ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

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

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Immigration Opponents Are Concerned That Trump Might Fire Sessions. Would AG's Departure Make Life Any Better for Immigrants? Roger Algase

    Few US politicians have been more consistently anti-immigrant than Trump's embattled Attorney General and former Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions. This is why anti-immigrant conservatives are anguished at the thought that Trump might force Sessions to resign.

    One commentator, David Leach, writing in the right wing publication blames the pressure coming from Trump against Sessions on alleged objection to Sessions' immigration policies by Trump's "liberal" daughter and son in law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner:

    "Could it be that Jared and Ivanka are now driving Trump's immigration agenda? If so, wouldn't it make sense that they would want Sessions gone due to his tough approach to illegal immigration? And if that is true, wouldn't it explain Trump's aggressive attacks against his Attorney General?"

    While the above may easily be dismissed as pure conspiracy theory, the leaders of well established immigration restrictionist organizations, such as the famously misnamed Center for Immigration Studies, which is at least much committed to lobbying against immigrants as it is to doing research, as well as Numbers USA, are also agonizing over the possibility that firing Sessions or pressuring to resign might indicate that Trump is going "soft" on immigration.

    Rosemary Jencks, a spokesperson for this latter organization is quoted as follows in another right wing anti-immigrant publication,

    "Attorney General Sessions has proven beyond any doubt his commitment to enforcing the law, and particularly the immigration laws that have been neglected for decades to the detriment of American workers."

    Supporters of AG Sessions, who has a long record of hostility to immigration as a Senator, including support for the same "Nordics"- only 1924 immigration law that Adolf Hitler also praised some 90 years earlier in Mein Kampf (see Sessions' January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans), and who has lost no time putting a mass deportation agenda into effect against Latino and other mainly non-white immigrants in what Sessions himself as called the "Trump Era", need not worry that Donald Trump has suddenly turned into a strong defender of immigrant rights without regard to any particular immigrant's race, color or creed.

    If Trump's views on immigration were so flexible, malleable, or free from what the 4th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, in an overwhelming 10-3 en banc decision determined as a matter of fact to be Trump's "animus" against at least one class of minority immigrants (Muslims), he would never have appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General in the first place.

    Anyone who thinks that firing Jeff Sessions as AG would bring about the slightest moderation of Trump's attempts to stoke hatred of non-white immigrants in a manner with at least some faint resemblances to a certain German dictator's tirades against the Jews in the 1930's should read the following New York Daily News summary of Trump's horrifying July 25 speech at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio:

    "Tuesday night, Trump gave what may very well be the most vicious, despicable, anti-immigrant speech he has delivered since he first announced his campaign for the presidency. Speaking before a raucous crowd in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump referred to immigrants as "animals" who "slice and dice" beautiful young American girls with knives because they want them to die slowly. Trump then openly proclaimed that he wants his ICE agents to be 'rough' with immigrants moving forward, saying 'we're not doing it in a politically correct fashion, we're doing it rough'."

    Was Trump's praise of the use of violence by ICE against immigrants intentionally meant to remind his listeners of another violent armed group, known as the S.A. which helped its leader gain and keep power in Germany during the 1930's?

    See Bob Dreyfuss writing in The Nation on March 14, 2016:

    Trump's Storm Troopers and the Possibility of American Fascism

    (Sorry, I don't have a direct link - please go to Google):

    As the above article also makes clear, Trump does not have an SA, and there is no indication that he has taken any steps to build one or has any intention of doing so.

    But Trump does have ICE, and he spoke during the campaign of building a "deportation task force". By glorifying the use of force by ICE, is his goal anything other than to instill the same fear of state violence in America's immigrant communities that the German dictator instilled in all of the people in his country though his paramilitary S.A.?

    There are few signs, if any, that Sessions' departure from the Trump administration would give America's Hispanic and other non-white immigrants any reason to feel safer or less under suspicion and attack, including the use of officially sanctioned violence against them, than they do right now in the "Trump Era".

    Arguably, however, because of Sessions' own record during the past six months as Trump's immigration hatchet man, putting Trump's mass deportation agenda into reality,

    attacking sanctuary cities

    and devising deceptive and meretricious arguments in federal court to try to hide the true purpose of Trump's Muslim ban orders

    immigrants might have something to gain if Trump's uncontrolled rage (oulomenen, to use the Greek word for Homer's immortal description of the anger of Achilles in the opening lines of the Iliad) against Sessions for respecting the rule of law by recusing himself from the investigation against Trump's alleged improper Russia connections makes Sessions' position so unbearable that Sessions has no choice but to resign, or if Trump simply fires him. See, July 25:

    Trump's strategy - troll Sessions to get to Mueller (Opinion)

    But there is a principle that is even more important to the American people, and to immigrants as well, than whether Sessions, or some other Trump appointee as Attorney General, is tasked with carrying out the details of Trump's attempt to take America back to the white supremacist immigration system of 1924, which remained in effect for four decades until 1965.

    This is the principle of the independence of the Justice Department, and ultimately the rule of law itself in America. As POLITICO Magazine writes on July 27:

    "In that event [if Sessions is forced out] Democrats [and, one might also mention, immigrants] surely won't cry for Sessions, whom they generally regard as a throwback to a not-so-distant apartheid past. But many liberals do feel bound to protect norms and institutions that seem everywhere under threat in the age of Trump..."

    One of those "norms and institutions" is something known as democracy, which is now under threat as never before in America in the "Donald Trump Era".

    If Jeff Sessions, who, no matter how anti-immigrant he may be, has so far maintained his independence from Trump by refusing to let himself be used as a tool to protect Trump from investigation into the president's alleged illegal Russian political or business connections by a duly appointed independent counsel, is forced out and replaced by a new Attorney General more willing to do Trump's bidding, America will be one more giant step on the road to renouncing democracy in favor of one-man dictatorship.

    There is no possible scenario in which immigrants, any more than American citizens, could benefit from this dreaded, but very possible, transition.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-28-2017 at 05:01 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. How Sessions' Faustian Anti-Immigrant Bargain With Donald Trump Could Lead to the End of American Democracy. Roger Algase

    There is an old joke about a politician who is told by one of his advisers that there is a way to guarantee that he, the politician, will never lose an election, no matter how long his career may last. Curious, the politician asks what he would have to do in order to achieve that enviable result.

    The adviser tells the politician that all he, the politician, has to do is agree to sell his soul to the Devil. The politician answers:

    "That sounds simple enough, but what's the catch?"

    While the above, of course, is only a joke, and no rational person would ever seriously accuse any of our elected officials of having sold his or her soul to, let alone actually being, the Devil, one can find at least a faint echo of this joke in the souring of the relationship between the Attorney General and former long term anti-immigrant Senator, and the president of the United States, Donald Trump.

    This is a relationship that was founded on one essential element that has been and still evidently is common to both men, namely opposition to immigration by non-European racial and religious minority groups. If their common pursuit of that policy goal seemed like a relationship that was "made in heaven" from the point of view of accomplishing that objective, it is now rapidly moving, at least for Sessions, in the direction of that other, opposite, place instead.

    This is because there was a "catch" in the implied bargain between Sessions and Trump.

    In return for Sessions' support as the first Senator actually to endorse him for president and someone who could be of immense help in rallying anti-immigrant voters to Trump's side, Trump held out the promise of bringing to actual fruition Sessions' long held goal of rolling back fifty years of progress in making the American dream available to immigrants from outside Europe, as contemplated by the immigration reform act of 1965.

    As immigration rights advocate Linda Chavez wrote about Sessions in September, 2016:

    "It's no coincidence that accompanying Trump on his visit south of the border was Sen. Jeff Sessions, arguably the most anti-immigrant politician since Senator William Paul Dillingham, whose opposition to immigrants from southern and eastern Europe resulted in the first mass restriction legislation in the early 1900's."

    But the "catch", which may or may not have been obvious to Sessions at the beginning, was that by entering into a bargain whereby Trump gave Sessions enormous power and control over America's immigration system as Attorney General of the United States, a power that Sessions might very arguably have only dreamed of ever having without Trump, Sessions would also be required to forego any ethical and legal scruples on his part which would have stood in the way of Trump's drive to absolute power.

    However, by recusing himself from the Russia investigation of possible illegal contacts between Trump, or his top campaign officials, between officials and or private individuals in that country, Sessions chose to honor the rule of law, rather than the absolute "loyalty" which Trump demanded of FBI James Comey before firing him as FBI Director and which Trump, evidently, demands of everyone whom he considers to be a subordinate; "loyalty" which would put Trump so far beyond the rule of law as to set the stage for the end of democracy in America and its replacement by one man rule. See: The Guardian, July 25:

    and Salon (May 12):

    As a result, Sessions, according to all the latest news reports (as of July 25), is now at risk of being forced out of or fired from his position, and thereby losing the power to turn America's immigration system, for perhaps decades to come, back in the direction of the 1924 "Nordics"- only immigration act which barred all but a very few of the world's Jews, Eastern and Southern European Catholics, Muslims, Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners from coming to the United States as immigrants, and which Sessions praised so highly in his January, 2015 Immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans.

    In my forthcoming further comments on this issue, i will examine in more detail how Sessions, in only six short months since becoming Attorney General of the United States, has impressed his legal stamp on the nation's immigration system.

    To begin with, however, here is a description from a source that supports Sessions' goals of the way he has already made major changes in immigration enforcement policy (to the obvious detriment of minority immigrant communities throughout the United States):

    As head of the DOJ, of course, Sessions has also been responsible for devising the deceptive, if not meretricious (from the Latin word meretrix) legal argument that Trump's Muslim ban orders were allegedly not aimed against Muslims as a religion, but were only national security measures - an argument which the overwhelming 4th Circuit majority blew apart in its IRAP decision, and which few other federal courts have taken seriously.

    Ironically, even though the heart of Sessions' DOJ's legal strategy in the Muslim ban cases rested on the same claim of absolute presidential power which Trump is now asserting in connection with the Russia investigation, and which threatens to end Sessions' own tenure as Attorney General (as well as America's two and a half centuries of history as a democracy), even this broad assertion of Trump's claimed authority to rule as a dictator, not a democratically elected leader, in the area of admission of immigrants to the US, has not been enough to satisfy Trump, who has been openly critical of the DOJ's strategy in defending his Muslim ban.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-26-2017 at 05:45 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Is Trump withdrawing Lady Liberty’s invitation to the poor, huddled masses yearning to be free? By Nolan Rappaport


    In 1903, these lines were engraved on a plaque and placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
    But should our immigration system be based on a desire to help immigrants from around the world? Or should it be based or on our own national interests?

    The main difference between legal and illegal immigration is that with legal immigration, the government decides which aliens will be allowed to come to the United States. Whereas, with illegal immigration, the aliens decide themselves whether they are going to come.

    That distinction loses significance when the government does not base its immigration policy decisions on the country’s needs.

    President Donald Trump believes that the current system for legal immigration does not meet our national interests.

    Trump’s views on legal immigration.

    When Trump was still a candidate, he delivered a statement on his plans for immigration reform. He said that he would —


    Published originally on the 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 an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
  4. Federal Court Also Uses Trump's Statements in Refusing to Block Injunction Against Cutting off Sanctuary Cities' Funds. Roger Algase

    In a case with a parallel to the lower federal courts' use of the president's public statements against him in issuing injunctions against his Muslim ban order, which is now before the Supreme Court, a federal judge in San Francisco, William Orrick III, has refused to lift an injunction against the Trump administration's threat to cut of federal funding to "Sanctuary Cities" which refuse to comply with federal government requests to provide information about or honor detainers relating to unauthorized immigrants in their jurisdictions.

    In his refusal to lift a previous injunction against the threatened funds cutoff, Judge Orrick reportedly relied on broad statements that both Trump and Attorney General Sessions - whose job may now reportedly be in danger because of his principled decision to uphold the rule of law by recusing himself from the Russia related investigations - a decision which has evidently infuriated the president - see:

    - had made threatening a cutoff of all federal funds to the jurisdictions concerned.

    The court (as reported by POLITICO - I have not yet seen the actual decision) relied on these public statements as evidence of the administration's real intent to institute a legally impermissible broad cutoff of funds, despite the fact that Sessions subsequently issued a memo narrowing the scope of the threatened action in order make it more compliant with federal law and with the Constitutional separation of powers.

    The parallels with the Muslim ban lawsuits are unmistakable. In both cases, the federal courts are reacting to what they, with considerable justification, perceive as the reality of Trump's intentions, based on his own statements and those of his top officials.

    In contrast, many federal District and Circuit courts have been rejecting what Trump himself has described (in the Muslim ban litigation) as "watered-down", sanitized versions of his original executive orders or other policy statements as inaccurate or even misleading versions of his real intentions.

    This was apparent, especially, in the 4th Circuit's 10-3 full court decision in the Muslim ban case, and we are now seeing the same thing, only in a different context, in the Sanctuary Cities litigation.

    For the full POLITICO story about Judge Orrick's decision, see:

    One might ask, ultimately, what difference does it make whether the federal courts look behind the narrow, but prima facie more legally acceptable rationales for Trump's policies regarding both excluding Muslim immigrants from the US and threatening retaliation against Sanctuary Cities for not falling in line behind his mass deportation agenda for Hispanic and Asian immigrants, or whether America's judges take Trump at his word concerning his stated broader objectives?

    The answer to this question involves whether America can continue to be governed as a democracy or whether it will become a dictatorship.

    If the courts are deprived of the power to look behind the surface of Trump's immigration policies and to examine their real objectives, as stated by the president himself, merely because, well, he is the president, then we will no longer have separation of powers in this country and the courts will be nothing more than a compliant rubber stamp for whatever the president says and does about immigration.

    And if America's judicial branch turns into nothing more than the president's doormat on immigration policy, how can the judiciary preserve its independence from one man rule by the president with regard to religious freedom, voting rights or any of the vital issues today which affect the rights and freedoms of the American people, not only foreign citizens?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-21-2017 at 05:04 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Meet the US Employer Who Openly Defies and Thumbs His Nose at Trump's "Hire American" Policy - Donald J. Trump. Roger Algase

    Update, July 21. 7:29 pm:

    In my original version of this comment, I inadvertently included a link to a article which inaccurately accused the president of taking advantage of a 15,000 annual increase in H-2B visas which he himself had put into effect using his own power as president.

    Joseph Whalen has kindly pointed out, and I thank him for bringing this to my attention, that the 70 H-2B visas that Trump's company, Mar-a-Lago is requesting are for fiscal year 2018, beginning October 1, 2017, and that therefore these visas would have been available even if the president had not ordered a 15,000 annual increase in the number of visas.

    I did not mean to imply at any time that Trump, or any of his companies, were benefiting from the annual increase in H-2B visas which he has ordered. I only intended to imply that Trump is benefiting from a foreign worker visa program in general, in direct conflict with his promise to promote hiring of American workers first and foremost.

    I have now deleted the link to the incorrect article, and instead I have substituted a link to an article in The Hill about Trump's use of the H-2B program, without any implication that he or his company benefited from the visa increase, as opposed to the H-2B program as a whole.

    My revised original comment follows:

    There is a least one American employer who is behaving as if he couldn't care less about Donald Trump's "Hire American" policy as announced in his inaugural address and in his "Buy American, Hire American" executive order. This employer is not only openly thumbing his nose at the president's "Hire American" policy, but he has actually picked Trump's "Made in America" week to announce that he is hiring 70 foreign workers under the H-2B visa program to work at a resort and golf club in Florida.

    According to US Department of Labor H-1B filings as reported in the media, this US employer is planning to hire foreign housekeepers, cooks and servers for a resort located in Palm Beach, Florida.

    One would think that the president would be outraged at this open and blatant attempt to sabotage his program of protecting American workers against competition from unskilled (and highly skilled, as witnessed by his statements regarding H-1B visas) foreign workers. However, since the news only broke a few hours ago as of this writing, maybe the president just hasn't had time to act against this open rebellion by an American employer against Trump's promise to put American workers first, which almost all observers agree played a large part in helping him win the presidency.

    So, while there has been no reaction so far, one cannot rule out a possible tweetstorm by the president later on against this American employer who so openly mocks the president by refusing to bend to his will on immigration policy.

    Just in case any reader is curious about exactly who would dare to engage in open defiance of our chief executive's pro-American worker policy, which he put at the center of his campaign and has continued to promote since becoming president, the above report also names the American employer who has shown so little respect for our nation's highest elected official.

    This employer's name happens to be Donald J. Trump, and the companies which will be employing the foreign workers are the Mar-a-Lago club and the Trump National Golf Club.

    Readers should stay tuned to see if the president or his administration takes any actions against this openly recalcitrant U.S. employer who evidently cares so little about the president's expressed desire to put American workers first.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 07-21-2017 at 06:32 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 247 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: