Immigration is the new blood that fuels economic renewal and vibrancy. It ensures that change, which is inevitable, will be met with the necessary interest and gusto that keeps a civilization evolving. Life is but a constant change and a pest in man’s quest for security in what is already known, acquired and taken for granted.

And so it seems the political life of most Americans is taken over by a “Do Nothing Congress” and overzealous State Legislatures enacting a flurry of never ending anti-immigrant laws; all of it overshadowed by the longest phoniest recession seen in perhaps a generation. At a time when more is needed, less is done. Trade unions are busted and made to look like it is the will of the people. It is not. Immigrant families, mostly people of color, are broken-up without mercy under what seems to be the law. It is not. American citizens are literally threatened with the unconstitutional denial of citizenship, while “show me your papers laws” proliferate.

Everyone knows and abhors it and yet no one speaks up as if it is someone else’s responsibility and not ours. More inhumane anti-immigrant measures are dreamt up for implementation as if ridding America of all immigrants will do anything to solve its current problems . . . ah! But ignorance is bliss; is it?

Hindsight is always 20/20 as Martin Nimoller found out in the last century when he declared:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls for they will be coming for you if you do not speak out on behalf of the immigrants . . . for we are all immigrants.

Aime M. Katambwe, Esq.  7/20/2011

Like us on


Posted on 4/25/2011 as a comment to Angelo Paparelli’s “Demystifying Immigration Myths.”

Thank you Angelo for saying (for some time now) what an affront to common sense and our constitution this BrandX/Chevron deference has inflicted upon them. The progeny of regulations that have the force of statutory law has made Congress powerless to address the issue of immigration without having the Judiciary and Executive organs overruling its enactments every which way from sun up to sundown. BrandX/Chevron have made Article 3 judges obsolete in all matters immigration to the point where we now see what is becoming a proliferation of retractions of precedential decision from those once respectable courts to make way for the asinine and ever so changing interpretation of the various agencies having jurisdiction over immigration laws.

These agencies enact new immigration laws by the mere power of their interpretations of the Congressional intent behind otherwise straightforward statutes. These interpretations afforded by Brandx/Chevron change often and are not necessarily uniform in all jurisdictions. You would think that Congress’ edicts apply equally to all jurisdictions, but leave it to these agencies to dispel this common knowledge. We have now come to the point in immigration law (as in criminal law during the Rodney King days, not to dig up old skeletons) where what you see is not actually what you see. The damage to our system of laws, stare decisis (et non quieta movere) in particular is unknowable but certainly great in proportion since settled matters are constantly being unsettled by new interpretations. Often these new takes are offered by nonlawyers practicing law under the federal banner  making it so difficult for those of us trained in laws to reconcile the principles of stare decisis with whatever new verbiage that doubles as new law being handed down by the almighty federal agencies. When lawyers can no longer rely on stare decisis to guide their clients or when a co-equal branch of government abdicates a power granted it by the constitution to another branch not so privileged, I say nothing good can come from a system that permits this imbalance to occur.

After all, no one branch is permitted to unilaterally change the constitution last time I looked.It seems elementary to me that Article 1 judges should not be telling Article 3 judges how to interpret statutes enacted by Congress. Call me a stickler . . . but that’s just me.

Aime M. Katambwe, Esq. 7/1/2011

Like us on


Just the other day, the US Supreme Court upheld part of the Arizona SB 1070 law that was opposed by the Obama Administration. This tells me that states are slowly invading the province of the Federal Government of the United States when it comes to Immigration Law and perhaps more. There is a reason why there is a “United” before “States of America” in our country’s name. Federal law is uniform law. At least that is the way that it should be but isn’t in Immigration Law. Since President Obama was elected to the Presidency, it seem some states have multiplied their efforts and lawsuits to escape the power of the Federal Government and the republican majority Congress has decided not to help the current administration rack-up any success in whatever endeavor it undertakes for the country. In Texas, we heard talks of secession. Sheer stupidity without more! The 5-4 partisan decisions in the US Supreme Court only portend a similar outcome . . . as was the case in Bush v. Gore.

But more on point, every state it seems, is enacting immigration laws of its own, forcing the Feds to oppose the often insensitive and ill-guided unconstitutional pronouncements of vacuous legislatures. To what end? The cacophony of enactments only serves to show the degree to which our Immigration Laws are lacking in legality, common sense, logic and true precedential value; not to mention how no one agrees with their current state. Maybe the states have a plan behind their worthless exercise in this area, or is it that the President is hoping to swoop in at some point (soon I hope) and save us by bringing clarity to this field of federal law. Time will tell. I just hope that 25 years from now, the words “United States” still mean something. If they are to mean something, then the sister States will be wise to remember that there is no “I in Team”

Aime M. Katambwe, Esq. 7/1/2011

Like us on