Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: "No" to an EB-6 to build "The Wall" By Mona Shah, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: "No" to an EB-6 to Build "The Wall" By Mona Shah, Esq.

    "No" to an EB-6 to Build "The Wall"

    by


    I was appalled when my attention was brought to an article on Breitbart.com. I have the greatest of respect for the authors and I think my first shock was the forum selected for the publication of this article. My next jolt was the content of the piece.

    I am fundamentally opposed to a concept of an EB-6 category with the primary objective of building "The Wall."

    The actual practicality and functionality of a Wall has been repeatedly questioned—with the strongest criticisms being that the wall would be expensive and ineffective in preventing illegal immigration. The “Wall” was considered to be campaign rhetoric that was not realistic and that even many of Trump’s supporters did not really want built. More importantly, the Wall has come to symbolize racism and division. During the last election, the noun- “The Wall “became an adjective, that was hurled around by school children intent on bullying others. From the birth of this nation in 1776, America has been based on fundamental ideals. While Europe dismissed this country as classless, uncivilized and likely to fail, America become a shining light for all the world by accepting the paradigms of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Dr. King.

    EB-5 is, and any EB-6 program would be, foremost an immigration program. Using the money of immigrants to build a “Wall” is not a principle that we as EB-5 stakeholders should even consider. America’s reputation and attractiveness to people around the world has been built over decades. Yes, our country has made its mistakes, but the sincerity of our attempts to promote freedom and liberty and to be a positive influence on the world stage has rarely been doubted.

    This EB-6 proposal comes across as a cheap and craven attempt to cash in on the strength and reputation our forbearers worked so hard to earn. Though I sincerely doubt it, maybe it is possible to convince immigrants to pay $1 million dollars to fund a massive physical symbol of hatred towards immigrants. Presumably the messaging is that the symbol of hate is not directed towards people of your ethnicity for now. Sowing such divisiveness and dividing ethnicities in such a blatant away is fundamentally un-American and will only make our country weaker in the long-run. We should not be sacrificing our country’s reputation, sense of community, and acceptance of one another for what we perceive to be in our own short-term financial interests.

    Remember, much of the country was and is against the Trump administration. While we should obviously recognize that he won a free and fair election and work with his administration where we are in common agreement, we should not be so short-sighted as to alienate the people that strongly oppose the message that building the wall would send. Think, do we really want to be in the news daily as the program that funded the wall as massive protests occur against it? If we show ourselves to be so craven and lacking in fundamental principles, then critics of the E-5 program will be loaded with ammunition should the balance of power ever shift. And as visa numbers can be given, they can also be taken away.

    Finally, the concept itself would undermine EB-5 and the program’s ability to effectively fund projects. The article states that there is a 6-year waiting period for EB-5 applicants. This is only true for applicants from Mainland China, not the rest of the world. In the hope of attaining a green card faster, an EB-6 program would lure wealthy Chinese applicants away from EB-5 projects altogether.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Mona Shah, Esq. Mona Shah, Esq. has over 17 years of legal experience, with more than 13 years concentrated in U.S. immigration and family law and litigation. Mona’s extensive knowledge of all facets of U.S. immigration law, and her practical expertise ranges from specialist business petitions to complicated, multi-issue deportation and removal litigation. Her firm, Mona Shah and Associates, represents individual, high profile and corporate clients from all over the world. Mona is highly proficient and experienced in EB-5 law and practice, and is the author of a published book for investors on the EB-5 laws and procedures (EB5 for the Chinese Investor, available on Amazon). The second updated edition is scheduled to be published shortly. Mona is voted Top 25 EB-5 Attorneys by eb5investors.com and Top 10 EB-5 Attorneys by eb5info.com. She is also an adjunct professor at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch University


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      #1
      Editing a comment
      Why are the Democrats so weak on impeaching Trump? Are they going to wait until he declares the Democratic party an "Enemy of the People", as Stalin and Mao did with their opponents and as Trump has already done with the media, and until Trump starts arresting everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton (i.e. the majority of voters in the last election?

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    ImmigrationDaily
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

    Presidential use of "national security"
    ...
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    ImmigrationDaily
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
Working...
X