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
    Matt, as a deportation lawyer who has advocated for the rights of so many immigrants, including but not limited to the 2.5 million deported under President Obama, you know better than anyone else that stopping drugs is just a pretext. Trump has already told us, during his campaign, what the real purpose of his Wall of hate is.

    History also tells us. You may want to bone up on the Berlin Wall and to read John Hersey's moving novel "The Wall" about the Warsaw Ghetto, which I read as a teenager many decades ago and which everyone who wants to know about the meaning of Trump's Wall should read.

    If those examples are too ancient, look at what proto-fascist Hungary is doing with its border Wall as we speak, with the applause of Steve Bannon's Breitbart News.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  2. MKolken's Avatar
    Roger, if not a wall and increased enforcement on the border, what do you think is the best way to address the heroin epidemic?

    I'm asking.

    Most heroin in U.S. now comes across Mexican border
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    We also have to remember that Trump's actions against non-white immigrants are also just part of a larger assault against non-white Americans by the Trump - Sessions regime.

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...lack-and-brown

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-22-2017 at 09:45 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Is making empty campaign promises about immigration the reason that Trump is now threatening to shut down the government over funding for his Wall of hate and humiliation against citizens of Mexico, which, if Nolan remembers, happened to be a campaign promise?

    Did not Trump also promise to ban all of the world's Muslims, or as many as he could legally get away with, from coming to the United States?

    He seems to be fighting very hard in court to keep that promise.

    Trump also promised during the campaign that no unauthorized immigrant would be safe from deportation. Has he done nothing to carry out that promise?

    If so, why is Nolan also writing articles warning that unless the Democrats offer Trump a legalization deal for a handful of people at the price of agreeing to the rest of his deportation agenda - a deal which Trump has not shown the slightest interest in considering - Trump will deport 11 million people?

    Even with regard to DACA, while Trump, to his credit, has so far refused to rescind it formally, his AG has also made clear that even people who have been granted DACA relief are still not safe, and at least some DACA registrants have already been arrested or even deported.

    My point is not that immigrants and their supporters had nothing to fear from Trump's campaign rhetoric - they had and have a great deal to fear.

    My point is only that some of Trump's supporters have even more extreme views on immigration, and are even more committed to engaging in massive ethnic cleansing of non-white immigrants in America than Trump is himself.

    Having said the above, there is some reason to believe that Trump has the capacity to change his views based on reality and the facts.

    He has shown this in some areas that are not directly related to immigration, as well as in not rescinding DACA.

    No one expected Ronald Reagan to approve granting green cards to 2 million unauthorized immigrants, as he did in 1986, either.

    While it seems to be pure fantasy to think that Trump would ever consider a broad legalization proposal, if he ever did agree to one, Steve King would probably be calling for Trump's impeachment, and I would be writing blogs about what a great president Trump turned out to be.

    Which side would Nolan be on if such event were ever to take place?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-22-2017 at 05:05 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have been saying from the beginning of Trump's career as a politician that his campaign statements are not a reliable indication of what he would do as president, the ninth circuit notwithstanding. He used campaign statements the way every other politician uses them, to get elected.

    Nolan Rappaport
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Comment from Paul Schmidt, former immigration judge and Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

    I agree with Nolan that given the huge backlogs in the U.S. Immigration Courts, the Administration will use every device at its disposal to avoid the Immigration Courts and completely eliminate due process protections for as many individuals as possible. Moreover, as I have pointed out in a recent blog, to date the Article III Courts have been willing to turn a blind eye to the rather obvious due process and statutory issues involved in expedited removal. See http://wp.me/p8eeJm-IG.


    To state the obvious: “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum” is meaningless without a fair opportunity to be heard on the asylum application before an impartial adjudicator, with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence, and represented by counsel of one’s choice. And, the idea that individuals who have spent months in detention in the U.S. aren’t entitled to “due process” in connection with their asylum applications (which are “life or death” applications) is facially absurd.


    Yeah, I know that the Third Circuit in Castro v. DHS spent the whole decision on a turgidly opaque discussion of jurisdiction and and “suspension of habeas.” Surprising how folks living in the “ivory tower” with lifetime job security can sometimes drain all of the humanity out of “real life” tragedies.


    But, frankly, in four decades of being a “highly interested observer” of immigration litigation, I’ve never seen an Article III Court, including the Supremes, be deterred from running over supposed statutory limitations on judicial review when motivated to do so. Perhaps it will take some Federal Judge’s nanny, maid, gardener, driver, handyman, neighbor, fellow church member, student, or in-law being swept up in the new “DHS dragnet” to “motivate” the courts here.


    In the meantime, as pointed out to me by Nolan in a different conversation, there is some hope for due process in the Third Circuit’s dictum in Castro. In “footnote 13,” the court actually indicates that there might be a “constitutional break point” for review of expedited removal:


    “Of course, even though our construction of 1252 means that courts in the future will almost certainly lack statutory jurisdiction to review claims that the government has committed even more egregious violations of the expedited removal statute than those alleged by Petitioners, this does not necessarily mean that all aliens wishing to raise such claims will be without a remedy. For instance, consider the case of an alien who has been living continuously for several years in the United States before being ordered removed under 1225(b)(1). Even though the statute would prevent him from seeking judicial review of a claim, say, that he was never granted a credible fear interview, under our analysis of the Suspension Clause below, the statute could very well be unconstitutional as applied to him (though we by no means undertake to so hold in this opinion). Suffice it to say, at least some of the arguably troubling implications of our reading of 1252 may be tempered by the Constitution’s requirement that habeas review be available in some circumstances and for some people.”


    I suspect that the Administration eventually will push expedited removal and credible fear denials to the point where there will be some meaningful judicial review. But, lots of folks rights are likely to be trampled upon before we reach that point.


    Nolan’s suggestion for a bipartisan legislative solution certainly seems reasonable and highly appropriate from the viewpoint of both sides. The Administration is about to invest lots of resources and credibility in a “war to deport or intimidate just about everybody” that it is likely to lose in the long run. But, advocates are likely to be bleeding resources and losing individual battles for some time before the tide eventually turns, if it ever does. Anything that depends on litigation as the solution has many risks and unpredictable outcomes that might leave both sides unsatisfied with the results.


    Sadly, nobody in the Administration seems interested in solving this issue. The policy appears to be driven by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a lifelong opponent of immigration reform who seldom if ever has a kind word to say about any immigrant, legal or undocumented.


    Secretary Kelly has become “Sessions’s Parrot,” apparently devoid of any original or constructive thoughts on the subject of immigration. In particular, his recent “put up or shut up” outburst directed at Congressional Democrats who sought some meaningful oversight and clarification of his enforcement policies did not seem to be an entree for better dialogue.


    Although there almost certainly is a majority of Democrats and Republicans in favor of reasonable immigration reform, which the majority of the country would also like to see, leadership of both parties seems fairly discombobulated. There seems to be “zero interest” in putting together a legislative coalition consisting of Democrats and a minority of Republicans to get anything done. And, even if such a coalition were to coalesce, President Trump likely would veto any constructive result in the area of immigration.


    As I’ve pointed out before, there are a number of reasons why folks don’t always act in their best interests or the best interests of the country. But, I appreciate Nolan’s efforts to promote “thinking beyond conflict.” I want to think that it can come to fruition.


    PWS


    04-20-17
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, if you want to rely on history, you have to be more specific. Does history show that calling the president a bigot and a bully makes it more likely that he will do what you want him to do?

    That's a crucial point. I have never tried to discourage Roger from making objective criticisms and saying what trump should be doing He rarely does that. His method is name-calling demonization, and it doesn't stop with calling him derogatory names like "bigot" and "bully." He also compares him to Hitler.

    I doubt that Roger uses that approach with USCIS officials when he is trying to persuade them to do something for his clients or in any other area of his life.

    I was a counsel for the democrats on the Judiciary committee for seven years. If I had gone to meetings with republican staffers and called them bigots and bullies or compared the congressmen they worked for to Hitler, I would have been fired.

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    History shows that standing up against bigots and bullies can get much more in the way of results than trying to make deals with them on their turf and their terms - especially when they have not indicated any interest in making a deal.

    Having said this, if Trump is serious about any kind of immigration action that does not merely involve his dictating his own will while sitting at a desk in the Oval Office, then he can arrange to have an administration immigration reform bill expressing his views introduced in Congress for open discussion and negotiation, which is the way laws are supposed to be made in democratic countries, rather than in a dictatorship such as Russia, whose ties to Trump's campaign are still under active investigation by the FBI.

    If and when the Trump administration submits its immigration proposals to Congress instead of just issuing diktats from the White House, Nolan's comment on this issue would deserve to be taken more seriously than it now does.

    I do not suggest that anyone should hold one's breath waiting for Trump to take any action on immigration that goes beyond an expression of his own will, just as a certain country in central Europe was governed solely by the Will of its Leader within the living memory of anyone who is now 72 years old or older.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-20-2017 at 02:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, he is "trying to introduce today's readers to the real Donald Trump in all his anti-immigrant racism and bigotry."

    What is that going to accomplish? Will it make Trump a nicer person? Will it encourage him to go along with a legalization program? What will it accomplish Roger?

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Much as Molan would like to muzzle me, I intend to keep reminding readers of what Trump and his white nationalist Sessions - Bannon - Miller cabal are actually doing and saying about mass deportation and other immigration policy, not Nolan's distorted attempts to whitewash that policy.

    No matter what kind of gloss or spin Nolan tries to put on Trump's actions as president so far, and no matter what kind of name calling he chooses to engage in against anyone who opposes Trump's immigration policies, with all their disturbing echoes of the 1924 white supremacist immigration law which Sessions and Bannon have has such effusive praise for (and which Trump himself at least indirectly supported in his August 31, 2016 Phoenix Arizona speech), those of us who believe in the fundamental American ideals and values of racial; equality embodied in the 1965 immigration law which was enacted in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. a much greater American than Donald Trump can ever possibly hope to be, will continue to speak out against any attempt to subvert or undermine the principles of that law, whether through mass deportation, barring Muslims from America on the basis of their religion, or scapegoating South Asian skilled and professional H-1B workers in the hypocritical name of "protecting American jobs."

    The great Stoic Greek philosopher and former slave Epictetus, stated in the 1st century A.D. that someone going to the theater to see a drama by Sophocles was going there to meet Oedipus himself, not an actor (hypokrites in the original Greek) playing Oedipus.

    In the same way, I am trying to introduce today's readers to the real Donald Trump in all his anti-immigrant racism and bigotry, not just a play actor's hypokrites, version that tries, like an ancient Greek actor, to draw a mask over the reality.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-19-2017 at 09:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan's goal of saving at least some unauthorized immigrants from deportation by working out a deal with Donald Trump is commendable enough, but it assumes that Trump can be influenced by reason, rather than racism, and rationality as opposed to repression.

    Let us hope that Nolan is right in this assessment. There has not been much evidence to support his view of Trump, the rational, responsible deal-maker on immigration, rather than Trump the Mexican-and Muslim hating border sealer and (would be) mass deporter so far.

    If Trump is really interested in a deal on immigration, why doesn't he do what other presidents have normally done and send a White House immigration bill to Congress?

    But Trump doen't seem to want to do something that could lead to open debate and negotiation.

    So far, everything on immigration has been by executive orders. Is this "Trump the deal-maker" at work?

    Or is it Trump the dictator?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    When it comes to immigration, Obama set the record on using executive orders instead of working with the other party on legislation. Trump hasn't been the president very long. We don't know yet what he is going to try to achieve with legislation. But Roger once again refuses to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

    And he is still missing the point of my article. Trump is embarking on an expedited removal proceedings enforcement program to radically reduce the number of undocumented aliens in the country.

    Strong interior enforcement is the key to border security. if the aliens know they are safe once they have reached the interior and that jobs are waiting for them here, border security is impossible.

    He has said that when the border is secure, he will consider a legalization program. But I think he was just referring to DACA participants when he said it.

    Once his expedited removal proceedings enforcement program is underway, it will be extremely difficult to stop. That's why I say time is running out in my article.

    If the Democrats want to save as many undocumented aliens as possible, they need to try to work with Trump on immigration reform that would meet the needs of both parties. But first, they have to muzzle Roger and the other Trump haters who keep poking him with a stick.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 04-19-2017 at 06:57 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan's goal of saving at least some unauthorized immigrants from deportation by working out a deal with Donald Trump is commendable enough, but it assumes that Trump can be influenced by reason, rather than racism, and rationality as opposed to repression.

    Let us hope that Nolan is right in this assessment. There has not been much evidence to support his view of Trump, the rational, responsible deal-maker on immigration, rather than Trump the Mexican-and Muslim hating border sealer and (would be) mass deporter so far.

    If Trump is really interested in a deal on immigration, why doesn't he do what other presidents have normally done and send a White House immigration bill to Congress?

    But Trump doen't seem to want to do something that could lead to open debate and negotiation.

    So far, everything on immigration has been by executive orders. Is this "Trump the deal-maker" at work?

    Or is it Trump the dictator?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-19-2017 at 09:42 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    According to what I have read, 40% of the undocumented aliens in the US are visa overstays, which for all practical purposes means they are from Europe, i.e., not brown skinned as Roger claims. Trump's enforcement program is aimed at all aliens who are here illegally, regardless of color, nationality, or whether they are favored by Roger.

    But Roger is missing my point, which is that Trump is going to succeed in deporting a large percentage of the undocumented aliens in the country without immigration hearings or appeal rights unless we stop him, and I explain in my article that we can'd do this by providing the aliens with lawyers.

    My suggestion is to try to work with him on comprehensive immigration reform. Notwithstanding Roger's hatred for Trump, I think he would be willing to make a deal, exchanging legalization for a significant percentage of the undocumented aliens in return for cooperation in deporting the rest of them...and those that come in the future illegally.

    I am thinking of a legalization program based on American needs, as opposed to one based on desire to help the undocumented aliens. For instance, DREAM Act participants under the age of 18 who are doing well in school, aliens needed by American employers, and the immediate family of US citizens and LPRs.

    That wouldn't save all or even most of them, but how many do you think Roger is going to save with his Trump is a monster tirades?

    Nolan Rappaport
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan isn't payiing the slightest attention to what Trump is actually saying and doing, which is to try to expel 11 million brown people from America and prevent as many other brown people from coming in as he possibly can.

    When someone objects to that agenda, or has a problem with it, Nolan blames the person who is criticizing Trump's agenda, not the president who is trying to carry it out.

    What sense does that make?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Where is there even a scintilla of evidence that the president, who seems to hold all the Trump cards on deportation according to this article, has even the slightest interest in negotiating even the most limited kind of legalization deal?

    The idea that Trump might be interested in any sort of deal other than the one that someone makes when the other party is holding a gun to his head seem to be pure speculation of the wildest, most unfounded kind, fueled by a very heavy does of wishful thinking, as well as a desire to avoid coming to terms with the reality of Trump and his apparent objective of taking America back to the bigoted, white supremacist system of the 1924 Johnson-Reid "Nordics"-only Immigration Act.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger's right about one thing, there won't be a deal if he and the other Trump haters keep saying horrible things about Trump, which in his case is at least five tirades a week.

    As I explain in my article, if Roger and the rest of the Trump haters keep it up, millions of undocumented, noncriminal aliens are going to be deported without hearings before an immigration judge or appeals of any kind.

    But look on the bright side, this self-fulfilling prophecy will allow Roger and company to say, "I told you so." Maybe that will make the millions of people who are deported unnecessarily feel better.

    Nolan Rappaport
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update: April 22:

    Here is the best explanation I have seen yet for the rationale behind Trump's mass deportation, Muslim ban and other anti-immigrant policies:

    See:

    It's Official: Top Psychiatrists at Yale Conference Warn That Trump Has a 'Dangerous Mental Illness'

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...ngerous-mental

    My original response to Nolan's article follows:

    Where is there even a scintilla of evidence that the president, who seems to hold all the Trump cards on deportation according to this article, has even the slightest interest in negotiating even the most limited kind of legalization deal?

    The idea that Trump might be interested in any sort of deal other than the one that someone makes when the other party is holding a gun to his head seem to be pure speculation of the wildest, most unfounded kind, fueled by a very heavy does of wishful thinking, as well as a desire to avoid coming to terms with the reality of Trump and his apparent objective of taking America back to the bigoted, white supremacist system of the 1924 Johnson-Reid "Nordics"-only Immigration Act.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-22-2017 at 04:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan has not shown anything other than his own unsupported speculation to back up his contention that using relatives or other third parties to take funds out of China is illegal in that country, rather than just a legal loophole.

    Certainly there are many Chinese laws which Nolan would never dream of trying to defend or enforce to the letter, with no exceptions or loopholes - the law forcing women pregnant with a second child to have abortions, for one.

    The law making it illegal to oppose the ruling Communist party, for another.

    Laws or policies providing Chinese government assistance to North Korea.

    Laws denying asylum to refugees from North Korea and returning to them to their country for almost certain torture and execution.

    Why is it suddenly so important to make sure that no one evades or runs around any part of China's wonderful legal system?

    Nolan also mentions Hillary's FBI investigation, as if that had the slightest connection with EB-5.

    If this topic had even the slightest relevance, I would also suggest to Nolan that if he takes a look at the news, he will see that the Trump administration is also under FBI investigation over the president's alleged ties to Russia - an investigation which could lead directly to the oval office and the man sitting behind the desk in that office.

    Of course, Nolan would yell foul at my comparing Trump with Hillary over the FBI, so, out of fairness, I will mention one no doubt "purely technical" difference.

    The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has been closed and has now taken its place as part of America's past history, along with the California gold rush, the Pony Express, the Harding administration and many other events that school children learn about in their classrooms every day

    On the other hand, the FBI investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia is still very much open and ongoing.

    Nolan also points out that civil lawsuits are settled for many different reasons.

    This is absolutely true. One of the many possible reasons for settling a lawsuit is that a given defendant may have been accused running a nationwide fraud scheme which at least one, if not more, state attorney generals have refused to allow in the state or states concerned, and the defendant happens to be a wealthy tycoon with more than enough funds to buy the plaintiffs off and prevent the lawsuit from going forward.

    Admittedly, as Nolan points out, there are many other reasons for settling civil lawsuits as well. I am only mentioning one out of many possibilities, of course.

    Only one out of many, for sure.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 04-14-2017 at 08:24 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger is right that I think using friends or other third parties to circumvent China's $50,000 restriction is illegal, and the article he cites doesn't say otherwise.

    Odd that he would give the benefit of the doubt to Chinese investors but not to the President of the United States. Law suits are settled for many different reasons.

    As for his one standard argument, he was fine with applying a different standard to Hillary Clinton on handling classified information. Whether it was a crime or not, FBI Director Comey said it was "extremely careless," but Roger never said a word about that.

    Nolan Rappaport
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan appears to assume that using friends or other third parties to send money out of China is a violation of the laws of that country, rather than a perfectly legal loophole.

    I am not sure that he is correct in that assumption. For one expert's opinion, see:

    http://www.deshlaw.com/legal-insight...b-5-investment

    On the assumption that the Chinese investors are using legal loopholes, rather than openly violating their own country's laws, and on the additional assumption that their investments in the US comply with US law in full, are their activities really all that harmful to a country which has just elected a president who had to settle a fraud lawsuit against him for $25 million to prevent the case from going to trial?

    Or do we have one standard of legal and ethical conduct in this country for Chinese immigrants and a different one for white US billionaires running for president?

    The answer to this last question is so obvious that I realize it is silly for me even to ask it.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    First, is Nolan an expert on Chinese exchange control law? What makes his so sure that China does not permit its citizens to take more that $50,000 out of the the country legally with the help of third parties?

    Could Nolan just be raising a red herring here?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    How do I know that China has a $50,000 restriction?

    See page 71 of the 2016-2017 edition of The EB-5 Book. It's sold by ILW.com if you don't have a copy yet. http://www.ilw.com/books/TheEB5Book.shtm

    It provides a link to a Chinese government webpage on the rule. I found it and the site provides English versions but l lost it because the site is buggy.

    I also found more than half a dozen different articles from reputable newspapers that talk about it. I include a few of these in the article.

    Roger is right though that the law can be circumvented. How else would there be so many Chinese EB-5 investors. I think he is referring to the practice of having 10 different friends or relatives send the money to you in America. I suppose you can call that legal, but it clearly is circumventing the $50,000 restriction, which makes its legality questionable. In any case, my point isn't that it can't be done. My point is that the willingness to engage in such maneuvers is not a good trait for a businessman. Why should we be giving green cards to businessmen who circumvent the laws of their own country? What can we expected from them if they establish businesses here?

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 04-12-2017 at 06:01 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 105 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: