Labor Certification For Family Immigrants
Recent reports from Capitol Hill indicate that Congress is poised to take
action on H1s, Ls, and even something called the DREAM Act. Immigration
advocates on both sides (pro and anti) are busy lobbying Congress on
these issues. In the meanwhile, not much movement appears to be happening
on either Sen. Cornyn's bill or Rep. Kolbe's bill. Both these measures have
the merit of at least attempting to tackle the unpleasant fact that we have
millions of undocumented aliens in the country. The problem is plain for
all to see. The facts are that millions of people across the world wish to
work in the US, and there is work aplenty for them here. In fact, without
massive, large-scale immigration, our economy would face a serious crisis.
Unfortunately, our immigration laws do not facilitate such immigration, in
fact, they actively hinder it. This is because our immigration system admits many TIMES more family immigrants than employment immigrants. And that creates a not-so-obvious problem. In order to re-structure our
immigration system around employment-based immigration, something is going
to have to give, particulary in the give-and-take that would be essential
to get such a fundamental restructuring through Congress. That something is
clearly family immigration. In order for employment based immigration to
take its rightful place in our immigration scheme, family immigration will
have to take its rightful place, which is a very small one indeed (nuclear
families excepted). Most of the hinderances heaped on immigration in the
name of protection for American workers are on the employment-based side -
the current H1 and L battles in Congress are examples of this. However,
family-based immigrants are the largest part of the immigrant labor-force. And it makes no difference to an American worker whether the competition is a family immigrant or an employment immigrant. If Congress really wants to protect American workers, why not impose a labor certification requirement on all family immigrants (nuclear families excepted)? DOL would not long be able to maintain its fairy-tale system of labor certification once it gets hit by the tsunami of public outcry that would follow such a requirement. The end result would be twofold: true protection for American workers, and a much more rational labor certification system for employers. Instead of the wild goose chase after the L and H1 visas, Congress would better serve American workers and employers by loosening up on employment visas and requiring labor certification from family immigrants (nuclear families excepted).
Curriculum For "Current Issues In Immigration For Nurses
And Other Healthcare Professionals (PTs/OTs/MTs/MLTs/SLPs-As/Physician Assistants)"
The curriculum for ILW.COM's new telephonic seminar series "Current Issues In Immigration For Nurses And Other Healthcare Professionals (PTs/OTs/MTs/MLTs/SLPs-As/Physician Assistants)" is as follows:
FIRST Phone Session on September 30:
- NIVs: H-1Bs and H-1Cs
- IVs: Schedule A and Non Schedule A
- Overview of licensing issues
- Final rules related to the certification of foreign-educated healthcare
- application to TN and temporary visas
- initial application and adjustment of status
- transition period
- BCIS approval of certifying agencies
- How the rule will affect recruitment
- How the rule will affect CGFNS Visa Screen process
SECOND Phone Session on October 23:
- How the shortage of healthcare professionals is affecting recruitment
- Working with contract/independent recruiters
- How do healthcare professionals adjust to the U.S. healthcare system
- Has the pace of international recruiting increased, decreased or
remained the same?
THIRD Phone Session on November 24:
The deadline to register is
Friday, September 26th. For more info, including detailed curriculum,
speaker bios, and registration information, please see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/september2003.shtm. For the fax version, please see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/september2003.pdf
- Visa processing in India and the Philippines
- Attitudes in the Philippines and India
- State licensing process for the foreign educated nurse
- Success rate on the NCLEX-RN for the foreign educated nurse
- Practice experiences/discipline experiences for the foreign educated
- Recruitment efforts
Hurtling (and Hurting) Down the H-1B Road: Part 4 of 4
Angelo A. Paparelli provides an H-1B overview by addressing current Department of Labor enforcement activities and reviewing a selection of key Administrative Law Judge decisions.
The Hidden History Of Immigration: All Parts Compiled
Martin Ford examines the assimilation of the three largest European immigrant groups, Germans, Irish, and Italians, and argues that, in terms of language, religion, and group identity, today's immigrants may be adapting faster than their predecessors.
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
BALCA Says Employer's Wage Survey Misses Essential Survey Components
In the Matter of Fall River Nursery, No. 2002-INA-194 (BALCA, Aug. 22, 2003), the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals said that although the state agency advised Employer of the essential components of a survey, Employer's survey was missing critical information, such as a clear definition of the experience levels, exact wage for each employee at each experience level, number of employees, and a job description.
BICE Seeks Comments
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement sought comments on the memorandum of understanding to participate in an employment eligibility confirmation pilot program (OMB-18).
9th Circuit Possesses Equitable Authority To Grant Stay Of Voluntary Departure
In El Himri v. Ashcroft, No. 03-71152 (9th Cir. Sep. 19, 2003), the court said that the "District Director's authority to extend voluntary departure time periods does not limit this court's equitable authority to grant a stay of the voluntary departure time period."
Mariel Cuban Refugee Is Entitled To Determination Whether Removal To Cuba Is Reasonably Foreseeable
In Marquez v. INS, No. 01-17191 (9th Cir. Sep. 19, 2003), the court found that Petitioner, a Mariel Cuban refugee subject to indefinite detention as an excluded alien was entitled to a determination whether his removal to Cuba was reasonably foreseeable and was entitled to a release, subject to appropriate supervised conditions, if his removal to Cuba was not reasonably foreseeable. He had been detained beyond the six-month presumptively reasonable period indicated in Zadvydas v. Davis.
Married Gay Couple Denied Entry Into US
The Arizona Republic reports "A married gay couple on their way from Canada to a human rights conference in Georgia were not allowed to enter the US on Thursday because the two men insisted on filling out a single customs clearance form declaring themselves a family."
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Revises Policy On Reporting Undocumented Immigrants
The New York Times reports "Under pressure from immigration groups and the City Council, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg revised his immigration policy yesterday to make it much harder for city agencies to report illegal immigrants to federal authorities."
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/
Case Management Technology
Do you want to grow your immigration business in today's market? If so, let Emaximm help. Successful attorneys invest in the best technology to run their practice, so they can maximize the use of their time. Emaximm technology uses automation and easy to use tools that allow immigration attorneys to maximize their resources and improve profitability. Just enter a sample case in Emaximm and have your prospects and clients log into their client center for instant status
and dialogue with your firm. No hidden costs, no setup fees, no per case fee, free phone support.
Best of breed technology for a simple price tag. Test it out. You'll find
it will be your smartest immigration tool. Visit our website at: https://www.emaximm.com to sign up for a test drive. For more information, email us at testdrive@Emaximm.com or call us at either one of our locations: Michigan: (248) 844-1200 x 204 or New Jersey: (732) 423-5159.
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
First I want to say that ILW.COM is very valuable for my research on immigration and how it affects the emotional side of people with xenophobic tendencies. In response to Mr. Murray's letter, I have some comments to make regarding some of his remarks. For example he says, "and let the law abiding people now residing in other countries, who have not violated US immigration laws, come to take the jobs the illegals are now filling through a well designed guest worker program." My question is, "Who would come on their own and at their own expenses to America, unless they have the guts to cross the desert and risk their lives?" Those that do not have the guts to risk their lives would not work as hard and would not come without government support such as the refugees do.
Mr. Murray's letter has other reasons to demonstrate his anger towards the immigrants in his remarks. "I'm tired of hearing bleeding hearts pandering to the interests of the "illegal alien". As a psychologist, doing research on how Americans behave towards people from different backgrounds, I find his behavior deeply interesting. One thing I am certain. ILW.COM helps people relieve themselves from all the feelings that make them indignant one way or the other regarding immigration, and that is a very positive thing.
Please, keep your forum open and help us all to become a better Nation.
Justin Randolph, Esq. of Chicago, IL once again hoists the canard that no one complains about white illegals (as though Mexicans were not - try telling them that). At least when I read his piece, Mr. Murray's letter did seem to me to be complaining about a white illegal, a British citizen who considered himself an American because he voted regularly and illegally. Mr. Randolph should listen to my legal immigrant wife talk about the kind of Czechs who work in places like Panama City Beach without papers. Their offenses are generally purely administrative, like immigration violations, not paying taxes and driving without licenses, but she thinks they are typical of the cheating scum produced by socialism. I am Czech too, but since I had an easy time naturalizing from Canada, I am a little more forgiving. The reason I am more forgiving is that I am less of an immigrant than she is. I haven't had to deal as much with the frustrations of the INS. I never had to stay awake at night wondering if it were worth it to do the right and legal thing when the illegal one would be so much easier. If Mr. Randolph wants to hear real venom poured on illegals, I suggest he talk to people like my wife or Mr. Murray's clients, who try to obey the law and be good Americans only to see others laugh at their trouble and expense because it is so much easier to be a scofflaw.
I have found that the people who tend to be least upset about immigration in general are upper crust Anglos and those like them. Their jobs are secure and their lives are removed from most of the direct consequences of lawlessness. The people who feel themselves most threatened are those that directly compete with them for jobs and who cannot take protective steps like moving to gated communities. I am convinced that that explains why American blacks are and consistently have been far more anti-immigrant than almost any group of Americans save legal immigrants.
I suspect that most people who object to immigrants refer to Mexicans because Mexicans are easily identifiable as the largest non-assimilated and seemingly (to those whose contact with them tends to be casual) non-assimilating group. Further, their violent crime rates are higher than those of most immigrants in the US. The higher violent crime rates among Mexicans is easy for most people to see onto because they are so easily identifiable as a group. I strongly suspect that would change dramatically if the illegals among them were eliminated from the US population. In the meanwhile, most people in the country are dealing with a highly visible minority, too many of whose members are demanding the privileges of American citizenship, all the while having acted contemptuously towards it. Given the incentives for identity fraud, one can hardly blame many Americans for being suspicious of the claims of good intentions of people who act differently from other Americans, look different and often have serious trouble speaking English. In marked contrast, I have run into very little prejudice against Vietnamese or South Asians down here in Alabama. They are also highly visible but they tend to consciously and conscientiously make vigorous efforts to assimilate since they are almost universally here legally.
What Mr. Murray and my wife have both grasped is that the decision to come or stay illegally is morally corrupting. They may overplay it since they have resisted temptation themselves or at least seen others do the right thing despite grave temptation to the contrary, but they have grasped something basic. Before accusing Mr. Murray of racism, Mr. Randolph could note that the target of Mr. Murray's ire was most likely a white man, perhaps a real Anglosaxon at that. In morally conflating illegals with legal immigrants, he undermines support for legal immigration and makes people like myself jump to the defense of Chucky, Ali Alexander and R.L. Ranger, who may not be too happy I'm even in this country.
Honza J. F. Prchal, Esq.
Wow! I got your attention didn't I. Right on, all of you, and if I have to be the whipping boy to generate some intellectual thought, then so be it - I will gladly be that whipping boy. However, I am somewhat surprised, yet encouraged by RL Ranger's response because I always thought RL was more or less anti-immigrant - I guess I was wrong - he shows he does have compassion for immigrants, even illegals, and a true sense of right. Ultimately, he just may deserve to wear the mask and ride the white horse of the Lone Ranger, whose name he has apparently chosen to use in his editorials. As to Justin Randolph's response I can only say that over the past 25 years I have helped so many "illegal immigrants" to achieve their US immigration goals that I will just stand on my record, which I need not defend. However, since the implementation of the 10-year bar to admissibility, it is much more difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to help illegals and we must simply tell them to be patient and await pending immigration law reform. I, for the most part, agree with Justin on the other points he makes and believe Justin always adds a degree of common sense, logic and compassion to his Immigration Daily opinions. SJD the initialed masked man whose identity remains even more guarded than RL Ranger, makes some points of logic, but he tends to drift off into the never-never land of the inequity of slavery, the pillage and plunder of the native American and the robbery of their land by "illegals". The past is largely irrelevant to the course modern immigration to the US should take. These are different times than during the founding of the nation - not necessarily better, but certainly different. In the year 2003, we must accept that we live in an age when in the US we have hundreds of millions of people, rather than a few hundred thousand, or perhaps a few million, back in colonial days. We live in a more troubling time, when those in power have the capability of annihilating the world as we know it with the simple push of a button, a time when we as a nation once again face rising unemployment, terrorism, war, rampant social welfare programs, budget deficits, drugs, violent crime, eroding family values, reality shows, crumbling bridges and highways, under funded schools, the rigors of globalization and rampant political and corporate corruption. And we live in a time when a has-been child star, a smut peddler and a porn star are running for governor of the fifth largest economy in the world in a recall election, not to mention "The Terminator" and "hast la visa, baby", go figure. What is important here and now is that our federal legislators look to the future and face reality, rather than political expediency, the likes of which was recently demonstrated by the governor of the State of California when he signed a law that gives illegals the right to apply for driver's licenses - right in the midst of his recall, in an obviously politically motivated gesture, with the all too obvious intent of endearing himself to Hispanics, legal and illegal alike - while at the same time offering no solution at all to California's huge deficit and mismanagement (and yes, I'm a life-long Democrat). In these troubling times, we need Congress to strip the immigration issue to the bone, rewrite our complex and archaic immigration laws and regulations, such as those that relegate even spouses of many US citizens to long waits abroad, while imposing on them the outdated concept of the "Catch 22" game of "dual intent visa fraud". Congress must pass laws that will help the economy of the US and its people, all its people, even those for whom the proverbial carrot-on-the-stick has been dangled across the border - those who have been coaxed to come northward by a system in Latin America that fails to meet their needs, in favor of "Los Estados Unidos ricos", which does - law or no law. Congress must recognize that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service is grossly underfunded, its equipment outdated and unable to keep abreast of the burgeoning demand of twenty-first century immigration. Congress must realize that instead of an out-dated and archaic set of immigration laws and procedures that are the mutated child of past mistakes, the US must have cogent immigration legislation that faces human and economic reality, leaving ethnic bias and fear at the door. But most of all, we need to pass laws that will be followed and enforced. All things considered, I believe the sleeping dog has once again arisen on the pages of ILW.COM and I wish to thank RL Ranger, Justin and SJD for performing the awakening, even if at my expense. Now, it's easy to criticize. Solutions anyone?
David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA
Yesterday's lengthy Letters to the Editor by Justin Randolph and SJD could be Exhibits A and B in the case against excessive
immigration. It seems that many, having been the beneficiary of overly generous immigration policies have difficulty in embracing the national interest and in addressing the immigration and ilegal problems. JR opines that "it is too late to do anything about it" and since whites have had an "easier time of it", we should just not worry about the billions of
people who would like to come here for a "better life" and not worry
about the millions who illegally already have. Bank robbers are just
looking for a better life, but just don't want to live by the rules. He
attributes it to "hate" and "venom" any nationalist or restrictionist viewpoint, regardless of reasonableness or logic. Our borders and sovereignty (for which many have fought and died for) mean nothing to him. He refers to them as "lines" drawn on a map which can be can be easily changed seemingly oblivious to the fact that the present Aztlan threat intends to do just that. He then pats himself on the back for his "moral superiority". SJD's letter misleadingly attempts to romanticize the criminal acts of illegals and dares to compare the millions sneaking across our borders to the limited, orderly process that took place at Ellis Island where many were turned back for disease and other reasons. He wearily brings up the mistreatment of Indians (more to justify his views rather than any concern, I suspect). He asks what happened to the concept of "manifest destiny". The Mexican radicals and others just call it by another name today, "La Reconquista". Corporations call it getting a handle on labor costs while Globalists refer to it as the New World Order. SJD's letter ignores that Spain, France and England had longstanding claims to all of present day America for which there is no record of their ever paying anything to the Indians. The US (typically) paid for most of it's acquisitions not only to the Indians, but to settle the other claims. The Louisiana Purchase in l803 (See: http://www.sec.state.la.us/purchase/map.htm ), The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the Oregon Treaty of 1846 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Typical of the Indian Treaties was the Middle Oregon Tribe Treaty
(See: http://www.critfc.org/text/wstreaty.html which called for
substantial sums to be paid and which was signed by the Indians. But it is immaterial, misleading and divisive to look backwards in to history (particularly when erroneously done) to resolve todays different problems. We don't have wide open spaces now to be settled, only crowded spaces, busted budgets and excessive demands upon our structures and social systems. Americans today need to wake up and smell the tacos and the rice. If our Nations has been narrowly limited and arranged solely for the purposes of selling products and having (low paying) jobs, the "indisputably immoral institution" of slavery to which SJD refers is
still with us ten fold.
R. L. Ranger
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.