Terms Of Art
Immigration Daily is pleased to bring your attention to a discussion in our letters to the Editor section on the terms "immigrant" and "immigration". These words are fundamental to immigration law; only after these terms are defined can one proceed to define pro-immigration and anti-immigration. The meaning of words is critical, particularly in immigration law where many words have both a legal and lay meaning. The recent correspondence has focused on the legality of migration (which has two components: emigration and immigration) which makes clarity harder since it brings together both the law and non-law contexts for the terms involved. We invite further comments on this discussion.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to email@example.com.
Deadline Is Tuesday, June 7th
The curriculum for the June 9th telephonic session of "Current Topics In
Family Immigration" is as follows:
1. What family members we should ask about when a prospective client asks
about possibly filing an N-400?
2. Alternatives to long family quota waiting periods especially brothers,
sisters, unmarried adult sons & daughters
3. Various I-751 issues and documentation
4. Abandonment of residency - how can family members help?
- Ethical issues in 751 prep and interview prep
- How to handle difficult spouses
- What if spouses separate? If don't intend to divorce?
- What if living abroad temporarily? If filed jointly but now
- Additional issues for I-751's in proceedings & judicial review
The deadline to sign up is Tuesday, June 7th. For more info, including
speaker bios, detailed curriculum, and registration information, please
see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/april2005.shtm. (Fax version: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/april2005.pdf.)
Sarah Karp writes "The Pakistani is among an increasing number of asylum seekers mounting challenges to immigration judges' decisions before the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, whose jurisdiction covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Until recently, these cases rarely made their way to this level, but an administrative reform made in 2002 by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft has resulted in more such appeals."
Child Of Forcibly Sterilized Parent Not Per Se Eligible For Asylum
In Zhang v. Gonzales, No. 01-71623 (9th Cir. May 26, 2005), the court said that a child of a forcibly sterilized parent was not automatically eligible for asylum under 8 USC 1101(a)(42)(B).
Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Jasinsky Immigration Law LLC seeks an experienced business immigration attorney for our Stamford, Connecticut office. Send cover letter and resume to Laura Jasinsky, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
Jasinsky Immigration Law LLC seeks an experienced business immigration paralegal for our Stamford, Connecticut office. Send cover letter and resume to Laura Jasinsky, email@example.com.
Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law is a Los Angeles non-profit focusing its work on the civil and human rights of insular minorities. The Center initiates and conducts major class action litigation. The program also operates community-based and international human rights projects. The Center currently has an opening for a Staff Attorney. The Staff Attorney will assist in development and implementation of a training program on the rights of abused immigrant women and children, as well as provide technical support and assistance to Pro Bono attorneys representing abused immigrant women and children minors. The Staff Attorney will also represent abused women and children in Special Immigrant Juvenile, Asylum, VAWA, U-Visa, and T-Visa proceedings. Qualifications: Applicants must be admitted to CA Bar; must have experience with preparing one of the following: (SIJ petitions, VAWA petitions, or U-Visa applications); must be bilingual in Spanish and English; must have strong research and writing skills; should have demonstrated commitment to social justice issues. Compensation: $40,000 plus benefits. Do not telephone. Send resume, cover letter, 3 references, and writing sample in Word format (no WP docs) to both Angela Perry: firstname.lastname@example.org and Peter Schey: email@example.com.
Help Wanted: Immigration Attorneys
The Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Immigrant Defense Group is accepting applications for immigration attys (entry and experienced). We excel at deportation defense, including asylum, international human rights defenses, discretionary relief, naturalization and family-based immigration. Successful candidate should expect frequent client contact and court appearances; drafting of client narrative declarations, research news and NGO reports to corroborate claims. Must be admitted to a State Bar, have some training or experience in immigration law, good writing skills, strong computer skills, and be highly organized. Spanish or Portuguese fluency a strong plus. First year salary $65 - $85K, depending on training, language skills and immigration experience. Standard health insurance and vacation benefits, plus fee sharing and bonuses. Sunny, high-tech office in historic landmark building at Oakland City Center, 15 minute BART ride to downtown SF/local immigration courts. Submit resume + cover letter to JobOpenings@ImmigrantDefense.com. All inquiries treated in absolute confidence. State language skills and immigration experience, if any, with specificity in your cover letter. Please, no calls.
Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Position available with Pederson Immigration Group, P.C., an established top boutique firm with national and
international client base in Washington, DC. Unique positions for the right
persons who can initiate independent action when necessary, can exercise
sound judgment and assume responsibility. This is an exciting opportunity
to be part of a great team handling sophisticated and challenging
immigration matters. Opportunity to travel to consular posts. Experience
with H-1B petitions, labor certifications, J-1 physician waivers and
consular processing preferred. 3-5 years experience in the immigration
field and computer literacy required. Friendly place to work. Excellent
compensation package. If interested please forward in confidence your
resume, references and compensation history to Jan Pederson at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Offshore Services For Law Firms
We offer a wide range of back-office & clerical support services to
immigration attorneys in NIV and IVs, including managing checklists, form
completion, drafting cover/employer letters, consular processing
assistance, follow-up/correspondence with clients and other related services. Our services cover document generation, data entry, accounts, scheduling/calendering, clerical & archival. Quantum Technologies, Inc. is a sister company to Adnet Advertising Agency, the worldwide leader in immigration
advertising services for over a decade. Headquartered in New York City,
Quantum provides the highest quality services to law firms enabling them to
cost effectively and securely outsource law firm back office processes, and
focus on increasing earning, growth and servicing their clients. We work as your partner offering tailored services that accelerate product delivery. With state-of-the-art communication facilities and infrastructure, our offsite center functions as a virtual extension of your office providing 24 x 7 support and significant cost savings. Convenient billing options are
available. For more info. contact Johaina Mumtaz at Johaina@quantum-usa.com or call 212 406-3503 ext 224.
Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: email@example.com.
Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo is pleased to inform the public that the Law Offices of Thomas Tarigo in Los Angeles has a new lawyer, Michael Anthony Rohr. Mr. Rohr has been the firm's law clerk handling appeals with the BIA and the 9th Circuit. Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, 619 So. Olive St. Ste. #200, Los Angeles, CA 90014. Tel. (213)688-7792. Fax (213)688-7794.
Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: firstname.lastname@example.org (300-words or fewer preferred). Many letters to the Editor refer to past correspondence, available in our archives.
Immigration Daily's 6/6/05 comment say: " for the letters see below" ... There is nothing there, no letters. Where are the letters? Are you sure Immigration Daily want us to read them? I wish I could.
Editor's Note: The letters to the Editor section is the last section that appears in each issue of Immigration Daily. Please scroll down to view all the letters in Immigration Daily in both the email and web versions.
I agree with Mr. Patel's statement (6/06/05 ID) that the "guest
worker" program will represent a slap in the face for
thousands of mostly skilled, legal workers who have
been waiting for years in the backlogged lines of
labor certification and adjustment of status. I
encourage all legal-to-be immigrants, and citizens in
general, to write to the Senators and Congressman for
their jurisdiction and let them know that legal-to-be
immigrants do not deserve to be punished by default.
The labor certification requirement should be waived
for those eligible for adjustment of status currently
working legally in the US. The labor certification
process has long lost its value in terms of "market
testing." It is an unnatural recruiting process that
allows to hire an employee years after it actually
took place. Complete nonsense. The dependence of the
worker on one employer does not protect American
workers because it artificially lowers wages by
hindering competitive offers. The nation as a whole
will be better off if these workers, who are already
on the marketplace, are allowed to become free agents
of the economy. It will be cheaper for taxpayers and
more efficient for all.
(1) Enforcement is not only proposed as the best solution because it removes illegal aliens from this country, but because it deters future would-be illegal aliens from entering (see 6/6/05 ID comment). (2) While there are perhaps some industries where low skilled, uneducated workers are truly needed, there's really no way to tell which ones because the wage structure has been so distorted by the use of illegal aliens. That's the attraction of legalization - employers are not compelled to sponsor them or provide benefits such as medical care. Enforcement actions would help to establish higher wages and better conditions in some industries, and to identify those where there truly are no Americans available at any price.
(3) Read ILW.COM's discussion board by legal immigrants who have been waiting years to be processed or for a loved one, then ask yourself: where would the money and the manpower come from to do all the security checks, develop all the new regulations, and do all the processing were a legalization program put in place? (4) More educated illegal aliens (e.g. visa overstays) are somewhat constrained by that status from competing with Americans for jobs Americans do do. Experience has shown that such workers, when they gain legal status, move on from the lower wage positions to compete with American workers in the American mainstream. In fact, Tyson's had a program to bring over unskilled workers legally from Korea. Educated workers, desperate to come but without skills in demand by the US market bribed their way into unskilled jobs in order to come here. Are we to legalize this subset of illegal aliens, only to see them compete with Americans for better jobs, drive wages down in those jobs, and have employers claim they need more low wage workers because the ones they had moved on? (5) Any guest worker program or immigration law needs to have its rules enforced; otherwise, it's de facto open borders.
