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
    Since Nolan also mentions Hungary, it is worth pointing out that the call for registration of Jews in that country by a leader of one of its two major parties, both of which have have strong anti-immigrant policies, as I have mentioned above. and are being widely criticized for destroying democracy in that country, is no laughing matter.

    During WW2, almost the entire Jewish population of Hungary, consisting of about 800,000 people (about the same number of DREAMERS whom Trump is now threatening to deport -we are not talking about insignificant numbers of people here), were murdered by the Nazis.

    Therefore, the call for registering all Hungarian Jews by one of Hungary
    s main political leaders should be a warning of what anti-immigrant excesses can lead to.

    Nor should we forget that Donald Trump - although no one can justly accuse him of either antisemitism or support for genocide in any shape or form - also started to lead America down the beginning of the same horrible road by calling for the registration of American Muslims - US citizens, not only immigrants, that is, during his presidential campaign.

    Hungary's anti-immigrant policies should be a warning to America, not an example, and I hope and trust that this will be Nolan's conclusion too when he completes his research.

    For more information on the highly disturbing and dangerous connection between racist anti-immigrant policies and antisemitism in Hungary's ruling party, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban (not just the neo-Nazi opposition Jobbik party), see:

    Hungarian Free Press:

    Viktor Orban and his responsibility for rising antisemitism in Hungary.

    http://hungarianfreepress.com/2016/0...sm-in-hungary/

    And for a report on How Viktor Orban's brutal treatment of, and stoking ethnic nationalism against, refugees is leading to the destruction of democracy in that country, see:

    The Independent (UK)

    Democracy is on the brink in Hungary, so why is no one talking about it?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/lo...-a7883876.html

    Could the crushing of freedom in Hungary as part of a campaign of ethnic nationalism against non-European immigrants one day become the template for extinguishing democracy n Donald Trump's America?

    There are already indications of this, based on an a pro-Orban article by former Republican Congressman and immigration opponent Tom Tancredo which appeared in Breitbart News while Steve Bannon was still the editor.

    I will discuss this further in a separate comment of my own.

    Nolan might also want to read and discuss the above two reports which I have provided links to as part of his research into-Hungary's immigration policies.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-20-2018 at 11:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Good question by Nolan. It would certainly help if America were willing to open its gates, rather than closing its borders to refugees almost completely, as it did to the eternal tragedy and disgrace and disgrace of our country's history, to Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler's holocaust; and as Donald Trump is doing now with Middle Eastern and African refugees who are admittedly not facing genocide (except for relatively small groups such as the Yazidis in Iraq), but are still in dire straits.

    Trump is allowing in 25,000 refugees a year in a nation of more than 250 million people.

    According to my math, that means one refugee per year for every 10,000 people living here.

    We can do better than that. In one year, Canada, a country with only one tenth of our population, took in 25,000 refugees from Syria alone.

    When Canada implodes, I hope that Nolan will let us know. It hasn't happened yet.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-20-2018 at 04:19 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan has done us a great service by calling attention to this letter, in which the mayors of seven French cities ask for more government help and services for asylum seekers, who have arrived in their cities, including assistance for those whose asylum claims have been denied!

    This is indeed a humane and enlightened attitude towards vulnerable and desperate people who have fled from the horrors of war, violence, dictatorship and persecution in their home countries.

    This is in such stark contrast to the cruelty and inhumanity which Trump is showing in the face of this humanitarian crisis by cutting refugee admissions almost to zero.

    Thank you, Nolan, for sharing this open letter and showing us that there is a better way to treat refugees than Trump's heartless exclusion policies which shame America and everything that America stands for.

    Vive la France!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I will point out that you seem to be assuming that there are no financial limits on what the French people are willing to spend to help the refugees. European countries are starting to say, Enough....we do not have unlimited resources.

    What do you propose they should do when the flood of refugees continues and they reach the point at which they can't accept any more refugees?

    Nolan Rappaport
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Nolan's research into Hungary, I am looking forward to learning more about the two authoritarian, far right, anti-immigrant parties which, between them. control most of that country's legislature.

    One of these two powerful right wing parties, Jobbik, according to the article in The Atlantic cited below, was the first party in Europe to call for building a wall to keep out immigrants.

    One of its leading politicians has also called for all Jews living in Hungary to be registered.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-right/527178/

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 01-19-2018 at 10:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan has done us a great service by calling attention to this letter, in which the mayors of seven French cities ask for more government help and services for asylum seekers, who have arrived in their cities, including assistance for those whose asylum claims have been denied!

    This is indeed a humane and enlightened attitude towards vulnerable and desperate people who have fled from the horrors of war, violence, dictatorship and persecution in their home countries.

    This is in such stark contrast to the cruelty and inhumanity which Trump is showing in the face of this humanitarian crisis by cutting refugee admissions almost to zero.

    Thank you, Nolan, for sharing this open letter and showing us that there is a better way to treat refugees than Trump's heartless exclusion policies which shame America and everything that America stands for.

    Vive la France!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    There comes a point, Nolan, where we have to take Trump at his word and stop making excuses for him.

    Trump has been telling us, over and over again fot the past more than two years that he hates Latino and Middle Eastern immigrants. Only last week hes said the same thing about African and Haitian immigrants and said that we should accept more immigrants from Northern Europe instead. He appointed an attorney general who is on record as supporting a 1924 law which sent additional thousands, if not possibly millions, of Hitler's Jewish victims to the gas chambers by denying them refuge in the United States.

    I am not claiming that either Trump of his AG, Jeff Sessions, are anti-Semitic or supporters of Hitler. Definitely, absolutely, not.

    But now according to the latest news reports, Trump has just angrily dismissd a "horrible" proposal by a group a Senators to solve DACA and keep the government open because it did not include enough restrictions on legal immigration from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America.

    Only about 2 weeks ago, he also tweeted to his 43 million Twitter followers that we need to get rid of "horrible" "chain migration" a pejorative and misleading term for extended family immigration, which has enabled 30 or 40 million mainly non-white immigrants to come to the US legally in the past few decades.

    How long can we close our eyes to and pretend hat these expressions of hate have not been uttered, and acted on, by the president?
    We now have a president who, over and over again, has said that he does not want more black, Hispanic or Middle Eastern people coming to the US but wants only whites (and, maybe, some Asians), and who is trying as had as he can to base his policy on that agenda.

    What is the best way to handle that - pretend it isn't so and try to accommodate? Or is it to resist? I vote for looking at the truth squarely in the face and resisting any attempt to poison our immigration system based on racial hatred.

    When Trump says that we need white immigrants ueber alles, and tries to force policies on that basis down the throats of the American people, then we have a problem which we need to speak out about.

    2,700 years ago, the ancient Greek poet Hesiod praised leaders who "give fair judgments to foreigners and citizens alike" and (in classical Greek): me ti parekbainousi dikaiou - "do not turn away from justice".

    Let us not turn away from speaking out for justice for African, Latin American, Asian, Middle Eastern and all other non-white immigrants who are, increasingly, finding themselves unwelcome and unwanted because of their race, color or religion in Donald Trump's America.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Your reasoning reminds me of a boomerang. You can't have a rational discussion of Trump's immigration policies because your thoughts always come back to your belief that he is a racist bigot. The process seems to be, "Trump is a racist bigot, so whatever he does is racist bigotry."

    Nolan Rappaport
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There comes a point, Nolan, where we have to take Trump at his word and stop making excuses for him.

    Trump has been telling us, over and over again fot the past more than two years that he hates Latino and Middle Eastern immigrants. Only last week hes said the same thing about African and Haitian immigrants and said that we should accept more immigrants from Northern Europe instead. He appointed an attorney general who is on record as supporting a 1924 law which sent additional thousands, if not possibly millions, of Hitler's Jewish victims to the gas chambers by denying them refuge in the United States.

    I am not claiming that either Trump of his AG, Jeff Sessions, are anti-Semitic or supporters of Hitler. Definitely, absolutely, not.

    But now according to the latest news reports, Trump has just angrily dismissd a "horrible" proposal by a group a Senators to solve DACA and keep the government open because it did not include enough restrictions on legal immigration from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America.

    Only about 2 weeks ago, he also tweeted to his 43 million Twitter followers that we need to get rid of "horrible" "chain migration" a pejorative and misleading term for extended family immigration, which has enabled 30 or 40 million mainly non-white immigrants to come to the US legally in the past few decades.

    How long can we close our eyes to and pretend hat these expressions of hate have not been uttered, and acted on, by the president?
    We now have a president who, over and over again, has said that he does not want more black, Hispanic or Middle Eastern people coming to the US but wants only whites (and, maybe, some Asians), and who is trying as had as he can to base his policy on that agenda.

    What is the best way to handle that - pretend it isn't so and try to accommodate? Or is it to resist? I vote for looking at the truth squarely in the face and resisting any attempt to poison our immigration system based on racial hatred.

    When Trump says that we need white immigrants ueber alles, and tries to force policies on that basis down the throats of the American people, then we have a problem which we need to speak out about.

    2,700 years ago, the ancient Greek poet Hesiod praised leaders who "give fair judgments to foreigners and citizens alike" and (in classical Greek): me ti parekbainousi dikaiou - "do not turn away from justice".

    Let us not turn away from speaking out for justice for African, Latin American, Asian, Middle Eastern and all other non-white immigrants who are, increasingly, finding themselves unwelcome and unwanted because of their race, color or religion in Donald Trump's America.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-18-2018 at 03:01 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Further, highly persuasive, evidence that concerns about limiting the ability of prospective future DREAMERS to sponsor their parents if there is a DACA solution enabling them to become US citizens is NOT the real obstacle holding up a DACA solution is provided in a January 17 report in The Hill, a publication with a reasonably good record of not taking sides on immigration issues (as I am sure that Nolan will agree - it also publishes Nolan's own articles).

    In this latest report, this publication quotes the president as vowing to reject any Congressional settlement that does not include demands by Republican immigration "hardliners" to abolish, not only the visa lottery (which has benefited Africa in particular), but also ALL "chain migration" i.e extended family immigration - not just DACA related family sponsorship.

    The Hill
    reports that Trump called any proposal that does not eliminate extended family immigration, as well as most immigration from countries with "high crime and poverty rates" (a politer term than "shithole", but still meaning the same thing - African, Caribbean, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries in general) a "horrible" proposal.

    So "horrible" indeed, that Trump is threatening to shut down the government if Congress does not agree to keep immigrants from these non-white countries, which are not "like Norway". out.

    See:

    Trump calls immigration proposal "horrible"

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...posal-horrible

    None of this has anything to do with DACA issues, except that Trump is holding relief to these nearly 800,000 young people whose crisis he created himself by terminating this program on his own as a bargaining chip to force Congress to agree to his larger, Europe-centered, immigration agenda, that would take us back almost 100 years to the spirit of the "Nordics" -only US immigration act of 1924 which the future German Fuehrer mentioned in my comment above wrote about so favorably.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, haven't you ever negotiated anything? If not in your practice, what about negotiations for buying a car? If the salesman says, he can only give you a 5% deduction from the sticker price, do you consider that a firm offer set in concrete?

    But my main concern about your approach is that you can't stop demonizing Trump. Senate leadership has said that it will not put a DACA bill on the floor without Trump's approval, yet you insist on saying inflammatory things about him, e.g., that he is a racist and that he only wants white immigrants. And sadly, you aren't the only one doing it.

    How receptive do you expect him to be to negotiations with people who treat hi that way? Even if you were right in everything you are saying about him, which isn't even a possibility, don't you realize that you are making it much harder to get his cooperation? Do you treat your wife or anyone else that way?

    Nolan Rappaport
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With due respect to Nolan, i think he is missing the main point, if I have been reading the news reports correctly.

    According to these reports, Trump - Cotton-Perdue at al want to eliminate ALL extended family immigration, including, among other things, sponsorship of parents (and siblings) by all US citizens in the future, not just by DREAMERS who might one day become US citizens if a compromise on DACA goes though.

    This would be a huge change in the legal immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years, and would sharply reduce legal immigration from outside Europe, which Trump confirmed was his goal in his January 11 comments which have aroused such a storm of worldwide condemnation (and also in a July 6, 2017 speech in Warsaw which was not just an off-the cuff statement in a private meeting, but a public address to all the people of Poland - and beyond).

    Jeff Sessions also supported this goal as a Senator in his 2015 Immigration Handbook, when he recommended the 1924 immigration act, which cut off most immigration from the entire world outside northern Europe as a model for America.

    I am not sure if Donald Trump has ever heard of that law or has the faintest idea what was in it.

    But Sessions, who is now supporting Trump's attack on "chain migration" a/k/a non-white family immigration certainly knows.

    There was a certain German leader to be, just over 90 years ago, who also knew what was in the 1924 immigration act and held it up as a model for his own country.

    That future leader, whose name I will not mention out of politeness, was not talking about DACA.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Of course they want to eliminate all chain migration, but they aren't going to succeed in making that happen in exchange for a DACA fix bill that just continues the program for current participants. In fact, it isn't even relevant to such a deal. The participants wouldn't be getting status that would make it possible for them to sponsor family members.

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is right that we should make a distinction between legal immigrants, who, by definition, are here in compliance with our laws; and illegal immigrants who, also by definition, are violating our laws merely be being present in this country.

    There is one thing that both legal and illegal immigrants have in common, however: lower violent crime rates than native born Americans.


    http://www.newsweek.com/wanna-cut-cr...illegal-661183

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-17-2018 at 10:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Further, highly persuasive, evidence that concerns about limiting the ability of prospective future DREAMERS to sponsor their parents if there is a DACA solution enabling them to become US citizens is NOT the real obstacle holding up a DACA solution is provided in a January 17 report in The Hill, a publication with a reasonably good record of not taking sides on immigration issues (as I am sure that Nolan will agree - it also publishes Nolan's own articles).

    In this latest report, this publication quotes the president as vowing to reject any Congressional settlement that does not include demands by Republican immigration "hardliners" to abolish, not only the visa lottery (which has benefited Africa in particular), but also ALL "chain migration" i.e extended family immigration - not just DACA related family sponsorship.

    The Hill
    reports that Trump called any proposal that does not eliminate extended family immigration, as well as most immigration from countries with "high crime and poverty rates" (a politer term than "shithole", but still meaning the same thing - African, Caribbean, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries in general) a "horrible" proposal.

    So "horrible" indeed, that Trump is threatening to shut down the government if Congress does not agree to keep immigrants from these non-white countries, which are not "like Norway". out.

    See:

    Trump calls immigration proposal "horrible"

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...posal-horrible

    None of this has anything to do with DACA issues, except that Trump is holding relief to these nearly 800,000 young people whose crisis he created himself by terminating this program on his own as a bargaining chip to force Congress to agree to his larger, Europe-centered, immigration agenda, that would take us back almost 100 years to the spirit of the "Nordics" -only US immigration act of 1924 which the future German Fuehrer mentioned in my comment above wrote about so favorably.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-17-2018 at 10:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With due respect to Nolan, i think he is missing the main point, if I have been reading the news reports correctly.

    According to these reports, Trump - Cotton-Perdue at al want to eliminate ALL extended family immigration, including, among other things, sponsorship of parents (and siblings) by all US citizens in the future, not just by DREAMERS who might one day become US citizens if a compromise on DACA goes though.

    This would be a huge change in the legal immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years, and would sharply reduce legal immigration from outside Europe, which Trump confirmed was his goal in his January 11 comments which have aroused such a storm of worldwide condemnation (and also in a July 6, 2017 speech in Warsaw which was not just an off-the cuff statement in a private meeting, but a public address to all the people of Poland - and beyond).

    Jeff Sessions also supported this goal as a Senator in his 2015 Immigration Handbook, when he recommended the 1924 immigration act, which cut off most immigration from the entire world outside northern Europe as a model for America.

    I am not sure if Donald Trump has ever heard of that law or has the faintest idea what was in it.

    But Sessions, who is now supporting Trump's attack on "chain migration" a/k/a non-white family immigration certainly knows.

    There was a certain German leader to be, just over 90 years ago, who also knew what was in the 1924 immigration act and held it up as a model for his own country.

    That future leader, whose name I will not mention out of politeness, was not talking about DACA.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 01-17-2018 at 08:02 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    As Nolan indicates at one point in his article, what Trump called "horrible" chain migration in a recent tweet, and what most people more objectively call "family immigration" is a problem in DACA or CIR negotiations too. Indeed it is a big problem, bigger than the Diversity Visa or the Wall, in terms of negotiations.

    Eliminating most family immigration, which Trump and the hard line Republican supporters of the RAISE Act want to do, would go beyond the effects of the Wall and abolishing the Diversity Visa.

    Neither of the latter two would destroy the heart of the race neutral immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years. Neither would take us back to the openly racist, white Europeans only immigration regime of 1924 (which among other things, added to the death toll of Jewish victims in Hitler's gas chambers by denying thousands of them refuge in the United States).

    Trump, to be sure, is not anti-Jewish or pro-Hitler by any possible stretch of the imagination.

    But his insistence that family immigration must be sharply reduced, is an obvious attempt to take America back toward the whites-only immigration regime of 1924.

    Trump himself, just the other day, asked why America can't have more immigrants from Norway, rather than Africa.

    Eliminating most family immigration visas is the way to accomplish that.

    That is why the Democrats may be able to show some flexibility on the Wall - and even on the Diversity Visa.

    But the Democrats cannot give in making major cuts in family immigration, something which would reverse this country's trend toward a more diverse society over the past half century and make America White Again instead of Making America Great Again.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger is right that chain immigration is a potential deal killer, but as I explain in my article, the gang of six proposal made restrictions on immigration benefits for DACA parents, which indicates to me that they are flexible and will negotiate on this issue.

    But if the bill is a DREAM Act, which would give permanent resident status to more than three million people, the republicans and Trump will not even consider it. As I explained in a previous article, a DREAM Act would have such sweeping consequences that it would be legislative malpractice to move it through congress out of regular order.

    On the other hand, I don't think Durbin and the other gang members are trying to get their bill enacted, so it really doesn't matter. They might as well put in everything they think will benefit them politically, as they did four years ago with S. 744.

    Nolan Rappaport
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As Nolan indicates at one point in his article, what Trump called "horrible" chain migration in a recent tweet, and what most people more objectively call "family immigration" is a problem in DACA or CIR negotiations too. Indeed it is a big problem, bigger than the Diversity Visa or the Wall, in terms of negotiations.

    Eliminating most family immigration, which Trump and the hard line Republican supporters of the RAISE Act want to do, would go beyond the effects of the Wall and abolishing the Diversity Visa.

    Neither of the latter two would destroy the heart of the race neutral immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years. Neither would take us back to the openly racist, white Europeans only immigration regime of 1924 (which among other things, added to the death toll of Jewish victims in Hitler's gas chambers by denying thousands of them refuge in the United States).

    Trump, to be sure, is not anti-Jewish or pro-Hitler by any possible stretch of the imagination.

    But his insistence that family immigration must be sharply reduced, is an obvious attempt to take America back toward the whites-only immigration regime of 1924.

    Trump himself, just the other day, asked why America can't have more immigrants from Norway, rather than Africa.

    Eliminating most family immigration visas is the way to accomplish that.

    That is why the Democrats may be able to show some flexibility on the Wall - and even on the Diversity Visa.

    But the Democrats cannot give in making major cuts in family immigration, something which would reverse this country's trend toward a more diverse society over the past half century and make America White Again instead of Making America Great Again.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-17-2018 at 05:12 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Surely, a highly respected authority on immigration law with Nolan's vast knowledge and experience must be able to find a better way to rebut opinions he disagrees with than attempting to dismiss them as "outbursts".

    My last "outburst" consisted of quoting from and commenting on a decision of a federal judge only days ago ruling that Trump's DACA termination was illegal, in part because of evidence that it was motivated by racial animus against minority immigrants, and comparing that with earlier court decisions invalidating Trump's Muslim ban orders.

    Were those court decisions merely "outbursts" too?

    There was once a time when quoting from and commenting on judicial decisions was called "legal discussion", not an "outburst".

    The same applies to my comments on a number of points that Nolan has raised in his own article. This also used to be called "legal discussion" once upon a time.

    Today, January 15, we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., one of the greatest Americans of all time, who, 55 years ago, in 1963, made an immortal speech containing the words "I Have a Dream", and whose legacy Donald Trump himself paid homage to in January 12 statement that upheld the equality of all people regardless of country of birth and directly contradicted his statement the day before that African and Haitian immigrants were inferior to immigrants from Norway.

    As a young Harvard Law School graduate, I had the great honor and privilege of working for a distinguished lawyer and close friend and adviser to Dr. King, Clarence B. Jones, who was representing Dr. King in federal copyright litigation involving the "I Have a Dream" speech. I played a small but not totally insignificant role in helping prepare the paperwork for that litigation - including copyrighting the speech itself.

    I can still remember that time, when Dr. King himself was denounced by his segregationist opponents as a "demagogue" and a "rabble-rouser" and was falsely accused of having Communist sympathies, before finally being assassinated because of his support of equal rights for black people.

    As we honor Dr. King's legacy today, we should also be saddened by the fact that we now have a president who, only one day before honoring that legacy himself, stated, according to at least one highly respected US Senator who was present, that America doesn't want immigrants from "shithole" parts of the world where people have the same skin color as Dr. King.

    I trust that Nolan, in keeping with his own distinguished reputation as a respected legal scholar and immigration law authority, will not try to dismiss my comments about my experience working on behalf of Dr. King, however small and brief, and how this experience relates to immigration issues today, as a mere "outburst."

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-15-2018 at 09:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I say Roger, "can no longer control his outbursts," and he responds with three more outbursts.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-14-2018 at 10:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In a further indication that Trump's racially charged comments about immigrants from various parts of the world are hurting his legal arguments in federal court in support of his various immigration initiatives, including terminating DACA, US District Judge William Alsup, who ordered the administration to begin accepting DACA applications again a few days ago, issued the following statement in a new ruling on January 12, as POLITICO reports

    "These allegations raise a plausible inference that racial animus was a motivating factor in the decision to end DACA."

    This indicates that Muslim Ban litigation is not the only instance in which federal judges are beginning to determine that various immigration initiatives by the Trump administration are motivated by racial or religious animosity.


    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-racism-daca-dreamers-judge-339512


    In reality, there is a strong factual case to be made that ALL, or nearly all, of Trump's immigration actions as president are motivated by racial and religious "animus", and that Trump's latest outrage against African and Haitian immigrants is part of a pattern of hatred against non-white immigrants dating from his vicious attack against Mexican "criminals" and "rapists" and call for a worldwide Muslim ban as a presidenial candidate up to now - not just an isolated "foolish" comment, as Nolan contends above.-

    In the same way, as I will show further in my own blog comment (along with the three ilw.com blog comments of my own which I have already written about Trump's racist 'shithole' remarks!), Trump's statement that America needs immigrants from Norway more than from Africa and Haiti is unlikely to help him in future litigation concerning his mass exclusion, mass deportation, agenda.

    The title of Nolan's article suggests that Trump has a "winning plan" on DACA.

    If he does, it must be something other than calling Latino immigrants "criminals' and 'rapists' , shouting that 'Islam hates us' and accusing black immigrants of coming from 'shithole' countries and preferring white-skinned immigrants from Scandinavia instead.

    That is not a "winning plan" , and let us hope that the president comes to realize that one day, sooner rather than later.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 01-14-2018 at 11:42 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Certainly, no one could possibly suggest that I am the only person who objects to Trump's racist "shithole" comment. See, for just one example, POLIIICO (January 12):

    Trump's 'shithole' comment denounced across the globe.

    This article has a long list of Congressional and other US leaders who have denounced Trump's racial slur against dark- skinned immigrants.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...eaction-337926

    For a sampling of international leaders and public figures who have also condemned Trump's January 11 "Shithole" comment in the strongest possible terms, see:

    The Guardian (January 12):

    'There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...untries-remark

    To give just one example of this international criticism, which reflects that coming from many quarters in the US as well, The Guardian quotes the UB Human Rights spokesman, Rupert Colville, as follows:

    "There is no other word one can use but racist. You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as 'shitholes', whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome."

    How can anyone reasonably dispute the accuracy of Mr. Colville's comment?

    Obviously. Trump was saying, in the plainest and crudest language possible, that he would not agree to any DACA solution (the precise subject of Nolan's article) that does not reduce the number of African and Caribbean legal immigrants in the future.

    The Hill also describes the reaction in the United States and abroad to Trump's comment as follows:

    "Lawmakers, media figures and world leaders have all decried Trump's comments. The African Union, representing all 55 African countries, demanded Saturday that Trump apologize for his remarks."

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...to-trump-hotel

    The same story in The Hill also carries a photo a protest using a graphic image, in the form of the word "SHITHOLE" being projected onto the front of the Trump DC hotel.

    While Trump's comment shames the entire American nation and all of its citizens, it is encouraging to know that we still live in a free country where this form of protest is allowed, despite many remarks by the president that he would like to see greater limits on free speech in America - a chilling reminder that racism and dictatorship almost always go hand in hand.


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 01-14-2018 at 04:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Obviously, Nolan is unable to answer my points. Otherwise, he would not resort to calling them "outbursts".
    Nolan seems to have a double set of views. Any opinion that he supports is a "comment"; any opinion that does not is an "outburst."

    What kind of legal discussion is that?


    Trump has made a horrific, racist comment on an immigration issue which has caused shock and outrage in every corner of the world. It could take considerable time and space to list all of the dignitaries and public figures who have expressed horror at this comment, which is directly related to the subject matter of Trump's article, i.e. proposals to change our legal immigration in order to arrive at a DACA deal.

    Nolan has not denied that Trump made this despicable comment, implying that America needs white immigrants but not black ones, nor has Nolan tried to defend it. Instead, he is trying to shrug it off as a just a "foolish comment," and he apparently doesn't want anyone else to talk about it either.

    With the greatest respect for Nolan's distinguished reputation as an immigration law scholar and authority, that is not the way to have a meaningful or sensible discussion about an immigration policy issue which is central to the topic of Nolan's own article.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-15-2018 at 08:57 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger is still doing it. His response to my complaint about using my articles as a platform for his Trump hatred is to launch into another Trump hatred tirade. I have to think that his Trump obsession has taken control of him, that he not only has lost the ability to think objectively, but he can no longer control his outbursts.

    Nolan Rappaport
Page 1 of 129 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: