ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan can't handle disagreement with his article about a "much larger travel ban" (to quote from his own title for the article) based on the two fundamental questions:

    1) What might be the real objective of Trump's proposed wider entry ban?

    and

    2) Whether the national security justifications for any entry ban, whether limited to Muslim countries or including other non-white parts of the world as well, is genuine, rather than a fake contrivance for the purpose of misleading the courts,

    maybe Nolan shouldn't be writing an article about the possibility of a wider entry ban at all!

    If Nolan does wish to write on that subject, he will have to find a way to handle opposing views, something which lawyers in general, and writers commenting on sites such as ilw.com in particular, have to do constantly.

    Along the line of opposing views, Nolan might also wish to read and comment on a June 23 Slate article by Duke University Law Professor Walter Dellinger called:

    No need to wait until the fall - the court's biggest travel ban ruling will happen
    next week

    This article, for which I unfortunately don't have a link - Google is available - argues that the "national security" justification for the Muslim ban order was largely or totally concocted and should not be taken seriously.

    I am sure that Nolan will also enjoy and no doubt wish to comment on another Slate article, by Jamelle Boule dated March 7 , called:

    Muslim Ban 2.0

    The real motivation for Trump's immigration policies is racism. Never forget it.


    (Again, I am sorry I cannot find the link - but Google, once again, still exists.)

    This article raises the same well founded questions about Trump's immigration policies in general that I have been raising in the specific context of Nolan's article about Trump's plans for a wider entry ban.

    In this connection, I would respectfully remind Nolan, whose ability and credentials as an immigration law analyst are second to none, of what another president whose name also began with the letters "Trum" (i.e. Harry Truman) famously said many, many years ago in a different context:

    "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

    Nolan also calls my comments about Trump's travel bans "absurd".

    Again, with all due respect to this indisputably able and distinguished immigration law scholar, I will take the liberty of correcting his spelling - from "absurd" to - "accurate".

    Since Nolan has not expressed any disagreement with or opposition to my above assumption that he joins me in extending best wishes to Muslims in America and all over the world on their important Eid al Fitr holiday marking the end of Ramadan, even though neither of us belong to that religion nor share its religious views, I wish to thank and commend Nolan for this gesture of good will - again so different from Trump's grudging, short and perfunctory message marking the holiday after ending a tradition of 20 years of presidential dinners by presidents in both parties in honor of this occasion that is being celebrated by some three or four million Americans and lawful U.S. permanent residents and which dates all the way back to the time of Thomas Jefferson in 1805.

    Finally, I will respond (as I have also done elsewhere, notably in the ilw.com Letters section), to Nolan's reliance on a specific phrase from the 1972 case of Kelindienst v. Mandel, namely "facially legitimate and bona fide".

    Nolan also seems to enjoy repeating this phrase as if were a mantra of some sort precluding any review by the courts into the issue of whether an executive action denying a visa to the US was made in good faith.

    Nolan, however, consistently avoids any mention of Justice Kennedy's gloss on this rule in his plurality opinion in Kerry v. Din (2015) where Kennedy interprets it as allowing the courts to step in where there is an "affirmative showing of bad faith."

    The Fourth Circuit expressly found that Trump's Muslim ban orders were "dripping" with bad faith.

    I hope that my taking the liberty of mentioning this federal appellate court decision, now under review by the nation's highest court, will not be offensive to Nolan because of its negative conclusions about the good faith of America's 45th president.

    I do not mean to offend - only to point out a lapse in Nolan's legal analysis.

    It is also true that the 9th Circuit, unlike the 4th Circuit, struck down Trump's Muslim ban order on statutory grounds, rather than constitutional ones, and that they way in which it chose to distinguish Mandel may or may not have been as compelling as one could imagine.

    But, whether or not a court relied on statutory or constitutional grounds for striking down Trump's Muslim ban, and regardless of how it chose to distinguish the Mandel decision, the essential issue in both of Trump's Muslim ban orders, as well as in the proposed "wider travel ban" described by Nolan in his above article, is whether Trump's rationale for these actions or proposed actions is genuine, or whether, again to quote Justice Kennedy, Trump's rationale is based on an "affirmative showing of bad faith".

    I have not seen in any of Nolan's articles or comments on the entry bans the slightest scintilla of evidence to disprove the claim that Trump's entry bans were promulgated in the most egregious bad faith, based on clear and consistent animosity against Muslims based on their religion from the time that he first called for a worldwide religious ban on their entry to the US up until his cancelling of the presidential Eid dinner just a few days ago.

    Instead, Nolan keeps arguing that the president has the right to exclude any immigrants he wants for any reason he wants, just as the Roman Emperor Tiberius did 2,000 years ago, in A.D. 19 when he expelled the Jews and the followers of Isis (the goddess, that is), from that city.

    But I would again respectfully remind Nolan that America is a democracy, not a dictatorship.
    Even under the presidency of Donald Trump, we have a quaint doctrine here in this country which Nolan knows about just as well as any other legal scholar.

    It is called the Rule of Law.

    Fortunately, Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic (through some of his supporters are), and has never shown any animosity toward Jews. There is no chance that he would ever ban entry to the US by citizens of Israel.

    But suppose, hypothetically, that America were one day to elect such a president.

    Would Nolan still be arguing that the courts have no power to look into the reasons for such a ban and to strike it down as being opposed to everything that America stands for, just as both Jewish and Christian religious leaders in the US have been opposing Trump's discriminatory Muslim ban?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...slim-ban-again

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 06-26-2017 at 08:10 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan's article is about nothing else except Trump's race directed, bigoted expanded ban proposal which, as Nolan himself explains, could affect many different non-white parts of the world.

    Of course, neither Nolan himself nor anyone else would seriously suggest that Trump's plan is to do extreme vetting on anyone from Slovenia, (where his wife with her own questionable immigration history that has been conveniently swept under the rug is from) or, even less so, from Russia - no way!, or any other part of white Europe.

    Donald Trump may think that banning non-white immigrants from all over the world in a throwback to the 1924 law which his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has praised so highly, (along with a certain German politician by the name of Adolf Hitler writing in Mein Kampf), is a sign of being a great president on his part, but a great medieval Iraqi poet, Al-Mutanabbi, (not one of the Iraqi Christians whom Trump is now planning to send back to almost certain persecution, if not torture and death in that country) had the goods on Trump over 1,000 years ago when he wrote:

    Wa taazumu fi 'ayn assagir assagharuha

    Wa tasgharu fi 'ayn al azim al-azaimu.


    "Small people think that their small actions are great,

    And great people think that their great actions are small."

    Nolan may think that Trump belongs in the second category in the above poem, but most Americans, as well as people around the world, now and in the future, are more likely to think that the first line of the above quoted extract from this (longer) poem is more applicable to America's 45th president.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, this has nothing to do with the points I make in my article. if you want to spend your time making absurd accusations about Trump, please do it in your own articles instead of in comments to mine.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan's article is about nothing else except Trump's race directed, bigoted expanded ban proposal which, as Nolan himself explains, could affect many different non-white parts of the world.

    Of course, neither Nolan himself nor anyone else would seriously suggest that Trump's plan is to do extreme vetting on anyone from Slovenia, (where his wife with her own questionable immigration history that has been conveniently swept under the rug is from) or, even less so, from Russia - no way!, or any other part of white Europe.

    Donald Trump may think that banning non-white immigrants from all over the world in a throwback to the 1924 law which his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has praised so highly, (along with a certain German politician by the name of Adolf Hitler writing in Mein Kampf), is a sign of being a great president on his part, but a great medieval Iraqi poet, Al-Mutanabbi, (not one of the Iraqi Christians whom Trump is now planning to send back to almost certain persecution, if not torture and death in that country) had the goods on Trump over 1,000 years ago when he wrote:

    Wa taazumu fi 'ayn assagir assagharuha

    Wa tasgharu fi 'ayn al azim al-azaimu.


    "Small people think that their small actions are great,

    And great people think that their great actions are small."

    Nolan may think that Trump belongs in the second category in the above poem, but most Americans, as well as people around the world, now and in the future, are more likely to think that the first line of the above quoted extract from this (longer) poem is more applicable to America's 45th president.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-25-2017 at 04:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger is not responding to what I said in my article, so there is no point to trying to discuss my article with him.

    Nolan Rappaport
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    To put things in a little bit plainer language, let us hope that at least two Republican Justices, John Roberts and Anthony Kenney (and who knows, maybe even joined by Neil Gorsuch, who has a commendable record of standing up for immigrant rights as a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge) will have the wisdom and courage to join with the four liberal Justices and throw out, not only Trump's bigoted Muslim ban order, but the also entire machinery of fraudulent racist baloney that Trump is now trying to crank up with his transparent "extreme vetting" legal mumbo-jumbo, to try to turn America back on the road to the despicable "national origins" 1924 ban on non-white immigration from most of the world - a road which ultimately can lead all the way back to the infamous Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, if not the darkest, most prejudiced time in our entire legal history of immigration, namely the Dred Scott decision of 1857.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-25-2017 at 12:13 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Every lawyer is familiar with the concept of a "legal fiction" i.e. a doctrine that everyone clearly understands isn't true but which is created by the courts to reach an intended result.

    Whether Trump's ban is limited in scope to certain Muslim countries in accordance with what the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has, with ample justification, determined to be "animus" against that religion; or whether, as Nolan, also with some justification, sees as a wider ban coming down the road, affecting non-Muslim as well as Muslim countries (but not the white countries of Europe, of course), the pretext for such a ban, i.e. that "vetting" procedures need to be improved, is nothing but a hollow fraud, also known as a "legal fiction".

    So is the argument that the ban is only intended to be "temporary" - ha, ha, ha!

    Well, in one sense, it would be temporary for sure. A hundred years, even ten thousand years, is only a blip in time compared to eternity.

    The four or eight years that Trump is likely to be in office (absent impeachment or resignation over the growing Russia scandal and perhaps other egregious abuses of power) is even more temporary.

    There will be lots of chances to change "vetting" procedures during that "temporary" period, in order to keep as many as possible not only Muslim, but other non-white immigrants, out the United States in order to satisfy Trump's white nationalist supporters and their friends, including high-level presidential advisers such as Jeff Sessions, Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller and Kris Kobach.

    Sessions, in an immigration manifesto which he wrote and distributed to all Congressional Republicans in January 2015 as a senator, openly praised the racist 1924 "national origins" Johnson Reed immigration act which cut off immigration from most parts of the world except for the "Nordic" countries of Western Europe.

    Bannon's Breibart News also supported a return to this law, at least by implication, when it published an article by former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo; and both Miller and Kobach also have notoriously white supremacist records.

    Trump himself, in his August 31, 2016 Arizona immigration speech, also supported (if one reads between the lines) a return to this infamous 1924 law - which also had one other prominent admirer: Adolf Hitler, who praised it in Mein Kampf.

    Nolan's argument seems to be that, even if the courts have the power to strike down Trump's "narrower" entry ban, which currently bars "only" nearly 200 million Muslims from even applying for U.S visas, because of their religion, America's judges will not have the power to stop a possibly much broader racial ban against immigrants from all parts of the world outside Europe.

    There is an ancient Japanese saying:

    If someone cannot cross a ditch that is only three feet wide, how can he cross an entire river?

    Tump's Muslim ban is like the three-foot wide ditch. If his attempt to demolish the First Amendment to the US Constitution fails, so will Trump's larger agenda of taking America back to the dark days of racial immigration restrictions which Hitler had so much praise for, simply by the executive fiat of a single U.S. strongman in the Oval Office.

    I close this comment with a statement of support for the president's message of congratulation to all Muslims on the Eid festival ending the fasting month of Ramadan.

    I am sure that Nolan, who also firmly believes in and supports the principle of religious freedom and equality contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution, will also follow our nation's President in this expression of good will toward the Muslims of America, and the world.

    I am also sure that Nolan and everyone else in America who believes in religious freedom and equality, will share my disappointment however, that Trump has cancelled a 20-year presidential tradition of hosting an Eid dinner at the White House that dates all the way back to Thomas Jefferson in 1805.

    Whether this cancellation was also motivated by the same "animus" and religious discrimination against Muslims that the 4th Circuit attributed to Trump in its Muslim ban decision, is a question which both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts might well wish to consider as the Muslim ban litigation moves forward.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-25-2017 at 10:25 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    First, I want to say that I agree with Roger that he and other commentators deserve respect.....even when they disagree with me.

    Roger says, "It is a little unsettling that, unless I completely misunderstand his comments, Nolan seems to welcome the idea of an even wider entry ban, affecting more countries, based on the essentially uncontrolled whim of one man as to whom he wants to let into the US and whom he doesn't, with the cowed compliance of a court system that would be independent in name only if our judges allow this."

    I am not "welcoming" the idea of an even wider ban. My role is more akin to the boy in the fable who said, "The king has no clothes." My point is that the 90-day travel ban has diverted attention from the much more serious provisions in the executive order that are preparing the way for extreme vetting with extreme enforcement against uncooperative countries.

    I don't know why Roger thinks the wider ban will be based on the "uncontrolled whim of one man." Trump ordered the DHS secretary to determine what information is needed in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence and then prepare a list of countries with governments that refuse to cooperate with US efforts to get that information about their nationals who want to come to the US. Appropriate classes of aliens from countries with uncooperative governments will be barred from entry into the US until their governments agree to cooperate.

    In other words, he would not be involved in the process at all beyond setting the objectives and ordering the DHS Secretary to carry out the resulting extreme vetting program.

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is a little unsettling that, unless I completely misunderstand his comments, Nolan seems to welcome the idea of an even wider entry ban, affecting more countries, based on the essentially uncontrolled whim of one man as to whom he wants to let into the US and whom he doesn't, with the cowed compliance of a court system that would be independent in name only if our judges allow this.

    And what would be Trump's standard for passing through "extreme vetting"?

    Would it be requiring applicants for admission to agree to praise America's Great Leader, "Dear Donald" in the same sickeningly effusive manner that Trump's cabinet members did recently in a show of sycophancy that disgraced the dignity and respect that the high office of the presidency normally commands, and probably had Kim Jong Un of North Korea and Trump's alleged ally and mentor, Vladimir Putin, Trump's ties with whom are the subject of an independent investigation which Trump has been the object of Obstruction of Justice allegations for trying to throttle, rolling over with laughter and mockery of the United States of America?

    See: The Guardian:

    Emperor Trump's sycophantic cabinet meeting stinks of Beijing-like obeisance

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...jing-obeisance

    Will that be the new "extreme vetting" requirement for admission of foreign citizens to Donald Trump's America?

    It is also unsettling that Nolan chooses to call people like myself who have differing views from his on various issues "comrades", a word with recent historical offensive connotations which Nolan is certainly not too young to be aware of.

    Nolan is a distinguished immigration law scholar and deserves respect as such.

    Commentators on this site who might not share all his views also deserve respect.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-24-2017 at 08:07 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger's comment is very revealing. My article raises the specter of a new Executive Order that will cut off immigration to an unspecified extent from every country that refuses to assist Trump with extreme vetting, and Roger chooses to prattle on about the 90-day suspension being a Muslim ban and to speculate about the demise of democracy if Trump is allowed to implement it.

    As I point out in my article, DHS Secretary Kelly views the 6 travel ban countries and 13 or 14 others as being likely targets of the new ban, and the new ban will continue until the governments of the banned countries agree to support extreme vetting, which could well be never for most or even all of them.

    Roger and his comrades should be talking about the upcoming extreme-vetting cooperation-ban.

    It's coming, regardless of the outcome of litigation over the 90-day suspension. And even the Ninth Circuit will find it implausible to call the new ban religious discrimination or claim that it exceeds the authority of the executive branch.

    Nolan Rappaport


    Updated 06-24-2017 at 05:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    According to some press reports, the Supreme Court might decide as early as this coming Monday or Tuesday whether to reinstate Trump's Muslim ban, which would put the president clearly above any law merely by mouthing the magic words "national security" (instead of "abracadabra" which my generation learned as children) and would be the beginning of the end of any semblance of democracy in America.

    In a remarkable decision handed down yesterday, June 23, Justices Kennedy and Roberts both went over to the liberal side in overturning a drug conviction on Sixth Amendment ineffectiveness of counsel grounds, because the defendant's lawyer had mistakenly told him (repeatedly)that pleading guilty would not result in deportation.

    What made the decision remarkable is that as Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent, the evidence that the defendant was guilty as charged was all but insurmountable, and he had virtually no chance of avoiding conviction if he had gone to trial.

