bruce Buchanan Law PLLC

    The Justice Department, through Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the OSC, has reached a settlement with Omnicare Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, resolving the IER’s investigation into whether the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    The investigation, which was initiated in response to a worker’s complaint, revealed Omnicare engaged in citizenship status discrimination against a work-authorized job applicant by refusing to refer him to the hiring manager for an interview because he was not a permanent resident or U.S. citizen, and removing him from the candidate pool based on his status as an asylee. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from discriminating against asylees because of their citizenship or immigration status, unless authorized by law to do so.

    Under the settlement agreement, Omnicare will pay $3,621, the maximum civil penalty for a single instance of citizenship status discrimination; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; have its staff and its contractors undergo department-provided training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; evaluate all employment applicants in a non-discriminatory manner; and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for two years.

    This settlement demonstrates the need for employers, big and small, to be aware of the law as it relates to citizenship status for asylees and other applicants. To learn more about employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379

    Updated 01-30-2018 at 12:00 PM by BBuchanan

  3. H-1 CAP 2018: USCIS UPDATE

    by , 01-29-2018 at 10:57 AM (Chris Musillo on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration)
    by Maria Schneider

    The American Immigration Lawyers Association recently confirmed with the USICS Service Center Operations Directorate that the USCIS is not anticipating any procedural changes to the H-1B cap for the coming April 2018 filing season. The USCIS confirmed they intend to follow the same procedure using for April 2017 filings this year and will not require any type of pre-registration for H-1Bs filings.

    In addition, the USCIS confirmed that they do not anticipate premium processing will be suspended for non-cap H-1B petitions, including H-1B transfers, amendments, or extensions. However, there may be a brief moratorium on premium processing for H-1B cap petitions filed in April 2018.

    Musillo Unkenholt is hosting an H-1B Cap Webinar on January 31. We will be discussing a variety of immigration issues, including present and forthcoming Trump administration policy changes.

    To register, please visit: https://app.livestorm.co/musillo-unk...ap-season-2018


    ___________

    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, Twitterand LinknedIn.
  4. Sources Shared on Twitter: A Case Study on Immigration

    by , 01-29-2018 at 10:40 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Media contact: Hannah Klein, 202-419-4372, hklein@pewresearch.org



    Sources Shared on Twitter: A Case Study on Immigration
    An analysis of 9.7 million tweets reveals news organizations played the largest role in which content was linked to compared with other information providers

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 29, 2018) – As news organizations battle charges of “fake news,” compete with alternate sources of information, and face low levels of trust from a skeptical public, a new Pew Research Center study suggests that news outlets still play the largest role in content that gets shared on Twitter, at least when it comes to one contentious issue in the news: immigration.

    Approximately one year after President Trump signed an executive order that restricted entry to the U.S. by people from certain countries, the analysis, which aims to better understand the types of information sources that users of one popular social media platform might encounter about a major national policy issue, finds that news organizations played a far larger role than other types of content providers, such as commentary or government sites.

    Researchers identified all English-language tweets on the topic of immigration during the first month of the Trump administration, Jan. 20 – Feb. 20, 2017, that included at least one external link. Any site that was linked to at least 750 times during this period was included in the study. This resulted in 9.7 million tweets that contained links to 1,030 sites.

    Roughly four-in-ten (42%) of these sites were legacy and digital-native news organizations, defined in this study as News Organizations, entities that showed evidence of original reporting in their most prominent articles. Legacy news organizations accounted for twice as many sites as digital-native news organizations: 28% of all sites compared with 14%. The prominent role news organizations played in discussions about immigration on Twitter is underscored by the frequency with which these sites were shared: fully 75% of the tweets analyzed in this study contained links to them.

    The study also finds little clear evidence that “fake news” sites were a major factor in the information stream on Twitter around immigration. Although verifying the accuracy of all reporting was beyond the scope of this study, researchers found that few of the 1,030 sites had attributes associated with sites that create “made-up” political content. Overall, only 18 sites – just 2% of all sites included in this study – were found on at least one of three widely circulated “fake news” lists created by external organizations. Additionally, the majority (94%) of News Organizations sites were established before 2015, suggesting they were not created solely for influence during the 2016 election.

    “While the study does not directly address the broader question of fake news entities’ influence on the public, or examine who is sharing what types of sites, it does shed light on the degree to which consumers are exposed to different types of information providers on a policy issue debated in the news,” said Director of Journalism Research Amy Mitchell.

    In addition to News Organizations, another roughly three-in-ten sites (29%) linked to during this time wereOther Information Providers, which focus on current events and public affairs, such as nonprofit/advocacy organizations, digital-native commentary/blog sites or government sites.

    To get a sense of the degree to which the most linked-to content providers outwardly specified an ideological orientation, researchers analyzed the “about” pages on the official websites and social media profiles of sites in the News Organizations and Other Information Providers categories. Just 14% of these sites clearly specified a conservative or liberal ideological orientation. Sites were about equally as likely to specify their ideology to be conservative (9%) as liberal (5%).

    Even fewer sites stated that their mission is to produce news and information not being covered by traditional media or politicians – which researchers coded as “anti-establishment orientation.” Only 8% of News Organizations and Other Information Providers sites declared an anti-establishment orientation. Digital-native news organizations (14%) were about three times more likely to use anti-establishment language than legacy news sites (4%). Digital-native commentary/blog sites, at 19%, were the most common of all sites to declare an anti-establishment orientation.

    Read the report: http://www.journalism.org/2018/01/29...n-immigration/

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Hannah Klein at hklein@pewresearch.org or202-419-4372.

    Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. Subscribe to our daily and weekly email newsletters or follow us on ourFact Tank blog.
  5. Letters of the Week: January 29 - February 04

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: