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.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

description

  1. Texas Legislator Calls ICE to Intimidate Immigrants and Americans From Exercising Free Speech Rights to Protest Against S.B. 4. Roger Algase

    Update. June 2, 12:35 pm.

    The danger to America's democracy that the call by a Texas Republican state legislator to ICE to break up a demonstration by US citizens, not only immigrants, against S.B. 4 is underscored by a frightening report in alternet.org that Americans who protested against Trump's inauguration are now facing up to 70 or 80 years in prison for their actions in expressing their views.

    http://www.alternet.org/activism/unp...s-prison-their

    If a campaign of terror and fear against immigrants at both the federal and state levels is allowed to continue unchecked, how much longer can American citizens expect to keep their freedoms?

    The Nuremberg laws in 1930's Germany were aimed ostensibly against the Jews, but all of that country's non-Jewish Germans eventually wound up losing their freedom as well.

    My original comment follows:

    Salon.com reports that on May 29, when hundreds of pro-immigrant activists, including many mainly Hispanic American citizens, appeared at the Texas legislature to protest against the recently enacted Texas S.B. 4 law, which has been criticized as arguably even harsher and more punitive against immigrants than Arizona's notorious discredited S.B. 1070 law, key parts of which were struck down by the Supreme Court, a Republican State legislator, Matt Rinaldi, announced that he had called ICE in order to intimidate the protesters from exercising their Constitutional free speech rights.

    The story is available at:

    http://www.salon.com/2017/05/31/a-ne...nt-protesters/

    Salon reports as follows:

    "Hundreds of protesters showed up at the state capitol to register their anger with the statute [S.B. 4]...

    The protesters unnerved Republican legislators who support the bill, and Rinaldi, in an obvious fit of rage, declared on Facebook that he had called ICE on the protesters."

    The report continues:

    "Democratic state Rep. Cesar Blanco, in a phone conversation, accused Rinaldi of trying to 'intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment Rights,' adding that the protests had been peaceful.

    'It's a form of intimidation, agreed Lizet Ocampo, the political director of People for the American Way, in another phone conversation. 'It's offensive too, to see a group of protesters who obviously look Hispanic and call ICE on them.'...

    Ocampo noted that Rinaldi's action 'provides
    a visual of what's behind this legislation, which is an animosity toward Latinos and Mexican immigrants in the state.'

    Blanco argued, 'Because individuals in the gallery were majority Hispanic, [Rinaldi] assumed people there were undocumented...The fact that a Republican member assumed that people who were protesting there were undocumented says everything about SB4.'

    Aguirre, whose group helped organize the protests, said, "The reality is that it was a mix of folks who were immigrants and folks who were US citizens...'"

    There can be little doubt that calling in ICE to stop a peaceful, Constitutionally protected protest is just as intimidating for American citizens as for immigrants, particularly when most or all of the protesters may have the same ethnicity, putting American citizens at risk of being arrested or asked to show their papers along with immigrants.

    But none of this is new. In 1936, Germany enacted the Nuremberg Laws against the Jews, just as states such as Texas and Arizona, to name only two, have tried to pass harsh and punitive laws against Latino immigrants. In the case of Germany, all Germans wound up losing their freedom, not only the Jews.

    If the state and federal governments are free to ramp up arrests, incarceration and mass deportation of Latino and other non-European immigrants, how long will it be before American citizens also lose their free speech rights and Constitutional freedoms in the "Era of Donald Trump"?
    __________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants receive work visas and green cards.

    Roger's principal areas of practice include H-1B specialty occupation and O-1 extraordinary ability visas, and green cards through Labor Certification or through marriage. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 06-09-2017 at 08:43 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. It's time to put the travel ban aside and take another look at the rest of the Executive Order its in.

    You will know why I said that if you read my article,

    Trump’s Seven-country Travel Ban Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg.
    By Nolan Rappaport




    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...=1486400484184

    It was published by Huffington Post and has been posted on ILW.com, but its message is even more important now.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. Trump may face a constitutional crisis over Fourth Circuit’s Travel Ban decision. By Nolan Rappaport



    CNN.COM
    In April 2016, I wrote an article entitled, “If he is elected to the presidency, Donald Trump will have statutory authority to suspend the entry of all Muslim aliens.”

    The article included a successful prediction of Trump’s temporary travel ban. But I failed to foresee that it would be rejected on the basis of his campaign statements, or that using campaign statements that way would put our country on the brink of a constitutional crisis.

    History of the travel ban.

    In December 2015, Donald Trump made a campaign statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

    This was several weeks after a report from the Homeland Security Committee had revealed our government’s difficulty obtaining information about Syrian refugees from within Syria.

    For instance, the report quotes former FBI Director James Comey as saying, “We can query our databases until the cows come home, but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person...You can only query what you have collected.”

    Similar problems restricted information from other Muslim countries as well.

    Trump, therefore, seemed to me to be saying that until we can do adequate background investigations, we should suspend the entry of Muslim aliens.

    President’s authority to exclude aliens.

    Read more at --
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5929ff8ce4b08861ed0cca0e


    Published originally on Huffington Post.

    About the author
    Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the 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. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

  4. Issue For Courts In Muslim Ban Case Is Not Whether President Is Dissembling, But Whether Judges Can Listen When He Tells The Truth. Roger Algase

    In an example of how a superficial view of the law can lead to distorted conclusions, Robert Barnes, who has been a Washington Post editor and reporter for more than 30 years, and who has been covering the Supreme Court since 2006, turns the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Muslim ban order case on its head and completely misses the main point in his May 28 article:

    Court says essentially that Trump is not to be believed. Will Supreme Court conclude the same?

    (I do not have a direct link. Please go to Google.)

    As the title to his article implies, Barnes seems to have a problem with the concept that the executive branch of the government, in this case the president, could try to mislead the courts about the real purpose or intent of a particular order or action.

    Oh, no! The president is being less than entirely truthful about a key issue? How could that be possible? That is what Barnes seems to be saying, in a throwback to a statement attributed to Richard Nixon that if the president does something, it must be legal.

    Specifically, Barnes takes issue with the language in the majority decision by the 4th Circuit's Chief Judge, Roger Gregory, that Trump's six Muslim country ban on entry to the US (often misleadingly called a "travel ban" since the 180 million people affected by the order, 99 percent of whom are Muslims, are free to travel wherever they want - just not to the US), that Trump's order "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination".

    (One could legitimately ask whether the Muslim ban order is based on anything other than religious intolerance, but I will return to Barnes' article.)

    Barnes dismissively writes:

    "But it's worth another look at the remarkable rhetoric in Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory's majority opinion, which concludes that the 'true reason' for the travel ban was not protecting the nation's security but making good on a campaign promise born of anti-Muslim bias.

    As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman put it in an essay for Bloomberg News, 'It's extraordinary for a federal court to tell the president directly that he's lying. I certainly can't think of any other examples in my lifetime.'"

    Maybe there has been no similar example of a president's being less than candid with a court about bias against a particular ethnic or religious group as being the real reason for an executive order ostensibly dealing with national security during the lifetime of Professor Feldman, who was born in 1970 according to Wikipedia, but there has certainly been such an example during the lifetime of anyone who has reached the age of 73.

    That example is known as US v. Korematsu
    (1944).

    In that case, the Supreme Court took President Roosevelt's national security pretext for obvious racial bias at face value, and Congress apologized for it four decades later in a statute signed by President Reagan.

    Will a future president and Congress need to do the same thing if the Supreme Court upholds Trump's Muslim ban order?

    The real issue facing the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts, and which will face the Supreme Court if there is an appeal and the High Court decides to take the case, is not whether the president was lying about the real reason for the Muslim ban order, but whether the courts should recognize that he was telling the truth.

    As Judge Gregory recited in his decision, Trump showed the true reason for the ban, namely what the decision euphemistically calls "animus" against Muslims based on their religion, over and over again, during the campaign.

    Trump also continued this bias by his actions as president in appointing notorious Islamophobes such as Michael Fynn, Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller to top positions, and, according to news reports, giving at least the latter two a major role in drawing up the ban orders, to the exclusion of his real national security officials.

    The issue in the Muslim ban lawsuits is not whether the courts have the power to accuse the president of lying, as Barnes suggests; it is, as Judge Gregory also stated in his decision, whether they are required to remain blind to the obvious truth.
    ________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from many different parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's practice is concentrated in H-1B specialty occupation, O-1 extraordinary ability and J-1 trainee work visas; and in green cards through labor certification and through marriage. Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com










    Updated 05-29-2017 at 01:26 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Latino US Citizen is Detained by ICE in Donald Trump Era. Another Warning That President's Deportation Agenda Hurts Americans Too. Roger Algase

    In one more story about how Latino and other minority US citizens are being put in greater danger of ICE detention and fear of deportation in the Donald Trump era, the Los Angeles Times reports on May 24 that a US born Latino woman from San Bernardino, CA Guadalupe Plascencia, was detained and held for an entire day in ICE custody after being released from a local detention center, where she had been held on a bench warrant for allegedly failing to appear in court as a witness many years before.

    The newspaper reports as follows:

    "But as she tried to leave the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, Plascencia said she was met by immigration enforcement agents, handcuffed and placed in the back of a van. Plascencia would spend the rest of the day in ICE custody, fearful that she would be deported despite becoming an American citizen some 20 years ago, following an amnesty program initiated by Ronald Reagan.

    'I felt helpless, like I was no one', she said in a recent interview. 'Here they talk about rights...in that moment, I realized, we don't have rights.'".

    According to the news story, Plascencia repeatedly insisted to ICE officers that she was a US citizen and showed them her California driver's licence, without avail.

    Finally, she was released after her daughter showed ICE her mother's passport, and she is now preparing a lawsuit against ICE. She also told the LA Times that she was verbally abused by ICE agents during her detention and told that she was "no one" until her status was cleared up.

    The full story is at:

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...524-story.html

    There have been many press reports about how happy some ICE officers are that they are now "unchained" from previous Obama-era restrictions on whom they could arrest or detain, and that they are now free to "do their job".

    In Donald Trump's America, does "doing their job" also include detaining or arresting US citizens who may "look" as if they belong to a Latino or other non-white minority?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 05-26-2017 at 10:55 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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: