Comment

Spyware

Spyware is the latest bane of the Internet, potentially more deadly than viruses and spam. Spyware is an invasive type of software that hides in your computer and causes trouble in a variety of ways, including hijacking your browser, hijacking your internet searches, generating pop-ups, and logging key strokes on your computer. Unfortunately, your antivirus program and your firewall are of no use in protecting against spyware. In order to protect your computer against spyware, two free programs are especially helpful: Ad-aware, available at www.lavasoftusa.com, and Spybot Search & Destroy at www.beam.to/spybotsd. We too use these programs at ILW.COM to protect our computers against malicious software. An article in SmartMoney magazine's September 2004 issue explains what spyware does, how to avoid it, and how to fight it. For the article see here.

We welcome readers to share their opinion by writing to weeklyeditor@ilw.com.

Highlight

David Wolfe Leopold & Associates And Other Featured Law Firms

David Wolfe Leopold & Associates Cleveland, OH

The Stevenson Group, S.C.  Milwaukee, WI

Law Office of Patricia S. Depew  Los Angeles, CA

Richard W. Moore, P.A.  Towson, MD

John E Storms Jr. P.A.  Wheaton, MD

Attorneys: Click here to join directory

Articles

Joel Stewart's BALCA Review (August 12, 2004)
Joel Stewart presents a summary of recent notable BALCA decisions.

The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003
Luke J. Larsen, in a report published by the US Census Bureau, describes in detail various characteristics of the foreign-born population in the US.

Asylum Resource Series: Sri Lanka
USCIS Asylum Resource Information Center offers asylum information on Sri Lanka.

The Status Of Transsexuals Under US Immigration Law
Cyrus Mehta writes "In the case of a marriage, where one or both parties are transsexuals, CIS ought to recognize the marriage if it is valid under the law of the state where it is celebrated."

The Endless Wait: Will Resources Match The Resolve To Reduce The Immigration Case Backlog?
The Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation writes "Congress and the White House have pledged for a decade to reduce the backlog of immigration cases, but without providing the resources necessary to do the job."

Adjusting to the USA
Oliver Oziel writes "Adjusting to a new culture can be a time of experiencing new customs, values, and beliefs, as you are literally immersed in a new culture and possibly a new language as well."

Chat

When	Attorney
Logon for chat Next Chat: Tue, Aug 24, 5:00 PM ET Questions will be accepted starting 15 minutes before the event.	Stuart J. Reich, Esq.
Tue, Aug 31, 5:00 pm ET	Karen K Meade, Esq.
Tue, Sep 7, 5:00 pm ET	Arthur Zabenko, Esq.
Tue, Sep 14, 5:00 pm ET	Gene Meltser, Esq.
Tue, Sep 21, 5:00 pm ET	Mitch Berenson, Esq.
Tue, Sep 28, 5:00 pm ET	Alice Yardum-Hunter, Esq.

Letters

Send your letters to weeklyeditor@ilw.com.

Dear Editor:
I disagree with the writer's premise. If you think people are coming here just to work, abolish family immigration. Then see millions of undocumenteds coming here just to be with family members who are here working. One fact that is largely ignored is that a significant percentage of Mexican immigrants, who make up a majority of the undocumented people here, would prefer to come here, work for a while, and then go back to Mexico to buy the property that is out of their reach considering Mexico’s low wages and high unemployment rate. Our immigration laws don’t permit them to do that. It is so hard to get here, and leaving makes it so much harder, legally, to come back in, that they realize that if they leave they may never be able to come back. So they stay. Furthermore, the breakup of Mexican families because of this situation creates further "illegal" immigration because family members start to miss each other. Dad cannot go back to Mexico, so Mom, kids, grandparents, etc., come here to keep him company. The logical solution is to greatly increase the ability of these people to come here, work a couple years, leave, and still be able to come back in the future. We would also need to allow family members freedom to come in and visit. But this is a political problem because of an irrational fear here that "they" will come here in huge numbers, and stay, such that they will soon outnumber "us." I could write a book on why I disagree with the writer, but I’m not ready to commit that much time, yet.

AW

Dear Editor:
An editorial "Abolish Family Immigration" is absurd. There is no way it should be abolished. There are millions of immigrants in the US who want their family to come to live in the US. How will they help them get their documents if the family who comes here can't find an employment based sponsor? We need family sponsorship to even increase its visa numbers. Lately there has been a backlog in the family preferences due to lack of visas available. Who gets hurt? The Family. I believe, that there should be an increase in number of visas available for all sponsorships, family and employment based, otherwise, the situation will get worse. The US ought to help legalize the status of millions of immigrants that have been in the US for so many years, have been working, paying taxes, their children born here, and they cannot go to visit their country. Those immigrants are in need and they do need your help. They are decent human beings and hardworking people. America was, is, and will always be a country of immigrants. The doors cannot be closed. Families sponsoring families should not wait for many years to join them. The processing times should be within 1 year. Please help the immigrants.

Barbara Zielinska

Dear Editor:
Yes, the solution you offered to the immigration logjam will be painful and cruel. Undeniably, you have some good arguments. Here are my own views: Employment-based immigration also contributes to an increased family-based immigration. Most foreign labor come here with the full intention of bringing their families here and becoming immigrants. I say, stop giving amnestry to those who entered the country illegally. Then, there'll be more visas available for those who patiently waited for their petitions to be processed. There is no clear cut solution to the whole immigration mess - everything's intertwined like the gnarled roots of an old tree. My suggestion is to overhaul the family-based petitions. Process first those who can fill a specific labor shortage in this country (we need so many teachers and health workers). Modify what countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada are doing. So, instead of giving one visa to family-based immigrant and another visa to a work-based immigrant, we are actually giving out only 1 visa instead of 2. They should revise the application forms to show the eligibility of a petitioned person to fill an immediate labor need. Then they should let family-based petitioners update their files to show who's beneficial to the country.

Elizabeth Hao-Weissmer
Glendale, CA

Dear Editor:
In response to your recent editorial, are we only willing to take those people in to the US who can provide business opportunities? Or, are we going to help expand the resources by bringing families into the US to help us become a culturally diverse community? Or, is it the fear of a culturally diverse community that is igniting this appalling suggestion that we trim family based immigration?

Patrick J. Corr, Immigration Instructor
Duquesne University School of Leadership

Dear Editor:
Abolish Family Immigration? How un-American. I can't think of an idea more anti-family. The US has the largest sustained economic growth in the world, with the largest immigrant flow (in raw numbers, not as a percentage of the population) of any economy. Immigrants buy cars, homes and send the message of democracy and free markets thoughout the world. To adopt this "reform" would do permanent damage to millions of families, and would hurt our own economy. We do have a large undocumented immigration population and it's a matter for concern. Like the tides and the wind, illegal immigration is a fact of modern life. An Orwellian society in the receiving country is the only way to prevent illegal migration. The Soviet Union never had an illegal immigration problem. That choice, to make our country a police state, is a price Americans will never be willing to pay. The only solution is a rolling amnesty program. When someone has been here "X" number of years, working, paying taxes, not getting arrested, he should be able to obtain temporary status. This process, so long as the immigrants are not criminals in the ordinary sense, is beneficial to our culture and to our society. Some immigrants are criminals. Our laws are very harsh for those individuals. In my own family, a previously deported ancestor returned illegally to the USA. His grandson, my father, won the Silver Star and the Navy Cross. His other descendants include a respected Democratic governor and a respected Republican Congressman. Others have become professors, doctors, lawyers, and teachers. The most recent immigrants will have many of the same stories to tell in future years.

Robert Cox

Dear Editor:
It does not make any sense to critizice the immigrants in America. Why? It's a country of european immigrants. They all came from Europe. They were immigrants and so are we. You may find that your grandpa or greatgrandfather is from Europe. Does it make any sense to critizice the immigrants knowing that we have a european background? I will leave it on your conciousness.

Marlon Fernandez