The Anti-Border Folks
Immigration is one of the powerful forces that drives human beings, and is largely a benign force. Like other such powerful and benign forces, governments can regulate but not effectively frustrate it. Anti-immigrationists labor under the misconception that large-scale immigration is a construct of government policy and fail to recognize the deep roots in human nature that massive immigration in fact has. This misconception by the anti-immigrationists distorts their view of the proper border policy. Recognizing that immigration is in fact a natural and benign force, it becomes clear that when it comes to border policy, the US has only two real choices: either we will have an orderly and regulated border through which large scale immigration can pass or an unregulated and disorderly border where massive immigration occurs surreptitiously. If we accept that the large scale movement of human beings across the US border is one of the natural human facts of our time, then the proper and pro-border policy is to put into place legal ways for such massive movements of people to occur. The anti-border policy by contrast would be to make large-scale cross-border movement lawfully impossible so that one would have the current chaos on our borders. Seen in this light, the anti-immigrationists are in fact, anti-border.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ron Klasko On PERM
Ron Klasko (who needs no introduction) will present a 3-part telephonic
seminar on PERM. The curriculum is as follows:
In addition to the specific items below, each session will discuss:
Panelists' experience with PERM (successes, problems, timing,
conversions, logistical/technological issues, what's being audited, audit
experiences, differences between Atlanta and Chicago); Panelists'
experiences with Backlog Processing Centers (timing,
substantive issues, differences between Texas and Pennsylvania); New
guidance from ETA; Experience with SWAs re: prevailing wages.
FIRST Phone Session on May 19:
SECOND Phone Session on June 16:
- Refiling Issues - "Identical" conversions; Issues to consider:
quotas, new prevailing wage, new SVP, impact on seventh year extensions of
H-1Bs, age out children, other personal issues.
- Developing the Case Strategy - Chronology of case steps; Timing issues
from beginning to filing.
- Completing the forms - Registration issues; How to avoid rejection;
Answering Specific Questions
THIRD Phone Session on July 14:
- Prevailing wages - Strategies for getting lower level wage; Use of
private surveys; Role of advocacy; Appeals
- Job Requirements - Avoiding alternative occupations; Avoiding special
requirements; O*Net/SVP advanced issues; What is "normal"?
- Audit Proofing the Application - What cases get audited?; Strategies
for avoiding audits.
The deadline to sign up for the next phone session is Tuesday, June 14th.
For more info, including
speaker bios, detailed curriculum, and registration information, please
see: http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/may2005.shtm. (Fax version: http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/may2005.pdf.)
- Recruitment Issues - Deciding if "professional" recruitment is
necessary; Choosing the best recruitment plan; Issues in each of the
optional recruitment categories; Technical compliance sufficient?
- Recruitment Reports - Issues in disqualifying applicants; Applying
combination of education, training and experience standard; Format and
timing of the report.
- Issues for small and closely-held businesses - Special requirements;
Strategies for presenting case.
Essential Workers: Immigrants Are A Needed Supplement To The Native-Born Labor Force
Rob Paral for The Immigration Policy Center writes "Immigrants improve their economic status the longer they reside in the US and as they acquire levels of English proficiency and education associated with the requirements for naturalization."
Ninth Circuit Releases REAL ID Instructions
The Ninth Circuit released instructions on preferred procedure for transferring cases from the district courts to the court of appeals
in the aftermath of the Real ID Act of 2005, enacted May 11, 2005.
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, email@example.com.
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, firstname.lastname@example.org.
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: email@example.com and Peter Schey: firstname.lastname@example.org.
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: email@example.com.
Credential Evaluation And Translation Service
Here are (5) reasons why you should consider a switch to a new foreign credential evaluation company: (1) Free initial consultations: unlike our competitors, if your client's documentation does not equate to a Bachelor's degree, we will let you know immediately and for no charge. (2) Immediate response: You'll receive an instant e-mail alert when we receive your documentation, ensuring that cases don't fall through the cracks like they do at "other" credential evaluation companies. (3) Same-day service: In a hurry? If you need your client's evaluation back in one day, we will gladly deliver. (4) Certified translations: we provide certified translations in 100+ languages. (5) PhD professors: our work experience and 'expert opinion' position evaluations are completed by PhD university professors with authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or work experience. For a credential evaluation and translation services application, contact AETS at (786) 276-8190 or firstname.lastname@example.org or visit http://www.aetsinternational.com.
Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: email@example.com.
The Law office of Roger Rathi is pleased to note that our office is expanding and moving to a new location. Our new address & contact information is: 24655 Southfield Road, Suite 210, Southfield, MI 48075. Tel: 248-663-1000. We continue to serve the following areas of law: business & corporate law, immigration, criminal defense, divorce, real estate. We now have association with the following attorneys: Roger R. Rathi Managing Attorney, Daniel P. Marcus, 19+ yrs of experience, John J. Morad, 34+ yrs of experience, Indu Sidhu, NJ, 7+ yrs of experience [changed 10/31/05 Ed.].
Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: firstname.lastname@example.org (300-words or fewer preferred).
Justin Randolph's letter (6/7/05 ID) is right. "The "illegal" label is simply an attempt to demonize people for doing what people have done since we were people." And applying that same logic, the "criminal" label is simply an attempt to demonize people for doing what people have done since we were people. But the problem is, they both break the law and should be punished, not rewarded. In defining "immigrant", my point is that a person's subjective intent to reside permanently in a place does not supplant the objective realities of the law, and until there is a realistic expectation of residing permanently, the alien does not rise to the status of "immigrant". Certainly there must be another name for immigration lawbreakers . . . but wait, there is "illegal alien", one who is breaking the law, which is quite semantically distinguishable for the "immigrant", who has qualified for, applied, and been accepted for permanent residence. Extraordinary relief, such as the 10-year cancellation of removal, which carries an extremely burdensome qualification, cannot create intent from the onset of the alien's arrival in the US, because any such future qualification is far too uncertain, and 245(i) is not a good example, because it was a brief windfall that only lasted a very short time, and appears now to have fallen into disfavor with legislators after 9/11. The formulation of "intent" for purposes of residing permanently simply cannot occur until one actually obtains legal qualification to reside permanently in the US. Until then, the person is simply an illegal alien, a hopeful, a wishful thinker, a wannabe, but certainly not an immigrant, notwithstanding the ever-changing phraseology in any dictionary because the alien cannot permanently settle in the US until he or she obtains legal status that allows it. To hold otherwise would demean the status of legal immigrants.
David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA
Justin Randolph's (6/07/05) Panglossian comment that the word illegal, "... is simply an attempt to demonize people for doing what people have done since we were people. Migrate to a better place.", is simply wrong. It is typical of the open border crowd who naively and arrogantly believe that any and all foreigners can come to US if they decide to. "Illegal" and "alien" are strict legal terms with legal meanings found in U.S. Code law and in dictionaries including Black's. Mr. Murray is correct when he writes that "illegals aren't immigrants" (6/02/05 ID). The definition of "immigrant" presumes legality which precludes properly calling them immigrants regardless of spin-meisters or whether Mr. Randolph (6/03/05) sees it or not. Illegal is illegal and there is no universal right of any and all foreigners to come here as some presume. Yes, reform is needed, but not by legalizing or excusing that which is
against the rule of law. Reform laws that provide undeserved benefits to illegals, such as citizenship with an illegal birth and fining those who hire illegals, and enforce the existing laws makes far more sense. Enlist local law enforcement in identifying illegals. We have this huge problem today because of special interests and the lack of will in not
doing these things, not because the task is impossible. Granting amnesties is an admission of past failure to control entry just as
raising the debt limit often is from lack of spending control and neither does anything to resolve the causes, rather more of the same is encouraged.With wiser deployment of our resources,
we are able to enforce our immigration laws, deport / discourage
illegals and pursue terrorists. Indeed, so doing would remove much of
the culture in which terrorists and many other criminals have been able
R. L. Ranger
Attorney Aimee Clark Todd's claim that INA 101(a)(15) stands for the proposition that "[t]here is no distinction between legal and nonlegal immigrants" is just too far-out to ignore (see 6/07/05 ID)
My favorite judicial ridicule of the silly argument that, since there is no statutory classification for "illegal aliens," they must be "nonlegal immigrants" comes from Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 972, at 979 (1990):
"Quod erat demonstrandum. This reasoning is Daedalian but unpersuasive. Federal law forbids aliens to enter the United States without applying for admission. 8 USC 1101(a)(4), 1181(a), 1201. [This was a pre-IIRAIRA case.] Those who nonetheless succeed in doing so, or in overstaying their visas, are inadmissible and subject to detention and removal. Similar sanctions await those who procure admission by fraud. It is unremarkable that Congress, in organizing various classifications of lawfully admitted nonimmigrant aliens, reserved no classification for aliens who have entered or remained in this country unlawfully." Accord, e.g. Carlson v. Reed, 249 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2001).
