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


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage


Immigration Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily January 30, 2009
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 17,000+ readers


CIR In 2009

New American Media reports "Pro-immigrant advocates believe the Obama administration will have a window of opportunity between this September [2009] and March 2010 to shepherd a comprehensive immigration package that will provide a path to legalization for an estimated 12 million undocumented residents, strengthen border security and help the ailing economy." For the full story, see here.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to


Inventory Closeout Sale

ILW.COM is pleased to announce our inventory closeout sale offer on the new completely revised editions of Patel's Immigration Law Books, 2008-2009 Edition, and now at a fantastic huge discounted price. These are the most respected primary reference materials featuring user- rated "best index" on the market. This special bundle includes the WHOLE Act, 20/22/28 CFR Plus and 8 CFR Plus for only $99. For more details and to purchase, see'sImmigLawLibrary.shtm. Don't wait to order your copy today! This is a limited time offer and will be available only until the inventory is sold out. If you have any questions, please write to


Fewer Job Openings Equals Fewer Immigrants: Undocumented Immigration Slows Along With The U.S. Economy
Angela Kelley for the Immigration Policy Center writes "According to new estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States did not increase between 2007 and 2008, and may actually have fallen."

Bloggings on Nurse Immigration
Christopher T. Musillo of the Hammond Law Group shares the latest entries as of January 28, 2009 on his immigration law and policy blog.

Immigrants Of The Day: Mother Jones of Ireland, Fareed Zakaria of India, and Herbert Marcuse of Germany
Kevin R. Johnson celebrates the achievements of these immigrants.

To submit an Article for consideration, write to


DHS Announces FAR E-Verify Reg Implementation Is Postponed
DHS announced that federal contractors and subcontractors will be required to begin using the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' E-Verify system starting May 21, 2009, to verify their employees' eligibility to legally work in the US.

CIS Ombudsman Releases Recommendations For Improving Process For Trafficking Victims
CIS Ombudsman's Office released its recommendations on how to improve the process for victims of human trafficking and certain criminal activity.


Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Los Angeles, CA- USCIS Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) seeks experienced attorney for Associate Regional Counsel position, USCIS OCC, Western Region. Responsibilities include, but not limited to, serving as attorney providing on-site legal advice to local District Office USCIS personnel on issues involving immigration related adjudications, inadmissibility and deportability grounds, and national security. Applicants must possess JD degree, be active bar member (any jurisdiction), and have 2+ years of post-JD experience in immigration law. For more info, key in Job Announcement Number: COU-CIS-2009-0002 at Preference is given to applicants with immigration law experience, a background in federal litigation, an excellent academic record, and strong writing skills. Submit a resume, cover letter + writing sample (max. 10 pps.) to: Kelli J. Duehning, Western Regional Counsel, USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel at Must be received by close of business, Tuesday, February 10, 2009. Position is at the GS-13/14/15 levels and is open until filled. No relocation reimbursement available.

J-1 Visa Program
Discover the ease and flexibility of the J-1 Trainee visa with AIESEC United States. For 50 years, AIESEC U.S. has offered foreign nationals the opportunity to grow both personally and professionally by sponsoring exchange visitor traineeships. Enjoy unparalleled customer service, including in-depth guidance on J-1 Trainee visa regulations and the changes effective July 2007. We also offer logistical and cultural reception services in locations nationwide. Expect a 24-48 hr. application processing time. The J-1 Trainee visa can be used for individuals to participate in training programs in the following fields: information media and communications, education, social sciences, library science, counseling and social services, management, business, commerce and finance, the sciences, engineering, architecture, mathematics and industrial occupations, public administration, and law. Attorneys interested in learning more about AIESEC United States and the J-1 Trainee visa, please email Melany Hamner:


Second Death At Virginia Immigration Detention Facility
This is not just the first death of a detainee at an immigration detention center, but also it is the second at this particular jail.

Date Set For Gillibrand Summit With Latino Lawmakers
After backing down on their threat to go nuclear on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in exchange for her promise to sit down an chat about immigration, Latino lawmakers have secured a date for their meeting with the new senator.

Iowa: What Happens When a Town Implodes
Eight months after the Agriprocessors raid, Postville is still grappling with what its leaders call a "humanitarian and economic disaster," compounded by the recession and a harsh winter.

What Will President Obama Do About Immigration Reform?
But what will he do about immigration reform?


Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: 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 - Cambridge, MA
'The Impact of Migration on Children', The Myron Weiner Seminar Series on International Migration Sponsored by the Center for International Studies, Inter-University Committee on International Migration. 4:30-6:00 pm, Tuesday, February 3, 2009 Carr Center Seminar Room (Room 219), Rubenstein Building (2nd floor), John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. Contact: Jennifer Dignazio, (617) 253-3848 or


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

Dear Editor:
Sid Lachter's letter (01/29/09 ID) states that anti-Obamites [sic] "say" all sorts of things about our President's citizenship status. I'll bet his letter didn't mean to tar all of us with that brush, but a number of the regular readers and commenters who did not vote for Obama, myself included, have actually been cheering on the straight-forward legal analysis of ... Roger Algase's letters in this particular dispute. One parent is enough to be a US citizen under the traditional understanding of jus sanguinis at the time the US Constitution was adopted, and that understanding controls unless superseded by a Constitutional Amendment. If one is a US citizen at birth and never renounced said citizenship, one is not disqualified. As for the reliance of Mr. Apuzzo and others on the Slaughterhouse Cases, they have not been expunged root and branch as I would prefer. The majority in the Slaughterhouse cases was, after all, striving for national consensus by gutting the 14th Amendment. Some of us old-fashioned lawyers argue that laws should mean what they meant when adopted, or else self-government in compromised. At the time the Constitution was adopted, jus sanguinis was not a controversial principle, and jus solis similarly applied to people born in US territories and considered eligible for citizenship. In terms of jus solis, Hawaii before statehood is no different from any other territory. Its citizens in the days after annexation and before statehood are uncontroversially natural born US citizens. For example, Davy Crocket was born in land that would become the state of Tennessee four years later. He was considered a potential Presidential contender by his fans, and his detractors did not cite his Constitutional ineligibility for the post when trying to damage his prospects.

Honza Prchal, Esq.
Birmingham, AL

Dear Editor:
I agree with Bruce R. Mulraney's letter (01/28/09 ID), which opposes Mario Apuzzo's letter's mistaken and unsupported argument that the term "natural born citizen" of the US in Article 2 of the Constitution allegedly has a more restricted meaning than the concept of a US citizen by birth in the US in the 14th Amendment. But the authors of both of these Constitutional provisions were more likely thinking of the kings of England than of Poland, as argued in Mr. Mulraney's letter. These Constitutional drafters chose (according to the Wong Kim Ark decision) to adopt the broad view of citizenship by birth established in the English Common Law, namely that anyone born in the King's realm was a English subject, unless his parents were foreign diplomats or occupying enemy soldiers. However, the English Common Law also made it virtually impossible for anyone born in England to renounce English citizenship, which is precisely what the American colonists were trying to do. Therefore, there was a body of opinion in some early US states that resisted adopting the broad English Common Law doctrine of citizenship by birth, because it might have limited the freedom to sever one's allegiance to England. Therefore, according to this argument, America would be serving the cause of liberty better by adopting a narrower view of citizenship by birth in the US than that of the English Common Law. But this argument was rejected in the Wong Kim Ark decision. It might have been relevant in 1789, when the Constitution was adopted. But it had ceased to be relevant in the very different America of 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, or in 1898, the year of the Wong Kim Ark decision. It is even less relevant in America today. This will conclude my letters on this topic.

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
Sid Lachter's letter (01/29/09 ID) hit the nail right on the head when his letter states, "Citizens by birth are citizens in all respects by virtue of the 14th Amendment, and the citizenship of their parents is irrelevant ..." I do not understand where this 14th Amendment controversy came from in ID Letters to the Editor, but arguing there is a difference between a "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the US" is akin to the ceaseless ranting and raving of those who believe taxation by the federal government is unconstitutional, one argument being that Americans are citizens of the individual states as opposed to citizens of the United States, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. Of course of the thousands of lawsuits and IRS proceedings brought over past decades pertaining to this position, none has yet to succeed. The issue of who is a US citizen is not a matter of opinion or debate; this has all been laid to rest years ago by the US Supreme Court. Read and understand the majority opinions in the pertinent cases and stop insulting the intelligence of ID readers with nonsensical bickering about how many elephants can sit on the top of the 14th Amendment before they are US citizens. Enough is enough. In response to KO's letter (01/29/09 ID), who once again brings up the knee-jerk tirade over the H-1B, all I can say is nonsense. That tired old horse was buried years ago and anyone who knows and understands the fundamentals of the H-1B visa knows those unsubstantiated arguments will never be entered in the Kentucky Derby. I vote we move on to more intelligent discussion about how to fix the broken immigration system while trying to keep everyone in the world happy.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA

Dear Editor:
Thank you for your skilled editing of my letter (ID: 01/29/09). ID improved my original submission.

Bruce R. Mulraney
Los Angeles, CA

Dear Editor:
In reference to Robert Yang's letter (01/28/09 ID) "Unproductive" parents and relatives of U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents living off Medicare and Social Security checks. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. First of all, many parents are not elderly, many relatives are not elderly. Most come and work. Even a parent that comes and does not work outside the home often becomes the babysitter for the USC grandchildren so that their parents can both work and make a living. By entrusting the children to their grandparents instead of strangers or the sometimes sterile atmosphere of corporate daycare, the children are usually better cared for and family ties are strengthened. The result is often less juvenile delinquency, and higher acheivement. I don't see that as a negative. As for the Medicare and Social Security checks, permanent residents are not eligible to petition parents under ordinary immigration, only U.S. citizens can sponsor thier parents. Those U.S. citizens file Affidavits of Support which promise that they will care for the parent or relative until they become a citizen or leave the country. Most Permanent Residents themselves are not eligible for any public benefits for 5 to 10 years. There are only a few ways you might see an elderly immigrant getting Medicare or Social Security checks. They might already be a U.S. citizen; they might have come as a refugee or asylee (which is not an easy way to come, fleeing war, persecution, torture, etc and is granted by the U.S. government); their spouse may be or have been a U.S. citizen and maybe a few other ways but most do not fall into these categories. So, I am not sure who are all of these parents and relatives you see who are unproductive and living off of Medicare and Social Security checks unless they have earned it.


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 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