    Therefore, it took some courage and strong fidelity to the Constitution, for these two Republican Justices to go over to the liberal side.

    If one looks at the overwhelming, simply incontrovertible evidence of bad faith on the part of Trump and his DOJ, bordering on Fraud on the Court, in trying to argue that the Muslim ban had nothing to do with religion, but involved only national security - an argument that the DOJ lawyers must have had to rehearse many times to be able to make it in court without bursting into laughter - an absurd argument which Nolan himself is far too intelligent to believe seriously - there could be good reason to hope that Justices Roberts and Kennedy will also do the right thing in the Muslim ban case, just as they did in the Sixth Amendment case above, by joining in with the four liberal Justices and consigning Trump's frighting and dangerous attempt to put himself above the Constitution by imposing a religious test for entry to the US to the trash heap of American legal history where it belongs.

    If America were a real democracy, and not one already severely corrupted by Citizens United, state voter suppression laws and the antiquated, useless electoral college system, Trump's Muslim ban alone, without Russia, James Comey, the FBI or any alleged presidential obstruction of justice, would have been grounds for Trump's impeachment long ago - except for the fact that the candidate who was actually chosen be a resounding majority of American voters last fall - Hillary Clinton - would be the president instead.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-24-2017 at 01:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also suggests that it would have been appropriate for the Secret Service to drag some people who allegedly insulted Hillary Clinton when she was the first lady into the basement of the White House for a severe beating.

    Nolan may have momentarily forgotten this when he wrote the above comment, but there actually was an organization within the living memory of many of us which did specialize in dragging people into basements for severe beatings after they criticized or opposed high up figures in the regime.

    It was known as the Gestapo.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-24-2017 at 04:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Trump. he no doubt thinks that his mass deportations are a wonderful achievement that is one more proof of his status as the greatest human being on the face of this earth, if not the greatest one ever to walk the face of this planet.

    As the great Iraqi poet Al-Mutanabbi wrote over 1,000 years ago:

    Wa taazumu fi 'ayn assaghir assagharuha

    Wa tasgharu fi 'ayn al azim al azaimu.

    (I hope I got it right - I am not a classical Arabic scholar.)

    The translation goes (roughly):

    "Small people think their small deeds are great, while great people think that their great deeds are small."

    Which of the above two classes does Donald Trump, with his malicious, vindictive cruelty that he is inflicting on millions of harmless, non criminal immigrant men, women and children who don't fit it with his vision of a white, Christian America belong too?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-23-2017 at 03:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I feel as if I am in the middle between one person commenting who insists on closing his eyes to the reality of the mass deportation and ethnic cleansing of non-white immigrants which is, possibly slowly but certainly surely, gearing up in Donald Trump's America on the one hand, and another person commenting who has no hesitation about honestly and openly acknowledging this plain reality but who praises it as wonderful thing.

    Nothing wrong with being in the middle. As Aristotle said virtue lies in the motto:

    "Meden agan"

    "Nothing to excess"


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-22-2017 at 08:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    When "respect for the President" (which I didn't see a great deal of in Nolan's articles while Obama was in office, unless I missed something) takes precedence over telling the truth (as Nolan does not categorically deny Trudeau's having done in his statement), then we will not have a democracy in America any more.

    We will have George Orwell's 1984, Kim Jong Un's North Korea or, perhaps more to our 45th president's liking, Vladimir Putin's Russia.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Note that Nolan nowhere refutes that fact that the Canadian prime minister was utterly, absolutely correct in pointing out that Trump is (in the words of a distinguished 4th Circuit Judge) "dripping" with animosity and religious prejudice against Muslims.

    Nolan, absurdly, calls my other comments about Trump "irrational". Is it "irrational" to say that Trump fired Comey in order to stop him from investigating alleged illegal connections with Russia by Trump or his close associates?

    Hasn't Trump said himself that was the reason why he fired Comey?

    Is is "irrational" to say that Trump's threatening to fire, or at least trying to lay the groundwork for firing special counsel Mueller?

    Is it irrational to warn that these actions, as well as Trump's well known, flaunted hostility to the essential features of democracy, the courts, the press, the opposition and religious freedom to name just a few, are putting America's democracy in danger?

    But this would not be the first time that Nolan has resorted to calling something "irrational" when faced with simple facts that he cannot refute.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    This is not my first time responding to Roger's anti-Trump accusations. I know when it would be futile to respond to his comments, and this clearly is one of those times. Nevertheless, I will respond to one of the things he says this time.

    It is offensive and irresponsible for the Prime Minister of Canada to insult the President of the United States whether what he says is true or not.

    When Hillary was the First Lady, she would jog around the grounds of the White House every day. A friend of mine was in the Secret Service then and was assigned to guard the White House. He told me that some guys yelled out, "Look at the fat pig run!" as Hillary went by them. I wish the Secret Service had cuffed them and dragged them into the basement of the White House for a severe beating.

    But I guess Roger would have excused what they said by pointing out that Hillary was over weight.

    Nolan Rappaport
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Note that Nolan nowhere refutes that fact that the Canadian prime minister was utterly, absolutely correct in pointing out that Trump is (in the words of a distinguished 4th Circuit Judge) "dripping" with animosity and religious prejudice against Muslims.

    Nolan, absurdly, calls my other comments about Trump "irrational". Is it "irrational" to say that Trump fired Comey in order to stop him from investigating alleged illegal connections with Russia by Trump or his close associates?

    Hasn't Trump said himself that was the reason why he fired Comey?

    Is is "irrational" to say that Trump's threatening to fire, or at least trying to lay the groundwork for firing special counsel Mueller?

    Is it irrational to warn that these actions, as well as Trump's well known, flaunted hostility to the essential features of democracy, the courts, the press, the opposition and religious freedom to name just a few, are putting America's democracy in danger?

    But this would not be the first time that Nolan has resorted to calling something "irrational" when faced with simple facts that he cannot refute.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It's sad that Roger has so little respect for the presidency that he thinks it is appropriate for the Canadian Prime Minister to accuse the President of the United States of religious discrimination.

    If Trump had said something that offensive about Trudeau, Roger almost certainly would be calling it proof that Trump is unfit for the presidency. In fact if Trump had said something that offensive about Trudeau, I would agree.

    His other comments are too irrational to warrant a response.

    Nolan Rappaport


    Updated 06-21-2017 at 06:38 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    First, a small correction to a self-evident error in Nolan's above article:

    Nolan writes:

    "In addition to the inappropriateness of accusing the president of the United States of religious discrimination..."

    In the light of Trump's recent history of openly hostile statements and actions which a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, speaking for an overwhelming majority on his court, accurately stated were "dripping" with "animus" and religious discrimination against Muslims, Nolan's corrected statement should read:

    "In addition to the indisputable accuracy of accusing the president of the United States of religious discrimination..."

    Nolan also refers to Canada's Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States.

    The opening "Whereas" clauses to this agreement assume that both countries have generous protections in place for refugees from third countries.

    This was, of course, before Trump's executive orders "temporarily" (i.e. for a long as Trump remains in office as president) banning refugees throughout the entire world from entering the United States.

    There is also an implied, though unstated, assumption in the above agreement that both countries will remain as democracies in which the essential values of freedom of religion and freedom of expression will continue to be protected.

    As long as Trump, who has consistently attacked Muslims, the press, the judiciary, and anyone else who stands in his way to absolute power, while obsequiously fawning on dictators with interests hostile to those of America such as Vladimir Putin; and who has fired one FBI chief for leading an investigation that was bothering him and is now threatening to do the same with a duly appointed independent counsel, thereby cementing the president's status as completely above and beyond the rule of law, remains in office, that assumption can no longer be relied on as far as the United States is concerned.

    Canada should revisit its adherence to that agreement, which was entered into before what Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently, and with a good deal of justification, referred to as the "Trump Era."

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 06-21-2017 at 08:24 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by MKolken
    Deportations are down under Trump.
    That is just a temporary situation. He will be deporting millions of noncriminal, undocumented aliens without hearings when he implements his expanded expedited removal program.

    Nolan Rappaport
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    How is Trump undermining the rule of law by enforcing the immigration laws? He is just implementing the laws that were written by our elected representatives. If you don't like the laws, you should be complaining to Congress. They didn't just write them. They can change them too.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 06-20-2017 at 10:28 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 113 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: