ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

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

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to "Chucky's" letter to the Editor implicating "all immigration attorneys" as financial benefactors of 245(i) partial "amnesty" for designated aliens. Just to give you the big picture: First, many lawyers practicing immigration law are employed by non-profit organizations including religious, legal services, human rights civil rights and other organizations earning less than an enviable salary. Second, many lawyers volunteer to help indigent clients on a pro bono, non-fee paying basis. Despite the fact that I am an immigration lawyer, I personally favor "legal immigration" and preferential treatment to those foreign nationals who have complied with our immigration laws. After that, I favor advocacy to change draconian laws to solve problematic immigration policies such as the second preference family petition (LPR permanent resident) nuclear family separation five year + wait. I for one, helped dozens of these families at a legal clinic. Many had one LPR here and would have been separated from spouses and children (some spouses/children were in the US legally, but would have had to leave for many years). They were able to stay together by filing for 245(i) LIFE ACT relief. As one of many volunteer attorneys at a legal services clinic, we helped individuals who came in without charging fees. As for other immigration attorneys who did collect fees, I'm sure you, "Chucky," expect if you do work for others who can afford to pay you, that you expect to be paid for your services. Broad generalizations about any class of people will always be subject to exceptions. On another topic, (taxation/children) statements were made in Immigration Daily letters to the Editor several times in the past that earned income or investment income attributed to children is not taxable. As lawyers, I believe it is ethically important for us to step forward to open a discussion on statements made that could be false or misleading involving the law. (In the past, I wrote in to bring to light the various English and non-English language laws introduced or passed in various State and Federal legislatures). While I am not a tax lawyer, (perhaps another reader is), I vehemently disagree with statements made that "children's income is not taxable in the US." For example, if a three year old child appears in an advertisement (for compensation), he or she will have applicable state and federal taxes over a certain "floor" dollar amount, including social security, etc. held out of the pay by the casting agency. If the child has a college fund UTMA (Uniform Trusts for Minors Act) set up by a parent or guardian, and the fund earns dividends or capital gains, the non-earned income is subject to tax. If a trust or other investments provide non-earned income attributed to a child, the income will be subject to taxation. Yes, income below a minimum "floor" might not be subject to taxation and income may be taxed at a lower rate than a parent's taxable rate, "kiddie tax," but a child's income, earned or attributed is subject to taxation in the US.

E.S. Esq. Minnesota

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