Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

On January 2, Donald Trump tweeted:

"The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime [absurd charge against President Obama omitted] The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The US is watching! "

We can be sure that the US is watching, just as Trump said - watching to make sure that the protesters whom he, quite justly, praises for their resistance against tyranny in their country, never set foot in the United States, since Iran is on Trump's Muslim ban list.

This is why former US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power tweeted the following on December 31, 2017:

"We stand with the Iranian people so much that we won't let them come here."

(Link to Huffington Post story to be provided.)

Meanwhile, Thomas Homan, Acting ICE Director and Trump's nominee for Director of the agency, threatened to bring Iranian style fascism one step closer to reality in America by telling Fox News (what a surprise!) that political leaders in sanctuary cities should be charged with crimes if they refuse to fall in line behind Trump's mass deportation agenda.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...uld-be-charged

Jeff Sessions, Trump's attorney general, has also suggested prosecuting local officials as a means of stifling opposition by state or local officials to Trump's plans to deport up to 11 or 12 million non-white immigrants from the US, something which could well justify the label of ethnic cleansing.

See. Washington Times: (November 20, 2016)

Jeff Sessions may prosecute 'sanctuary cities' if confirmed as attorney general

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-cities-if-co/

While no one will argue with Trump's denunciation of Iran for its violations of human rights, his defense of those basic rights might carry just a little more force and credibility if Trump had not banned virtually the entire population of Iran, including the demonstrators who are risking their lives for freedom from dictatorship in a country that is more than 99 percent Muslim, from entering the United States solely because of their religion.

In doing so, Trump is using the time worn ruse, which fools nobody and dates back to the racially based "Nordics" - only 1924 "national origins" immigration act, of using nationality as an excuse for racial or religious bigotry.

By banning freedom-seeking Iranians from coming to the US because of their religion, the president also underscores his hypocrisy in tweeting sympathy for the economic hardship or ordinary Iranians at the hands of their government - so soon after signing a huge tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans as a prelude to cutting Social Security, health insurance and other essential safety net programs for average Americans, as Juan Cole points out in a January 1 alternet.org article:

Top 6 Signs Trump Doesn't Actually Care About Iranian Protesters

https://www.alternet.org/world/top-5...ian-protesters

As Professor Cole also points out, Trump's ban on freedom-loving Iranians from entering the United States is even more hypocritical because of Trump's own endorsement of authoritarian ideas of government, such as his claim that he has complete control over the Justice Department, which are essentially no different from the ideology of the Iranian tyrants.

In summary, while Trump's statement standing up for the human rights of the courageous Iranian protesters is certainly welcome and commendable, it would be a little more believable if the president were also standing up for the freedom of the press, freedom of the judiciary, and basic rights of immigrant minorities here at home, rather than trying to undermine them and claim authoritarian powers for himself.
_________________________________

Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards for more than 35 years.

Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

© Getty

Democratic demands for passage of a DREAM Act threatened to prevent passage of a funding bill needed to prevent a partial shutdown of the government. But the Republicans were able to pass a stopgap spending bill on December 21, 2017, which postponed the showdown on this issue until January.

The DREAM Act would provide conditional permanent resident status for aliens whose parents brought them to the United States illegally when they were children.

President Obama established a program of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to give them temporary lawful status.

Trump terminated DACA on September 5, 2017, subject to a 6-month grace period. The Democrats and some Republicans are trying to get a DREAM Act passed before the grace period expires.

But they have been trying unsuccessfully to get a DREAM Act passed for 16 years, and their attempt to pass the DREAM Act of 2017, is likely to be unsuccessful too.

The Senate version was introduced on July 20, 2017, and an identical House version was introduced on July 26, 2017. Congress has not held a hearing or a markup on either bill.

If enacted, it would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant conditional lawful permanent resident status to undocumented aliens who:

1. Have been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding this bill's enactment;
2. Were younger than 18 years of age when they entered the United States;
3. Are not inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds;
4. Have not participated in persecution; and
5. Have not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and
6. Have fulfilled educational requirements.


And DHS would be required to grant conditional permanent resident status to aliens who have had DACA status.

It exempts grants of conditional permanent resident status from all numerical limitations.

Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...s-just-a-dream

About 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.