ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. ACLU’s lawsuit may force Trump to stop granting asylum applications. By Nolan Rappaport

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prevent his domestic abuse decision from being used for credible fear determinations in expedited removal proceedings.

    Sessions is trying to eliminate the need for asylum hearings on applications that are based on improper persecution claims. These meritless cases are contributing to an immigration court backlog crisis. If he is prevented from doing this by issuing precedent decisions to provide guidance on how asylum cases are supposed to be handled, the administration will resort to more extreme measures.

    The United States does not have to grant any asylum applications. Asylum is discretionary, and the Supreme Court has held that the president can suspend the entry of aliens into the United States when he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    The court declined to decide whether “some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of a president’s finding is appropriate.” It seems unlikely, however, that the court would reject a president’s finding that discretionary asylum grants should be suspended until the immigration court backlog crisis is brought under control because allowing the backlog to continue is detrimental to the interests of the United States.

    This would not leave asylum seekers without a way to avoid persecution. Withholding of removal is available too and it is mandatory when eligibility has been established. The main difference in eligibility requirements is that asylum just requires a well-founded fear of persecution, and withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted.

    But withholding does not entitle aliens to remain in the United States. It just prevents them from being deported to a country where they will be persecuted.

    The backlog crisis.


    Published originally on The Hill.

    Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

    Updated 08-13-2018 at 04:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Double Standard Toward Melania Trump's Parents' "Chain Migration" is not the Only Stench of Immigration Hypocrisy in Trump/Miller Era. Roger Algase

    In my August 10 Immigration Daily comment, I wrote about the stench of hypocrisy in Donald Trump's venomous attacks on family immigration by labeling the estimated 40 million mainly non-European parents, adult children and siblings of US citizens who have legally immigrated to the US in the past half century as "criminals" who "do not love America" and came here through "horrible chain migration"., even as Melania Trump's white parents, who by all indications, came to the US the same way, have now attained their US citizenship.

    Now, even Melania Trump's own parents' lawyer, Michael Wildes, is calling Trump's vicious and delusional attacks on extended family immigration "unconscionable.", as Trump continues his utterly delusional attacks on this visa, such as the following:

    "The chain is like a disaster. You bring one person in, you end up with 32 people."

    As I have pointed out in previous comments, even strong immigration opponents such as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies have pointed out that numbers such as these are totally impossible under current law. They are pure presidential fantasy, without the remotest relation to reality, and are invented purely to dehumanize non-white legal immigrants as people who are coming into the country uncontrolled, i.e. "infesting" or "invading" America, to use Trump's language from recent speeches at his rallies.

    One rather doubts that the president and first lady are spending much time talking about where to find space for her parents' "32 relatives."

    But Trump administration hypocrisy is not limited to Trump's in-laws' method of immigration, which Trump has had no problem with when his own white family members use it but acts as if it will destroy America when brown people do.

    See, POLITICO, August 13:

    Stephen Miller is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I'm his Uncle

    In this powerfully written op-ed, Miller's own uncle condemns Miller for promoting bigoted immigration policies which would have not only prevented his own Jewish ancestors from immigrating to the US at the turn of the 20th century, but might have led to their being wiped out in Czarist Russia.

    This appalling, shameless, example of immigration hypocrisy on Miller's part creates a stench which makes Donald Trump's own hypocrisy smell like fine perfume by comparison.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-13-2018 at 08:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. As Melania's Parents' Gain US Citizenship, Trump's Hypocrisy in Attacking "Chain Migration" for Non White Immigrants Smells Even Worse. Roger Algase

    Along with, I am sure, many other readers, I am happy to congratulate Melania Trump's parents on becoming U.S. citizens - always an encouraging and heartwarming immigrant journey.

    Congratulations are also in order for the First Lady, who, presumably, since there is no other way that her Slovenian parents could have become US permanent residents, sponsored them through the same extended family immigration visa that millions of American citizens have used to sponsor their parents from every part of the world in the past 50 years.

    As the nation wishes Melania and her new American parents all the best, we should also ask why her husband is so violently opposed to using this same avenue of immigration, which he attacks as "horrible chain migration" and tries to link with violent crime, when the immigrants involved are not from white Europe, but are from other parts of the world where people have darker skin color.

    There is an odor of hypocrisy about the president's double standard in this issue which creates an even worse stench every time that Trump makes a new speech demonizing and vilifying immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America for coming to America legally in precisely the same way that Melania Trump's parents came from Europe.

    Trump claims that he wants to move from a family immigration system to a "Merit-Based" one, but that apparently doesn't apply when his own family is involved. What is "Merit-Based" about that?

