Friday, August 31, 2007
Judge Issues Order After Lawsuit Is Filed by AFL-CIO, ACLU, and National Immigration Law Center
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 31, 2007
CONTACT: Ana Avendaño, AFL-CIO, (202) 431-9743; firstname.lastname@example.org Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (917) 892-9180; email@example.com Stella Richardson, ACLU-NC, (415) 845-3042; firstname.lastname@example.org Marielena Hincapié, NILC, (415) 845-3403; email@example.com
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge today issued an order temporarily blocking the government from implementing a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would cause U.S. citizens and other authorized workers to lose their jobs, and which would illegally use error-prone social security records as a tool for immigration enforcement. The judge's order also stops the Social Security Administration (SSA) from beginning to send notices on Tuesday to approximately 140,000 employers across the country notifying them of the new rule, which would impact approximately eight million workers.
The order comes as a result of a lawsuit filed on Wednesday by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the Central Labor Council of Alameda County along with other local labor movements. A hearing on the groups' request to permanently bar the implementation of the DHS rule is scheduled for October 1 before U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer.
"We are very pleased that the judge recognized the need to halt the implementation of this ill-advised DHS rule," said John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO. "Employers have historically used SSA 'no-match' letters to exploit workers and this rule would only give them a stronger pretext for doing more of the same."
In the lawsuit, the groups charge that the misguided rule violates the law and workers' rights and imposes burdensome obligations on employers who receive SSA "no-match" letters that inform them of alleged discrepancies between employee records and the SSA database.
U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney found that the groups "raised serious questions as to whether the new Department of Homeland Security rule is inconsistent with statute and beyond the statutory authority of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration."
"The court found the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of staying the rule while it is being challenged," said Scott A. Kronland of Altshuler Berzon LLP, who argued at today's hearing. "We are confident we will prevail when the court hears the case on the merits."
Currently, employers who receive "no-match" letters stating that their employees' identification documents don't match SSA records are not required to take any action. The new DHS rule would impose liability on employers based on failure to respond to an SSA "no-match" letter, even though SSA errors are caused by many innocent factors such as typographical errors and name changes due to marriage or divorce, and the use of multiple surnames, which is common in many parts of the world. According to the Office of the Inspector General in SSA, 12.7 million of the 17.8 million discrepancies in SSA's database - more than 70% - belong to native-born U.S. citizens. Under the DHS rule, employers might be required to fire employees whose erroneous SSA records are not fixed within 90 days after the "no-match" letter is sent. The DHS rule would threaten jobs of U.S. citizens and other legally authorized workers simply because of errors in the government's inaccurate social security earnings database.
"This is a crucial and significant first step in challenging this rule, which would be a bureaucratic and costly nightmare for employers and many U.S. citizens and other legally authorized workers," said Lucas Guttantag, Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project.
"Today's ruling takes us one step closer to an eventual finding that the DHS rule is unlawful. This is a great Labor Day victory for the millions of workers who would have been affected by no-match notice letters being sent out next week," said Marielena Hincapié, Staff Attorney and Director of Programs at NILC.
Today's order was handed down in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
In addition to the AFL-CIO, which is represented by the law firm of Altshuler Berzon, LLP, other parties bringing the lawsuit include the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and NILC, as well as the San Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, represented by Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.
In addition to Guttentag and Hincapié, lawyers on the case include Stephen Berzon, Scott Kronland, Jonathan Weissglass, Linda Lye and Danielle Leonard of Altshuler, Berzon; Jonathan Hiatt, James Copess and Ana Avendaño of the AFL-CIO; Jennifer Chang, Mόnica M. Ramírez, and Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Alan Schlosser and Julia Mass of the ACLU of Northern California; Linton Joaquin and Monica Guizar of NILC; and David Rosenfeld and Manjari Chawla of Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.
The complaint can be found at: http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/SSA_Related_Info/suit_complaint.pdf
The order issued today can be found at:
On Tuesday in a classroom at Holy Family High School, in Broomfield, Colorado, a classroom discussion started with the seemingly innocuous question: "Why do students need to learn Spanish?" According to the Archdiocese of Denver, the conversation soon became about immigration and it turned ugly. " At least one e-mail sent to 9NEWS in Colorado said that at least one student started a chant of "white power" and some said that all Mexicans should go back to Mexico. In the understatement of the day, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of denver stated that "Immigration is an explosive topic right now. It seeped into the classroom."
NEW! ESTIMATES OF THE UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANT POPULATION
The Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) would like to announce the release of *Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2006*. This report provides estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States (11.6 million) as of January 2006, for periods of entry and leading countries of birth and states of residence. The PDF is available on the OIS website at:
AP reports that a group of students paying out-of-state tuition to attend college in Kansas cannot challenge a state law allowing some undocumented immigrants to pay lower in-state tuition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled. The ruling dealt with whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the 2004 Kansas law and did not address the law's merits. A trial judge in Kansas had ruled the students lacked standing to challenge the law because they did not face a ''concrete and imminent'' injury. The Tenth Circuit agreed. The plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens who did not live in Kansas, argued the state violated their constitutional rights by offering undocumented residents who were residents of Kansas the same in-state fees paid by other Kansas residents. For a copy of the Tenth Circuuit's opinion, click Download day_v. Sebelius 10 8-30-07.pdf
UMKC law professor Kris Kobach (for a past story about him, click here), handled the appeal for the plaintiffs. Kobach also handled the trial for the City of Hazleton in Lozano v. City of Hazleton, in which a federal district struck down Hazleton's immigration ordinance.
in "Is the Future of Legal Scholarship in the Blogosphere?," Margaret A. Schilt in Legal Times writes blogging and the legal academy:
"If you are looking for the future of legal scholarship, chances are that you may find it not in a treatise or the traditional law review but in a different form, profoundly influenced by the blogosphere. Law-related blogs are proliferating on the Internet -- more than 80 are listed on the blogroll of one popular law-related blog, Concurring Opinions. A significant number of the blogs . . . -- are hosted by law professors."
The article talks about blogging as scholarship and as possible professional service. I may be a traditionalist but I tend to agree with Brian Leiter that most blogging does not qualify as scholarship. Some of us bloggers, however, like to think we perform a general service by providing information and insights into the subjects on which we blog.
The L.A. Times reports on a new class action:
"Dahianna Heard's husband was fatally shot while working for a private security contractor in Iraq.
Raquel Williams' husband died of sleep apnea and heart problems.
Ana Maria Moncayo-Gigax's husband was killed in a car crash while on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol.
All three women were waiting for their permanent residency, but their U.S. citizen spouses died before the applications were approved. Immigration authorities later denied the cases because the women were no longer married to U.S. citizens.
The three are part of a class-action lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Los Angeles, that seeks to end the `widow penalty' and asks the court to compel immigration authorities to reopen their cases."
The class action is based on a U.S. Court of Appeals of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2006 that a noncitizen did not automatically lose her eligibility to become a lawful permanent resident because of the death of her spouse. In a scholarly opinion by Judge Raymond Fisher, a long time law firm partner before being appointed to the federal bench, the Ninth Circuit held that a noncitizen who had filed for adjustment of status remained eligible to become a lawful permanent resident even though her sponsor U.S. citizen husband had died (tragically and unexpectedly in a car accident). See Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006). For the Ninth Circuit's latest ruling in the case of Freeman case, click here.
Message from Filipinos for Affirmative Action:
As the Congressional summer recess comes to a close, the Filipino Veterans Equity Campaign is gearing up for what we hope is the final stage of our effort to win equal status and benefits for the Filipino WWII veterans.
We have successfully gotten the Filipino WWII Veterans Equity Act of 2007 (HR760 & S57) through the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees in the period between February 1 and July 30. This is a historic achievement in our 60-year effort to win equal veterans status for Filipino WWII veterans.
Now, the bill will likely come up for a floor vote in both the House and Senate this Fall. Once it passes there, we're on to White House for signature into law. Our goal is to get President Bush to sign by December 2007!
To learn more about the Filipinos WWII Veterans Equity Campaign, please contact FAA at (510) 465-9876 or visit the National Alliance's for Filipino Veterans Equity (NAFVE's) site, by clicking here.
Garabed "Garo" Sarkis Yepremian (born June 2, 1944) is a former National Football League placekicker (1966-81). Yepremian played for the Detroit Lions, Miami Dolphins, New Orleans Saints, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Yepremian was born in Larnaca, Cyprus. At the age of sixteen, he moved to London, England. Yepremian later moved to Indianapolis, Indiana, hoping to earn a college scholarship playing football. However, Yepremian's brief experience as a professional soccer player prevented him from playing college football per NCAA rules. Nevertheless, he continued to practice kicking at Butler University, where he was discovered and signed by the Detroit Lions.
In his rookie year, Yepremian broke a record by kicking six field goals in a single game for the Lions against the Minnesota Vikings. In the 1974 Pro Bow,l Yepremian kicked five field goals to lead the AFC to a win, and was voted Most Valuable Player in that game. He was elected to another Pro Bowl in 1979 after a season in which he kicked twenty consecutive field goals without a miss. Over his career, Yepremian was successful on 210 of 313 field goals and 444 of 464 extra points for a total of 1,074 points. He led the league in field-goal accuracy three times. Yepremian was voted Kicker of the Decade by both the Pro Football Hall of Fame and Sports Illustrated.
Yepremian is perhaps best known for two feats — one famous, one infamous. In a divisional playoff game against the Kansas City Chiefs on Christmas 1971, he kicked a 37-yard field goal in double overtime, ending the longest game in NFL history and sending the Dolphins to the AFC Championship game. Many remember Yepremian for an incident in Super Bowl VII. With his team leading the Washington Redskins 14-0, Yepremian was set to kick a field goal with slightly more than two minutes left. The field goal attempt was blocked, and Yepremian managed to get to the ball. Instead of just falling on the ball, he picked it up and frantically attempted to throw a pass. The ball slipped from his hands and went straight up in the air. Yepremian then batted it back up in the air, and it went right into the arms of Redskins cornerback Mike Bass, who returned it for a touchdown. The Dolphins managed to hold on to win 14-7 to preserve their perfect season.
Yepremian is currently a motivational speaker and the author of several books including an autobiography titled I Keek a Touchdown (1995). He is also the Founder & CEO of The Garo Yepremian Foundation for Brain Tumor Research.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Bill Hing posted this morning about the Tory push for immigration restrictions in the UK. As is often the case, we have much to learn from the old country about immigration. Anil Kalhan has a fascinating post on Dorf on Law on the recent decision by the Garda Síochána, the Irish national police, to ban a Sikh trainee from wearing his turban while on duty . Ireland, which for a long time had been a country of tremendous emigration, has experienced remarkable changes in its migration patterns in recent years, especially as economic growth has created a significant demand for migrant labor. In 1996, Ireland became a country of net immigration for the first time, the last European Union member state to do so. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the road has not been without its bumps -- as in other countries, including the United States, increased immigration has led to both anxiety and confusion among some native-born Irish citizens over the pace and extent of change. Kalhan's analysis thus is relevant to the national debate over immigration in the United States.
This months issue of Texas Monthly has a detailed story about the case of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were convicted for their role in shooting -- and covering up the shooting of -- an unarmed man on the Texas-Mexico Border (Pamela Coloff, "Badges of Dishonor"). The victim of the shooting was later determined to have been attempting to smuggle large quantities of drugs across the border, but this was not known to the agents at the time of the shooting.
Among other things, Coloff's article provides another look at Lou Dobbs' distorted reporting on this particular issue, providing another example of the ways in which he has relied upon lopsided reporting to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment and to dehumanize immigrants:
Two months before Ramos and Compean were set to be sentenced, Lou Dobbs introduced the case to a national audience ....Correspondent Casey Wian walked through the incident with Ramos, who recounted his version of events: hearing gunfire, finding his fellow agent lying on the ground, and then firing his weapon when the suspect pointed what appeared to be a gun. “[The public] entrusted me to stop a drug smuggler and I did,” he said. CNN’s viewers were never told that Ramos had failed to report the shooting, that Compean had tampered with key evidence, or that Aldrete-Davila had attempted to surrender—facts that were readily available to anyone who had read the indictment or newspaper coverage of the case.
Dobbs .... highlight[ed] the case on no fewer than 131 broadcasts in the eleven months that followed, including an hour-long special called “Border Betrayal.” Rather than delve into the specifics of the case, the show gave ample airtime to a rotation of family members, defense attorneys, lawmakers, and anti-illegal immigration activists who argued that the agents should never have been prosecuted. Dobbs injected his own nativist bent into the conversation, as when he reflected on whether the federal government had prosecuted Ramos and Compean because of “the influence of a powerful drug cartel” or was “blighting the lives of these two outstanding Border Patrol agents to appease the government of Mexico.”
This is not the first time I've mentioned Dobbs' heavily biased reporting, and I'm afraid it won't be the last. Perhaps giving people the facts won't change their mind, but I agree with the NY Times' David Leonhardt: if Dobbs' stories about immigration are really so good, he shouldn't be afraid to put the facts on the table. He's CNN!
Controlling immigration to the UK will lead to greater community cohesion, the Tories said.
Shadow immigration minister Damian Green said a "firm immigration policy" was necessary to enable local authorities to provide services for people arriving in the country.
Tory leader David Cameron said that immigration into Britain had been "too high" and called for "tough and rigorous" action to control the numbers coming in.
Mr Green, speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, said recent waves of immigration had put public services under strain. He said: "Local authorities in various parts of the country have pointed out the difficulties. Click here for the rest of the story.
Jennifer Mulhern Granholm (born February 5, 1959 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) is the current Governor of the U.S. state of Michigan. A Democrat, Granholm became Michigan's first female governor on January 1, 2003 and was relected in 2006.
Granholm's family moved from Canada to California when she was four. As a young adult, she unsuccessfully attempted to launch a Hollywood acting careerl. In 1980, she became a U.S. citizen, worked for John Anderson's independent run for U.S. President, and enrolled at the UC Berkeley. After graduating from Berkeley in 1984, she earned her Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School. She then clerked for U.S. Judge Damon Keith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In 1986 she married current First Gentleman Daniel Mulhern, a Michigan native, and took his surname as her middle name. In 1990, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 1994, she was appointed Wayne County Corporation Counsel.
Granholm was elected Michigan Attorney General in 1998, the first female to hold that position, serving for until 2002. In the election of 2002, she defeated former Governor James Blanchard and US House Democratic Whip David Bonior in the Democratic primary, and then went on to win the general election.
The Dallas Star-Telegram reports that a native Texan spent the night in an Arlington Jail, missed her children's first day of school,and feared being deported after authorities mistook her for an undocumented immigrant. A U.S. citizen born in Dallas, Texas, Alicia Rodriguez, an accountant and mother of three, has the same name and date of birth as a woman deported to Mexico three times. "I was told I was waiting for an [immigration] officer or Border Patrol officer to interview me and then move me to another location. It was very scary," the Mansfield woman said.
Now some might say that all Texans are "foreigners" who should be deported but that is not the law. It does seem a funny coincidence that Alicia Rodriguez just happened to have a Spanish surname and be Mexican American, like many other Texans (and U.S. citizens).
Have You No Shame, Virginia Republicans? Va. Republican Bill (the Anti-DREAM Act) Would Bar Illegal Immigrants From College
The Washington Post reports that Virginia Republicans announced legislation Wednesday that would prohibit public colleges and universities from accepting undocumented immigrants even if they attended a public high school and were brought to the United States at an early age by their parents. GOP leaders, who control both houses of the legislature, suggested that some Virginia residents are being denied access to college because too many illegal immigrants are taking available slots.
Souunds like the anti-DREAM Act to me. We can only hope that it goes down in flames for its mean-spiritedness and for being bad economic and labor policy. One reader writes "Education sounds like it may be in the process of becoming the `new' property -- these kinds of laws remind of the Alien land Laws, except instead of prohibiting alien ownership of land; they prohibit `ownership' of the `new' property -- college degrees."
"Secularism and Human Rights: A Contextual Analysis of Headscarves, Religious Expression, and Women's Equality Under International Law" Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2007. KARIMA BENNOUNE Rutgers - School of Law Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=989066
"Migration and Reinterpreted Sovereignty in the US and Mexico: Inspiration from Third World Transnational National Identities" ERNESTO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ Chapman University School of Law. Abstract: http://ssrn.com/abstract=985221
"Refugees: On the Economics of Political Migration". PETER V. SCHAEFFER West Virginia University Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=989646
"Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication" Stanford Law Review, Vol. 60, 2008 Contact: JAYA RAMJI-NOGALES Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law; ANDREW SCHOENHOLTZ Georgetown University Law Center; PHILIP G. SCHRAG Georgetown University Law Center. Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=983946
"African Migration to Europe: Obscured Responsibilities and Common Misconceptions" GIGA Working Paper No. 49. DIRK KOHNERT German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=989960
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
It is perhaps an understatement to say that we have seen some pretty nasty things in the realm of immigration over the last year or so. But there is some resistance. Yesterday, we posted a story about a Latino economic boycott of Prince William County in response to its new immigration ordinance. Here are a few examples of pushback from immigrants and their supporters from today's news.
Suit over Fee Increase
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has filed a lawsuit for Declaratory Relief and an injunction in federal court against Michael Chertoff and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for improperly raising citizenship fees. The story regarding the lawsuit is here. A copy of the Complaint is here.
Suit Over New Enforcement Policies
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the Central Labor Council of Alameda County along with other local labor movements today filed a lawsuit charging that a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule will threaten jobs of U.S. citizens and other legally authorized workers simply because of errors in the government's inaccurate social security earnings databases. The rule violates workers' rights and imposes burdensome obligations on employers who receive Social Security Administration (SSA) "no-match" letters that inform an employer of alleged discrepancies between employee records and the SSA database. Under the new rule, many U.S. citizens and legally authorized workers could be required to be terminated if their erroneous SSA records are not fixed within 90 days of an SSA "no-match" letter being sent to an employer. The rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 14. According to the Office of the Inspector General in SSA, 12.7 million of the 17.8 million discrepancies in SSA's database - more than 70% - belong to native-born U.S. citizens.
The lawsuit requests a court order preventing DHS and SSA from implementing the new DHS rule, including the initial mailing of 'no-match' letter packets scheduled to go out to employers on September 4, until a decision on the rule's legality can be reached. The lawsuit also requests a finding that the rule is invalid. The lawsuit was filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition to the AFL-CIO, which is represented by the law firm of Altshuler Berzon, LLP, other parties bringing the lawsuit include the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and NILC, as well as the San Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, represented by Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld. In addition to Guttentag and Hincapié, lawyers on the case include Stephen Berzon, Scott Kronland, Jonathan Weissglass, Linda Lye and Danielle Leonard of Altshuler, Berzon; Jonathan Hiatt, James Copess and Ana Avendaño of the AFL-CIO; Jennifer Chang, Mόnica M. Ramírez, and Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Alan Schlosser and Julia Mass of the ACLU of Northern California; Linton Joaquin and Monica Guizar of NILC; and David Rosenfeld and Manjari Chawla of Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld. The complaint can be found here.
Associated Press reports that, after splintering over a year ago, two Los Angeles immigrant coalitions joined forces Tuesday while calling for a Sept. 12 consumer boycott in favor of immigration reform. The groups said they united after the Aug. 19 arrest and deportation of Elvira Arellano, who lived in a Chicago church for a year to avoid deportation. Arellano was detained by immigration agents outside Los Angeles' Our Lady Queen of Angels church near Olvera Street. The massive marches across America in the spring of 2006 brought new clout to immigrant organizing groups, but bitter infighting and rifts soon followed. While the March 25 Coalition called for and helped organized May 1 boycotts the past two years, the We Are America Coalition in Los Angeles has focused more on citizenship and voter registration drives, along with lobbying Congress. Both said they were forming the Los Angeles We are All Elvira and Saulito Coalition, and planned to organize a consumer boycott in Los Angeles.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) offers educational seminars throughout the year taught by our expert immigration staff attorneys. These seminars will provide you with the most up-to-date information about immigration issues and give you the skills you need to assist your clients.
“I am a sole practitioner whose focus is on family based immigration law; ILRC seminars are the best and I do everything I can to not miss a single one. Not only do they go over the law, but also how it is applied and argued by attorneys in immigration court or the CIS office.” Emilia Banuelos, Esq.
“The ILRC’s continuing legal education seminars provide a good combination of practical & theoretical legal expertise, with enthusiastic instructors dedicated to keeping current on immigration law & concrete issues confronted by the legal service providers” David J. Pasternak, Esq.
Cancellation of Removal for Nonpermanent Residents and How to Analyze “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship”
Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2pm–5pm, SFSU Downtown Campus, San Francisco
Fees: Regular $135; Non-profit $65; ILOTA $30
Learn how to prepare successful Cancellation of Removal cases for Nonpermanent Residents under INA §240A(b). 2.75 MCLE
To register for this seminar, go here
Essential Elements of Immigration Law
New dates! Wednesdays, Sept 19, 26, Oct 3, 10, 17, 24, 3:30pm-7pm, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco
Fees: Regular $420; Non-profit $200; ILOTA $200
Back by popular demand, this comprehensive six-session course will be led by Don Ungar, who is not only well-known for his fresh and innovative approach to immigration law over the past four decades, but also for his talent as a skilled teacher of immigration law. 19.5 MCLE
To register for this seminar, go here
How to Prepare a Winning Waiver of Inadmissibility
Thursday, Sept. 27, 2pm–5pm, SFSU Downtown Campus, San Francisco
Fees: Regular $135; Non-profit $65; ILOTA $30
Learn to analyze the most common grounds of admissibility and how to argue waivers, establish “extreme hardship,” incorporate effective client interview tactics to elicit information establishing hardship and find supporting documentation to support hardship claims. 2.75 MCLE
To register for this seminar, go here
Child Status Protection Act Made Simple
Monday, Oct. 1, 2pm–5pm, The Center at Cathedral Plaza, Los Angeles
Thursday, Oct. 4, 2pm–5pm, SFSU Downtown Campus, San Francisco
Fees: Regular $135; Non-profit $65; ILOTA $30
This seminar will provide a detailed explanation of the CSPA as it applies to family-based and employment-based visas, VAWA, and refugee/asylee derivatives. Through the use of examples and hypothetical exercises, participants will learn simple, practical applications of the law. 2.75 MCLE
To register for the LA seminar, go here To register for the SF seminar, go here
Advanced VAWA Training
Friday, Oct. 19, 9am–5pm, SFSU Downtown Campus, San Francisco
Friday, Oct. 26, 9am–5pm, The Center at Cathedral Plaza, Los Angeles
Fees: Regular $235; Non-profit $125; ILOTA $40
An advanced training for attorneys and BIA accredited representatives covering the latest VAWA-specific provisions, policies, and practice tips related to adjustment of status, criminal and immigration-related inadmissibility and good moral character bars, motions to reopen and U visa cases. 6.5 MCLE
To register for the SF seminar, go here To register for the LA seminar, go here
Crimes and Immigration Seminar
Saturday, Oct. 27, 9am–5pm, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco
New date! Saturday, Nov. 17, 9am–5pm, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles
This interactive program on defending non-citizens features newly designed and updated sessions on the immigration consequences of crimes, intensive exercises, and break-out groups for criminal and immigration lawyers. 6.5 MCLE
To register for this seminar, visit www.CriminalAndImmigrationLaw.com
Remedies for Victims of Immigration Fraud
Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2pm–5pm, SFSU Downtown Campus, San Francisco
Fees: Regular $135; Non-profit $65; ILOTA $30
This seminar will address the problems of immigration fraud and what you can do for clients who have been victimized by immigration fraud. 2.75 MCLE
To register for this seminar, go here
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Sai Suzuki, Marketing Coordinator, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
On Tuesday, recent U.S. deportee Elvira Arrellano met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and asked the Mexican government to review the treatment of its emigrants by the United States. USA Today reports that, today, a Mexican Senate committee passed a measure urging President Calderon to send a diplomatic note to the United States protesting the deportation of Arrellano. The committee also approved a scholarship to help her 8-year-old U.S.-born son, Saul, who is an American citizen and stayed in the United States.
From the Los Angeles Times: "The Los Angeles Police Department has imposed a moratorium on impounding the vehicles of unlicensed drivers amid concerns that the practice may be unconstitutional, officials said Tuesday. The decision touches on what has long been a hot-button issue, because many unlicensed drivers who have their cars towed are undocumented immigrants who cannot get driver's licenses." The LAPD issued the moratorium as a result of the 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Miranda vs. City Cornelius.
Several California legislators including State Senator Gil Cedillo have proposed legislation thst would allow undocumented immigrants to be eligible for a driver's licenses. Senator Cedillo on his website has information on how to fight impounds, including a “Know your rights card” that details one's rights if a car is impounded. Senator Cedillo also has a immigrant issues section on his website.
Thanks to Ana Maria Patino for this scoop!
Immigration and the Elderly: Foreign-Born Workers in Long-Term Care
by Walter N. Leutz, Ph.D.
Aging populations and the growing need to provide long-term care to the elderly are among the leading demographic, political, and social challenges facing industrialized countries, including the United States. As of 2004, 34.7 million people in this country had lived to their 65th birthday or beyond, accounting for about 12 percent of the U.S. population. Nearly 90 percent of the elderly population is native-born. By 2030, the number of older people in the United States is likely to double, reaching 72 million—or nearly one out of every five people. The aging of larger numbers of Americans will require significant increases in financial and human resources for healthcare support and other social services. As a result, immigrants will continue to play a significant role in the growth of the U.S. labor force in general and of the direct-care workforce in particular. It is in the best interests of long-term care clients, providers, and workers if governments and private donors foster high-quality training and placement programs rather than leaving the future of the direct-care industry to chance.
Among the findings of this report:
The 65+ share of the population grew from 4.1 percent in 1900 to 8.1 percent in 1950 to 12.4 percent in 2000, and is projected to reach 19.6 percent by 2030. In absolute terms, the 65+ population is projected to increase from 35.0 million in 2000 to 71.5 million in 2030.
In 2000, 4.6 million elders, or 4.5 percent of the 65+ population, resided in nursing homes. The group that is most likely to require formal care—those age 85 and over—is projected to increase from 4.7 million in 2003 to 9.6 million in 2030 to 20.9 million in 2050.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the long-term care workforce will grow from 2.8 million to 3.7 million workers between 2004 and 2014—an increase of 34.7 percent. This is nearly three times higher than the projected growth rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole. After large numbers of baby boomers start to turn 85 around 2030, employment of direct-care workers will grow to about 6 million in 2050.
In 2005, there were 2.5 million direct-care workers age 18 and above in the U.S. labor force, accounting for almost 2 percent of all employed persons. Three quarters worked in nursing, psychiatric, and home-health jobs. One in five was born abroad. Nearly nine in ten were women.
U.S. immigration law provides virtually no opportunities for foreign paraprofessionals to work in the United States on a temporary basis or to come here as permanent immigrants. There are no temporary visas designed for direct-care workers and the number of immigrant visas available for all less-skilled workers is capped at only 5,000 per year.
Click here for the full report from the Immigration Policy Center.