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



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

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I haven't read this document yet but only casually glanced through it. However, two passages from Section 15 on pages 4 and 5 of the Compact caught my eye. I respectfully suggest, every DHS, DOJ and DOS staff member who is in any way connected with immigration activities or policy should be required to recite these two passages at least once every day while facing the American flag with hand over his or her heart.

    The only exception would be for Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller, for whom once a day would not be nearly enough but every hour on the hour would be more appropriate.

    The passages I am referring to run as follows:

    First:

    "The Global Compact ensures that the human rights of women, men, girls and boys are respected at all stages of migration, their specific needs are properly understood and addressed and they are empowered as agents of change."

    Second:

    "The Global Compact promotes existing legal obligations in relation to the rights of the child, and upholds the best interests of the child at all times, as a primary consideration in all situations involving children in the context of international migration, including unaccompanied children and separated children."

    The
    horrendous, brutal and inhuman treatment of Central American and other non-white children who were separated from their parent and have now been reunited during their period of incarceration, however brief it may have been for some of the fortunate few who are now no longer separated, is reported in the July 15 Washington Post. See:

    Immigrant kids held in shelters describe being separated from their parents

    Why should these innocent children have been treated with such heartless sadism, even if their parents tried to enter the US contrary to law?

    As The Post's article shows, many of these children, although now reunited, may be scarred for life by what they went through in Donald Trump's America - something that this president will have to answer history for as long as America's history continues to be written.

    As for the Compact itself, on first glance, it appears as a wonderful goal to strive for in all matters regarding immigration, and Nolan should be thanked and appreciated for bringing it to everyone's attention.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-15-2018 at 10:33 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Since I am not an asylum expert, I would ask if Nolan can clarify one point for me, as follows: Is an expedited removal proceeding the same as a Section 208 credible fear determination interview?

    My understanding was that expedited removal applies to people who don't have asylum claims and who meet certain standards for being removed that have nothing to do with asylum, such as being within 100 miles of the border, being in the US for only a short time, etc.

    Nolan also says "forget about Section 208" and then launches into a description of how a Section 208 credibility fear determination interview is conducted.

    Yes, these interviews may be cursory. But they are still mandated by Section 208, if I am reading the English language (my native tongue) correctly.

    Third, Nolan says that there will be uniform guidance on the issue of discretion to deny asylum claims which will apply across all enforcement agencies, including DHS and the DOJ.

    It is true that the USCIS memo, by its terms, is binding on that agency only, not on other branches of DHS such as ICE or CBP.

    Nor, of course, is it binding on the DOJ, including immigration judges.

    But, reading that memo, it appears to track Sessions' A-B- decision so closely that it would appear to be at least to prelude to the uniform guidance that Nolan mentions.

    And, on the issue of using unlawful entry as an excuse to deny asylum as a matter of discretion, the July 11 memo seems to hew pretty closely to BIA precedent by quoting from an old BIA decision (not an AG decision) putting some limits on how far unlawful entry can be used as as a grounds for denying otherwise valid asylum claims.

    This may provide some uniformity in asylum determinations (relating to this issue, it least), but this move toward uniformity does not seem to be in the direction of telling immigrants who enter unlawfully to make asylum claims to forget about asylum and seek some other relief, which as I understand it, seems to be the main point of Nolan's entire article.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Roger asks, “My understanding was that expedited removal applies to people who don't have asylum claims and who meet certain standards for being removed that have nothing to do with asylum, such as being within 100 miles of the border, being in the US for only a short time, etc.”

    It's apparent that I am not going to be able to explain expedited removal proceedings in brief comments. Consequently, I am providing a link to a CRS report that provides that information.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43892.pdf

    Roger says, “Nolan also says "forget about Section 208" and then launches into a description of how a Section 208 credibility fear determination interview is conducted.

    Yes, these interviews may be cursory. But they are still mandated by Section 208, if I am reading the English language (my native tongue) correctly.”

    This is why I told him to forget section 208. It sets forth the requirements for an asylum grant. It has nothing to do with expedited removal proceedings other than the fact that the alien asylum seeker in such proceedings has to establish a credible fear of persecution using the section 208 requirements.

    Roger says, “Third, Nolan says that there will be uniform guidance on the issue of discretion to deny asylum claims which will apply across all enforcement agencies, including DHS and the DOJ.

    It is true that the USCIS memo, by its terms, is binding on that agency only, not on other branches of DHS such as ICE or CBP.”

    The memo is just binding on USCIS employees who handle asylum cases, but it is still an excellent source of guidance for everyone else who deals with asylum cases because it explains Session’s recent decision on domestic violence persecution claims and provides guidance on applying it to asylum cases.

    Roger says, “And, on the issue of using unlawful entry as an excuse to deny asylum as a matter of discretion, the July 11 memo seems to hew pretty closely to BIA precedent by quoting from an old BIA decision (not an AG decision) putting some limits on how far unlawful entry can be used as a grounds for denying otherwise valid asylum claims.”

    Sessions isn’t going to revise the entire body of Board asylum precedents. In fact, his decision on domestic violence just reinstates the Board precedents on that subject that were in effect until the poorly written precedent he reverses was issued. See my article, “Domestic abuse decision doesn't change asylum law, just applies it correctly” (June 15, 2018),

    Roger says, “This may provide some uniformity in asylum determinations (relating to this issue, it least), but this move toward uniformity does not seem to be in the direction of telling immigrants who enter unlawfully to make asylum claims to forget about asylum and seek some other relief, which as I understand it, seems to be the main point of Nolan's entire article.”

    No, that isn’t the main point of my article. My article is a warning to Trump and Sessions that although they can deny asylum applications from aliens who enter without inspection as a matter of discretion, they can’t avoid an evaluation of their persecution claims to determine whether they are eligible for mandatory relief under withholding of deportation or the CAT convention.

    Incidentally, I expect them to exercise that discretion in an executive order based on section 212(f) using the recent Supreme Court travel ban decision as authority, not in individual proceedings. The benefit is that it would reduce the motivation to make illegal entries by depriving the aliens who enter that way of any possibility of remaining here lawfully on the basis of their persecution claims. The best they could hope for would be deportation to a third country where they won’t be persecuted.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Since I am not an asylum expert, I would ask if Nolan can clarify one point for me, as follows: Is an expedited removal proceeding the same as a Section 208 credible fear determination interview?

    My understanding was that expedited removal applies to people who don't have asylum claims and who meet certain standards for being removed that have nothing to do with asylum, such as being within 100 miles of the border, being in the US for only a short time, etc.

    Nolan also says "forget about Section 208" and then launches into a description of how a Section 208 credibility fear determination interview is conducted.

    Yes, these interviews may be cursory. But they are still mandated by Section 208, if I am reading the English language (my native tongue) correctly.

    Third, Nolan says that there will be uniform guidance on the issue of discretion to deny asylum claims which will apply across all enforcement agencies, including DHS and the DOJ.

    It is true that the USCIS memo, by its terms, is binding on that agency only, not on other branches of DHS such as ICE or CBP.

    Nor, of course, is it binding on the DOJ, including immigration judges.

    But, reading that memo, it appears to track Sessions' A-B- decision so closely that it would appear to be at least to prelude to the uniform guidance that Nolan mentions.

    And, on the issue of using unlawful entry as an excuse to deny asylum as a matter of discretion, the July 11 memo seems to hew pretty closely to BIA precedent by quoting from an old BIA decision (not an AG decision) putting some limits on how far unlawful entry can be used as as a grounds for denying otherwise valid asylum claims.

    This may provide some uniformity in asylum determinations (relating to this issue, it least), but this move toward uniformity does not seem to be in the direction of telling immigrants who enter unlawfully to make asylum claims to forget about asylum and seek some other relief, which as I understand it, seems to be the main point of Nolan's entire article.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-13-2018 at 07:57 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I refer to USCIS Guidance Memo PM-602-0162 dated July 11, 2018, which is now available online, entitled:

    "Guidance for processing Reasonable, Credible Fear, Asylum and Refugee Claims in Accordance with Matter of A-B- "


    The Memo states in relevant part (on pages 7 and 8):

    "Of particular note, the BIA has held that unlawful entry 'is a proper and relevant discretionary factor' and can even be a 'serious adverse factor, but should not be considered in such a way that the practical effect is to deny relief [asylum] in virtually all cases'"

    (Italics in above quoted part of the Memo added.)

    Doesn't this just issued USCIS guidance memo directly contradict Nolan's apparent point (if I understand him correctly) that the Trump administration is planning to instruct asylum adjudicators to deny asylum as a matter of "discretion" in all cases where the applicant has entered the US illegally?

    And if he is planning to do so, does the president to have the authority to overturn all these BIA (and perhaps also judicial) precedents by executive fiat?

    If he does, then America may be coming even closer to the verge of dictatorship in the "Donald Trump Era" of immigration than I have been contending.

    Nolan argues that there may be viable alternatives to asylum for certain immigrants who may have a reason to fear persecution.

    Is there also a viable alternative to democracy in the United States of America?

    I also do not understand where "expedited removal" comes in with respect to asylum seekers. Are they still not entitled to a "credible fear" determination by an immigration officer under INA Section 208, no matter how "undocumented" or unlawful their entry to the US may have been?

    Is Nolan arguing that the unlawful entry gives the interviewing officer unlimited discretion to determine that the applicant lacks "credible fear"?

    That would not be a reasonable reading of either INA Section 208 or the above July 11, 2018 USCIS guidance memo, I respectfully submit.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger refers to USCIS Guidance Memo PM-602-0162 dated July 11, 2018


    I have not read the memo yet and don’t have time to do it tonight, but I may be able to answer Roger’s questions anyway.


    According to Roger, the memo says, "Of particular note, the BIA has held that unlawful entry 'is a proper and relevant discretionary factor' and can even be a 'serious adverse factor, but should not be considered in such a way that the practical effect is to deny relief [asylum] in virtually all cases'"


    Doesn't this just issued USCIS guidance memo directly contradict Nolan's apparent point (if I understand him correctly) that the Trump administration is planning to instruct asylum adjudicators to deny asylum as a matter of "discretion" in all cases where the applicant has entered the US illegally?


    That’s not my understanding of Trump’s intention. I think the plan is to handle aliens who enter without inspection without taking them before asylum adjudicators. I wrote the article to warn him that the United States has treaty obligations that prohibit that kind of summary treatment of aliens who claim a fear of persecution or torture. The courts will use those treaties to stop him, and this time the Supreme Court isn’t going to save him.


    And if he is planning to do so, does the president to have the authority to overturn all these BIA (and perhaps also judicial) precedents by executive fiat?


    That’s not the way it works. The BIA created the mess we are in by failing to reign in judges who grant most of their asylum applications or the judges who deny most of them.

    The main reason to have a BIA is to maintain uniform application of the law. They haven’t done that, and they have made matters worse by issuing poorly written precedents. Read the AG’s decision on domestic violence as a persecution ground if you don’t know why I mean.


    But presidents don’t fix problems like this. It’s AG Sessions responsibility. He has complete, absolute power over the Board. The authority they operate under was given to the AG by the Immigration and Nationality Act. That authority was delegated to the BIA by regulation and the entire EOIR operation can be shut down by withdrawing those regulations.

    Sessions is trying to handle the BIA’s responsibilities by writing precedent decisions clarifying asylum law and providing directives to USCIS, CBP and ICE. Other methods will follow.


    BIA members and immigration judges who are unwilling or unable to follow his precedents and other directives will be fired. Ashcroft fired five Board members while I was working there.


    Roger also asks, “I also do not understand where "expedited removal" comes in with respect to asylum seekers. Are they still not entitled to a "credible fear" determination by an immigration officer under INA Section 208, no matter how "undocumented" or unlawful their entry to the may have been?”


    Before expedited removal proceedings, when aliens appeared at a port of entry and asked for asylum, they were allowed to enter and released on a promise to return for their hearings, never to be seen again.

    To stop that, IIRIRA created expedited removal proceedings. Under this system, aliens are kept in mandatory detention until they have a credible fear determination. If they establish a credible fear, they are let in for a hearing and released on a promise to return.

    Currently, there is a two year wait for a hearing. Guess how many of these aliens ICE will be able to find two years from now when hearings can be scheduled for them? But the ones who can't pass the credible fear test won't be allowed in.

    There are two groups of undocumented aliens who are subject to these proceedings, aliens who asks for asylum at a port of entry and aliens who enter without inspection and are caught by the border patrol near the border.

