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 January 26, 2009
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 17,000+ readers


Comment

Berry Appleman And Paul Hastings

Berry Appleman & Leiden (BAL) announced that on February 17, 2009, it is joining forces with the corporate immigration group of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP to form BAL Global Corporate Immigration (for the entire press release, see here). The combined forces of BAL and Paul Hastings continues the trend of consolidation of large firms practicing immigration law. The downturn in the economy will likely increase the need for several other mid-sized immigration law firms to consider merging to better navigate the competitive immigration landscape.

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


Focus

Employer Sanctions For Experts

ILW.COM is pleased to present a new 3-part telephone seminar "Employer Sanctions For Experts" with speakers: Angelo Paparelli, Michael Dougherty, Bonnie Gibson, Douglas D. Hauer, John Quill, Batya Schwartz Ehrens and Other Speakers To Be Announced. The curriculum is as follows:

FIRST Phone Session on January 28: E-Verify Update

++Strategic Considerations for Federal Contractors and Subs
++Does mandatory E-Verify violate IIRIRA and other laws?
++Compliance strategies for Multi-State Employers
++USCIS Ombudsman's E-Verify Recommendations
++Successor-in-interest E-Verify problems in mergers, acquisitions and corporate reorganizations.
++E-Verify issues for STEM students and traveling Adjustment of Status applicants
++Dealing with TNCs (Tentative Non-Confirmations)

SECOND Phone Session on February 25: I-9 Update

++Key Changes in the New I-9 Form and New DHS Regulation
++E-Verify Mandates That Change the I-9 Process
++Paper-Based versus Electronic I-9s - Pros and Cons
++Employer Self-Audits and Attorney Audits - Practical and Legal Concerns
++Employer Compliance Policies and Raid-Readiness Precautions
++Constructive Knowledge: Beyond No-Match Concerns

THIRD Phone Session on March 25: Anticipating and Addressing the Government's Fraud Detection and Enforcement Strategies

++The battle over Agency Policy: USCIS Headquarters Versus the AAO and the Service Centers
++Dealing with Extralegal Agency Initiatives: The Rogue RFE and the Rewriting of Legislative History in H-1B and L-1 Cases
++Constitutional, Statutory and Criminal Law Strategies for Raids, Lawsuits and Indictments
++DOL H-1B Audit Defense: Best Practices in an Era of Heightened Enforcement
++Greeting the USCIS FDNS Field Examiner or Contractor at the Employer's Doorstep

Don't wait to register. Tuesday, January 27th is the deadline! For more info, including speaker bios, detailed curriculum, and registration information, please see: Online: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/200903.shtm Fax form: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/200903.pdf


Articles

Bloggings on Dysfunctional Government
Angelo A. Paparelli writes "The end of one presidency and the start of another often spark strange behaviors in Washington, especially when spiked with the catnip of immigration."

Immigrants Of The Day: Thomas Francis Meagher of Ireland, Anthony Joseph Celebrezze Sr. of Italy, and Fernando Alvaro Lamas of Argentina
Kevin R. Johnson celebrates the achievements of these notable immigrants.

To submit an Article for consideration, write to editor@ilw.com.


News

Supremes Grant Cert On Standard Of Review For Pending Stay Of Removals
The Supreme Court granted cert limited to the following question: "whether the decision of a court of appeals to stay an alien's removal pending consideration of the alien's petition for review is governed by the standard set forth in section 242(f)(2) of the immigration and nationality act, 8 USC 1252(f)(2), or instead by the traditional test for stays and preliminary injunctive relief."

President Obama Says Exec Branch Should Adoption Presumption Of Disclosure
President Obama issued a memo to all heads of executive departments and agencies stating, "all agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government."


Classifieds

Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
St. Louis, MO - Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP seeks an experienced paralegal to assist in case management and preparation of a wide range of employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant petitions, PERM applications and Adjustment of Status applications. Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the nation's largest law firms, with 335 attorneys in eight offices with experience in more than 45 practice areas, and represents clients in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. Please send resume with salary requirement to Lisa K Lange at: llange@stinson.com.

Translation Services
Eurasia Translations, Inc. has been proud to serve immigration attorneys and individuals since 1993 with the translation of personal documents, academic credentials, criminal clearance letters, etc. Our customers can rest assured that all of our translations are prepared in accordance with USCIS requirements and are accompanied by a notarized certificate of accuracy. For more information, please call 888-887-1884 or visit our website. For a free quote, please complete http://eurasia-usa.com/turntime_rate/turntime_form.html or fax your document at 818-907-9763.


Headlines

Immigration Still A Minefield
Illegal immigration again emerges as a major issue now that Barack Obama is president.

'Nanny' Issue Still Vexes Candidates
Immigration status and tax questions involving nannies and in-home caretakers have for years dogged candidates for top government jobs.

A Day After He Takes Oath, Immigration Activists Send Message to Obama
The target, however, was out of the ordinary. The purifying smoke was targeted at the headquarters for ICE, the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, charged with enforcing the nationís immigration laws.

More Immigration Will Test U.S. Economy, Unity
This clearly signals Obama's desire to maintain high immigration levels, a position which will hurt all Americans economically, and further divide this nation.


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.

CIS Ombudsman Teleconference
Have you signed up for the CIS Ombudsman's January teleconference on "Motions to Reopen: How Are They Working for You?" Wednesday, January 28, 2-3 pm EST? To participate in this call, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.


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:
While we welcome discussion and evaluation of our performance, Alan Lee's article "Grading The Various Governmental Bodies For Their Work On Immigration In 2008," (1/12/09 ID), relies on old generalizations about the quality of the Board of Immigration Appeals' work. Observers who have looked closely at the Board's recent work have acknowledged the greater amount of analysis and detail in the Boardís decisions than at any time in the past few years. As an example, affirmances without opinion were merely six percent of Board decisions in fiscal year 2008. It is also important to note that the federal courts nationwide affirm almost 90 percent of the Board's decisions that are appealed into federal court, which we think speaks well for the performance of our work. Additionally, the five new Board Members recently hired as a whole bring with them varied experiences. In fact, two of the five new Board Members have worked in private practice. EOIR considers all applicants based on the totality of their professional record and background, and we are proud of the diverse background of the recently invested Board Members. Aside from their professional credentials, the five new Board Members all possess the single most important qualification for their positions judicial temperament.

Kevin A. Ohlson, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Dear Editor:
Jim Roberts' (01/22/09 ID) letter is factually, legally wrong in at least four respects: 1. The idea that U.S. jurisdiction over a person depends on that person's subjective state of mind - "complete allegiance" - is a myth that has no legal or factual basis except in the minds of those who quote or misquote legal phrases selectively and out of context. 2. In fact, the U.S. has jurisdiction over every person who is in this country and who does not have diplomatic immunity. If it were otherwise, U.S. citizens would be the only people who could be prosecuted for crimes in this country. Everyone else could break the law with impunity. 3. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute or overrule court decisions. This is a simple, basic fact resulting from the constitutional separation of powers, and the fact that some people refuse to recognize it is irrelevant. 4. The Supreme Court, like the rest of us, is not infallible. However, the idea that the court misunderstands the 14th Amendment and that the only people who understand it correctly are those who oppose birthright citizenship is both arrogant and laughable.

Sid Lachter, Esq.

Dear Editor:
I agree in principle with Robert Yang's (01/23/09 ID) letter to the effect that unjust laws need to be changed, but we should also read the laws carefully to see if they are just or unjust before we rush to change them. As my letters, with greatly appreciated support from David D. Murray's letter (01/23/09 ID), have made clear, there is no law, court decision, or constitutional provision restricting US citizenship by birth in the US to members of a particular race or making it dependent on parents' citizenship, as long as the parents are not foreign diplomats. Nor has any such restriction existed in the past 100 years, with the sole exception applying to certain Native Americans, now also long since abolished by statute, as Mr. Murray's letter points out. Therefore, much as certain people might wish that our laws restricted US citizenship by birth in the US by race or by parents' legal status, there are no such restrictions (other than the diplomatic exception mentioned). Anyone who claims that such restrictions exist is under a heavy burden to show that his or her argument is made in good faith. With all due respect, Mr. Apuzzo's and Mr. Robert's letters have failed to meet that burden. Those who agree with their letters' views are the ones who would have to attempt to change our laws, and our Constitution, to suit their own narrow purposes. As we are now in the 21st Century, not the 18th 19th, or early 20th, I am sure that any such attempts would fail miserably.

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
I would like to throw my two cents regarding ID's comment (01/22/09 ID). Is it possible to approach immigration reform in the context of what is best for the U.S., instead of what is the political advantage ?

Marty Ficke

Dear Editor:
In response to the ID letters of (01/23/09), in 1949, Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Whatever justifications for liberal birthright citizenship that existed under the 14th Amd. years ago have long since been minimized today when the great need for US is reduced entry because of excessive numbers, resource depletion and security concerns. While I support the restrictive position, the letters are also biased on the more numbers end, contrary to D. Murray's letter's claim of "unbiased legal research". Why don't we see such enthusiasm for enforcing our borders and entry laws? Which position is more self serving and which is best for America? R. Algase's letter's position is not so much "the law" as it was the one of many possible interpretations at that time, years ago. It is the Constitution that is the law. Most countries have abandoned birthright citizenship. A new interpretation, clarification or even a revised amendment is clearly needed today as R. Yang states is at times needed. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should clearly mean citizen parents and not subject to biased and/or speculative arguments. Little wonder that CA is becoming Northern Mexico with such letter advocates as D. Murray supporting children of illegals as citizens (who may have just crossed the border hours earlier) and R. Gittleson shamelessly promoting the disastrous CIR, all for motives that give little indication of concern for Constitution or Country.

Jim Roberts

Dear Editor:
Here is a modest proposal for clearing up a significant portion of the undocumented aliens in the U.S. (a) move the Registry date forward to 1994. Registry has been on the books for many years. My guess is that there are 2-3 million aliens who would qualify (b) create about 1,000,000 new employment based visas. The reason the vast majority of labor certification beneficiaries were applied for by U.S. employers is that they are in the US already working. They have already been through the LC process and their I-140 petitions have already been approved. Their employers still need them. All they are waiting for is a visa number. (c) create about 3-4 million new family based visas. As with the labor cert beneficiaries, the majority of family members who have been applied for (except in the F4 category) are already here. Unify the families (d) Repass 245(i) to allow the untold thousands of aliens who entered without inspection and have utterly no way to adjust their status in the US and don't dare return to a consulate for an visa interview because of the 3/10 bar, to stay with their families (e) to fund this, charge a 245(i) type fee for filing adjustment applications under the new allocations (f) If these aliens were made legal, ICE would be able to focus its resources more effectively (g) if visas were issued to aliens who are already here and who already have a substantial legal connection to the US, the pool of "undocumented" would shrink enormously. Then, before the backlogs start building up again, a moratorium could be imposed on all preference filings until CIR is enacted and Congress can decide what types of aliens are to be admitted under our new priorities and policies.

Land Wayland


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 1995-2008 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: