Introduction

Volume Two of Immigration and Nationality Law Review continues to represent a centralized annual forum for the paramount articles concerning American immigration laws. In addition to the law review articles selected by the editor for inclusion in this second volume, two original essays by practitioners in immigration law are featured. Mark Mancini examines excludability for lack of a valid labor certification as a species of fraud, and Dan P. Danilov reviews and discusses recent changes regarding nonimmigrant and immigrant visas for workers, businessmen, managers and investors. The Review’s goal remains that of providing the practicing lawyer and legal researcher with a single source for noteworthy articles in immigration and nationality law

Introduction

The law of immigration and nationality is becoming an increasingly important topic in legal literature. This introductory volume of Immigration and Nationality Law Review represents an attempt to provide a centralized annual forum for the leading articles in this area of American law. Normally, leading legal periodical articles on the subjects of immigration, nationality, and alienage, are spread throughout various law journals. At best, materials germane to this subject have occasionally appeared in special law review issues or symposium volumes published by various American law schools. However, considering the growing relevance and concerns of immigration and nationality in the United States, this Review’s goal is to provide the practising lawyer and legal scholar a single source for noteworthy articles on all aspects of immigration law

Introduction

Volume Two of Immigration and Nationality Law Review continues to represent a centralized annual forum for the paramount articles concerning American immigration laws. In addition to the law review articles selected by the editor for inclusion in this second volume, two original essays by practitioners in immigration law are featured. Mark Mancini examines excludability for lack of a valid labor certification as a species of fraud, and Dan P. Danilov reviews and discusses recent changes regarding nonimmigrant and immigrant visas for workers, businessmen, managers and investors. The Review’s goal remains that of providing the practicing lawyer and legal researcher with a single source for noteworthy articles in immigration and nationality law

Federal Economic Regulation Through Wage and Price Control Programs: 1917–1980 A Selected Bibliography

A significant portion of the law of the United States is currently embodied in, formed by, or effectuated through the rules, regulations, programs, and policies of governmental agencies. Early legal decisions on economic stability issues were made by administrative bureaus, boards and commissions, and many were rarely reviewed by courts, reported in newspapers or examined by scholars. Most administrators’ decision were made informally, undramatically, in the deep recesses of their bureaus. Many of their records rested unrecognized and poorly indexed in official government documents or in the National Archives. For researchers attempting to bring together the materials involved in legislating and implementing of rules governing federal price and wage controls, it is important to understand the elusive nature of early official sources. In the same instance there is a desire by legal researchers to rely on the experience of the past in formulating the direction of the future. Those responsible for law making and for analyzing the legal issues of economic controls must refer to past activities in the price and wage area in trying to determine which paths future controls should take. Therefore, it is helpful to the researcher of wage and price controls to have an overview and bibliographic history of the literature and laws involved in this regulatory aspect of American economy

Threading the Eye of the ERISA Needle: ERISA Preemption and Alternative Legal Schemes to Fill the Regulatory Vacuum,

Popular consensus suggests that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) is a mess, and one of historic proportions. ERISA’s comprehensive reach to protect employer-provided benefits has in practice produced unintended, if not contradictory, results. Congress passed ERISA over thirty years ago to protect the rights of employees who benefit from employer pension and welfare benefit plans. It did so with a series of regulations that promote uniformity in litigation across the various states through “strong preemption language.” The goal of uniformity arguably benefits workers by imposing regular standards of conduct which lend predictability to the scope of litigation, or its venue, and lead to consistency in the process. However, ERISA has not entirely lived up to its initial purpose of providing workers a safety net. The so-called safety net, in fact, has often become a barrier obstructing plaintiffs in their pursuit of make-whole relief on claims that welfare benefits have been denied or mismanaged. ERISA’s preemption feature has produced the negative consequence of changing what were meant to be benefits to barriers. Analysis of the ERISA preemption scheme and the evolution of ERISA in the courts reveals exactly how ERISA has gone awry, and whether there remain any glimmers of hope for plaintiffs filing welfare benefits or pension claims

Cooperative Acquisitions among Law Libraries: A Review

A brief review of established cooperative arrangements among large academic libraries may suggest reasons for the recent emergence of cooperatives among law libraries. The authors examine in detail three law library consortia that are developing cooperative acquisitions plans. Although the prospects for a single, physical national law library are slight, the full potential of a national database of law library holdings has yet to be explored

Threading the Eye of the ERISA Needle: ERISA Preemption and Alternative Legal Schemes to Fill the Regulatory Vacuum.

Popular consensus suggests that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) is a mess, and one of historic proportions. ERISA’s comprehensive reach to protect employer-provided benefits has in practice produced unintended, if not contradictory, results. Congress passed ERISA over thirty years ago to protect the rights of employees who benefit from employer pension and welfare benefit plans. It did so with a series of regulations that promote uniformity in litigation across the various states through “strong preemption language.” The goal of uniformity arguably benefits workers by imposing regular standards of conduct which lend predictability to the scope of litigation, or its venue, and lead to consistency in the process. However, ERISA has not entirely lived up to its initial purpose of providing workers a safety net. The so-called safety net, in fact, has often become a barrier obstructing plaintiffs in their pursuit of make-whole relief on claims that welfare benefits have been denied or mismanaged. ERISA’s preemption feature has produced the negative consequence of changing what were meant to be benefits to barriers. Analysis of the ERISA preemption scheme and the evolution of ERISA in the courts reveals exactly how ERISA has gone awry, and whether there remain any glimmers of hope for plaintiffs filing welfare benefits or pension claims

Threading the Eye of the ERISA Needle: ERISA Preemption and Alternative Legal Schemes to Fill the Regulatory Vacuum.

Popular consensus suggests that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) is a mess, and one of historic proportions. ERISA’s comprehensive reach to protect employer-provided benefits has in practice produced unintended, if not contradictory, results. Congress passed ERISA over thirty years ago to protect the rights of employees who benefit from employer pension and welfare benefit plans. It did so with a series of regulations that promote uniformity in litigation across the various states through “strong preemption language.” The goal of uniformity arguably benefits workers by imposing regular standards of conduct which lend predictability to the scope of litigation, or its venue, and lead to consistency in the process. However, ERISA has not entirely lived up to its initial purpose of providing workers a safety net. The so-called safety net, in fact, has often become a barrier obstructing plaintiffs in their pursuit of make-whole relief on claims that welfare benefits have been denied or mismanaged. ERISA’s preemption feature has produced the negative consequence of changing what were meant to be benefits to barriers. Analysis of the ERISA preemption scheme and the evolution of ERISA in the courts reveals exactly how ERISA has gone awry, and whether there remain any glimmers of hope for plaintiffs filing welfare benefits or pension claims

American International Law Cases volume 23

473hal.;25 c

American International Law Cases volume 20

434hal.;25 c