    Is America moving toward a two-tier immigration system, in which legal visas that are acceptable for white immigrants, including those in the president's own family (since his own mother and grandfather also come to the US through "chain migration") are off limits for everyone else?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-10-2018 at 06:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Trump Regime's Attack on Judicial Independence and Expansion of Public Charge Grounds to Advance Ethnic Cleansing Undermine Democracy. Roger Algase

    America's approach toward immigration law was, very clearly, never meant to be a model of democracy in action. From the time that our system of governmental control over immigration was first established, it was meant to ensure broad governmental powers to deny citizenship and immigration benefits to people who did not not belong to America's original white, Protestant majority.

    This was true whether the targets of these laws were African-American slaves, as in the infamous Supreme Court Dred Scott decision; Irish Catholics targeted by the Know -Nothings; Asian immigrants barred by the Chinese exclusion laws; or Jews, Southern and Eastern Europeans excluded by the openly bigoted "national origins" 1924 immigration act which Adolf Hitler praised so highly in Mein Kampf and which Trump's A.G., Jeff Sessions, also wrote favorably about as a Senator some 90 years later in his 2015 "Immigration Handbook".

    But even in the darkest days of the late 19th century Chinese exclusion laws, the president and his administration were never given absolute power over immigration - they could only act with with the approval of Congress.

    The Supreme Court Court described this power as follows in US v. Chae Chan Ping 130 U.S. 541 (1889) - also known to history as the "Chinese Exclusion Case", parts of which are distressingly and ominously prescient of the language used at typical Donald Trump rallies 129 years later:

    "To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation...It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us...If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed..."

    (Italics added.)

    No doubt, the above language of Justice Field was superficially more polite and elegant than Trump's referring to Latino, Asian, African and Middle Eastern immigrants as people from "shithole countries", "criminals" "rapists" , "drug dealers" and "terrorists", who are "pouring into" and "infesting" the United States, while "slicing up" American women.

    But, despite the passage of more than a century and a quarter during which one might hope that America would have learned a little more about racial tolerance and equal justice before the law for all people regardless of skin color or religion, the basic tone and intent and purpose of the above 1889 Supreme Court's statement and Trump's anti-immigrant rants in his rallies and tweets are no different.

    Except for one point: In 1889, the Supreme Court ruled that even though legal bigotry against immigrants of a different race was acceptable, it had to come from the legislative branch, i.e. Congress.

    35 years later, when the 1924 national origins immigration act that was later to be responsible for the deaths of very probably thousands of Jewish refugees trying to flee Hitler's ovens and gas chambers (including Anne Frank, whose family was also denied a US visa) was passed, it was authorized by Congress.

    But now, we are the new, "Donald Trump Era" when, according to the administration's latest moves, the president is free to make sweeping, drastic, changes in th laws relating to both immigration enforcement and legal immigration on his own, without seeking approval, or even any input or consultation, from Congress whatsoever.

    In 1889, the US Supreme Court's recipe for immigration policy was racism, pure and simple. Now our president's formula for immigration is racism together with one-man dictatorship.

    I will discuss two examples of this below. The first involves Jeff Sessions' new policy as Attorney General of removing deportation cases from Immigration Judge's dockets and transferring them over to a more compliant judge if he thinks that the first judge's decisions are too favorable to the immigrant.

    This denial of what the essence of justice before the law is supposed to mean in a democracy has led to the unusual step of public action against the Trump administration by the Immigration Judges' union to try to preserve at least some vestiges of the judicial independence on which America's freedom depends.

    But we should not make the mistake of thinking that Trump's expansion of authoritarian control over the immigration system, in pursuit of what amounts to a form of ethnic cleansing, is limited only to mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants. has issued a detailed report of plans for a huge expansion of the definition of "public charge" grounds of inadmissibility which could bar up to 10 or 20 million family and diversity immigrants seeking legal green cards from being able to live in the US and subject them to deportation.

    Use of almost any kind of government benefit, including ones which are widely used by many millions of US citizens could be a bar to legal immigration. This would be one of the most significant re-writes of immigration law in many decades and could drastically reduce the number of legal immigrants from all but the richest (and of course, mainly white) countries.

    "Public Charge", of course, has a long history of being used in support of the goal of excluding immigrants on racial grounds - beginning with the Chinese exclusion laws if not earlier. But this has never been done before without Congressional involvement.

    Now, just as the Trump administration regards immigration court judges as merely instruments of the regime who are there to reached predetermined results rather than follow the rule of law, it is making Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, superfluous in making drastic change the immigration laws.

    This is dictatorship in action, and no one should think that this cancer on America's democracy will be limited to immigration, or affect foreign citizens only, for very long, as Trump, Sessions and Miller pursue their goal of making America white once again though imperial diktat rather than through the mechanisms of a free society.

    More details about the proposed changes in the Public Charge grounds, a proposal which is causing almost as much alarm and outrage across America as Trump's tyrannical and inhuman family separation did, are available at
    Roger Algase, a New York immigration attorney and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, who has been practicing in this field for 40 years, is a lawyer with two obsessions: obtaining legal visas and green cards for mainly skilled and professional immigrants; and writing sbout the dangers to America's immigration system and our democracy from the current administration's pursuit of ethnic cleansing against non-white immigrants - both legal and unauthorized - as well as their American children.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 08-11-2018 at 12:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. How Will Supporters of Trump's Authoritarian Control Over Immigration React When America Elects Muslim President With Same Broad Powers? Roger Algase reports that in the state of Michigan, despite Donald Trump's attempts to demonize and stir up hatred against Muslim and Middle Eastern immigrants, there is a slew of candidates running for office this year with Muslim and Middle Eastern backgrounds, including many immigrants. That state might even be about to elect America's first Muslim governor, Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

    The above site reports:

    "A report by the Detroit Free Press ound at least 24 candidates running in Southeast Michigan are immigrants of first generation Americans. Half of them have roots in the Middle East or Arab countries, 8 are immigrants or the children of immigrants from South Asia and three have roots in Nigeria or Senegal."

    No one can predict, of course, how many of these candidates will win, but it does make it worth while to focus on the fact that, as America become more diverse despite Donald Trump's desperate attempts to turn this country backward 100 years to the time of whites only immigration, the United States could one day elect a Muslim president.

    In fact, I will go out on a limb and make a prediction that America inevitably one day will have a Muslim president - even if people in my generation (born during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt) might no longer be around to see it or write comments about it.

    In fact, according to many reports, there are already many millions of Americans, particularly in one of our two great political parties, who are convinced, as an unshakable article of faith, that we already have had a Muslim president - up until January 19, 2017 - by the name of Barack Obama.

    For younger readers, it may also be very easy to overlook how much a a fuss there was when the US elected its first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, in 1962, less than 60 years ago.

    The prospect of a Muslim president, however, should make the same people who were so overjoyed when the Supreme Court, in Trump v. Hawaii in effect ruled only two months ago, that the current president has virtually the power of a dictator to ban Muslims from entering the United States merely by repeating the magic words "national security" often enough, step back and start asking themselves some questions.

    What happens, for example, if a Muslim president uses the same virtually unlimited authoritarian power which the Supreme Court gave Trump to favor, say Palestinian immigrants over Jewish ones from Israel, using Trumped up "vetting" pretexts or any other ones that come to hand.

    I am not saying that a Muslim president would do this - this is just a hypothetical example. My only point is that the same unlimited presidential powers over immigration which Trump's supporters are now demanding, or enabling, for him to use in order to keep America white, could also one day be used for other purposes that these same Trump supporters might be less than overjoyed about.

    Therefore, it would be useful to look at the rush to bestow authoritarian control over immigration - especially legal immigration - without seeking Congressional approval, on Donald Trump. or at his rush to grab such control - in more detail in order to see which path it could be leading our immigration system, and our democracy, along.

    This examination, which I will be continuing in forthcoming comments, can only begin in one place - Trump's furious attempt to use presidential power up to the hilt in order to reverse a half century of progress toward racial equality in our immigration system and turn this country back toward the whites only system that we had for 40 years beginning on 1924.

    A good staring points for this discussion is a January, 2017 Boston Globe article with a detailed history and analysis of the racial thinking which led to the infamous "Nordics - only immigration act of 1924 - and which is being repeated today by the Trump administration - only with Muslims, Africans and Latino immigrants as the main targets instead of the - in the bigots' own words - "inferior racial stock" Jews, Italians and Eastern Europeans of a century ago. See:

    Trump's anti-immigration playbook was written 100 years ago. In Boston.

    Another good starting point for this discussion is a June 25 Brookings Institution article:

    Trump reveals 'zero tolerance' for democracy.

    Both of these articles make clear that America cannot go down back down Donald Trump's long and well-traveled road of racial and religious bigotry and hatred as the basis of our immigration system, if we want to keep our now mortally threatened democracy.

    Roger Algase, a New York immigration attorney and graduate of Harvard College anf Harvard Law Schhol who has been practicing in this field for 40 years. is a lawyer with two obsessions: obtaining legal visas and green cards for mainly skilled and professional immigrants; and writing about the dangers to America's immigration system and democracy from the current administration's pursuit of ethnic cleansing against non-white immigrants - both legal and unauthorized, as well as their American children.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 08-11-2018 at 12:26 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 309 1231151101 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: