|
|
Post by christina on Sept 25, 2020 9:18:07 GMT -5
plusses and minuses to this job anyone?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle on Oct 5, 2020 17:02:38 GMT -5
So I have not directly worked for ICE, but I've worked in the proximity of them and know many people who have had this job. This is for ICE attorneys in the field I assume? It involves a lot of in court time in front of immigration judges, and really getting to know the brass tacks of immigration law. The good is that it is a solid, stable, government job, and a lot of ICE attorneys end up as IJs one day. The bad is that immigration law is kinda strange (admin law, rules of evidence don't apply etc), and you can thus get pigeonholed into that area of law. Spending a ton of time in court can be a grind. ICE is also a pretty controversial agency, and doesn't do super well as far as FEVPS results. Besides that it really depends on who runs the field office. I've only heard about Denver, and the person who runs it is supposed to be rather... bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by alohastate on Oct 6, 2020 9:57:18 GMT -5
plusses and minuses to this job anyone? Thanks! Rather than being "pigeon holed," I see immigration law as a specialty practice. I think having a specialty practice is always great, because there is always demand for it should you ever want to work in the private sector. Of course as both other answers have also pointed out, it seems pretty clear that this job helps to qualify you for an IJ position later on. I think working as a general attorney for ICE would be a very interesting job. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Oct 6, 2020 14:17:34 GMT -5
I'm getting the idea that any job where you have a clearance and are doing work with some challenge gets you over the hurdle of "oh, they've been in the private sector--could they cut it in the government," (the ironic opposite of the response to hiring committees in private firms--outside of extremely specialized areas where they are delighted to have someone who has immersed themselves in corrugated box regulations, for example).
Of course then you may face a new hurdle of one agency's distrust of another or stereotyping of the people or experience gained in the agency you work for.
But that's silly of me, as government agencies are free of bias and everyone is viewed as equal and having something valuable to contribute.
|
|
|
|
Post by sophiebear on Oct 6, 2020 14:25:13 GMT -5
Spent over a decade with ICE and have much to share, but most should probably be in private. There are definite upshots to being a TA (trial attorney) (great experience, plenty of training), but the bad often far outweighs the good. Typecast is a reality of the job, but if you enjoy immigration law, it's not an issue. If you want to move up the ladder, there are only so many places to go in the field, thereafter you will have to go the PCN (HQ) for further advancement. It has been consistently ranked as the worst place in government to work, for many varied and valid reasons. I would encourage you to research some of the lawsuits filed by former and current ICE employees against their employer for greater insight into the culture, leadership styles, and expectations of working in a law enforcement agency.
|
|
Rose
Full Member
Posts: 79 
|
Post by Rose on Oct 6, 2020 16:41:03 GMT -5
Spent over a decade with ICE and have much to share, but most should probably be in private. There are definite upshots to being a TA (trial attorney) (great experience, plenty of training), but the bad often far outweighs the good. Typecast is a reality of the job, but if you enjoy immigration law, it's not an issue. If you want to move up the ladder, there are only so many places to go in the field, thereafter you will have to go the PCN (HQ) for further advancement. It has been consistently ranked as the worst place in government to work, for many varied and valid reasons. I would encourage you to research some of the lawsuits filed by former and current ICE employees against their employer for greater insight into the culture, leadership styles, and expectations of working in a law enforcement agency. 100 % agree. |
|
Rose
Full Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Rose on Oct 6, 2020 16:43:09 GMT -5
plusses and minuses to this job anyone? Thanks! Rather than being "pigeon holed," I see immigration law as a specialty practice. I think having a specialty practice is always great, because there is always demand for it should you ever want to work in the private sector. Of course as both other answers have also pointed out, it seems pretty clear that this job helps to qualify you for an IJ position later on. I think working as a general attorney for ICE would be a very interesting job. Disagree. Working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney is the best way to become IJ. Look at the backgrounds of the IJs appointed since April 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by intothewild on Oct 7, 2020 2:04:04 GMT -5
Rather than being "pigeon holed," I see immigration law as a specialty practice. I think having a specialty practice is always great, because there is always demand for it should you ever want to work in the private sector. Of course as both other answers have also pointed out, it seems pretty clear that this job helps to qualify you for an IJ position later on. I think working as a general attorney for ICE would be a very interesting job. Disagree. Working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney is the best way to become IJ. Look at the backgrounds of the IJs appointed since April 2018. Actually quite a few IJ worked for DHS and many were former ICE attorneys. Of course being a US attorney opens doors as well, but a good portion of IJs worked as ICE attorneys. If you want a stable 9-5 job probably less stressful than being ASUSA. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 8, 2020 18:38:49 GMT -5
Rather than being "pigeon holed," I see immigration law as a specialty practice. I think having a specialty practice is always great, because there is always demand for it should you ever want to work in the private sector. Of course as both other answers have also pointed out, it seems pretty clear that this job helps to qualify you for an IJ position later on. I think working as a general attorney for ICE would be a very interesting job. Disagree. Working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney is the best way to become IJ. Look at the backgrounds of the IJs appointed since April 2018. Would a couple of years at Main Justice as a TA with DOJ Civil help at all? |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Oct 8, 2020 21:35:47 GMT -5
If with the USDOJ Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), I can't imagine such trial attorney experience would hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Oct 9, 2020 8:21:04 GMT -5
Generally, DOJ civil litigation experience boosts skills, making you a good candidate for ALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 9, 2020 8:40:45 GMT -5
If with the USDOJ Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), I can't imagine such trial attorney experience would hurt. It was Torts Branch, not OIL. |
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Oct 9, 2020 17:21:52 GMT -5
The newest IJ here was a career-long DHS attorney who litigated removal proceedings. It only seems reasonable that such experience helps one become an IJ. But I've heard the attrition rate is high so be sure it's something you want to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 9, 2020 21:32:27 GMT -5
The newest IJ here was a career-long DHS attorney who litigated removal proceedings. It only seems reasonable that such experience helps one become an IJ. But I've heard the attrition rate is high so be sure it's something you want to do. Depending on what happens in November, ideal qualities and experiences for a potential IJ could change. Not that I have a crystal ball, but if there is a "bluing" at the top, so to speak, I'd imagine an openness to more diverse backgrounds and, perhaps, a move to not pack the bench with former DHS TAs and fed prosecutors quite so much. If, on the other hand, we maintain the current course, I imagine mostly DHS and AUSA hires, with some former government adjudicators of various backgrounds (state ALJs, attorney-adjudicators, etc.) spiced in here and there. |
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Oct 9, 2020 21:44:02 GMT -5
Spent over a decade with ICE and have much to share, but most should probably be in private. There are definite upshots to being a TA (trial attorney) (great experience, plenty of training), but the bad often far outweighs the good. Typecast is a reality of the job, but if you enjoy immigration law, it's not an issue. If you want to move up the ladder, there are only so many places to go in the field, thereafter you will have to go the PCN (HQ) for further advancement. It has been consistently ranked as the worst place in government to work, for many varied and valid reasons. I would encourage you to research some of the lawsuits filed by former and current ICE employees against their employer for greater insight into the culture, leadership styles, and expectations of working in a law enforcement agency. Sounds a lot like SSA 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Oct 12, 2020 11:50:34 GMT -5
The newest IJ here was a career-long DHS attorney who litigated removal proceedings. It only seems reasonable that such experience helps one become an IJ. But I've heard the attrition rate is high so be sure it's something you want to do. Depending on what happens in November, ideal qualities and experiences for a potential IJ could change. Not that I have a crystal ball, but if there is a "bluing" at the top, so to speak, I'd imagine an openness to more diverse backgrounds and, perhaps, a move to not pack the bench with former DHS TAs and fed prosecutors quite so much. If, on the other hand, we maintain the current course, I imagine mostly DHS and AUSA hires, with some former government adjudicators of various backgrounds (state ALJs, attorney-adjudicators, etc.) spiced in here and there. Makes sense. For my own sake I hope you're right!  |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Oct 12, 2020 15:41:41 GMT -5
Depending on what happens in November, ideal qualities and experiences for a potential IJ could change. Not that I have a crystal ball, but if there is a "bluing" at the top, so to speak, I'd imagine an openness to more diverse backgrounds and, perhaps, a move to not pack the bench with former DHS TAs and fed prosecutors quite so much. If, on the other hand, we maintain the current course, I imagine mostly DHS and AUSA hires, with some former government adjudicators of various backgrounds (state ALJs, attorney-adjudicators, etc.) spiced in here and there. Makes sense. For my own sake I hope you're right! |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 12, 2020 17:36:33 GMT -5
Makes sense. For my own sake I hope you're right! AG and EOIR Director would change, and you might be surprised. The challenger's platform on immigration includes a promise to "double the number of immigration judges." Going to need some help from Congress on the $$$, of course, and it's also a political candidate's promise, so...take that for what it's worth (not much, I know). Still, hope is free, right? If anyone told you five years ago to predict where the world would be in 2020, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have guessed correctly. |
|
