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
    It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with Roger on immigration issues. His responses wander all over the place and always include hostile Trump attacks, whether they have anything to do with the topic being discussed or not.

    Nolan Rappaport
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also claims that Trump doesn't really have any idea of deporting Dreamers if their DACA protections expire. Of course not - the Dreamers are absolutely safe as long as Trump is in the White House, even if DACA disappears on March 5 (or whenever - this is up to the Supreme Court) - with nothing to replace it. But if the Dreamers are so safe with Big Brother Donald in the White House, why do the Democrats need to pay any attention to them at all?

    How can the Democrats be "abandoning" the Dreamers if they have nothing to worry about anyway?

    But not to worry, Trump's supporters say, Dear Leader Donald would never do anything mean or nasty like deporting the Dreamers. He "Loves" them, doesn't he?

    Sure, and Trump doesn't have plans to play any more golf, either, i suppose.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 08:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not his or her own facts. The history of "chain migration" since 1965 is undisputed. In essence, it is neutral and non-discriminatory. It has helped both white, European immigrants, such as Donald Trump's own mother, grandfather, and much more recently, his wife's parents, to immigrate to the US legally. In the past half century, it has also helped an estimated 30 to 40 million other close family members of US citizens to immigrate legally to the US, most of them overwhelmingly from outside the white countries of Europe.

    Those are the figures that I have, if Nolan has different figures, he is welcome to provide his. But we are talking about big numbers.

    It is also undisputed that extended family immigration (the correct term, since "chain migration" is a pejorative term that everyone in America knows refers mainly to brown-skinned immigrants) was inserted in the 1965 immigration law at the insistence of certain Congressional figures (in both parties) who mistakenly thought that it would favor European immigrants and help keep America's racial balance, which had been skewed toward white immigrants almost exclusively by 40 years of previous "national origins" white supremacist immigration policies which were so overtly racist that even Adolf Hitler claimed to have been inspired by them as he wrote in Mein Kampf, white.

    However, it has turned out that extended family immigration did not help to keep America white as its proponents had expected. Instead, according to the figures I have seen, 9 out of 10 immigrants who now come to the US legally through extended family immigration are non-white.

    Again, if my figures are off, Nolan can correct them. Maybe the real number is 8 out of 10 instead.

    But no one can argue that family immigration today is a major vehicle for non-white immigration.

    For an excellent summary of the effect of family immigration on America's demographics since 1965, see; Tom Gjelten:

    The Immigration Act of 1965, 50 Years Later

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...t-1965/408409/

    That does not mean that it is anti-white or discriminates against Europeans. That is nonsense. In fact the waiting periods for most family immigration categories are considerably less for European countries than for non-white countries such as Mexico, the Philippines and others.

    Now, Donald Trump wants to cancel or drastically limit extended family immigration because he doesn't like the countries (or the skin colors) of most of the people who use this form of legal immigration.

    In fact, he even has a word for these countries: "shithole countries".

    No amount of sophisticated arguments (which the ancient Greeks called by the term: "sophistry"} can change that reality.

    But don't just take Donald Trump's own word for the fact that the reason he wants to abolish "chain migration" is to stop people with brown skins from coming to the US legally.

    Look at the actual numbers showing how eliminating family immigration would be devastating to immigrants from non-white parts of the world. No serious immigration analyst can argue with a straight face that this is just a coincidence. See: Center for American Progress:

    The White House's Immigration Framework Would Eviscerate Immigration from Latin America, Africa and Asia (February 12 - sorry, i don't have a reliable link - interested readers can use Google.)

    And for a January 30 study by the Center for Global Development showing that under a House Bill which is similar to, though admittedly not identical to Trump's own Framework, but which Trump is also on record as supporting, legal immigration by black immigrants from around the world would be cut by 63.9 percent, and Hispanic immigration would be reduced by 58.2 per cent compared with "only" a 34.6 reduction in white immigration, see:

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-trump...ical-estimates

    No matter how much one might try to put a benign gloss on Trump's fierce opposition to the same "chain migration" that he owes his very existence to, let alone his presidency, and explain away the obvious racial motives which Trump cannot seem to stop himself from "Trumpeting" himself, the numbers speak for themselves. One cannot argue with them.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 10:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Also, I looked at the Hill article Roger cites and am puzzled by Roger's claim that it shows Trump intends to deport the DACA participants when DACA expires. The article quotes Trump as saying the following:

    "Senate Democrats and the House Democrats have totally abandoned DACA. They donít even talk to me about it, theyíve totally abandoned it," Trump said Friday during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.


    "We want to do something about DACA, get it solved after all these years. The Democrats have been totally unresponsive. They don't want to do anything about DACA. Itís very possible DACA wonít happen, itís not because of Republicans, itís because of Democrats.Ē

    This is consistent with the fact that during two years of the Obama administration when the dems had a strong majority in the House and a filibuster busting majority in the Senate, they did not pass a DREAM Act.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 05:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Apparently, Roger has forgotten what he learned when he read my latest Hill article. I am assuming he read it because he posted three comments to it. In any case, Roger is wrong when he refers to "chain migration" as the "non-discriminatory family immigration system which America has had for the past half century, since 1965. It was established to limit most immigration to white European immigrants.

    The following was take from that article. If you want to read the entire article, it can be found at
    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...ce-to-legalize

    The history of chain migration.

    The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act established a quota system based on national origins. It reserved about 70 percent of the visas for immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany.

    In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson supported a bill that would replace the national origins quota system with a preference system that would allocate 50 percent of the immigrant visas to applicants who have special occupational skills or education that would benefit America’s economic interests. The rest would be distributed to refugees and immigrants with close family ties to citizens or LPRs.

    The House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. Michael Feighan (D-Ohio), mobilized bipartisan resistance to Johnson’s immigration bill. Ultimately, however, he agreed to accept Johnson’s bill if he eliminated its emphasis on merit and skills and reserved most of the visas for immigrants with family ties to citizens and LPRs (chain migration).


    Pursuant to this agreement, nearly three-quarters of the total annual visas were allocated to the four chain migration categories, which at that time favored European applicants. Feighan expected this to maintain the nation’s white-European ethnic and racial makeup.

    The agreement cleared the way for passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.

    Feighan’s plan backfired. When he made his deal with Johnson in the 1960s, 75 percent of the immigrants were coming from Europe. Since then, however, economic conditions improved in Europe, so fewer Europeans wanted to come to America; and violence and poverty in other parts of the world increased immigration from outside of Europe. By 2010, 87.9 percent of the immigrants were coming from outside of Europe.

    And Roger does not want to maintain nondiscriminatory immigration in any case. He wants to maintain the current level of nonwhite immigration that chain migration produced when immigration patterns changed. In other words, the Democratic Judiciary Chairman who created chain migration wanted it because in 1965 it favored whites, and Roger wants to continue chain migration because it favors nonwhites now.

    What is my opinion? I don't think a preference system should be favoring aliens on the basis of the color of their skin. In fact, the INA statutory provisions on the allocation of visas prohibits doing it on the basis of race.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 07:58 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also refers to a two-decades old report containing immigration policy recommendations by the Jordan Commission, a body which, of course, could not possibly have known that America would one day have a president who would begin his presidential campaign by attacking Hispanic immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists", and calling for a ban against every Muslim in the world from entering the US, as Trump originally did, and then moving on to a larger agenda aimed primarily at deporting and excluding non-white immigrants from that beginning.

    However, Nolan is more knowledgeable about that commission and its recommendations that I am, so I will refer to his greater expertise in that regard.

    Accordingly, it would be enlightening to me, as well, I am sure, ilw.com readers in general, if Nolan can cite the parts of that commission's report, if any, which, as Trump has done very recently, said the Nigerians should "go back to their huts"; that America does not need immigrants from "shithole countries" in Africa, or such as Haiti or El Salvador; and that America needs more immigrants from "countries like Norway" instead.

    Surely, Nolan is not suggesting that Barbara Jordan, a great African-American civil rights leader, ever held such obnoxious and offensive racial views herself. Therefore, it is not clear why Nolan keeps trying to use the Jordan Commission as support for immigration policies of a president whose expressed views toward immigrants of color are totally antithetical to everything we know about Barbara Jordan.

    It would also be helpful to myself and other readers who do not know as much about this report as Nolan does if he could mention which parts of the Jordan report refer to legal family immigration, which experts agree has enabled tens of millions of legal and productive and American-loving immigrants as "horrible", as Trump did in a December 29, 2017 tweet, or label it as an alleged danger to US security, as in his SOTU message to Congress, just because most of these immigrants, many of whom subsequently became patriotic US citizens who contributed greatly to America's economy and society, came from countries outside Europe.

    Why was admitting so many millions of family-based legal immigrants during the past half century so "horrible" or dangerous for American security?

    Because their skin color was not as white as those of Trump's own mother, grandfather, and, much more recently, in-law parents who came to the US from Europe through the same "chain migration" that Trump regards as such a "horrible" danger to America when immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America come to the US the same way?

    I am not aware that the Jordan commission ever reached any such conclusions.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 10:18 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan says that I am "lashing out"!?? ("in a rage", no less!!???) against anyone who "enforces immigration law".

    That is not the subject of my above comments, or of Nolan's article, which is not about enforcing existing law, but about changing the law to end a form of legal family-based immigration which Nolan pejoratively refers to as "chain migration".

    Abolishing the current system of family-based legal immigration would, as virtually all experts agree, have a devastating effect on legal immigration from non-white parts of the world.

    It would destroy one of the main pillars of the race-neutral, non-discriminatory, world-wide immigration system which has been in effect for the past half century.

    Family-based immigration, has, in accordance with America's deepest and most cherished values, enabled many millions of law-abiding, peaceful immigrants who shared and wanted to participate in America's values of justice, freedom and equality, and have contributed to our society in so many ways during the past half century to come to this country, become Americans themselves (in most cases), and raise American families.

    Isn't this exactly what Donald Trump's own mother and grandfather did when they came to the US from Europe though the same kind of "chain migration" that Trump now wants to cancel when most of the immigrants who benefit from this form of legal immigration are not white?

    I am not asking Nolan to agree with my comments - he certainly is entitled to his own opinions. But I am, with all due respect for Nolan's distinguished reputation as a leading authority on immigration law, suggesting that describing my response to his above article more accurately would not only be helpful to ilw.com readers who are looking for a better understanding of this topic, but would also add to the credibility and persuasiveness of his own comments.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 11:15 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan argues that abolishing the present family immigration system ("chain migration") wouldn't make much difference to millions of foreign relatives who have to wait many years for their green cards anyway.

    This may be true, for example, for siblings of US citizens. But it is not the case for parents of adult US citizens, who are now considered "immediate relatives" and are not subject to any quota waiting period.

    If Nolan had been advising Donald Trump when Melania Trump was sponsoring her parents (as she obviously did - no other explanation is possible) for green cards through "chain migration", would Nolan have told the future president to be sure to let Melania know that doing so could "harm America's security" and that it was "horrible", (both of the above expressions are Trump's terms - not Nolan's, of course) so she should stop what she was doing and let her parents stay where they were in their own country - as millions of mainly non-European foreign-born parents of US citizens will have to do if Trump's hypocritical attempt to change the law dealing with family - sponsored immigration using nearly 800,000 innocent young people as hostages goes through?

    And how does the fact that the Democrats' own record on immigration reform is less than perfect in any way justify Trump's policies now?

    When in the past half century did the Democrats ever try to change the laws to make legal immigration for millions of close relatives (we are talking about parents, siblings and adult children here - not second cousins twice removed!) of American citizens more difficult, or impossible?

    When, in the 100 years, since the time of Woodrow Wilson, have the Democrats ever elected a president who complained that America was letting in too many brown immigrants and should concentrate on admitting only white ones instead?

    This is not to say that Donald Trump's racially motivated views on immigration are new in American history - to the contrary, they have been all too common.

    But Trump is trying to to bring back this old, discredited racial ideology of a previous era back and make it part of America's present once again.

    That is not the way to make America Great.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law



    Roger says, “Nolan argues that abolishing the present family immigration system ("chain migration") wouldn't make much difference to millions of foreign relatives who have to wait many years for their green cards anyway.”

    I don’t understand what Roger is saying in that comment. Trump’s framework proposal doesn’t apply the chain migration termination to the aliens already in line with approved visa petitions.

    Roger says, “If Nolan had been advising Donald Trump when Melania Trump was sponsoring her parents…”

    Trump said a number of times that he has taken advantage of laws that he thinks should be changed, and, as I mentioned above, he is going to honor approved visas that are based on one of the categories he wants to abolish despite the fact that he thinks the categories they are in shouldn't have been available.

    In any case, I am not interested in morality lectures from Roger. He has no respect for the law. In fact, he will lash out in a rage at any politician or government official who enforces immigration law.

    Roger says, “When in the past half century did the Democrats ever try to change the laws to make legal immigration for millions of close relatives (we are talking about parents, siblings and adult children here - not second cousins twice removed!) of American citizens more difficult, or impossible?”

    The Jordan Commission recommended the termination of chain migration in its report to congress, and five of the nine commissioners were Democrats.

    I am not going to respond to Roger’s other comments.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-22-2018 at 01:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan argues that abolishing the present family immigration system ("chain migration") wouldn't make much difference to millions of foreign relatives who have to wait many years for their green cards anyway.

    This may be true, for example, for siblings of US citizens. But it is not the case for parents of adult US citizens, who are now considered "immediate relatives" and are not subject to any quota waiting period.

    If Nolan had been advising Donald Trump when Melania Trump was sponsoring her parents (as she obviously did - no other explanation is possible) for green cards through "chain migration", would Nolan have told the future president to be sure to let Melania know that doing so could "harm America's security" and that it was "horrible", (both of the above expressions are Trump's terms - not Nolan's, of course) so she should stop what she was doing and let her parents stay where they were in their own country - as millions of mainly non-European foreign-born parents of US citizens will have to do if Trump's hypocritical attempt to change the law dealing with family - sponsored immigration using nearly 800,000 innocent young people as hostages goes through?

    And how does the fact that the Democrats' own record on immigration reform is less than perfect in any way justify Trump's policies now?

    When in the past half century did the Democrats ever try to change the laws to make legal immigration for millions of close relatives (we are talking about parents, siblings and adult children here - not second cousins twice removed!) of American citizens more difficult, or impossible?

    When, in the 100 years, since the time of Woodrow Wilson, have the Democrats ever elected a president who complained that America was letting in too many brown immigrants and should concentrate on admitting only white ones instead?

    This is not to say that Donald Trump's racially motivated views on immigration are new in American history - to the contrary, they have been all too common.

    But Trump is trying to to bring back this old, discredited racial ideology of a previous era back and make it part of America's present once again.

    That is not the way to make America Great.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 02-21-2018 at 08:06 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Some people have asked me why I said in my article that extended family members do not bring needed skills to the United States. Actually, that's not what I said. I said that it is the main objection to chain migration. I didn’t indicate whether I agreed.

    I don’t know whether they have needed skills or not, but I do know that it doesn’t matter. The point of the objection is that they aren’t given visas because they bring needed skills. They are given visas because they are in the extended family of a citizen or LPR.

    Blending chain migration with a merit-based point system would eliminate that objection because it would limit chain migration to relatives who have needed skills.

    That might sound harsh, but in politics, you take what you can get and hope to get more in the future. In this case, you would be getting a lot. It would put 1.8 million Dreamers on a path to citizenship. I don’t know why people who want to help the Dreamers aren’t excited about that offer. Like it or not, Trump could turn out to be the only real friend the Dreamers ever have.

    Who knows when they will have another chance to become citizens? DREAM Acts have been offered for more than a decade (I think, my memory isn’t great), and it doesn’t seem to matter which party controls congress and the White House. The Dems had a strong majority in the House and a filibuster-busting majority in the Senate for two years during the Obama administration. They could have passed a DREAM Act then and chose not to do it. They passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote.

    And as a practical matter, reducing chain migration with a merged point system wouldn’t make much difference. The waiting list for extended family members who are the beneficiaries of approved visa petitions has four million names on it. The next Democratic majority would have plenty of time to pass a bill reverting back to the original chain migration system before the changes brought by the merged system made a significant difference. That is, if the next Democratic majority doesn’t ignore the issue the way the last one ignored the plight of the Dreamers.

    Nolan Rappaport


    REPLY
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I also note a February 21 news report in the Washington Post to the effect that an attorney for the Trump family has confirmed that Melania Trump's parents are in the US as lawful permanent residents and are about to become US citizens.

    While congratulations are definitely in order for America's First Lady and her parents on this upcoming event, as they would be to any other naturalized citizen, it is obvious that the only way that her parents could have become permanent residents would have been through the same family sponsorship, which Trump now condemns as "chain migration" and wants to cancel so badly that he is evidently willing to take action against the Dreamers if he doesn't get his way.

    Since Donald Trump thinks that sponsoring one's parent for a green card, a/k/a "chain migration" is a danger to US security (as in his SOTU speech) and that it is indeed "horrible" (as in his December 29, 2017 tweet), the question comes up:

    Did Trump, who was then a private citizen, advise Mrs. Trump that she was doing something "horrible" that was "bad for US security" when she (presumably) sponsored her parents (who are retired and had no way of getting green cards through employment)?

    Or in Trump's view, is "chain migration" only bad for America when immigrants who come to the US through that method are not white like Melania Trump's parents?


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-21-2018 at 02:31 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Yes, it is true that the president is holding the Dreamers hostage to his agenda of turning America back toward the era of whites only immigration which existed before 1965 and he is, at least by implication, threatening to deport almost 800,000 young people who were brought to America as children through no fault of their own, unless immigration advocates agree to reverse a half century of progress toward a race neutral, color-blind immigration system which give a fair and equal opportunity to people from all over the world.

    Family immigration, which, even though it was clearly not originally intended that way in 1965 when it was adopted, has enabled tens of millions of law abiding, productive legal immigrants from inside and outside Europe, without discrimination or favoritism based on race, color or religion in the past half century. It is a pillar of this open and unbiased immigration system.

    Refusing to agree to this kind of blackmail or hostage talking does not imply any kind of lack of sympathy for or wish to help the Dreamers.

    It only means that reversing a half century of non-discriminatory immigration policies which have made America a more diverse, multiracial society is too high a price to pay for rescuing the Dreamers from the gun that Trump himself is pointing at their heads though his own actions.

    And if Congress does pay this price, who will be the next group of immigrants whom Trump might choose to hold hostage to some other part of his white supremacist immigration agenda - say to abolishing the 14th amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship for all US born children, something Trump also promised to do in his campaign?

    For a comprehensive analysis of this very real danger, which would destroy everything that America has stood for ever since the 14th amendment, 150 years ago this year in 1868, overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision ruling that only white people could be American citizens, see The Guardian (August 19, 2015):

    Birthright citizenship: a history of futile conservative attempts to repeal law

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mp-republicans

    If Democrats and other Dreamers' supporters allow themselves to be bullied and intimidated by Trump's threats to show how much he really "Loves" the Dreamers into agreeing to tear down the family-based foundation of the immigration system that America has had for the past half century, based in the dignity and equal rights for immigrants from all over the world without regard to nationality, skin color or religion, then they will very likely find that this was only a prelude to much worse to come from the Trump administration.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-21-2018 at 05:20 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I suspect that Dreamers who read my article and then Roger's comments will resent the way he puts their needs aside so he can give another lecture on white supremacists.

    My article proposes a compromise that might make it possible for the democrats and the republicans to reach an agreement on a chain migration compromise, which would eliminate the most intractable obstacle to a deal that would provide legalization for 1.8 million Dreamers. But Roger doesn't care. He says nothing about my proposal. He goes directly to his white supremacy lecture.

    Unfortunately for the Dreamers, Roger isn't the only one. I don't believe that the democratic congressmen who are railing about the conditions attached to Trump's legalization offer care about the Dreamers either. If they did, they would have agreed to giving him his wall and found a way to compromise on the other issues.

    And I don't expect that to change when the democrats have a majority in the House and a filibuster busting majority in the Senate. They had that situation for two years during the Obama administration and chose not to pass a DREAM Act. Why would anyone expect it to be different the next time.

    Nolan Rappaport

  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As Nolan explains, "chain migration" (which may once have been a neutral term, but has now become a term of contempt and animosity toward non-white immigrants favored by some restrictionist organizations and politicians) was relied on about 50 years ago by white supremacists (my term, not Nolan's) in Congress who thought it would favor Europe. About 25 years later, the AA-1 visa lottery was instituted for the same purpose.

    Over time, it has become obvious that both family reunification and the current visa lottery, while not in any way discriminating against anyone or any part of the world, have enabled more immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to come to the US legally than immigrants from Europe.

    That is why today's white supremacists, led by Donald Trump, who recently told a group of Senate negotiators that he wants immigrants from Europe rather than Africa, want to abolish both "chain migration" and the visa lottery.

    Every other explanation is just a rationalization.

    Nolan also mentions Barbara Jordan, a great African-American civil rights leader who once chaired an immigration commission before her death two decades ago; and, who, obviously, could not have had any knowledge of immigration policy developments in the 21st century, let alone the fact that America would elect a president with the demeaning racial views and antagonistic attitudes toward both immigrants and American citizens of color that Trump has often expressed during his career, both before and after becoming president.

    With all due respect to Nolan, it is fair to say that Barbara Jordan would be rolling over in her grave at any suggestion that she ever supported immigration policies aimed deliberately at reducing immigration from Africa or any other parts of the world where people have darker skins than the citizens of the "Countries like Norway" whom Trump said that he favors over immigrants from certain non-white countries in a January 11 White House meeting.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 02-20-2018 at 02:26 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also says that he thinks that Trump would be willing to compromise on "chain migration" if he gets his wall.

    In this respect, Nolan was not a very good prophet. Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators presented a compromise bill that would have given Trump at least some funding for the Wall, but did not contain the drastic reductions in family-based legal immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America that Trump is demanding.

    A February 17 Washington Post article describes in detail how Trump and his administration lobbied furiously against that bill and ensured that it would fail in the Senate.

    See:

    Trump administration assault on bipartisan immigration plan assured its demise.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-18-2018 at 10:30 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Also, for a perceptive and instructive article suggesting that Robert Mueller's latest Russia indictments could cast further doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's entire presidency (which, arguably, could impair his ability to turn America's immigration system back toward the bigoted white supremacist regime in effect from 1924 to 1964 by ending large parts of the legal family immigration system and eliminating the diversity visa lottery entirely) see, POLITICO:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...16163?lo=ap_d1

    This is, of course, without even mentioning the moral legitimacy which Trump forfeited by falsely and demagogically suggesting that mainly Asian, Latin American and African family and diversity visa sponsored legal immigrants are "security threats", while opposing any legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of people such as the deranged American madman who brutally killed 17 Americans, almost all of them children, at a high school in Florida on February 14.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-17-2018 at 10:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For anyone who is interested in the facts and figures about how current immigration policies (including the family immigration which Trump is so eager to eliminate) are making America less white and more diverse, see a very recent (February 8) study by migrationpolicy.org

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...-united-states

    And for a well-researched and clearly explained comment dealing with the underlying racism in Trump's entire immigration agenda, see:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/168973...mp-immigration

    See also, Amanda Marcotte, writing in Salon.com on February 16:

    Trump's immigration policy in brief: Total racist shutdown

    https://www.salon.com/2018/02/16/tru...cist-shutdown/

    I recommend these articles to anyone who is seriously interested in gaining a deeper understanding of why Donald Trump is so anxious to make major cutbacks in family immigration and to eliminate the diversity visa lottery entirely.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-16-2018 at 10:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan is not interested in reading the statistics I have cited in my own blog comment, or paying any attention to the history of family immigration discussed in the WSJ article cited above, a history which Nolan certainly must be well aware of anyway as a leading authority on immigration law, I cannot force him to do so.

    That does not mean that the statistics I have mentioned showing that abolishing family immigration and the diversity visa would have almost twice as much impact on black and Latino immigrants as white ones do not exist. They are there - in the citations I have referred to in my own article. Nor does it change America's recent immigration history, including the reasons why family immigration in its current form was adopted in 1965 and the original version of the visa lottery was adopted between around 1990 to 1994 - both measures for the purposes of making it easier for white immigrants to come to the US than those from Asia, Africa or Latin America.

    Nolan may not want to respond to the statistics or this immigration history, but that will not make them go away.

    I also respectfully suggest to Nolan that the fact that Donald Trump would not be here at all, let alone president of the US, were it not for the same kind of family immigration (i.e. coming to join US siblings) which he now wants to abolish; and that Trump's own in-laws are now in the US legally together with Trump's USC wife - which Trump's proposals would make more difficult or impossible for millions of other American citizens with foreign born parents whose skin color might be different from that of most citizens of "countries like Norway" - may strike some, perhaps even quite a few, ilw.com readers as relevant to our present topic under discussion.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-15-2018 at 02:28 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    A couple of further thoughts on family immigration, or, in Trumpspeak, "chain migration":

    1) If family immigration is as "horrible" as Trump claimed in his December 29, 2017 tweet, or as bad for national security as he claims in a February, 2018 official White House statement, why was it perfectly fine when Trump's own German grandfather and Scottish mother came to the US the same way to join their siblings?

    2) According to a February 13 Washington Post story, Melania Trump's Slovenian parents are now in the United States, even though the White House refuses to give information about their visa or immigration status.

    If Trump is successful in ending family immigration by parents of US citizens, will he ask Congress to make an exception for members of the Trump family?

    In summary, it seems that Trump is dividing the world into two groups for immigration purposes. The first group is made up of the Norway countries, from which immigrants are welcome.

    The other group is made up of the No Way countries.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    This has nothing to do with my article or my request for a factual basis for his claims. This is just Roger rambling into a Trump tirade.

    Nolan Rappaport
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If Nolan doesn't wish to read the studies cited in my easily accessible February 14 blog comment which I have provided a link to above, which show that ending family immigration in its present form would disproportionately impact non-white areas of the world compared to Europe, with the greatest negative impact being on Latin America and Africa - the same areas which Trump has recently disparaged as having "shithole" countries, I cannot force him to.

    However, if Nolan is having a problem locating my blog in the same February 14 issue of Immigration Daily which contains his own above article, here is the link once again:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10384

    This comment includes the references to the two studies I have mentioned. There is no need to repeat the details here when the full studies themselves are so easily available online at the citations I have provided.

    Nolan also overlooks the history of what Trump disparaging calls "chain migration".

    A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which I am sure that Nolan will agree, does not have a reputation as a left-wing, liberal, or partisan Democratic publication, provides the history of the family immigration provisions of the 1965 immigration reform act which was meant to end 40 years of overt racism against immigrants who were not from "countries like Norway" (including a ban on Jewish refugees who might otherwise have been able to escape the Holocaust).

    As this article, entitled The Curious History of 'Chain Migration' shows, the original supporters of the 1965 reform law, including President Lyndon Johnson, wanted to base America's immigration system on skills and "merit", much as Trump and his supporters are claiming that they want to do so now (when Trump is not attacking H-1B visas, that is).

    However, "conservatives" in both parties were concerned that basing immigration solely on skills would upset the pattern of white dominance in immigration that had been the norm for the previous 40 years.

    Therefore they proposed making visas available through family immigration in the belief that this would favor immigration from Europe. It didn't work out that way.

    Now, 50 years later politicians who want to restore European dominance in immigration want to end family-based immigration because they don't like the results, which were vast increases in legal immigration from outside Europe as compared to Europe. The link to this article is:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cur...ion-1516376200

    I am providing this link for the benefit of ilw.com readers who may not know immigration history as well as Nolan, who is one of America's leading and most highly respected immigration law authorities, and must therefore undoubtedly be familiar with this history.

    What is the point of mentioning this history? Only to show that family immigration, in common with most if not all other immigration issues throughout US history, has always involved questions of race and ethnicity.

    No one who claims to provide a serious view of US immigration policy can ignore this reality.

    Trying to argue that Trump's insistence on ending family immigration in its current form has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, especially in view of Trump's notorious January 11 comments and his consistent attempts to demonize entire non-white immigrant groups as "criminals", "rapists", "terrorists", and "job stealers"; or, more recently, in Trump's assaults on family immigration and the visa lottery (which was also initially meant to benefit white immigrants almost exclusively, as Nolan also well knows) as a "security risk" based on virtually zero evidence, is not all that different from arguing that the sky is not really blue or that wheels are square instead of round.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I repeat, "Stop giving me research assignments. If you have a reliable factual basis for your wildly improbable claims, state it."

    And no more history lessons either.

    The truth is that you have no factual basis for your claims, isn't it?

    Nolan Rappaport
Page 1 of 134 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: