||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Challenging Per County Quota Law
Consequences of the
National Origins Act
The goal of the National Origins Act was to control
both the quantity and quality of U.S. immigrants in an
effort to prevent further erosion of the ethnic composi-
tion of U.S. society. The law accomplished this goal
using three mechanisms: capping the overall number of
immigrants allowed into the United States in a given
month and year; favoring immigrants from certain
countries; and screening out otherwise qualified immi-
grants as unsuitable to the United States during the visa
screening process. The sorting mechanism heavily
favored northern and western European countries. The
temporary formula of 2% of the foreign-born of each
nationality in the 1890 census gave 85% of the quotas
to northern and western European nations. The national
origins system fully implemented in 1929 continued
the trend of both overall restriction and nation bias.
Indeed, the act virtually halted all immigration from
southern and eastern Europe. Thus, European immigra-
tion dropped from more than 800,000 in 1921 to less
than 150,000 by the end of the decade.
In addition to controlling the volume of immigra-
tion from Europe, the National Origins Act also
allowed a mechanism for selection of immigrants as
well. In its creation of consular offices abroad, the act
provided a frontline screening mechanism for select-
ing out those deemed unsuitable for the United States.
§ 1981. Equal rights under the law
How Current is This? (a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER IX > § 2000h–2Prev | Next § 2000h–2. Intervention by Attorney General; denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
How Current is This? Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.
ORGANISATIONS TO CONTACT - IV CORE PLs endorse this so that a few members will help me. OTHER MEMBERS CAN FORM GROUPS AND CONTACT THESE OFFICES.
American Immigration Council
1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005-3141
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman
600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel (213) 623-4592 Fax (213) 623-3720
National Origin, Immigration and Language Rights Program
The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
600 Harrison Street, Suite 120
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone (415) 864-8848
Fax: (415) 864-8199
TTY/TDD Line: (415) 593-0091
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004 USA
Phone: (212) 344-3005
Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)
14 Pidegon Hill Drive, Suite 500
0 Sterling, VA> 20165 USA
Phone: (703) 421-5443
Fax: (703) 421-6401
Primary Contact: Linda Chavez, President
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
1801 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: (202) 663-4900
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215
Phone: (410) 521-4939
LEGAL RESEARCH - EVERYBODY CAN CONTRIBUTE ABOUT COURT CASES, PRECEDENTS ETC AND I WILL TRY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE REPLIES HERE
Different Supreme Court Decisions
Gratz v. Bollinger
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1
Bakke vs Regents
Supreme Court Opinions
This is an old topic but I thought I would post some interesting info that I found. Give me green before someone drowns me in red.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:
Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
In Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their admissions process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school. In dicta, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race not as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.
In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.
One law firm I found dealing with Federal Litigation. There maybe many.
Should we not look at this option when Mexico's ambassador to the United States said Friday he expects immigration reform is unlikely to pass in that country in 2010 because of unemployment and midterm elections?
Antis are ahead of us in taking lawsuits to supreme court
OPINION JULY 1, 2009 The Supreme Court Says No To Quotas
Residents in a burning building want competent firefighters. They don't care about the race of those whose job it is to save them.
VERY INTERSTING ARTICLES ABOUT THIS PER COUNTRY QUOTAS
The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality resident in the United States in 1910.
The Immigration Act of 1924 provided that for three years immigration will be restricted to 2% based on the census of 1890, and that after June 30, 1927, total immigration from all countries will be limited to 150,000 based upon national origins of white inhabitants as shown by the census of 1920.
Last edited by dvb123; 01-12-2010 at 10:30 PM.
Equal Employment Opportunity Law
Countrywise visa allocation limits contradicts Equal Employment Opportunity law, specially in the presence of the Diversity visa lottery.
I have pledged $1K for the lawsuit, because I believe in this just cause.
We need to find a good attorney to fight it - can anyone talk to the Big names - one name who sounds passionate in his posts is Ron G.
I have no big name lawyers around this remote interior place. I urge the folks who truly believe in this cause to:
- Talk to a few good attorneys
- come up with a plan for action and form an action committee
- Let the attorney determine the way we fund it ( A bare minimum $ amount be advertised), so that a conditional collective representation as well as refund clause is present in the agreement.
- We shall all collectively urge others to contribute too.
- If we do not receive the minimum amount by a certain date (say 60days), we would trust the Attorney to refund the cheque amounts as per the agreements we sign.
- It should not matter whether we win or loose. At least we would have stood for Justice and Equality for all.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration
Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation (aka I-485 approval).
If you don't agree with this, I would suggest spending $200 with an attorney to get initial consultation and get the answer to enlighten yourself.
Not a legal advice.
Here we go again!
It can be shown that per country quota leads to (unintended) discrimation at employment and hence the GC per country quota is illegal.
Employment based GC per country quota => A very long wait (eg. more than 3 years) in same or similar job position for people born in only few countries => Hinderance to career growth because one cannot advance from engineer to managerial position even though he/she is qualified for the promotions while his colleagues from other countries can => Person from an oversubscribed countries such as India does not have equal opportunity to career advancement because of a very long wait time difference between people born in these 2 or 3 countries and people from all of the other countries.
Key Point: Equal opportunity employement advancement is protected by "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)" and hence the Supreme Court can overturn the per country quota limitation if the Supreme Court finds that the per country quota leads to discrimination at employment.
National Origin Discrimination & Work Situations:
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
National Origin Discrimination
Someone with more than 3 years of wait and still in same or similar job description should definitely be able to file a lawsuit against the US Government and claim compensation for the lost opportunities.
If we fight we lose once, if we do not we lose every time we don't. IV has nothing to lose if it can at least talk to a very good attorney. I'm not a lawyer but there could many ambiguous statements in it, and good attorney could make use of them to fight.
Country limits is a law. A court has to follow the law. Court does not decide if the law is fair or unfair.
If you want to change the law, go to congress.
BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY TO THROW AWAY TO LAWYERS.
And whats with big lawyer names? Just because a lawyer has a website and writes on a website, does not mean he is a big lawyer. Look beyond the marketing of lawyers and see their skills, track record and genuine concern for your long wait. You are asking the same lawyers to help you whose bread and butter comes because you are applicants in a long line.
Highly educated innocents!
I will contribute
If the law suit needs money, I will contribute minimum $500.
Contribution so far - $736
Monthly $25 Contribution signedup on 06-26-2009 for one year
Donated 50 towards Advocacy day contributions.
Monthly $25 Contribution signedup on 04-13-2011 for one year
Got Green Card 10/25/2011
Sorry eastindia but you are plain wrong. The US is not East India Company.
Here are the facts about the US checks and balances:
1. No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government.
2. If the Supreme Court strikes down a federal law, Congress can always modify the law until it is such that the Supreme Court does not consider it to violate the U.S. Constitution. Then they would have to vote to pass the new law, and the President would sign it.
3. The Supreme court can overrule its own rulings.
4. Congress can rewrite a law to conform with Constitutional standards.
5. The Constitution can be amended. This would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-quarters of the states (actually, at least 39).
If you think a law is unconstitutional then it can be challenged in the court. For example, there was an article in WSJ about some lawyers planning to challenge the health care bill once it becomes a law. One of the reasons: the health care law would require a person to buy health insurance, which infringes upon constitutionally guaranteed individual right of freedom. Now not to deflect from the topic of this thread, the bottomline is if you think the law is unconstitutional then you can challenge the law in the court.
The Key Point: Equal opportunity employement advancement is protected by Constitution ("Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)")and hence the Supreme Court can overturn the per country quota limitation if the Supreme Court finds that the per country quota leads to discrimination at employment, which is unconstitutional.
Last edited by mundada; 01-12-2010 at 01:52 PM.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/fo...quota-law.html (Can't we challenge the discriminatory country wide quota law?)
Carl Shusterman is very well known in immigration circles. If he is willing to take this up another $ 1K from me.
Count me in I can contribute 500$
EB3 India (RIR) PD DEC 2003
I-140 approved Aug 2007 TSC
I-485 sent to NSC Jul 29
I-485 RD JUL 30
I-485 ND SEP 6 NSC
There were some folks talking about lawsuit 3 months ago after the visa bulletin. That thread ran 9 pages and nobody did anything. 2 months ago again people talked about lawsuit and hunger strike. Nobody did anything. So it is not going to happen. Are you willing to spend thousands and keep going to courts or testify? Are you ok with your greencard application be used as an example and allow USCIS to scrutinize it?
This talk about lawsuit is all gas.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|H1B transfer--quota to non quota||garyn||Out of status, employment gap and status revalidation||1||04-22-2008 03:38 AM|
|H1B transfer--quota to non quota||garyn||Non-Immigrant Visas||3||04-22-2008 03:32 AM|
|The first law suit challenging the July bulletin gets filed today....||mihird||Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins||21||07-17-2007 04:47 PM|