Since Immigration Daily's inception, we have elected to follow widely
followed custom in the print publishing field regarding letters to the
Editor. That includes permitting anonymous letters, provided we know the
who the writer is. When we receive an email with an email address, we
obviously have some information about the writer. However, if the letter is
unsigned, we treat that as an anonymous letter, even if we know from the
writer's email address who the writer is. Another reason we do not publish
email addresses is because that protects our correspondents from spammers.
Still another reason is that many of our correspondents would not want to
reveal their email addresses, even when they identify themselves. Yet
another reason is that some of our correspondents elect to use pen-names or
pseudonyms, so we protect their identity in revealing only such name as
they use in signing their letters to us. As we have explained before, the use of
pseudonyms and anonymous letters is a well-established and honored
tradition in American history - indeed the Federalist Papers were largely
published with pseudonyms without identifying Madison, Hamilton and Jay as
the authors. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are not
able to check with each correspondent whether they wish their name revealed
or not. We simply follow what, if anything, is used in the letter itself.
We remain convinced that communication through this new electronic medium
will have a different nature than what has gone before. Indeed, when the
telephone was first used in the late 1800s, there were complaints from many
that the telephonic medium would be misused by the public - folks would
chit-chat uselessly instead of calling up City Hall to find out the Mayor's
views on the state of civic virtues. However, we realize that some of our
readers are not interested in the letters to the Editor section - which is
why that section appears at the bottom of Immigration Daily. Read or
ignore, as you wish.
200,000 Attorney Searches per Year!
Approximately 200,000 searches are made each year for immigration attorneys on ILW.COM. That's almost 400 searches per year per attorney listed in our lawyer directory. Which means that if you are listed with ILW.COM, then your listing will be searched once each day throughout the year. You need only one client a year to make a profit on your listing! For a personal discussion on listing your practice in our directory, please send an e-mail with your phone number to email@example.com. Alternatively, if you prefer to list yourself on-line, please click here: http://www.ilw.com/membership/.
The Sting of Betrayal
Jose Latour writes about the more sinister aspect of special registrants and what's been happening in the US.
Keep on top of the latest in immigration law! Attend ILW.COM seminars! You can attend ILW.COM phone seminars from the convenience of your office! For more info on the seminars currently available, please click here: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/
Immigration Law News
EOIR Issues Barahona-Gomez Settlement Agreement
The Executive Office of Immigration Review of the Department of Justice issued the settlement agreement for the Barahona-Gomez class action litigation, along with supporting statements, A-D. Exhibit A, is the advisory statement, and Exhibits B-D, provide notification of: eligibility for relief for those whose cases are pending before the Immigration Court, determination of non-eligibility for relief, and eligibility for relief for those whose cases have been remanded to the Immigration Court, respectively.
NACARA Relief Not Available To Yugoslav Asylum Petitioner
In Useinovic v. INS, No. 01-3339 (7th Cir. Dec. 27, 2002), the court said Petitioner, a Yugoslavian national who previously applied for asylum and was denied and is now seeking relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) has pursued this remedy at the wrong time and in the wrong place since Petitioner never filed a motion to reopen his deportation proceedings seeking NACARA relief and even had he raised the NACARA relief issue earlier in the administrative proceedings, he still would have failed to meet NACARA's deadlines.
Representation By Canadian Attorney Does Not Constitute Denial Of Due Process
In Robles v. INS, No. 01-2323 (1st Cir. Dec. 31, 2002), the court said that Petitioner was not denied due process before the Board of Immigration Appeals where he was represented by a Canadian attorney not licensed in the US because he failed to show how his case would have been decided differently if someone other than his Canadian attorney had represented him at the hearing and because he did not proffer any additional testimony or documentary evidence that would have been presented to the Immigration Judge had a US licensed attorney participated in the hearing.
Refusal To Downward Depart Is District Court's Discretion
In US v. Saenz, No. 02-2482 (8th Cir. Dec. 30, 2002), the court said that the district court's decision in denying downward departure to the Defendant was unreviewable because the district court's refusal to depart was discretionary.
Mass Indiscriminate Detentions Must Stop
An opinion column in the San Jose Mercury News says "Mass, indiscriminate
detentions must stop. They tar our democracy's image in the world. They are
an affront to American justice"
Deportation Laws Need To Be Rethought
An opinion column in the Washington Post asks "Would we deport Winona Ryder
Attorney listings on ILW.COM are searched 200,000 times/year! Each attorney listed is searched an average of once each day! Just one new client will pay for the entire year's fee! Click here for more info: http://www.ilw.com/membership/
We carry advertisements for Help Wanted: Attorney, Help Wanted: Paralegal, Help Wanted: Other, Positions Sought, Products & Services Offered, etc.
For information on advertising in the classifieds please click here
For a listing of current immigration events please click here
For services/products of use in your law practice please click here
Letters to the Editor
The proposal in your Dec. 23 editorial is just
wrong-headed or at least not well thought out. In my
opinion, Section 214(b) has little or nothing to do
with the national security inquiry. These two
inquiries are largely independent of each other when
consular officers adjudicate nonimmigrant visa
applications. The first inquiry is to ensure that no
applicant is a terrorist. This focuses on background
checks, law enforcement info, etc. This is not "made
impossible by 214(b)", as you contend. It must be
done even if the person is applying for an immigrant
visa or any other type of status to come to the U.S.
The second inquiry is the one under 214(b), that no
one who applies for a nonimmigrant visa has immigrant
intent. Getting rid of section 214(b), as you
advocate, means that the first inquiry is done but the
second one is not. This has the effect of throwing
out the whole nonimmigrant visa system. Applicants
would then be issued nonimmigrant visas even if they
flatly admit they have the immigrant intent to remain
in the US (except for dual-intent visas). The whole
system would be a charade. These non-immigrant visa
holders would then be perfectly free to circumvent the
normal immigrant visa channels. If you are advocating
that the whole nonimmigrant visa system be revised or
abolished, that's another thing, but you're not.
Also, your statement that "single young men with no
visible means of support are the bedrock of
immigration to America" sounds good but is misleading.
Single young men who are true "immigrants" may be the
bedrock of immigration, but not young men who apply
for non-immigrant visas, as the 15 of the 19 hijackers
from Saudi Arabia. If they want to be here in the US
on temporary status, i.e., non-immigrant status, then
by definition they are not interested in immigrating
to the US, at least not at the time of the visa
application. Therefore, they cannot be the bedrock of
immigration. Sens. Kyl and Roberts are correct.
Non-immigrant visas should probably have been denied
to these hijackers who probably didn't meet the
criteria to overcome immigrant intent anyway under
214(b). The alternative to come into the US for
these guys would have been to go through the regular
immigrant visa channel of family or employment
petition or claim political asylum. But we all know
would-be terrorists won't do this because it's too
slow and backlogged. They won't be in this country
quickly enough to carry out their attacks. They don't
have the patience to wait for priority numbers like
regular folks who have the decency to play by the
rules. I don't see you speak up for young single Thai
and Filipino women who are routinely denied tourist
visas because their lack of wealth or visible means of
support in their countries show that they have
immigrant intent. Finally, what about single young
women immigrants. Aren't they also bedrock of
immigration to America, if not more than young men?
Liem Doan, Esq.
Another discussion concerning the nurse shortage. This time on 60 Minutes. If the anti-immigration legislation creating the Visa Screen Certificate requirement is abolished, and I-140's for TN visa holders could be premium processed, there would be an influx of Canadian nurses . Prior to the passing of the bill (which took 18 months to implement) Canadian nurses arrived here in droves using the TN visa without the complication of H-1B's and "professionalism".
I am one of those whose recent letter was published anonymously--not because I wished it to be so, but because I forgot to sign it in the heat of the moment and the Editor elected not to e-mail me asking what I wanted my signature to be. Anonymity in my case was thus an editorial decision.
Regarding Dr. Baer's comment on the "anonymous" letter, asking where I got the figure of 13 states accepting Mexico's consular ID--from the horse's mouth, i.e. President Fox's statement as reported in the US press.
And yes, I almost forgot to sign this one.
Editor's Note: Please see today's Editor's Comments.
An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice.
Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a
qualified attorney. Send Correspondence and articles to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. Opinions expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.