Regarding Bill Glenn's statement that the term "immigrant" is "customarily used for aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence," and related letters stating that the term immigration only applies to legal permanent residents, I disagree (6/6/05 ID). As Mr. Glenn's letter referenced, but failed to do, we should go directly to the law. The INA clearly defines immigrant as "every alien" except aliens who are in an enumerated nonimmigrant status. INA sec. 101(a)(15). There is no distinction between legal and nonlegal immigrants. Justin D. Randolph, Esq.'s letter was correct in his initial reference to the American Heritage Dictionary. As the dictionary and INA definitions show, the determining factor is whether or not the individual intends to reside in the US on a permanent basis. In both the lay and legal fields it is important to make this distinction and not assume that this means the person must be a "legal" permanent resident or intend to apply for "lawful permanent resident" status. To place this in the classical terms of logic: all legal permanent residents are immigrants; but not all immigrants are legal permanent residents. A review of the dictionary will also answer S. Salike's question. The definitions for "immigrant" and "emigrant" overlap. Thus, both spellings are acceptable.
Aimee Clark Todd, Esq.
In response to Mr. Murray's letter and the other folks (6/6/05 ID), one of my tattered but not old Black's law dictionaries defines "immigration" as: n, The act of entering a country with the intention of settling there permanently. This was published by West in 1996. My other copy of Black's law dictionary defines an "immigrant" as: One who leaves a country to permanently settle in another. It also references 101 (a) (15) of the INA if the lay folk would like to take a look at that section. This copy was published in 1979.
Additionally, 10 year cancellation of removal, 245 (i), and other provisions of immigration law make it clear that one does not have to admitted with inspection or remain in status to reside here permanently. The "illegal" label is simply an attempt to demonize people for doing what people have done since we were people. Migrate to a better place.
Justin G. Randolph, Esq.
I read, enjoy, and agree with most of your opinions, but I must say a few things about your June 3rd comment. First, to call the undocumented alien problem a crisis is a little alarmist, and a bit odd given that you followed that assertion by saying how much of a economic benefit they are. The undocumented should be given a path to legalization, to suggest that the reason for this is that they are an economic benefit is a bit naive. The real truth is that the only economies that benefit from the undocumented working in the US are their home economies, Mexico in particular. The president is right on the money when he says that we should legalize them and then tax them, tax them, because it will help to mitigate the cost of having them here. Second, to the argument that the undocumented benefit the economy by lowering the cost of goods and services is also naive. Only if the undocumented were a large element of the labor pool working in export industries would they possibly have a net economic benefit, but the benefit would be mainly to those export industries whose production was domestically based and not to the economy as a whole. Finally, to the argument that legalizing the undocumented would be of a benefit to DHS and would help to secure our homeland is questionable at best. In what might appear to be a contradictory argument to the one I made earlier, I would argue that giving the undocumented a way to legalize is just going to make us more popular than ever. I don't see how it would come to be that legalizing the undocumented will change things for DHS. We work with DHS on a daily basis and think them to be a fantastic group of dedicated people. We encourage them to continue to investigate the dishwashers and cooks just in case one of them turns out to be a terrorist.
It is astounding that your (6/03/05 ID) comment would advocate that,
"Enforcement is Not Solution". Is there any other substantive area of
law that this would be an appropriate position? No, and it isn't here
either. Attrition through enforcement combined with the reduction and/or
elimination of a wide range of benefits for illegal aliens is certainly
a winning strategy against the millions who invade our sovereignty and
arrogantly violate our rule of law. How is the latter honored or
preserved by your unwise urging that the, "undocumented should be given
a path to legalization because they provide enormous economic benefit to
the nation". Our nation is more than merely an economic engine, or
should be. It is a Marxist doctrine that a human being or a nation is
primarily an economic creature. In other words, material well-being is
all important. Other elements such as culture, privacy and freedom are
not important. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its
emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same
things that might be considered in a jail. Also, most of your concern is
upon non-citizens while ignoring US citizens.
When a laborer works in your home, is there a responsibility to make him
or her a member of the family after being paid? Violators of laws in
other areas make economic contributions as well in "just seeking a
better life", but none of this should be excused and unlawful entry
certainly should not be rewarded by amnesty. Any provision for
illegals other than deportation is amnesty! Amnesty to any degree
sends the wrong message to those who have evaded our laws and only
encourages millions more to follow suit as the amnesty of 1986 revealed.
It is also unfair to all of the legal immigrants who came to this
nation, were properly screened, identified and followed our laws to
While limited, legal immigration may be beneficial to our country and to
continued economic and cultural growth, excessive legal and any illegal
immigration unquestionably has significant adverse effects not only on
American workers but also on our health, education, infrastructure, tax
burdens, over-crowding and in many other ways critical to the
cohesiveness of our society.
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. Copyright 1999-2005 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence and articles to email@example.com. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM or members of the Immigration Daily Advisory Board. The opinions expressed in the Comment section are those of ILW.COM and Immigration Daily and do not necessarily represent the views of the members of the Immigration Daily Advisory Board.