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 February 5, 2010
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 35,000+ readers


Creative Solution

The ABA Journal reports "A sweeping report released this morning by the ABA Commission on Immigration proposes the creation of an independent structure for hearing cases involving immigrants facing removal from the US to replace the system that currently operates out of the Justice Department." For the full news story, see here.

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


The Immigration Compliance Book

The Immigration Compliance Book, Editors Angelo A. Paparelli, L. Batya Schwartz Ehrens, and Dan Siciliano features the following:

  • Sections: Understanding I-9 Concepts, I-9 Advanced Topics, Employer E-Verify Considerations, E-Verify Advanced Topics, DHS Enforcement Through ICE Raids and Audits, Specialty Topics
  • Sample Proposed I-9 Policy and Procedures, Sample Form I-9 Verification Procedures Guideline for Employers, Sample Checklist for I-9 Audit and Correction Guidelines
  • Critical Resource Materials: Selected Statutory Provisions, USCIS Memos, Executive Orders, USCIS Publications on I-9s and E-Verify, USCIS Press Releases/Q&As/FAQs, etc
  • Resource Materials on CD-ROM: 100+ Relevant Cases from OCAHO, BIA, Federal District and Circuit Courts, Important Statutes, Regulations, Forms, Weblinks, etc.
  • 750+ pages, 850+ footnotes
  • 33 authors: Adam Ketcher, Angelo A. Paparelli, Bonnie K. Gibson, Cynthia Lange, Cyrus D. Mehta, Dan Siciliano, Douglas D. Hauer, Francis E. Chin, Greg Wald, Jason Burritt, Jay Jorgensen, John Fay, Johanna Marmon, Julie Pearl, Justin A. Rymer, Kevin Lashus, Kristin Major, L. Batya Schwartz Ehrens, Laura Danielson, Loan Huynh, Lynn O. Tarran, Maggie Murphy, Matthew Warren, Michael Patrick, Michael J. Wildes, Olivia M. Sanson, Philip C. Curtis, Richard Gump, Robert F. Loughran, Steve Trow, Susanne C. Heubel, Susan Kelly, Vinh C. Trieu
For more info on this book, see here (fax version, see here).


Bloggings on Deportation And Removal
Matthew Kolken writes "The main purpose of this blog post is to shed light on what is going on at our northern border and illuminate the treatment that non US citizens and more specifically what Citizens of Canada are subjected to at the hands of U.S. Customs and Border Protection."

Bloggings On Dysfunctional Government
Angelo A. Paparelli writes "The assertion in the last quoted sentence, pointing to "agency correspondence in individual cases" as the grant of permission for attorneys to sign petitions and applications on behalf of clients, is not, however, the full story."

To submit an Article for consideration, write to


NJ AILA Chapter Meeting Notes With CBP Officials
We provide notes from the January 26, 2010 NJ AILA Chapter meeting with representatives from CBP (courtesy of Victoria Donoghue, Esq. and David Nachman, Esq., Nachman & Associates, P.C).

ORR Letter On Cuban And Haiti Entrants
The Office of Refugee Resettlement released a letter to state refugee coordinators reviewing the definition of "Cuban and Haitian entrant" as it applies to Haitian nationals and clarifies the acceptable documentation these individuals may present when they apply for ORR-funded benefits and services.

10th Circuit On Preemption
In Chamber of Commerce of the US, v. Drew Edmonson, Nos. 08-6127 and 08-6128 (10th Cir. Feb 2, 2010), the court "concluded that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the Chambers' challenge to Section 9 ... we further hold that the Chambers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Section 7(C) is expressly preempted and that Section 9 is impliedly preempted. Moreover, the remaining considerations favor issuance of a preliminary injunction." The court also "concluded that the district court erred in its determination that Section 7(B) is preempted, and thus the panel reverses the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Section 7(B)."


Help Wanted - Immigration Attorney
Detroit area, MI - Expanding employment immigration law firm seeks junior immigration attorney with 2+ years business immigration law experience in H, L, PERM cases. Candidate must enjoy working in fast-paced collegial environment, posesses excellent communication skills, is able to multi-task and work independently. Competitive salary + compensation package offered. Relocation package unavailable. All replies treated in strict confidence. Send resume + cover letter to:

Help Wanted - Immigration Paralegals
Detroit area, MI - Expanding employment immigration law firm invites immigration paralegals with 5+ years business immigration law experience in H, L, PERM cases to consider joining our team. Candidates should be detail-oriented, able to work independently, be team players, and have solid writing and speaking ability. Competitive salary offered. Send resume + cover letter to:

I-9 And E-Verify Compliance Technology
What do top employment firms, leading I-9 experts, and 3,000+ US worksites all have in common about their I-9 and E-Verify compliance strategy? LawLogix's state-of-the-art integrated I-9 and E-Verify system that provides organizations with a platform to create, store, and easily manage secure electronic and error checked I-9's and E-Verify results. LawLogix boasts a 9-year track record, successful migration of over half a million paper I-9s, unmatched data security, and cutting edge features to assist organizations with state and federal compliance (e.g., FAR Executive Order 13465). We offer a systematic approach to the reduction of compliance risks including the automated digitizing and transcription of old I-9s, real-time error checking of new electronic I-9s, and data integration with current HRIS systems. Tangible results: time-saved, fewer paid fines, significant reductions in compliance and reputation risks. Visit:, email or call today 602-357-4240 ext. 7150 to sign-up under our money back guarantee or to request your private demo.

Immigration Law Certificate
Classes offered both online and in-person. Master the complex and ever changing maze of immigration policies and regulations with the Immigration Law Studies Certificate Program offered by CUNY's School of Professional Studies. This graduate-level certificate program, consisting of (3) three-credit classes, offers students who complete it a comprehensive understanding of the laws, regulations, and processes surrounding the status of immigrants in the US, including family and employment-based immigration and deportation defense. It is designed for individuals working in law firms, companies, government agencies and nonprofit organizations where they interact with immigrants and immigrant legal concerns on a regular basis and would therefore benefit from greater knowledge of the laws and regulations surrounding immigration. For more information on class schedules, tuition and fees, course applications and to register, see here.


McCain Feeling Primary Heat From His Right Flank: McCain to be challenged by anti-immigrant ex-congressman in primary

Tenth Circuit splits on injunction against Oklahoma #immigration law

USCIS Says Marriage Does Not Require Sex


Readers can share professional announcements (up to 100-words at no charge), email: To announce your event, see here

Immigration Event - Chatham, MA
Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 9:30-11:00 am, Successfully Maintaing A J-1 Seasonal Workforce - The Benefits for Cape Cod at Chatham Bars Inn, 297 Shore Road, Chatham, MA. Free and open to the public, advance registration required by March 23, 2010. or 508-255-2792.


Readers can share comments, email: (up to 300-words). Past correspondence is available in our archives

Dear Editor:
Jim Roberts' letter (2/03/10 ID) was kind enough actually to agree, for once, with something that one of my letters said, namely about the dismal chances for CIR. I will reciprocate. My letters have always have been very critical of his letters' claims about an alleged "Aztlan" plot by Latino immigrants to turn the US Southwest over to Mexico. However, I recently saw an article in the Village Voice (not exactly a mainstream publication) by someone who claimed to be a spokesperson for the Mexican community in the US. The article said, in brief, that it was time to crack down on the violent narco gangs at the border (with which, of course, everyone agrees) so that the "recolonization" of "Aztlan" can proceed peacefully through the influx of ordinary illegal immigrants. I do not know if this stupid comment was meant humorously or not. But with "friends" like that, Mexican immigrants certainly do not need any enemies.

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
Quite succinctly, Andrew Free's letter (ID 2/5/10) underscores the disconnect in logic between the recent 10th Circuit decision and impetus toward immigration legislative reform. Why indeed would a declaration that states cannot properly act in this area spur Congress to act more? Despite that disconnect however, hope that the decision could spur some modification of the status quo is not misplaced. If state laws, many of which were enacted to mitigate the disproportionate impact of large numbers of undocumented persons have on the resources of specific states or specific counties within certain states, are declared unconstitutional, those states will likely seek out other tools to solve what is a legitimate state concern - including pressuring the federal government to put up or shut up. Either devote enough resources to properly secure the borders and remove persons from our state who are in violation of current laws; or change the legal landscape so that that the bulk of those violators can become non-violators, and become fully integrated into the communities in which they live and work. Given that removal of the 12 million illegals currently in the US at a rate which impacted states would find acceptable would take an operation similar in scope, ruthlessness, and logistics as that used by the Nazis, the remove-if-not-compliant option is not tenable. Although there are clearly some pockets of vocal, nativists who would cheer at the sight, I do not believe most Americans would stand for box cars full of families being drawn southward through their towns. Thus, if Supreme Court precedent narrows these states' legal options, it will not be too long before those states re-start pressuring the feds to act toward a more lasting solution.

Jay McTyier, Esq.
Louisville, KY

Dear Editor:
In response to Mr. Murray's letter of (2/4/10 ID), concerning Biblical input for the immigration debate, his letter references an encounter with a female Seventh-day Adventist evangelist who advocated killing those who do not believe Jesus is God. Since Seventh-day Adventists do not ordain women ministers and heavily support members choosing non-combatancy in times of draft, this statement does not make sense. If his letter's recollection is correct, those views are not in accordance with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs.

M. Jacobs

Dear Editor:
With reference to the (2/4/10 ID) and D. Murray Letters, perhaps one reason the Bible is so down on lawyers is their frequent characteristic of distorting or ignoring the obvious and substantive in favor of the debating of minor, side or other issues, thus obscuring and impeding any real progress. See all of Matt. 23 which is summed up in verse 24: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel". While DM can write letters, articles and quotes about the Bible (and others apparently shouldn't), the right conclusions therefrom are seriously lacking. It is seen often in ID and elsewhere where a positive thought, truth or concern is stated only to be critiqued by an entry enthusiast on some minor, irrelevant point that minimizes the former in favor of the latter. Only a lawyer could read Luke 11:45:54, ignore it's subject, say, "Woe. Shame on Jesus." (my exclamation marks have always been edited) and distort it to mean that the prophets and apostles would "slay and persecute" others rather than being the recipients and that Jesus would then "support ICE and CBP". While the (2/2/10 ID) Frosty Wooldridge article addressed many substantial entry issues all of which are apparently negated according to the next day letter of R. Black as the "article is exaggerating" and other statistical minutia that minimizes or precludes the real issues including too many entrants. The letter also typically cites the needs of business as if that is the only concern, ignoring the needs and plight of US citizens. The Hake/Murray letters topic is less urgent than the limiting of entry and deporting of illegals which is present law. The major part of this that is "broken" is the lack of serious enforcement and the wrongful array of benefits available to non-citizens including cheapened birth citizenship. Now addressing this would be real CIR and has everything "to do with lawyers or the immigration debate".

Jim Roberts

Dear Editor:
Responding to ID's Comment (2/3/10 ID) which discussed the recent decision by the 10th Circuit Court regarding immigration enforcement laws enacted in Oklahoma, according to the article on the link which ID provided, the 3-judge panel of the court overturned portions on the laws but let stand a "prohibition on transporting or harboring an illegal immigrant", and let stand a provision that the state (OK) "can now force businesses to cross-check employee names against a government list of eligible workers". (I.e, E-Verify, which the article referred to as "Basic Pilot".) ID then went on to comment that "If the Supreme Court sides with the 10th. Circuit, hundreds of state laws will be unconstitutional, guaranteeing that Congress, even if it Republican (sic) by then will have no choice but to enact CIR (including full legalization)." I can understand ID's initial euphoria over any failure of an attempt at immigration enforcement. Still, the decision was hardly a "wipe out" for us "restrictionists"; I think most of us would swap a lot of state and local laws for mandatory and universal use of E-Verify.

John H. Frecker
Baileyville, ME

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 1995-2010 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