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
    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 send additional thousands, if not millions, of Hitler's Jewish victims to the gas chambers by denying them refuge in the United States.

    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 11:24 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The following has been revised as of January 14:

    Nolan tries to dismiss Trump's hate-filled comment against black immigrants as merely a "foolish comment" made in a "private conversation.

    It was in fact much more than that. It was a crude, but crystal clear statement of the negotiating position of the president of the United States of America on a key immigration issue - DACA- in a meeting with leading Senate negotiators. This was not a stray microphone or reporter picking up an offhand remark that someone might have blurted out to a friend on the golf course or in private - which would still have been reprehensible.

    What the president was telling the Senators present by this remark was that he would not agree to any DACA legislation that does not reduce the number of dark skinned immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean and go back to the pre-1965 system of favoring white immigrants from northern Europe.

    This also goes directly to the subject of Nolan's article, which is about Republican proposals on a DACA solution. These proposals, as has been widely reported, would include eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery, which has been a major source of legal immigration from Africa, and sharply reducing family immigration, which has enabled tens of millions of legal immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America to come to the US in the past half century.

    Trump's comment was not just "foolish", it was bigoted and destructive - intended to make any solution to DACA that does not support Trump's racial immigration agenda impossible.
    Nolan's contention that mentioning Trump's vile and racist comment has nothing to do with his article and does not belong in a discussion of the article is therefore entirely misplaced.

    However, I do note that I have taken up a great deal of space talking about Trump's remark, and Nolan has said almost nothing about it, other than that it was "foolish"

    Therefore, and also because I have in fact posted three ilw.com articles of my own on this topic which Nolan might not have have yet read, I have deleted the rest of my original comments in this space in order to give Nolan more opportunity to elaborate his views about why Trump's comment was foolish and share them with his readers:

    Over to you, Nolan.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-14-2018 at 08:52 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My article is about the Republican DACA bill, which I argue is not as likely to be passed as the Trump DACA proposal. What does Roger talk about? A foolish comment that Trump made in what he thought was a private conversation.

    The only thing I don't understand is why Roger keeps making irrelevant comments to my articles that he knows I find offensive. He is almost continuously spreading Trump hatred in his own articles. Why does he have to do it comments to my articles too?

    Nolan Rappaport
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update, January 16:

    Whenever I make comments in response to an article by one of my fellow bloggers, I try to be as accurate as possible. This is especially true when I am quoting reported statements by the president of the United States.

    Below, I quote Donald Trump as saying that Haiti and the countries of Africa were "shithole" countries.

    But according to a late report (January 15) in The Guardian, the president may not have used the word "shithole" at all. Instead, it appears that he may have said "shithouse".

    If I misquoted the president in my original comments in response to Nolan's article, I apologize to all ilw.com readers.

    My original comment appears below.

    Just so it will be clear which statement by Trump I am referring to, these were his exact words on January 11, as reported by virtually every major news outlet in America, and attested to by Senator Dick Durbin, who was present, without contradiction from any of the other Senators who were present, including those who support Trump:

    "What do we want Haitians here for? Why do we want all these people from Africa here? Why do we want all these people from shithole countries?...We should have people from places like Norway."

    Even though Trump has denied using those exact words, and said that he used other "tough" words instead, no one else who was at the meeting has backed up Trump's denial.

    These words, which have brought outraged reactions from across America and the world, will define Trump's presidency as long as it is remembered. I predict that our grandchildren's grandchildren, and their grandchildren, will be learning about these infamous words in their history books long after today's readers are no longer around to express their horror over the fact than an American president could have said them in the 21st Century.

    This is not the place to go into the full history of Trump's comments insulting and degrading black people in general, including his spreading the "birther" fantasy about President Obama, among other things. But what is most disturbing is Trump's holding up Norway as an example of an ideal source country for immigration.

    Nor are my comments in any way meant to diminish the great contribution that Norwegian and other Scandinavian immigrants have made and are making to American society.

    But Trump's reference to Norway at the same time as expressing his hatred for black immigrants refers unmistakably to the "Nordics -only" racial policies of Adolf Hitler, as well as of America's own dark history of immigration laws based on the theory of "Nordic" racial superiority.

    For more details on this ominous aspect of Trump's bigoted January 11 comment, see an article about the 1924 Immigration Act in Boston Review by Christopher Petrella of Bates College (Maine)

    The Preservation of the White Race


    http://bostonreview.net/forum/after-...ion-white-race

    It is also true that on January 9, only two days earlier, Trump presented an entirely different face, one of openness, tolerance and acceptance toward non-white immigrants. But if those were his real feelings, how could he have then made the horrible, despicable comment quoted above only two days later?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-16-2018 at 03:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs (Y)
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with both Nolan and the ACLU about the Republican DACA bill.

    What is the real purpose of ending extended family immigration (a/k/a "chain migration") and the visa lottery?

    Is it really to ensure more careful screening and higher educational/skills qualifications for immigrants, as Trump and other supporters of the RAISE Act claim, or is to stop brown or black people from "shithole countries" in Africa or the Caribbean from coming to the US legally, while turning back to the "Nordics" only immigration regime of 1924 which, among others, Adolf Hitler claimed to be inspired by when he praised that law in Mein Kampf?

    Donald Trump answered that question on January 11, a day that, without exaggeration, it would be fair to say, using the famous words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, will "live in infamy" in America's immigration history and be remembered with revulsion, because of Trump's words, by fair minded Americans of every ethnicity, color, religion and ancestry.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-12-2018 at 06:21 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This comment has been revised and updated as of January 11 at 10:30 pm in the light of Trump's disgusting, appalling, horrifying attack on black immigrants earlier the same day as reported in multiple media outlets and not denied by the White House:

    Specifically, Trump made the following comments at a White House discussion of DACA and related immigration issues:

    "What do we want Haitians here for? Why do we want all these people from Africa here? hy do we want all these people from shithole countries?...We should have people from places like Norway."

    http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-...111-story.html

    Can there still be any doubt why Trump is so insistent about wanting to end "Chain Migration" - and the Diversity Visa lottery which has been especially helpful helpful to immigrants from Africa?

    Here are Trump's comments about "chain migration", as reported in a recent New York Times interview:

    "We have to get rid of chainlike immigration, we have to get rid of the chain. The chain is the last guy that killed...The last guy that killed the eight people...So badly wounded people...Twenty-two
    people came in through chain migration. Chain migration and the lottery system. They have a lottery in those countries.

    They take the worst people in the country, they put 'em in the lottery, then they have a handful of bad, worse ones, and they put them out. 'Oh, these are the people the United States...'...We're gonna get rid of the lottery..."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/u...-excerpts.html

    Anyone with the slightest knowledge of family immigration and the Diversity lottery knows that this barely coherent statement which Trump made during an impromptu interview at his Mar-a-Lago resort, but which is consistent with other similar statements he has made about these same visas, is a bald, barefaced lie from beginning to end.

    Foreign government do not pick Diversity lottery winners or throw their "worst people" into the lottery. That is delusional nonsense, along with the equally weird claim that the Halloween NYC attacker had sponsored 22 (or 23) relatives for immigrant visas.

    As I have pointed out above, even Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a long time advocate of sharply reduced immigration, who generally supports Trump's immigration agenda, was quoted as saying:

    "There's no way that in seven years someone would be able to bring 23 people to the United States. Chain migration doesn't work that fast."


    https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/no-one-can-confirm-trumps-claim-that-the-nyc-attack-suspect?utm_term=.tr41G2Bo9#.ltaEbxJ5e


    But when Trump made these statements, he surely knew that the countries he was talking about as sources of "chain migration" and the Diversity lottery were, with few exceptions, not white European countries.

    This is not only delusional language, but it is also the language of hate. There is no possible justification for this kind of language - especially coming from a president of the United States.

    Inflammatory statements of this type, with their obvious racial connotations, simply cannot be excused by blaming them on defective "staff research" or staff preparation.

    This is pure Donald Trump fantasy, the language of a demagogue at his worst, not a rational discussion of the relative merits of family or Diversity lottery immigration as compared with some other forms of immigration.

    After Trump's vicious, vulgar and venomous attack on black immigrants as reported above and confirmed in virtually every major news outlet in the United States (maybe not Fox News) there cannot possibly be any other word that is adequate to describe Trump and his immigration agenda except for one word only - Bigot.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-11-2018 at 10:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Revised response, as of January 11, at 11:13 pm.

    In view of Trump's horrifying, utterly despicable attack on black immigrants and their "shithole countries" quoted above, and reported in almost every major new outlet in America, there cannot be any other possible conclusion other than that Trump is a vile bigot and racist, and that every additional moment that he sits in the Oval Office to continue spewing his hatred and venom against immigrants of color is a disgrace to America and to Americans of every race, color and creed.

    Stating the obvious fact that Trump's entire immigration policy is motivated by this kind of despicable racism, which echoes Adolf Hitler in holding a "Nordic" country (Norway) out as an example of racial purity in immigration, is not an "ad hominem" attack. It is simple reality, which Trump has now confirmed out of his own mouth
    .

    My earlier comment follows:

    The argument that somehow family immigration in its present form is bad for America (Trump called it "horrible" in a recent tweet - does Nolan agree with that?) is just a warmed over version of the bigoted "national origins" strategy of almost 100 years ago which was used in the 1924 immigration act to keep out Jews, Asians and almost all other non-"Nordic" immigrants without actually mentioning race or religion in the statute.

    The supporters of reducing "chain migration" know very well from the history of the past 50 years which countries and areas of the world would be most adversly affected by making large cuts in family immigration and eliminating the Diversity visa lottery - they would not be white, European countires.

    I have also written on the hypocrisy of Trump's claim that he only favors "merit-based" immigration, while at the same time attacking the H-1B visa, which is more than 80 percent used by Chinese and Indian professionals, which benefits the most highly skilled, highly educated immigrants and which Trump said during the campaign that he wanted to abolish. I refer readers to my January 6 ilw.com comment:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10321

    Moreover, if Trump were only interested in a different conceptual approach to immigration instead of inflaming hatred and prejudice against non-white, non Christian immigrants, he would not be blaming 30 or 40 million family based immigrants for the recent terror attack by one such immigrant. Nor would he be inventing an utterly fictitious, delusional story that the NYC Halloween attacker sponsored 22 or 23 relatives to come to the US though family-based visas.

    As I have pointed out elsewhere, even Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which for many years has supported vastly reduced immigration along Trump's own current lines, and which agrees with most or all of Trump's policies, said that this claim by Trump was "impossible."

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-12-2018 at 04:56 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
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: