ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

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.


Immigration Daily October 2, 2006
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 17,000+ readers


Comment

Armey Lashes Out

According to a San Jose Mercury News story, "[] three years after leaving Congress, the former House majority leader [Dick Armey] is now savaging conservatives in his own party for what he calls "knee-jerk" opposition - "emphasis on jerk" - to the Bush administration's efforts to create a temporary guest-worker program and overhaul the nation's immigration system. For the full story, see here.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.


Focus

Immigration Practice by Robert C. Divine And R. Blake Chisam 2006-2007 Edition

Immigration Practice by Robert C. Divine & R. Blake Chisam 2006-2007 Edition is an invaluable supplement to Kurzban's with a different approach. It is also useful to newer practitioners and paralegals in view of its easy to understand and practical style. This new up-to-date reference work is shipping now! For more info, see here.


Article

Mexico's Presidential Election: Implications For US Immigration Policy
Susan Gzesh writes "Despite a long history of intervention in Mexican affairs, the US government seems to be taking a relatively neutral position, with leading US newspaper editorial pages split over whether Mexico should do a complete recount or accept a Calderon victory."

The Illegal Immigrant Effect
Doug Campbell writes "But a close look at the real economic effects of illegal immigration reveals a more ambiguous answer. The overall gains to the economy from unauthorized migrants do not appear to be huge, nor do the losses."


News

11th Circuit Says US Workers Satisfy Proximate Cause For Civil RICO Claim To Proceed
In Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., No. 04-13740 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2006), on remand from the US Supreme Court, the court said that plaintiff's complaint alleged sufficient proximate cause within the meaning of RICO because Plaintiffs's complaint focused on what was happening in the particular narrow labor market that Defendant dominated in northern Georgia, especially given the recognition of a direction correlation illegal hiring and lower wages, and said that it was consistent with civil RICO's purposes to permit Defendant's legal workers into prosecutors as private attorneys general seeking to eliminate illegal hiring activity by their own employer.


Classifieds

Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
Busy immigration law firm located outside Philadelphia, PA is looking for an experienced immigration paralegal to join its team. Able to multi-task with great attention to detail and strong work ethic. A minimum of 1-2 years experience in immigration law required, including preparation and filing of business visas petitions and permanent residency applications. The ideal candidate will have strong writing skills, communication skills, and computer skills. Email cover letter, resume, and writing sample to: graham@piverlaw.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
13-person midtown NYC immigration law firm seeks paralegal with 2+ years of experience with business applications: nonimmigrant and immigrant. Experience with family based, naturalization and other applications a plus. Ideal candidate has BA degree, is detail oriented, organized, conscientious. Candidate must also possess excellent writing, communication & case management skills. Competitive compensation package offered. Email resume + cover letter in MS Word format to mneedleman@levittandneedleman.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Consultants
Las Vegas, NV or Phoenix, AZ - Immigration and Citizenship Services, Inc. has immediate openings for immigration consultants. Have plans to expand quickly across America. Immigration consultant will act as liasion between USCIS, the client and the attorney. Experience, including but not limited to E's, L's H's, TN's, OPTS necessary. Experienced only. Typing skills, computer savvy, great verbal and written communication skills required. Fluency in another language not required but desirable. Competitive compensation offered, including paid medical, dental, and vision. Relocation package may be available for right candidate. Contact Fred D. Winchar, business manager at fred@ics.gs. This is a full-time position.

Case Management Technology
At ImmigrationTracker our clients say it best: "Our criteria for choosing a solution were simple: I wanted an integrated system that was powerful but easy to use. The fact that many of my most respected colleagues use Tracker made the decision a no-brainer" Steve Clark, Managing Attorney, Flynn & Clark. While other vendors talk about bells and whistles, we talk about our track record: 13 Past AILA Presidents, 18 of the 25 largest immigration firms and thousands of immigration professionals who rely on ImmigrationTracker. While others talk about building and customizable systems, we partner with AILA's best attorneys and build it for you -- so you don't have to. If you have been promised the moon but have been left with cheese, give us a call and find out why more firms trust Tracker than anyone else. Call us for a free guided demo at 1-888-466-8757 ext. 278 or email sales@immigrationtracker.com or visit us at www.immigrationtracker.com.

EB-5 Investor Program
An investor green card with no quota backlog for your clients. A generous finders fee from American Life Inc. for you, if allowed in your state. One of the best-kept immigration secrets... a real estate limited partnership investment of $525,000 in the American Life EB-5 Investor Green Card program in the Seattle Regional Center gives your accredited investor clients speed and freedom. Speedy conditional green card approval, typically in about 1 year. Freedom to live anywhere in the U.S. without being tied to a job or business. No need for day-to-day management of an active business. Limited Partners have a policy making role. American Life Inc. manages over 25 properties - over 1,350,000 sq. ft. The oldest active Regional Center, projects range from $3 million to more than $20 million. Want to know more about the immigration benefits of American Life's EB-5 program? Call Mark Ivener at 1-866-767-1800 to answer your EB-5 immigration questions. With more than 30 years immigration law experience and five immigration law books to his credit, Mark Ivener is American Life's Immigration Consultant. For more information visit American Life's website, http://www.amlife.us.


comingsNgoings

Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: editor@ilw.com. Readers interested in learning about featuring your event or conference in Immigration Daily, see here. To feature your newsletter in Immigration Daily, see here.

Immigration Event - Los Angeles, CA
The Los Angeles County Bar Association invites you to its second International Diversity Celebration on October 14, 2006, 6 p.m. at the Omni Hotel, downtown Los Angeles. Awards will be presented to US Senator Edward Kennedy, US Congresswoman Hilda Solis, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, the Directing Attorney of LACBA’s Immigrant Legal Assistance Project, Mary Mucha and Executive Assistant to the LA District Director of CIS, James DeBates. The celebration features cultural performances (Brazilian samba and Middle Eastern belly dancing), international cuisine, music and dancing. Register here by October 12th. ILW.COM is a media sponsor for this event.


Letters

Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: editor@ilw.com (300-words or fewer preferred). Many letters to the Editor refer to past correspondence, available in our archives.

Dear Editor:
Responding to ID's comment (09/29/06), I'm afraid the point it misses in quoting the Declaration of Independence is to ignore the context under which that document was drafted. It further fails to take into consideration whether or not illegal aliens have legal standing to redress their disagreement with US immigration law in the courts. ID's editorial appears to treat the subject as though the entire world were just one huge body politic, with all men being subject to and entitled to redress their grievances throughout the world, anywhere they choose. Such is just not the case. I believe that it again misses the point when, as it states, "David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi . . . " (neither of which were lawyers or jurists, but rather visionaries, philosophers and poets), " ... held that when there is a conflict between natural law as perceived by an individual, and civil law, the individual should not merely criticize that law and make an effort to have it reformed, but he is obliged to in fact actively disobey the unjust law." They were undoubtedly talking about "individuals" who actually had legal standing to criticize the laws of a country by virtue of being citizens of the country whose laws they were advocating to change. The Declaration of Independence was written when there was no country. There was no democratic process at that time - no forum in which to redress their grievances, and so they rebelled. Such is not the case today, and illegal aliens are certainly not on the same footing with the American Patriots who drafted the Declaration. I do not believe citizens of other countries meet the criteria for standing that would allow them to redress the types of grievances we are discussing in the immigration debate in the courts, or otherwise.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA

Dear Editor:
It isn't often that I argue on the same side as the restrictionists, but, I have to disagree with the opinion in the 09/29/06 ID comment that someone who enters the country illegally can claim to be supported by any kind of law, natural or civil, now matter how noble or urgent his or her motives may be. To say that an illegal immigrant is upholding the spirit of the founding fathers by crossing the border to join his family or to argue that "natural" law overrides the right of a nation to protect its borders or determine who may become a member of its society is unreasonable and dangerous. To this extent only, I agree with letters such as R.L. Ranger. As for civil disobedience to an unjust law, while I admire Gandhi and Martin Luther King, their example is hardly applicable to laws setting immigration quotas. How many EB-3 immigrants, for example, should be admitted each year according to "Natural Law"? There may be some laws, however, that are so repugnant to any sense of justice or fairness that civil disobedience might have to be considered. The provisions of HR. 4437 which could make it a felony for anyone to give even humanitarian advice or support to an illegal immigrant, or to fail to report one's own illegal family member, might come into this category. But in general, if we wish to have any kind of civil society at all we cannot let every person be a law unto himself. When we have bad laws, we should change them, not disobey them. Here again, I have some very limited agreement with the opinions in Mr. Ranger's letters. We both want to change the immigration laws according to the standards and procedures of a civil, democratic society. But in very different directions.

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
Please see the 11th Circuit September 27, 2006 decision in the Williams v Mohawk Carpet RICO case (see above in news), on remand from the Supreme Court. The decision reinstates the US workers federal and state RICO claims. The decision reemphasizes that an allegation that the employment of illegal aliens depressed the wages and working conditions of US workers is sufficient to meet the proximate cause element of the civil RICO statute, and that corporations are persons subject to suit under Georgia state RICO.

Michael M. Hethmon, Esq., General Counsel for Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI)

Dear Editor:
By beginning ID's specious 09/29/06 Comment with the deliberate falsehood that restrictionists are "anti-immigration", the twisted logic progresses to the preposterous conclusion that enforcement advocates are "anti-American" and Hobbesian. Rather, the opposite is true and when the Declaration of Independence states, "...it is their duty... to provide new guards for their future security...", the "natural law" that would follow is the absolute right to select, limit and control entry. This would not include the "right" of any of the hundreds of relatives of the millions of illegals to decide to ignore our laws in coming here or to be resolved of sanctions, or their employers. Such a position is irresponsible, insulting to law as well as logic and is truly anti-American. The illegal can reunite his own family by leaving or our laws can assist that by the existing, legal remedy of deportation. Why should we bear the guilt of a separation which the illegal chose? The Roger Algase letter (9/28/06 ID) thinks that the aberration that is NYC, or that CA and TX are becoming, should be the norm. This and ID's comment are simply masks for an arrogant attitude by greedy businesses, some foreigners and other advocates that places their improper demands above US citizen concerns and laws of our society. To wrap such refuse in the noble efforts of our founding fathers and to label it "patriotic" is beyond incredible. In my previous analogy of the lighthouse to the enforcement position, both of these positions would attempt to remove or rationalize away, it's immutable authority. In the latest outstanding article by Frosty Wooldridge at the NewsWithViews website, the relevant question is asked, "...can anyone name a single advantage to adding 100 million people to America in 34 years?" SB 2611 would do this. HB 4437 and other enforcement and controls would limit entry to reasonable levels.

R. L. Ranger

Dear Editor:
The border security issue being an extension of the war on terrorism debate provides fresh meat for both parties this election year to try out their national security ideologies on an issue not yet spoiled for voters by years of divisiveness. It is this politicizing of such a momentous issue which leads to the sad conclusion that the immigration debate has been hijacked wholesale by the rhetoric of fear employed to dumb down the national dialogue and render we citizens ripe for the political juicing of our would be representatives. To reduce the immigration debate to the level of national security alone, while one relevant aspect of it, is to ignore the much weightier consequences such legislation would conjure. Undoubtedly, the decision we make regarding our stance on immigration will determine how we proceed forth into the future as a nation. Perhaps the most crucial yet least represented point in the immigration debate is that our conception of the division of labor is transcending our archaic nationalistic paradigm. Outsourcing continues to send more blue-collar labor overseas, leaving Americans to educate themselves or join the ranks of the unemployed. American's resistance to this cuts to the heart of the anti-immigration sentiment, because the only aspect of the labor market immigration has any effect on is unskilled labor. Globalization is a reality that we must face, and no amount of legislation will stop the transformation of our national economy into a global division of labor. We need to look to the world that we will inevitably inherit, and choose to face it with a sound, comprehensive policy which meets reality head on, rather than turning our backs to the future in favor of the instant gratification of political rhetoric.

Jordan R. Silk

Dear Editor:
Mr. Ranger's letter (9/22/06 ID) recently remarked, "The current spinach scare is likely a result of unsanitary and unscreened illegal workers and may only be a harbinger of things to come." This type of remark, while obviously baseless, also does those in the restrictionist camp a disservice by making them appear to be xenophobic. Surely this unfounded claim would not resonate with the vast majority of restrictionists, though it sounds to me like the type of claim a Nazi might have levied against a Jew or homosexual in Nazi Germany. Are foreign-born individuals less sanitary than Americans or is this a glaring example of the racism that those favoring tolerant immigration policies attribute to a minority of restrictionists? If anything is unsanitary with respect to non-citizen agricultural workers and those working in slaughterhouses, it is likely the work conditions created by their employers under which non-citizens labor.

Michael J. Eatroff


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 1999-2006 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence and articles to editor@ilw.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.

Publisher:  Sam Udani    Legal Editor:  Michele Kim                        ISSN:   1930-062X


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: