- Eli Kantor
- Beverly Hills, California, United States
- Eli Kantor is a labor, employment and immigration law attorney. He has been practicing labor, employment and immigration law for more than 36 years. He has been featured in articles about labor, employment and immigration law in the L.A. Times, Business Week.com and Daily Variety. He is a regular columnist for the Daily Journal. Telephone (310)274-8216; firstname.lastname@example.org. For more information, visit beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com and and beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Wall Street Journal: The GOP's prospective presidential candidates have been doing plenty in the past few weeks: travelling to the Middle East (Mitt Romney), releasing books (Tim Pawlenty), feuding with the press over "blood libel" (Sarah Palin) and even forming exploratory committees (talk show host and former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain). But one thing they generally have not been doing is reaching out to Hispanics, a voting bloc that's important to GOP success in the long term. One exception so far has been Newt Gingrich. The former speaker recently told business leaders in Myrtle Beach, S.C., that in order to build a sustainable and effective governing coalition, the GOP needed to spend more than a quarter of its time courting minorities. To that end, Mr. Gingrich started a bilingual website called The Americano, which presents news and opinions with a conservative bent. Likewise, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has put in more effort than most of his peers. When asked by Politico how the GOP might close the gap with Hispanic voters, he answered, "First of all, show up." He dismissed the notion that Republicans could simply appear in the fall and expect to win votes. Mr. Pawlenty, incidentally, was the only presidential contender to appear at the recent inaugural conference of the Hispanic Leadership Network, a group affiliated with both the conservative American Action Network and Jeb Bush. At the event, Mr. Pawlenty largely sidestepped the immigration issue and instead stressed conservatives' commitment to fostering economic opportunity.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The U.S. can't afford to continue its policy of screening out the best and most talented immigrants.
MSNBC: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses " A statement of current American sentiment? Not quite! While there has yet to be a move to strike this universally recognized phrase from the Statue of Liberty, the ideals behind these noble words would find little support today among the vast majority of Americans. Efforts by both Republicans and Democrats over the past decade to address the nation's broken immigration policy have stalled and immigration remains at the epicenter of the partisan divide. A divisive topic in any economic environment, immigration reform appears to be almost impossible to discuss in a job market with unemployment hovering near 10 percent. Unfortunately, the visceral reactions preempt fulsome consideration of both the problems and the potential solutions. These reactions also obscure the long-term economic consequences of not opening our borders to the world's best and brightest. Current U.S. immigration policy limits the number of highly skilled workers who are permitted to enter the country each year. Rather than encouraging these individuals to come to the U.S., or even allowing the number of visas to float to reflect the demand for their services from U.S.-based employers, current U.S. policy caps the number of H-1B visas at 85,000 annually. That number has not been raised in years, and the demand for highly skilled immigrants far outstrips their supply.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Los Angeles Times: Legislators from five states have unveiled model legislation with complicated provisions but a simple and pernicious premise: that children born in this country aren't citizens if their parents are illegal immigrants. That assertion, however, is no match for more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. If the states enact laws disregarding that principle, the court should resoundingly reaffirm its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The natural reading of that language is that it covers any person born in the United States, who by definition is subject to American law. But the legislators opposed to so-called birthright citizenship offer a different interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They argue that a child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless he or she has "at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or [is] a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country." The legislators lack the authority to change the definition of citizenship, something they hope Congress will do. But they hope to lay the groundwork for a two-tiered system with two proposals based on the idea that birthright citizenship is invalid.
Campus-wide e-mail ties Tucson rampage to Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants and the failure of the DREAM Act.
Los Angeles Times: The chancellor of UC Berkeley is drawing criticism for sending a campuswide e-mail that linked a Tucson shooting rampage with Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants and the failure of the DREAM Act. In the e-mail, sent Monday, Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau condemned a "climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated." He continued, postulating on factors that may have motivated Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged gunman in Saturday's shootings, in which six people died, including a 9-year-old girl, and 13 were injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.): "I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons." Birgeneau was referring to the new Arizona law that empowers local police to demand proof of citizenship or legal residency when they suspect that a person is in the country illegally. His comments, unusually political for a prominent college leader, were quickly picked up by Fox News and drew a largely critical response. "From the 'CAPITOL' of liberal dolts," one commenter wrote on the Fox website.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
But They Will Likely Dance Around a Measure Hold Employers Accountable for Hiring Illegal Immigrants
Associated Press: A new session of the Georgia state legislature begins Monday, Jan. 10. Along with the new session, though, comes dealing with many of the same old problems that plagued the legislature during the last session -- the budget, taxes, education, immigration, and health care, among other pertinent topics. Of them all, it is doubtful that one will be as politically charged as the illegal immigration issue. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Georgia is one of the state's grown weary of waiting on the federal government to crack down on illegal immigration, and the state just might become one that enacts laws to combat the growing illegal population. Two bills await the incoming session, having been filed in the previous session. They are bills that would not only ban illegal immigrants from attending state colleges but also make it illegal for government contractors to hire illegal immigrants as labor. The former seems to be a slap at the federal DREAM Act (which failed passage in the recent lame-duck session of the U. S. Congress), which provided, in part, a path to citizenship via a four year college degree for those in the United States illegally, and would no doubt be obviated should such a federal law be instituted. The latter is a response to the various reports of numerous government agencies, both federal and state, that have employed illegal immigrants.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Wall Street Journal reported that: A coalition of state legislators, motivated by concerns about illegal immigration, is expected to endorse state-level legislation today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to deny the privileges of U.S citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented persons. This effort to rewrite U.S. citizenship law from state to state is unconstitutional—and curious. Opponents of illegal immigration cannot claim to champion the rule of law and then, in the same breath, propose policies that violate our Constitution. In the aftermath of the Civil War, members of the 39th Congress proposed amending the Constitution to reverse the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling denying citizenship to slaves. The result is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The plain meaning of this language is clear. A foreign national living in the United States is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because he is legally required to obey U.S. law. (By contrast, a foreign diplomat who travels here on behalf of a foreign sovereign enjoys diplomatic immunity from—and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of—U.S. law.)