Michael M. Hethmon, Staff Counsel
Federation for American Immigration Reform
In response to Hamen Patel's letter of 6/6/05, why limit the de facto approval to 5+ year pending cases? In fact, why not make it de jure approvals for all legal applicants as long as they pass security screenings? After all, any legal applicant should be given priority over illegal workers. As you can see, such a simplistic solution can very quickly descend to the realms of the absurd.
New York, NY
Mr. Sugiharto's letter (6/06/05 ID) repeats the chestnut of unfair it is that we limit immigration now because our ancestors were immigrants. What he forgets is that the reason we now have limits on immigration is because our needs and priorities as a country have changed. We now offer many benefits (that "free education" so many come for and deem their right, for one), but the cost of these has been and is disproportionately borne by Americans, not immigrants. In the meantime, despite what employers of illegal aliens would have you believe, the low skilled work usually done by illegal aliens is a small percentage of our economy. A strong back and grade school education are no longer the norm for getting a decent job as they were when my grandfather came from the Middle East.
Most important of all, however, is that the US is not simply an economic system, as Mr. Sugiharto's letter would have you believe. Just this past week, the French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution and punched the nose of elites who have been pushing the globalization Mr. Sugiharto is so enamoured of. CAFTA is getting a rough go in the US Congress, and from those in Latin America who would ostensibly benefit from it. The inevitability of globalization is strongly in doubt.
I enjoyed David D. Murray's letter (5/27/05 ID) about offshore services for law firms but frankly think the ethical problems his letter suggests can be overcome with voluntary and informed written client consent. When I applied for my last auto loan on E-loan I was offered the choice of getting my check in two days or a week, depending on whether I opted for processing of loan docs in India. The company also provided assurances of confidentiality and security of data. Guess which one I chose. I think clients care about price, quality, service as well as privacy. If you read Thomas Friedmanís new book The World is Flat you'll see that this trend is inevitable. I suggest we not try to hold back the ocean but had better learn how to surf.
Why are you so afraid of immigrants? Your jobs can be taken by automated computers and machines, a more skillful, knowledgeable, well trained, better work ethics American for less. Your jobs can be outsourced so easily because companies need to survive from competition and cut costs. Technology, ease of travelling enable us to seek anything for less but better. Telemedicine and robot technology make it possible for a patient to get the same quality medical treatment from a doctor at the otherside of this planet. Spreading xenophobia and immigrants bashing are easy jobs. Lou Dobbs and Congressman Tancredo must tell and encourage Americans to wake up and got prepared to face global competition not whine and complain all the time like spoiled kids. "Compassionate" conservatives tore down the Berlin walls because it was evil by preventing East Germans seeking liberty and prosperity to the west and now these group will create Berlin walls along the border with Mexico and Canada. It's hypocritical and won't work.
We received our first PERM Approval. The case was filed electronically on May 12, 2005. The case was approved on June 2nd, 2005. Our client's faith in the system has been restored.
David H. Nachman, Esq., Nachman & Associates, P.C.
Upper Saddle River, NJ
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.