    The directive to USCIS is a different matter. USCIS handles what they call affirmative asylum applications. These are applications that aliens who are not in removal proceedings file on their own initiative.

    The other kind is called defensive. These are submitted to immigration judges in removal proceedings for relief from deportation.

    The aliens who appear at a port of entry will be given credible fear determinations in expedited removal proceedings……but there is a limit of how many of them can be processed in such proceedings and that limit has been exceeded. That’s why CBP is sending officers into Mexico to take undocumented aliens out of line and tell them to come back another time.

    This problem is likely to get much worse as the number of aliens appearing at ports of entry for asylum increases.

    Because they are in Mexico and have no entry documents, there is nothing they can do about it.

    Finally, Roger says, “Is Nolan arguing that the unlawful entry gives the interviewing officer unlimited discretion to determine that the applicant lacks "credible fear"?”

    That would not be a reasonable reading of either INA Section 208 or the above July 11, 2018 USCIS guidance memo, I respectfully submit.”


    Forget section 208, Roger. It doesn’t apply in expedited removal proceedings the way you are suggesting. The immigration officer will decide whether an alien has a credible fear of persecution. If he decides that the alien doesn’t, he will write a very brief explanation which is reviewed by his supervisor. If the supervisor says no too, the alien can ask a judge to review the case, which just amounts to the judge looking at the written explanation and perhaps asking some questions. If the judge says no too, it’s over. The alien is tossed out of the country.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-12-2018 at 10:44 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I refer to USCIS Guidance Memo PM-602-0162 dated July 11, 2018, which is now available online, entitled:

    "Guidance for processing Reasonable, Credible Fear, Asylum and Refugee Claims in Accordance with Matter of A-B- "


    The Memo states in relevant part (on pages 7 and 8):

    "Of particular note, the BIA has held that unlawful entry 'is a proper and relevant discretionary factor' and can even be a 'serious adverse factor, but should not be considered in such a way that the practical effect is to deny relief [asylum] in virtually all cases'"

    (Italics in above quoted part of the Memo added.)

    Doesn't this just issued USCIS guidance memo directly contradict Nolan's apparent point (if I understand him correctly) that the Trump administration is planning to instruct asylum adjudicators to deny asylum as a matter of "discretion" in all cases where the applicant has entered the US illegally?

    And if he is planning to do so, does the president to have the authority to overturn all these BIA (and perhaps also judicial) precedents by executive fiat?

    If he does, then America may be coming even closer to the verge of dictatorship in the "Donald Trump Era" of immigration than I have been contending.

    Nolan argues that there may be viable alternatives to asylum for certain immigrants who may have a reason to fear persecution.

    Is there also a viable alternative to democracy in the United States of America?

    I also do not understand where "expedited removal" comes in with respect to asylum seekers. Are they still not entitled to a "credible fear" determination by an immigration officer under INA Section 208, no matter how "undocumented" or unlawful their entry to the US may have been?

    Is Nolan arguing that the unlawful entry gives the interviewing officer unlimited discretion to determine that the applicant lacks "credible fear"?

    That would not be a reasonable reading of either INA Section 208 or the above July 11, 2018 USCIS guidance memo, I respectfully submit.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-12-2018 at 09:14 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My original response to Nolan's above comment has been revised based on a July 11, 2018 USCIS guidance memo which may have appeared after Nolan's above article was written, since I do not see any reference to it in that article unless I have missed something. See below.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-12-2018 at 09:12 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Would the fact that granting asylum is discretionary insulate the administration from a lawsuit based on a claim that, in a specific instance, denial of asylum as a matter of discretion is an abuse of discretion or is arbitrary and capricious?

    Suppose an asylum claim is presented by someone who had been sentenced to death by a court in his/her home country for making a speech against the country's Leader?

    Suppose that the person had presented himself/herself at a legal border US crossing point and been turned away on the grounds that the post was "full" and only after that attempted to cross at an unauthorized point after receiving reliable information that his/her home country had sent agents to Mexico to try to kill the person.

    Asylum denial as a matter of discretion justified? Wouldn't this be a hard argument for even Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions to make?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    It’s difficult to discuss asylum law with someone who knows so little about it.

    Roger asks, “Would the fact that granting asylum is discretionary insulate the administration from a lawsuit based on a claim that, in a specific instance, denial of asylum as a matter of discretion is an abuse of discretion or is arbitrary and capricious?”


    The discretion would be exercised in expedited removal proceedings, not in removal proceedings. The point of the regulation is to avoid hearings before the immigration court. And decisions in expedited removal proceedings are unreviewable unless there is a claim that the alien is an LPR, a US citizen, or has refugee status or some other form of legal status entitling him to enter the US.

    The Federal courts are explicitly denied such jurisdiction. The alien can't appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals either.


    Then Roger asks, “Suppose an asylum claim is presented by someone who had been sentenced to death by a court in his/her home country for making a speech against the country's Leader?”


    The evidentiary difference between asylum and withholding of deportation is the likelihood that the persecution will occur. If the alien has been sentenced to death by a court, it’s a virtual certainty that he will be executed if he is returned to it.

    In fact, as I explain in my article, which apparently Roger didn’t read very carefully, the burden of proof in asylum is just a well-founded fear. If the persecution is more likely than not, relief is mandatory under withholding of removal, i.e., he can’t be sent back to his country.

    Read my article again, Roger. You will find that I say that asylum can be denied as a matter of discretion, but that doesn't mean that DHS won't have to evaluate persecution claims....or torture claims. If an alien has a legitimate claim under withholding or the CAT, he will have a right to present it to an immigration judge at a hearing.



    The issue in Roger's hypothetical situation would be whether carrying out the court's sentence constitutes persecution, and if so, whether the court entered it to punish the alien for being in one of the enumerated groups. If the answer is yes, the alien would be entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge.

    Then Roger asks, “Suppose that the person had presented himself/herself at a legal border US crossing point and been turned away on the grounds that the post was "full" and only after that attempted to cross at an unauthorized point after receiving reliable information that his/her home country had sent agents to Mexico to try to kill the person.”


    If an undocumented alien is standing at the border asking for asylum….or anything else, he has no rights. That changes if the port of entry accepts him for expedited removal proceedings, but not by much.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-12-2018 at 04:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Would the fact that granting asylum is discretionary insulate the administration from a lawsuit based on a claim that, in a specific instance, denial of asylum as a matter of discretion is an abuse of discretion or is arbitrary and capricious?

    Suppose an asylum claim is presented by someone who had been sentenced to death by a court in his/her home country for making a speech against the country's Leader?

    Suppose that the person had presented himself/herself at a legal border US crossing point and been turned away on the grounds that the post was "full" and only after that attempted to cross at an unauthorized point after receiving reliable information that his/her home country had sent agents to Mexico to try to kill the person.

    Asylum denial as a matter of discretion justified? Wouldn't this be a hard argument for even Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions to make?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The above is not to say that betrayal is always such a bad thing in the immigration context. Hopefully, one day, Donald Trump will betray supporters such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Steve King (not to mention former KKK leader David Duke) and many others who are hoping to see him follow through with an avowedly white supremacist, Europeans only, agenda for both admitting legal immigrants and enforcement activities against unauthorized ones.

    Trump may have shown a few, but not very many, signs of such "betrayal" yet. His latest avowedly white nationalist rant, reported in the July 13 Washington Post, that Europe is losing its "culture" through (legal) Muslim immigration does not provide much reassurance along this line.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I will, however, mention one point where I entirely agree with Matt's criticism of Obama. Obama, and the Democrats, have a long history of betraying promises they have made to immigrants and immigrant communities. Trump has never made any such promises (unless the immigrants in question happened to be from "Countries like Norway") and therefore it is much harder to accuse him of betrayal.

    However, before going too far with any possible "Trumpbama" comparisons in immigrant persecution and abuse, we should also ask ourselves which president established DACA and which one is trying to cancel it; which president granted TPS to hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants and which president is taking it away; and which of the two presidents supported legal immigration as opposed to the one who is fighting so hard to eliminate legal visas that have benefited millions of mainly non-European immigrants, such as extended family and Diversity Visa green cards, to mention only two.

    The Obama - Trump comparison on immigration only works up to a certain point.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With the highest respect to Matt as an immigration expert and distinguished advocate for immigrant rights, and without in any way trying to excuse Obama's past abuses or engage in an argument over numbers, should not the focus now be on the president who is actually calling the shots on immigration, rather than on one who no longer has any power to influence immigration policy?

    Again, I am not trying to defend Obama, only to focus on what is happening right now.

    If blaming Obama will help in reuniting all of the immigrant children who were torn away from their parents in the past two months at the border, some of whom were shackled and locked in cages by Trump's DHS according to news reports; or in preventing similar abuses in the future, than count me in among Obama's strongest critics too.

    Meanwhile, for the latest comment on what is actually taking place now, as opposed to admittedly important, but still past, history, see Alex Wagner writing in The Atlantic on July 11: She writes:

    "The Trump administration has, by design and disorganization, traumatized thousands of children and their parents fleeing desperate situations, and dealt with the ensuing crisis with a combination of turpitude, incompetence and foolhardiness."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...making/564872/

    Yes, Obama had plenty of his own immigration disasters too. But who is in charge now?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. MKolken's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Trump's numbers are much worse and cruelty more widespread and pervasive than under Obama.
    False. The abuses were just as widespread and pervasive. Democrats just didn't care to notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    And, bad as Obama certainly was, I don't recall any of his speeches accusing non-white immigrants of being "animals" or "infesting" the US as if they were rats or vermin.
    This is typical language of an Obama apologist: Obama wasn't a human rights violator because he said nice things.

    I really don't care what politicians say... I only care about what they do.
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is correct in concluding that, under present circumstances, I am not a big supporter of America's 45th president or his administration. I might be more sympathetic to both if Trump had stuck more closely to the principles he set forth almost 20 years ago in a 1999 op-ed in the LA Times as a private citizen.

    In that op-ed, Trump criticized another well-known immigration opponent (and later unsuccessful presidential candidate) Patrick Buchanan, for trying to use attacks on immigrants and other minorities to gain political power.

    https://www.jweekly.com/2017/09/06/p...-pat-buchanan/

    Trump is now following in Buchanan's footsteps (minus, of course, Buchanan's antisemitism and outrageous attempts to defend Hitler, which Trump strongly condemned in that same op-ed), with, unfortunately, much greater success.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Is Nolan saying that the issue of Trump's inhuman child separation policy issue has been resolved?

    That is not what the news reports are saying.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/polit...ine/index.html

    Admittedly, however, despite evident failure by the Trump administration to keep proper records relating to the children and otherwise prepare for the eventuality that reunification would need to take place sooner or later, the DOJ is making efforts to comply with a court order and has already reunited at least a few of the youngest separated children.

    This shows that America is still functioning as a democracy in the Donald Trump era (though a far from perfect one).

    In a real dictatorship, judges who issue orders to the executive to do something against the ruler's will wind up in jail themselves - or dead.

    Thankfully, even though Trump has not included judges (or journalists, that other hallmark of free society) in general as being among his favorite people, America is not the Russia of Vladimir Putin or the North Korea of Jim Long Un (to mention two foreign tyrants whom Trump has arranged meetings with and praised more highly than many democratic leaders).

    America may be committing crimes against humanity with regard to young immigrant children of the "wrong" skin color (as a protester's sign claims as shown in the above CNN report) and otherwise heading toward dictatorship under Donald Trump.

    Fortunately, we are not there yet.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I didn't say that all of the children who were taken from their parents have been reunited. I said that Trump has stopped the practice of separating them. Reuniting them is another matter, and the Trump administration is doing that as quickly as it can.

    Roger is quick to seize on anything he thinks can be used to criticize Trump, but there is more involved in reuniting them than just how quickly it is down. Trump has to be sure that he is returning the kids to people who are really their parents.

    And in typical fashion, Roger has not responded to any of the points I made in my comment. His interest in these issues doesn't go much beyond finding things he can use to attack Trump or his AG.

    I would particularly like to know why he isn't upset about the fact that so many American children are being separated from parents who are in prison, which is what will happen to the alien parents in this situation if they are caught making a second illegal entry (for up to two years). I suspect it is because he hasn't figured out a way to blame Trump for that situation....yet.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-10-2018 at 08:32 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Is Nolan saying that the issue of Trump's inhuman child separation policy issue has been resolved?

    That is not what the news reports are saying.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/polit...ine/index.html

    Admittedly, however, despite evident failure by the Trump administration to keep proper records relating to the children and otherwise prepare for the eventuality that reunification would need to take place sooner or later, the DOJ is making efforts to comply with a court order and has already reunited at least a few of the youngest separated children.

    This shows that America is still functioning as a democracy in the Donald Trump era (though a far from perfect one).

    In a real dictatorship, judges who issue orders to the executive to do something against the ruler's will wind up in jail themselves - or dead.

    Thankfully, even though Trump has not included judges (or journalists, that other hallmark of free society) in general as being among his favorite people, America is not the Russia of Vladimir Putin or the North Korea of Jim Long Un (to mention two foreign tyrants whom Trump has arranged meetings with and praised more highly than many democratic leaders).

    America may be committing crimes against humanity with regard to young immigrant children of the "wrong" skin color (as a protester's sign claims as shown in the above CNN report) and otherwise heading toward dictatorship under Donald Trump.

    Fortunately, we are not there yet.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    By the way Roger, what should ICE do with the babies that are brought here by alien parents making an illegal entry, or are brought across illegally by smugglers?

    And why are you still blaming Trump for taking children away from alien parents being prosecuted for an illegal entry. He has issued an executive order stopping the practice, and it wasn't his choice in the first place. He was required by the Flores settlement to release them in no more than 20 days.

    Nolan Rappaport
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I never said that Trump was the first or only immigrants' human rights violator. Nor was there any excuse for Obama's mass deportation. But as far as I know, Trump's numbers are much worse and cruelty more widespread and pervasive than under Obama.

    And even if this were not the case, Trump is now the president, not Obama. Trump owns the abuses that are happening right now.

    And, bad as Obama certainly was, I don't recall any of his speeches accusing non-white immigrants of being "animals" or "infesting" the US as if they were rats or vermin.

    If Obama ever referred to African or other non-European immigrants as people from "shithole" countries, or tried to get the laws changed to take away their access to legal visas, as Trump is now advocating, I would like to see the citations or links.

    To use a different (and admittedly less than perfect or exact) analogy, there was also widespread antisemitism and discrimination against Jews in the German Weimar Republic.

    Then came 1933.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is sad but unfortunately not surprising to see articles such as this one by Mr. O'Brien citing late 19th century Supreme Court decisions dating from the period of the infamous Chinese (and other Asian) exclusion laws as authority for the proposition that non-US citizens have no due process rights in immigration proceedings.

    These cases, including the most infamous one of all, U.S. v. Chae Chan Ping, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) were decided on the express theory that racial discrimination against non-white immigrants was a good thing and that Congress and the executive were serving America's national interests by barring Asian immigrants from the US.

    Are these outmoded, openly racist 19th century decisions (and 20th-century ones which have followed in their footsteps) the models that America should be following as this country's immigration policy for the 21st Century?

    If so, what other notorious 19th Century Supreme Court decisions will immigration opponents such as FAIR be relying on as a basis for immigration policy now?

    Dred Scott v. Sandford?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-09-2018 at 09:05 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. MKolken's Avatar
    You are incorrectly minimizing the abuses perpetrated by the Obama administration. Obama is also a human rights violator, and should be charged as such. It is good that these issues are coming to light now, but it is bad that it took a Republican in the White House for Democrats to care about the torture, abuse, and neglect of refugee children.

    But that is the point isn't it. Democrats don't really care about the plight of immigrant children. If they did care they would have called for Obama's impeachment after his first year in office.

    What this is about is attacking Trump.

    See:

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/la...court-stay-u-s

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.85dbde1f6452

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9203-...s-Already-Here
    Updated 07-09-2018 at 09:43 AM by MKolken
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It's good that Roger has compassion for the 2300 children who were separated from their parents when their parents were arrested for making an illegal entry. But what about the children who have been separated from their American parents when their parents were incarcerated for criminal convictions?

    More than half of the people who are incarcerated in the United States have children under the age of 18, including more than 120,000 mothers and 1.1 million fathers. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...usa/586974001/

    Or is his compassion limited to separations that can be attributed to Trump?

    I know what I think the answer to that question is.

    And what is the solution to this problem? The only way to stop it from happening is to limit criminal prosecutions to people who don't have children.

    Nolan Rappaport


    Updated 07-07-2018 at 02:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 143 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: