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.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

description

  1. Congress unlikely to pay for border wall, but Trump has other options. By Nolan Rappaport



    © Getty

    President’s Trump appears willing to risk a government shutdown this fall in order to secure funds for his promised wall on the United States-Mexico border. His prospects are slim, considering Republicans lawmakers need the support of Democrats to pass a bill to fund the government.

    Trump has other options, however.

    If the president is unable to get funding for the wall, he will need another way to improve border security that Congress could agree to fund. An enforcement program to reduce the number of people making illegal crossings is a viable alternative.

    The program should include measures to prevent the removal of aliens who would benefit our national interests if they are allowed to remain. An enforcement-only approach would be counterproductive.

    Mexico certainly won’t pay for the wall. In a leaked phone conversationTrump had earlier this year with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Nieto said, “I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.”

    And Congress may not pay for it either.

    The House recently approved a spending bill that includes $1.6 billion towards building the wall, but it has stalled in the Senate. Senate Republicans apparently want to avoid the very same spending showdown with the Democrats that Trump is willing to cause.

    Read more at
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rump-has-other

    Published originally on The Hill.

    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.







  2. Congress unlikely to pay for border wall, but Trump has other options. By Nolan Rappaport



    © Getty

    President’s Trump appears willing to risk a government shutdown this fall in order to secure funds for his promised wall on the United States-Mexico border. His prospects are slim, considering Republicans lawmakers need the support of Democrats to pass a bill to fund the government.
    Trump has other options, however.

    If the president is unable to get funding for the wall, he will need another way to improve border security that Congress could agree to fund. An enforcement program to reduce the number of people making illegal crossings is a viable alternative.

    The program should include measures to prevent the removal of aliens who would benefit our national interests if they are allowed to remain. An enforcement-only approach would be counterproductive.
    Mexico certainly won’t pay for the wall. In a leaked phone conversationTrump had earlier this year with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Nieto said, “I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.”
    And Congress may not pay for it either.
    The House recently approved a spending bill that includes $1.6 billion towards building the wall, but it has stalled in the Senate. Senate Republicans apparently want to avoid the very same spending showdown with the Democrats that Trump is willing to cause.

    Read more at
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rump-has-other

    Published originally on The Hill.

    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.







  3. Bannon's Ouster is Not Likely to Stop Trump's March Backward Toward the 1924 Europeans Only Immigration Regime. Roger Algase

    The media are now consumed with the news on August 18 that Donald Trump has suddenly (or maybe not so suddenly - there were warning signs according to many reports) fired Stephen Bannon as his senior strategist.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-house-241792

    Since Bannon, by all accounts, played a major role in Trump's Muslim ban and many other of his policies adversely affecting immigrants from non-white parts of the world, if not actually being the chief architect of these policies, there is speculation that Bannon's ouster may signify a big reversal for Trump on immigration, or at least a halt in his progress toward a whites-only immigration regime, as shown most recently in Trump's support for the RAISE Act.

    As I have mentioned in a recent comment, white supremacist leader Richard Spencer, who has added to his notoriety by his role in organizing the neo-nazi Charlottesville demonstration on August 12 has praised the RAISE Act as "awesome", and looking at this bill which would drastically cut all immigration from outside Europe it is easy to see why he thinks so. See:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10067

    As for Bannon himself, his initial statement after being ousted would indicate that policy disagreements, not just White House personality disputes, or more presidential panic over the tightening net of the Mueller investigation

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...15505?lo=ap_d1

    (both of which are beyond the scope of my comments here) were at least a major factor in Bannon's forced departure.

    According to Bannon's statement (on August 18):

    "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...or-over-241809

    Since immigration, especially involving exclusion and mass deportation of immigrants from non-European areas of the world, was clearly a key part of Bannon's vision for a Trump presidency, there might be reason to hope that Bannon's ouster might bring about some change in Trump's focus so far on using immigration policy to make America whiter.

    However, it could be even more likely that Trump, whose record during the presidential campaign, not to mention as president, has been full of disparaging remarks and hostile actions against Latinos, Muslims and other non-European immigrants, no longer needs Bannon and is now capable of imposing a whites-only immigration agenda on America without him. As David A. Graham writes in The Atlantic (August 18):

    "The one view that seems likely to persist, even without Bannon around, is Trump's embrace of the politics of white resentment and racially divisive rhetoric. In a sense, Trump is right that Bannon is a newcomer: Trump has flirted with racism for decades."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...thered/537354/

    (By the way, Mr. Graham, can we please stop using meaningless euphemisms such as "white resentment" or "white identity politics" when what we are really talking about is racism and hatred toward people of color which have been an unfortunate, but very real part of America's immigration history, ever since Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in 1857 that black people could never be US citizens?)

    See also, Newsweek, August 18:

    Steve Bannon's Exit Won't Make Trump's White House Any Less Racist

    http://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon...-miller-652225

    However, any analysis of what Trump's immigration policies might be without Bannon has to begin with a look at what Trump's policies in this area have been with Bannon.

    An excellent place to begin this examination is with a February 28 article in the L.A. Times by Brian Bennet entitled:

    The real goal of Trump's executive orders: Reduce the number of immigrants in the U.S.


    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...228-story.html

    As the following discussion will show, the word "immigrants" in the title of Bennet's article should be taken to mean: "non-white immigrants".

    Bennet writes:

    "At the same time that the European share of migration has dropped, the overall foreign-born share of the US population has increased, quadrupling in the five decades since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act took effect. In 1960, the U.S. had 9.7 million foreign-born residents. In 2014, it had 42.2 million."

    He continues:

    "That change has alarmed right wing nationalists like Miller and Bannon, who see Trump's administration as an opportunity to change those migration trends for decades to come...

    Nations, including the U.S. are undermined by too high a level o diversity, Bannon has argued.

    'The center core of what we believe, that we're a nation with an economy, but not just an economy in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a -a reason for being,' Bannon said."

    What does all this mean? A little earlier in the same article, Bennet quotes Tanya Golash-Boza, a sociology professor at UC Merced who studies immigration and race:

    If you were going to say, 'We don't like that equalization we did in 1965, we need to go back', that is going back to a time when the United States was more overtly racist..."

    Or from another vantage point, maybe the United States is going forward - to a white supremacist, neo-Nazi future, the future which the torch bearing demonstrators in Charlottesville holding signs saying "Blood and Soil" - a direct translation of the slogan"Blut und Boden" from the Hitler era - are hoping to have in store for America.

    From that perspective, Bannon's ouster is not likely to change the basic outlook in the Trump administration - that Latino, Muslim, Asian and African immigrants are dangerous for this country and do not really belong in America.

    Bannon, one can argue, has already done his damage to the race-neutral, color-blind (in principle) immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years. He (with the help of Stephen Miller, who still remains in the White House) has already given us the Muslim ban order which is now pending before the Supreme Court.

    Bannon has also unquestionably been a driving force behind Trump's expanded deportation dragnet, his "Hire American" executive order attacking mainly Asian H-1B workers, and most recently of all, Trump's support for the RAISE Act, which would drastically reduce legal immigration from non-white parts of the world - in a major step backward to the openly racist 1924 "national origins" immigration act which cut off immigration from Asia, the Middle East and Africa entirely, as well as barring all but a few Jews and Catholics from Eastern and Southern Europe - a law which Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, praised as a Senator in his 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans - and which Adolf Hitler also praised some 90 years earlier in Mein Kampf.

    Justin Guest, a professor at George Mason University, gives a more complete list of Stephen Bannon's legacy of helping steer the Trump administration backward toward an earlier era of white supremacist immigration policies. He writes in The Guardian, on August 18, as follows:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...se-nationalism

    "25 January 2017: Heightened immigration enforcement and broadened the category of people subject to deportation.

    25 January: Ordered the construction of a border wall and the tripling of border agents.

    25 January: Ordered the removal of funding from so-called sanctuary cities.

    26 January: Ordered a weekly list of crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities.

    27 January: Suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program.

    27 January: Ordered a ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

    6 March: Ordered a ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries...

    2 August: Supported bill to cut all documented [legal] immigration into the U.S. in half.

    15 August: Declined to specifically condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists after terrorist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia.
    (Italics added.)


    Can anyone argue, seriously and in good faith, that the last item in the above list, (which I have put in italics), namely refusing to denounce neo-Nazi and white supremacist violence explicitly, is not directly related to and intimately connected with the other eight items, all of them aimed at reducing or cutting off non-white immigration, in that same list?


    No reasonable person, no person of good will, could deny that connection with a straight face.

    Professor Guest sums up Bannon's main "achievement" as Trump's Senior White House adviser as follows:

    "Bannon's most attainable, sustainable - and frightening - achievement is white Americans' renewed sense of racial consciousness...He has wielded pervasive fear about demographic change into immense, cathartic, political capital in support of Trump and his crusade against political correctness, foreigners and other threats to the historic American social hierarchy."

    What could Guest possibly mean by "historical American social hierarchy" above?

    Clearly, Guest is referring to nothing other than white supremacy, a movement which unquestionably owes a great debt of gratitude to Stephen Bannon during his brief tenure in the White House - as well as to the president whom he was working for.

    Very arguably, Trump does not need Stephen Bannon any more in order to continue to move America's immigration system back toward the white supremacist regime that was in force during a large part of the last century, right up until the 1965 immigration reform law that Trump and his administration are now working so hard to undermine or overthrow.

    Trump can now get along quite well without Stephen Bannon.

    ____________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards, without regard to ancestry, ethnic background or religion, in the true spirit of America.

    Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 08-20-2017 at 02:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. And This Supreme Court Justice is Going to Help Decide Whether Trump's Muslim Ban Executive Order is Valid? Roger Algase

    POLITICO reports on August 17 that the newest, Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at an event to be sponsored in September by the non-profit Fund for American Studies at Donald Trump's D.C. Hotel.

    According to the same report, the hotel, which is frequented by Republican operatives, lobbyists and cabinet officials is already making even than bigger than expected profits as a result of patronage by individuals and groups seeking to influence the administration.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...l-event-241738

    By giving the keynote address, Justice Gorsuch will very arguably be helping to boost the business profits of the same president whose Muslim ban executive order, one of the best publicized and most controversial actions of his entire presidency to date, Gorsuch will participate in ruling on the validity of in this fall's Supreme Court term.

    And this is what they call impartial justice?


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 08-17-2017 at 11:49 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. The RAISE Act and the Charlottesville Rally: Two Sides of the Same White Supremacist Immigration Coin. Roger Algase

    The president has come under intense criticism from leaders in his own party, as well as wide segments of the American public, for not speaking out more directly against the white supremacist and neo-nazi organizers of the violent Charlottesville rally on August 12. But his reluctance to speak out against them is not surprising. They both share the same white supremacist immigration goals which are embodied in the RAISE Act that is now before Congress.

    Richard Spencer, one of the leading organizers of the rally and a self-styled leader of the "Alt-Right" movement (which is nothing but a euphemism for the neo-nazi movement) had the following to say about the the immigration objectives that he and his supporters are promoting, in an NPR interview in November, 2016, shortly after the presidential election (in which almost 3 million more Americans nationwide voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump).

    "Immigration is the most obvious one. And I think we need to get beyond thinking about immigration just in terms of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not nearly as damaging as legal immigration. Legal immigration - they're here to stay. Their children are here and so on.

    Spencer continued:

    ​"And I think a really reasonable and I think palatable policy proposal would be for Donald Trump to say, look; we've had immigration in the past. It's brought some fragmentation in the past. It's brought division. But we need to become a people again. And for us to do that, we're going to need to take a break from mass immigration. And we'e going to need to preference people who are going to fit in, who are more like us. That is European immigration.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476...administration

    Is it any surprise that after his openly nationalist Warsaw speech claiming that European culture, "traditions" and "values" are superior to those of all other parts of the world and promising to defend America's borders against all other traditions and values; and his strong support for the RAISE Act, which would cut off or drastically reduce legal immigration from most parts of the world outside Europe, Trump has refused to join almost every other leader in his own party, as well as responsible and decent Americans of every background, ethnicity and political orientation, in issuing a clear and outright condemnation of the Charlottesville rally's white supremacist leaders?

    Also to the surprise of no one, Spencer himself has praised the RAISE Act, saying that it "sounds awesome".

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b04061313a3090

    Spencer and his fellow white supremacists have also vowed to continue to promote the same agenda which lead to the death of an innocent young woman protester against this movement at the Charlottesville rally, which Spencer called an "amazing, spectacular, demonstration".

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...olence-w497446

    One can be quite sure that the RAISE Act, which both Trump and the white supremacist leaders whom he has been so hesitant to criticize support so enthusiastically, will continue to be front and center of Spencer's agenda, and that of his fellow "Alt-Right" white nationalists.

    The only question is: how can any of the Republican leaders who, unlike the president have openly condemned the white supremacist Charlottesville rally continue to support the RAISE Act?

    If the responsible Republican leaders are really against bigotry, racism and white supremacy as much as they say they are, how can they permit the RAISE Act to move forward in Congress?
    ________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 08-17-2017 at 05:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 251 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: