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
    The most ominous statement in Nolan's article is not in the parts dealing with the court backlog, or in the disregard for basic due process rights that is inherent in the expedited removal system (as Nolan himself points out), but in the last full paragraph (in his link to the full article in The Hill). where he states that the president is trying to "identify possible detention sites for holding criminal aliens and other immigration violators."

    To be sure, there have been countries in recent history where holding people whom the regime does not want to be in the country for lengthy, or indefinite, periods of time has been the preferred method chosen by the country's rulers for dealing with that situation.

    If Trump is looking for names for his proposed immigration detention centers, he might consider borrowing a few from one of those regimes. Here are some names that Trump might wish to consider for his immigrant detention sites, in order to carry on the spirit of a well known previous leader of one such country toward unwanted minority populations in the country he controlled:

    Dachau, Buechenwald and Bergen-Belsen.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-19-2017 at 05:07 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I went into an extended discussion above of the federal laws that Nolan claims California is now violating through its own statute, and explained in detail why these federal laws not only raise serious Constitutional questions if interpreted as broadly as Nolan is suggesting, but could undermine the foundations of our democracy.

    But instead of responding to my comments, Nolan is now talking about "ink blot tests". I fail to see the connection.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In fairness to supporters of the RAISE Act, there is an argument to be made that its effect would be according to class rather than ethnicity. As EB-5 practitioners are well aware, in Asian counties such as China and India, among others, there is a highly educated, English-speaking wealthy elite consisting of millions of people who might have no difficulty qualifying under the RAISE Act.

    This would bring America's immigration system more in line with Trump's (and much of his party's) domestic agenda of huge tax breaks and deregulation for the rich and gutting health care, social security, labor union and environmental protections for everyone else.

    From this perspective, America's immigration system, instead of being based on ethnicity as it was before 1965, would, arguably, be based on plutocracy instead.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-12-2017 at 09:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Once again, Nolan is trying to turn the discussion away from the main issue, which is that Trump is proposing a point system which would not only reduce all legal immigration significantly (as Nolan acknowledges), but would be skewed in favor of white, European immigrants as opposed to immigrants from non-white areas of the world.

    This would be a major return in the direction of the openly racist, "Nordics" - only 1924 immigration law which was predicated on the pseudo-scientific theory that some "races" of people were genetically superior to others, with white northern Europeans being at the top, and, in the view of Adolf Hitler, an ardent admirer of the 1924 American law, Jews on the bottom.

    We all know where that kind of thinking led to. Today's proposed RAISE Act, of course, is not directed against Jews and Trump is not in any way anti-semitic.

    But the unspoken, but clearly underlying premise in the RAISE Act that immigrants from Europe are better for America than those from other parts of the world, a premise that was also the basis of Trump's recent Warsaw speech, is antithetical to the core values of America, namely that all people are created equal.

    This value also underscores the immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years and which the RAISE Act's point system would abolish.

    Instead of dealing with this fundamental issue, Nolan is raising Nancy Pelosi's alleged insistence on not only saving DACA for nearly 800,000 young, mainly Latino, young people who would lose everything because of Trump's cancellation of the program, but on extending it to more than 3 million people in total as a diversion.

    If Nolan's description of Nancy Pelosi's alleged unwillingness to consider any alternative is accurate, and I do not know what Nolan's basis is for this claim, then my advice to Pelosi and the Democrats would be to save as many current Dreamers from deportation as they can by taking the best deal they can get from the other side, but not to accept any deal at the price of agreeing to the, bigoted, Europeans-only, legal immigration point system of the RAISE Act under any circumstances.

    In summary, to the extent that Nolan is arguing in favor of flexibility on both sides in any DACA negotiations, I entirely agree with him, with the only exception that the RAISE Act, or anything resembling it which would discriminate against non-European legal immigrants whatever the pretext, should be off the table for discussion.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-12-2017 at 09:20 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Rogers says, Nolan says in his last last comment above:
    "I didn't propose a point system established by the White House or the authors of the RAISE Act."
    If that was not what he meant, why did he begin his article with the title:
    "Democrats, take Trump's deal to save some from deportation.”?


    I don’t write the titles for my articles.


    Roger says, “It is clear that when Trump and his supporters are talking about a point system, they are using it simply as a pretext to reduce ot cut off immigration from non-white parts of the world.


    Yes, Trump does want to use a point system to reduce immigration.


    Roger says, “How can that be any basis for serious negotiations on a deal to help some DACA immigrants (not the exaggerated number that Nolan accuses Nancy Pelosi of supporting - a typical "Red Herring" argument)?’


    It’s not a red hearing. According to the Migration Policy Institute estimates, potentially 3,338,000 aliens would be able to qualify for conditional lawful status under H.R.3440, which is the DREAM Act Pelosi is insisting on.


    Roger says, “Nolan asks what I would propose as a basis for discussion on preserving some form of DACA if the Trump's "Policies and Principles", which include the RAISE Act are taken off the table.”


    That’s not what I asked. I said the DREAM Act Pelosi wants would provide lawful status for too many people and asked how he would reduce the number if he finds a point system unacceptable.

    Nolan Rappaport
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan says in his last last comment above:

    "I didn't propose a point system established by the White House or the authors of the RAISE Act."

    If that was not what he meant, why did he begin his article with the title:

    "Democrats, take Trump's deal to save some from deportation."?

    And why do his opening two sentences say that the Democrats should be willing to use the "White House immigration Policies and Principles list" as a basis for negotiations?

    Isn't the RAISE Act's point system, which almost every immigration analyst acknowledges is heavily skewed toward immigration from Europe and would drastically limit immigration from other parts of the world, where family reunification and low skilled immigration have helped to bring tens of millions of non-white legal immigrants to the US over the past half century, a key part of Trump's list of "Principles and Policies" and a major component of whatever deal Trump and his dwindling number of Congressional allies might be willing to discuss with the Democrats?

    Nolan now argues that the RAISE Act does not necessarily have to be a basis for negotiations, but all the parties need to discuss is the details of a point system in the abstract.

    But what is the purpose of Trump's sudden interest in using a "point system" to replace a 50-year old legal immigration system which has dramatically changed the demographic makeup of America from one of clear white, English-speaking, Judeo-Christian (some of Trump's white nationalist and neo-Nazi supporters would be very happy to leave out the "Judeo", though the president himself is not anti-Semitic) dominance to a much more racially, religiously and linguistically diverse society?

    It is not because of any inherent value of a point system in the abstract that Nolan (or Trump) can point to that suddenly makes Trump such a big fan of it, even though different, less racially skewed versions of a point system have have admittedly worked well in some countries, such as Canada.

    It is clear that when Trump and his supporters are talking about a point system, they are using it simply as a pretext to reduce ot cut off immigration from non-white parts of the world.

    How can that be any basis for serious negotiations on a deal to help some DACA immigrants (not the exaggerated number that Nolan accuses Nancy Pelosi of supporting - a typical "Red Herring" argument)?

    Nolan asks what I would propose as a basis for discussion on preserving some form of DACA if the Trump's "Policies and Principles", which include the RAISE Act are taken off the table.

    My answer would be that there are a great many issues that could be discussed - enforcement, fraud detection, genuine anti-terrorism methods as opposed to the blatant religious prejudice of his Muslim ban orders; and which the Democrats should be willing to compromise on - they lost the election, after all, and the other party is in control.

    But destroying a legal immigration system which has brought America much closer to its ideal of racial equality over the past 50 years and replacing it with one which would take this country a long way back toward the bigoted days of Europe-only immigration which we had starting almost 100 years ago (if not before then) should not be on the table as a basis for discussion.

    If Trump insists on using the RAISE Act, or anything resembling it, as a basis for negotiations, that would be equivalent to saying that he is not interested on making any deal at all to help any DACA recipients at all, no matter how small the number of people affected might actually be.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-11-2017 at 07:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan says that a "point system" doesn't have to be limited to high skilled immigration, thereby eliminating or drastically reducing the main sources of non-European immigration such as family visas or less-skilled worker visas.

    Of course it doesn't - in theory. But the particular point system that the White House is now insisting on as the price for helping any DREAMERS at all is the one in the RAISE Act, which is heavily skewed toward white, European immigrants.

    If one will forgive a pun here, that is the POINT of the whole POINT System in the RAISE Act.

    Again to make an analogy with the 1924 Johnson Reed Immigration Act which barred most most of the world's immigrants from the US except those from the "Nordic" countries of Western Europe, thereby earning Adolf Hitler's admiration; and, which, according to the consensus of historians, added to the death toll of Jewish Holocaust victims.

    Adopting "national origins" immigration quotas did not in and of itself bar most Jewish, Italian, Eastern European Asian, African and Middle Eastern immigrants from American for the coming 40 years - it was the way that the quotas were fixed.

    Germany, for example, had a quota of about 50,000 US immigrants per year under this law. Russia and other Eastern European countries where most of the world's Jews (and many of its Catholics) lived, on the other hand, were given quotas amounting to only small fractions of the ones for Germany, Britain and other "Nordic" countries.

    The quota for India, for example, was only 100 (one hundred!) US immigrants per year. Same for China, Japan. and almost every other country in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

    The RAISE Act would accomplish a similar purpose, namely drastically reducing non -European immigration, by manipulating the allotment of points, rather than by skewing the national origins quotas, as was that case almost 100 years ago.

    Nolan's argument that a point system is race-neutral in principle and open to negotiation on the details may be true in theory. Canada, for example has an immigration point system which has at the same time welcomed immigrants from many parts of the world
    s and made its society more diverse.

    But that is not the point system of the RAISE Act and the Trump administration, which is specifically designed to exclude as many non-European legal immigrants as possible (and slash overall immigration totals, as Trump's white nationalist supporters have also been advocating for a long time).

    Just as Nolan did in his articles on the Muslim ban executive orders, where Nolan took the "terror sponsor list" justification seriously, even though the administration has now abandoned that pretext in its latest version of the order and substituted a different one, namely "extreme vetting" instead, as its rationale for putting mainly exclusively Muslim countries - including Chad, an important US ally in the fight against the jihadist terror group Boko Haram on the banned country list - Nolan is mistaking the facade for the reality.

    Hopefully, one might even speculate that Trump's "erratic" personality and tendency to pick fights with his own natural supporters in his own party might even eventually derail the bigoted, white supremacist RAISE Act.

    Along this line, a blog report (in The Hill) quotes a normally Trump-friendly Fox News host, Neil Cavuto, as saying the following about the president, concerning his latest personal feud, this time with GOP Senator Corker:

    It's not that some of your [Trump's] ideas aren't sound. they are...It's that, increasingly this erratic behavior makes me wonder whether you are."

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...out-of-friends

    More and more Americans will need to ask them selves whether Trump's penchant for supporting and implementing immigration policies based on his often expressed hostility and contempt for non-white immigrant groups could be a reflection of his own personal mental health challenges.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    My relief was short lived. Roger has returned to his gloom-and-doom-Trump-hating-fantasies.

    I didn't propose a point system established in the White House or by the authors of the RAISE Act. My proposal was a point system negotiated by the two parties. And the purpose would be to bring the DACA program down to a number that would be acceptable to both parties --- because a program that would give lawful status to almost three and a half million undocumented aliens (Pelosi's proposal) has no chance of moving through congress.

    If Roger doesn't like that method, perhaps he can suggest one that he would like.

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan says that a "point system" doesn't have to be limited to high skilled immigration, thereby eliminating or drastically reducing the main sources of non-European immigration such as family visas or less-skilled worker visas.

    Of course it doesn't - in theory. But the particular point system that the White House is now insisting on as the price for helping any DREAMERS at all is the one in the RAISE Act, which is heavily skewed toward white, European immigrants.

    If one will forgive a pun here, that is the POINT of the whole POINT System in the RAISE Act.

    Again to make an analogy with the 1924 Johnson Reed Immigration Act which barred most most of the world's immigrants from the US except those from the "Nordic" countries of Western Europe, thereby earning Adolf Hitler's admiration; and, which, according to the consensus of historians, added to the death toll of Jewish Holocaust victims.

    Adopting "national origins" immigration quotas did not in and of itself bar most Jewish, Italian, Eastern European Asian, African and Middle Eastern immigrants from American for the coming 40 years - it was the way that the quotas were fixed.

    Germany, for example, had a quota of about 50,000 US immigrants per year under this law. Russia and other Eastern European countries where most of the world's Jews (and many of its Catholics) lived, on the other hand, were given quotas amounting to only small fractions of the ones for Germany, Britain and other "Nordic" countries.

    The quota for India, for example, was only 100 (one hundred!) US immigrants per year. Same for China, Japan. and almost every other country in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

    The RAISE Act would accomplish a similar purpose, namely drastically reducing non -European immigration, by manipulating the allotment of points, rather than by skewing the national origins quotas, as was that case almost 100 years ago.

    Nolan's argument that a point system is race-neutral in principle and open to negotiation on the details may be true in theory. Canada, for example has an immigration point system which has at the same time welcomed immigrants from many parts of the world
    s and made its society more diverse.

    But that is not the point system of the RAISE Act and the Trump administration, which is specifically designed to exclude as many non-European legal immigrants as possible (and slash overall immigration totals, as Trump's white nationalist supporters have also been advocating for a long time).

    Just as Nolan did in his articles on the Muslim ban executive orders, where Nolan took the "terror sponsor list" justification seriously, even though the administration has now abandoned that pretext in its latest version of the order and substituted a different one, namely "extreme vetting" instead, as its rationale for putting mainly exclusively Muslim countries - including Chad, an important US ally in the fight against the jihadist terror group Boko Haram on the banned country list - Nolan is mistaking the facade for the reality.

    Hopefully, one might even speculate that Trump's "erratic" personality and tendency to pick fights with his own natural supporters in his own party might even eventually derail the bigoted, white supremacist RAISE Act.

    Along this line, a blog report (in The Hill) quotes a normally Trump-friendly Fox News host, Neil Cavuto, as saying the following about the president, concerning his latest personal feud, this time with GOP Senator Corker:

    It's not that some of your [Trump's] ideas aren't sound. they are...It's that, increasingly this erratic behavior makes me wonder whether you are."

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...out-of-friends

    More and more Americans will need to ask them selves whether Trump's penchant for supporting and implementing immigration policies based on his often expressed hostility and contempt for non-white immigrant groups could be a reflection of his own personal mental health challenges.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 10-11-2017 at 09:43 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Even if the funding for 47 miles of border fence is open ended, I don't see why the Democrats or anyone else should have a problem with that if it will help produce a fair DACA deal.

    Nor is there any good reason, at least in principle, to oppose more effective interior immigration enforcement as a quid pro quo for a DACA compromise - which should not necessarily have to include a pathway to citizenship.

    With genuine good will on both sides, a reasonable compromise should, at least in theory, not be beyond the bounds of possibility.

    But throwing out 50 years of progress toward racial equality in legal immigration, which is in effect what enacting the RAISE Act would be doing by repealing the 1965 immigration reforms and going back to a system that is stacked in favor of European immigrants, whether one calls it a "point system" now, or one called it a "national origins" quota system almost 100 years ago, should not be on the table at all.

    Anyone who is interested in a real compromise on immigration that would help the DREAMERS, not just a return to the whites-only pre-1965 immigration system disguised as a "point system', which is in essence what the RAISE Act that Trump strongly supports really is, would do well to begin with the proposals of a moderate Republican, Senator Tillis (N.C.), joined by two other Republican Senators, Hatch and Lankford, which combine rigorous enforcement with a recognition that legal foreign workers, including less skilled ones, benefit the economy, rather than hurting American workers.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...43628?lo=ap_a1

    While Trump has railed and fumed against legal foreign workers as both candidate and president, he has recognized the value of less skilled immigrant workers in his own businesses by, to give just one example, sponsoring dozens of H-2B immigrants to work at his Florida resorts.

    There used to be an old saying dating, if my memory is correct, from the Eisenhower era, that:

    "What is good for General Motors is good for the country."

    If H-2B unskilled workers are good for Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, aren't they also good for America, even though they would be barred by the RAISE Act, if it ever become the basis for a deal to save some of the DREAMERS, as Nolan suggests it should?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Roger, you have restored my optimism about bringing the two parties together. The first part of your comment indicates that even the most extreme Trump haters can calm down and consider the possibility of a reasonable compromise that might be acceptable to both parties.

    You seem to be underestimating the potential of a point system. The two parties would negotiate the system and assign values to the various things that form the basis for the score. It doesn't have to be slanted to limit admissions to high skilled workers or any other group.

    I suggested it as a way to reduce the number of undocumented aliens who would qualify for the program in a rational way. If the Dems hold out for the aliens who would be able to qualify under Pelosi's choice, the DREAM Act of 2017, the number of participants could reach 3,400,000. That is a deal killer.

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Even if the funding for 47 miles of border fence is open ended, I don't see why the Democrats or anyone else should have a problem with that if it will help produce a fair DACA deal.

    Nor is there any good reason, at least in principle, to oppose more effective interior immigration enforcement as a quid pro quo for a DACA compromise - which should not necessarily have to include a pathway to citizenship.

    With genuine good will on both sides, a reasonable compromise should, at least in theory, not be beyond the bounds of possibility.

    But throwing out 50 years of progress toward racial equality in legal immigration, which is in effect what enacting the RAISE Act would be doing by repealing the 1965 immigration reforms and going back to a system that is stacked in favor of European immigrants, whether one calls it a "point system" now, or one called it a "national origins" quota system almost 100 years ago, should not be on the table at all.

    Anyone who is interested in a real compromise on immigration that would help the DREAMERS, not just a return to the whites-only pre-1965 immigration system disguised as a "point system', which is in essence what the RAISE Act that Trump strongly supports really is, would do well to begin with the proposals of a moderate Republican, Senator Tillis (N.C.), joined by two other Republican Senators, Hatch and Lankford, which combine rigorous enforcement with a recognition that legal foreign workers, including less skilled ones, benefit the economy, rather than hurting American workers.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...43628?lo=ap_a1

    While Trump has railed and fumed against legal foreign workers as both candidate and president, he has recognized the value of less skilled immigrant workers in his own businesses by, to give just one example, sponsoring dozens of H-2B immigrants to work at his Florida resorts.

    There used to be an old saying dating, if my memory is correct, from the Eisenhower era, that:

    "What is good for General Motors is good for the country."

    If H-2B unskilled workers are good for Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, aren't they also good for America, even though they would be barred by the RAISE Act, if it ever become the basis for a deal to save some of the DREAMERS, as Nolan suggests it should?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-10-2017 at 09:04 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    While this following comment is admittedly beyond the scope of Nolan's article, it is still worthy of note that even a respected Republican Senator such as Bob Corker (Tennessee) is now talking openly about Trump's need for "extended day care" and his lack of fitness for the office of president. There must be many other Republican leaders who feel the same way but who, unlike Corker, are reluctant to say so because they will be running for re-election. See:

    http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3...p-country-safe

    What do these questions about his mental health have to do with Trump's immigration policies? I am not a mental health expert, so I will not try to answer this question. But, as Trump pursues one cruel, vindictive and destructive immigration policy after another, whether his Muslim ban, Border Wall, Mass Deportation or RAISE Act White Europeans only reversion toward 1924 immigration policies concerning admission of legal immigrants, the presidential mental health issue bears more watching and will no doubt be the subject of more and more discussion, among more and more Americans, as time goes on.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger asks, "What do these questions about his mental health have to do with Trump's immigration policies?" I have a different question, What does his mental health have to do with my article? It's about a California law violating two federal laws. One of the federal laws was added to the INA in 1996 and the other long before 1996. Trump had nothing to do with the passage of either of those laws.

    Remember ink blot tests? If Roger took an ink blot test, every random splash of ink on the paper would remind him of something terrible that Trump has done.

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Despite my above comments, if Trump were willing to accept funding for 47 miles only of border fence as part of a comprehensive DACA deal, I would agree with Nolan that the Democrats would be wise to go along with that.

    The chances of Trump's being willing to accept 47 of fence miles only are only slightly less than the chances of his requesting funding to build a network of mosques along the border instead of a Wall.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    The deal I am proposing wouldn't require Trump to agree that he would only build 47 miles of his wall. I said he would get funding to finish the 47 miles remaining of the 700 miles mandated by the bipartisan Fence Act of 2006 that Hillary and Obama both voted for when they were senators. He would be expected to report back to congress when he finished the project. His report would indicate how successful he had been and provide a reliable basis for estimating the cost of putting a wall along the entire Southwest border. All this is in my article. Congress would then decide whether to fund additional lengths of wall.

    Nolan Rappaport
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Despite my above comments, if Trump were willing to accept funding for 47 miles only of border fence as part of a comprehensive DACA deal, I would agree with Nolan that the Democrats would be wise to go along with that.

    Given Trump's overall actions regarding non-white, non-European immigrants, legal and otherwise, since becoming president, the chances of his being willing to accept 47 miles of fence only, however, are probably only slightly less than the chances of his requesting funding to build a network of mosques along the border instead of a Wall.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 10-09-2017 at 06:04 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If the Democrats were willing to give up more than fifty years of progress in accepting legal immigrants from all over the world by abolishing the landmark 1965 immigration reform law and agreeing to some version of the RAISE Act, which would take this country a long part of the way back to the Europeans-only immigration law of 1924 (which Adolf Hitler and Jeff Sessions both wrote about favorably, some 90 years apart), then they would need mental health counseling even more than Republican Senator Bob Corker (TN) and Republican columnist Jennifer Rubin (writing in the October 9 Washington Post) think that the president does.

    Rubin, who has been a loyal and faithful Republican supporter and advocate for as long as she has been writing columns, writes the following about Trump's fitness for the presidency:

    "Republicans need for once to put aside tribal loyalty and think constructively about how to secure the country's safety and survival."

    If the president cannot be trusted with nuclear codes, as Rubin doubts that he can, can he be trusted to work out a fair and humane immigration compromise with the Democrats that would be something other than just a return to the pre-1965 white supremacist, Europeans-only immigration regime that people such as Steve Miller and Trump's other Alt-Right supporters and advisers have been promoting for a long time?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-09-2017 at 04:11 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    While this following comment is admittedly beyond the scope of Nolan's article, it is still worthy of note that even a respected Republican Senator such as Bob Corker (Tennessee) is now talking openly about Trump's need for "extended day care" and his lack of fitness for the office of president. There must be many other Republican leaders who feel the same way but who, unlike Corker, are reluctant to say so because they will be running for re-election. See:

    http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3...p-country-safe

    What do these questions about his mental health have to do with Trump's immigration policies? I am not a mental health expert, so I will not try to answer this question. But, as Trump pursues one cruel, vindictive and destructive immigration policy after another, whether his Muslim ban, Border Wall, Mass Deportation or RAISE Act White Europeans only reversion toward 1924 immigration policies concerning admission of legal immigrants, the presidential mental health issue bears more watching and will no doubt be the subject of more and more discussion, among more and more Americans, as time goes on.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-09-2017 at 01:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There is a well-known historical legal precedent for arresting and prosecuting officials or private persons who tried to protect members of a targeted minority from being persecuted by the central government.

    That precedent was known as the Nuremberg Laws, the year of enactment was 1936, the country was Germany and the targeted minority was the Jews. Using the criminal laws against "harboring" or "assisting" immigrants against state or local officials, or other people who try to protect Hispanic or other minority immigrants against Trump's program of ethnic cleansing through mass deportation, would be in the same spirit as the German legislation referred to above.

    Even without this kind of ominous historical precedent, the federal laws against "harboring" or "assisting" unauthorized immigrants are unconstitutionally vague because these two terms could mean anything and everything.

    American citizens or lawful permanent residents who simply live together with an out of status spouse, child, parent or sibling could easily be deemed to be "harboring" that person; providing legal advice pr medical treatment to such a person might also be deemed to be "assisting" an unauthorized immigrant.

    A husband or wife who files for adjustment of status to permanent resident for his or her currently out-of status spouse could also be considered to be "harboring" or "assisting" an unauthorized immigrant; it has been USCIS policy for almost a decade that merely filing for adjustment does not confer legal status on the applicant unless the person already has some other status, so the I-485 applicant and beneficiary of the I-130 petition filed by the USC spouse in this example, would still be "illegal" right up to the time of receiving the green card.

    This could take six months or more after applying for permanent residence - should the USC marriage partner go to jail for "harboring" or "assisting" his or her out of status spouse while the spouse is waiting for his or her green card to be approved?

    Here is another hypothetical example of how the "harboring" or "assisting" laws which Nolan is holding up as a an example of immigration enforcement to be considered might work in practice.

    A customer who walks into a foreign cuisine restaurant (are there any other types of restaurants in New York, where I live?) and tips a waiter or bartender who may be speaking English with an accent (if at all), might be deemed to be "assisting" an unauthorized immigrant in "reckless disregard" of that person's lack of legal status.

    This is not to say that Nolan, or even Attorney General Jeff Sessions himself, are actually recommending prosecutions in the above hypothetical situations; clearly they are not.

    But once such a vague and sweeping law is used for any purpose, such as punishing state or local officials for failing to fall in lockstep behind Trump's mass deportation agenda to "rid" this country of Latino, Asian, Black and Middle Eastern immigrants, the door is then opened to using it for any and all other purposes as well.

    If and when this happens, America could no longer be called a democracy; it will become a fascist or other totalitarian state, similar to the above example of Germany between the years 1933 and 1945; or to Soviet Russia or today's North Korea.

    Once this Pandora's Box of totalitarian legislation is opened, how can anyone put the lid back on?

    Or, if I may be forgiven for using a literary image stemming from a part of the world whose citizens America's president wants to ban from entering this Land of the Free purely because of their religion or national origins, (in a throwback to the 1924 U.S. "national origins" immigration law which the same German politician who also later, in the capacity of Fuehrer, gave his country the Nuremberg Laws, admired so much; or even to the infamous Chinese exclusion laws), once the genie (Arabic: djinn) of fascist or totalitarian laws is let out of the bottle, who can possibly put it back in?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-09-2017 at 11:59 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I don't think that America has ever had a president who was so focused on blaming immigrants, especially those from targeted ethnic groups, for all the problems of America as much as Donald Trump has. At least not since the time of Calvin Coolidge, who, as we all know, signed the infamous 1924 "Nordics-only" National Origins quotas Johnson-Reed immigration act which inspired Adolf Hitler so much because of its premise that immigrants from certain ethnic groups were racially and genetically superior to those of other ethnic groups.

    While Trump's Warsaw speech did not refer to that law specifically, it contained strong echoes of its basic premise that European "culture", "civilization" and "ancestry" were superior to those of all other parts of the world.

    Moreover, Trump appointed an attorney general and top immigration adviser, Jeff Sessions, who is on record as praising that openly racist, bigoted 1924 law (which, among other things, increased the Holocaust death toll by excluding most of the world's Jews from immigrating to the US, just as Trump has been trying to bar Muslim immigrants through his campaign speeches and his Muslim ban executive orders, as numerous federal district and circuit court judges have determined to be the fact in recent court decisions, which the Supreme Court is now deciding whether or not to review).

    That same attorney general is now overseeing a program of ethnic cleansing against mainly Hispanic and Asian immigrants through mass arrests and incarceration, intended to lead to increased deportations as soon as possible, while Trump does everything in his power to bar non-white immigrants from coming to the US legally through his "Hire American" and "Extreme Vetting" executive orders and his support of the Eurocentric RAISE Act, which would take this country a long part of the way back toward the discredited, openly bigoted, immigration policies of 1924.

    Nolan may claim that Trump's above agenda does not meet Nolan's own definition of what constitutes "demonizing" or "scapegoating" non-white, non-European immigrants. I will not argue with Nolan over semantics - he is free to define English vocabulary any way he likes.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-03-2017 at 08:55 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump hasn't used terrorism to demonize and stigmatize immigrants. And it is absurd to say he has done nothing to protect Americans from home-grown dangers because he has opposed gun control laws.

    Are you disagreeing with my comment that he doesn't have the ability to get gun control laws enacted? If so, how do you explain Obama's failure to get them enacted.

    The problem with your position is that you interpret everything Trump does as demonizing and stigmatizing immigrants. Even now, you are accusing him of that for authorizing DHS to screen social media sites even though you acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with it.

    Trump can't win with you. Your attacks on him remind me of the joke about the Pope's hat.

    President Trump invited the Pope for lunch on his mega yacht, the Pope accepted and during lunch, a puff of wind blew the Pontiff's hat off, right into the water.


    It floated off about 50 feet, then the wind died down and it just floated in place. The crew and the secret service were scrambling to launch a boat to go get it, when Trump waved them off, saying "Never mind, boys, I'll get it."


    The Donald climbed over the side of the yacht, walked on the water to the hat, picked it up, walked back on the water, climbed onto the yacht, and handed the Pope his hat.


    The crew was speechless. The security team and the Pope's entourage were speechless. No one knew what to say, not even the Pope. But that afternoon, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all knew how to cover the story. Their banner headlines read,


    "TRUMP CAN'T SWIM!"

    Nolan Rappaport


  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I do not mean to minimize the potential dangers from terrorist attacks. Nor am I arguing against using social media as a tool in the effort to prevent terrorism or violence against our citizens - either from foreign jihadists or from home-grown American neo-Nazis and white supremacists, as in the case of Charlottesville.

    My point is that the president's obsession with using the terrorist threat as a means to demonize and stigmatize immigrants, while doing nothing to protect Americans from equally serious home-grown dangers (as Trump has been adamantly opposed to promoting any kind of gun control laws, and refuses now even to talk about this topic) winds up hurting the very Americans whom Trump has promised and is obligated as president to protect.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-03-2017 at 12:20 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says I stigmatized aliens as potential social media terrorists. How does writing an article about using information that can be found on social media to prevent terrorist attacks like the one in San Bernardino stigmatize aliens? Would writing an article about intelligence efforts that could have prevented 911 stigmatize aliens too?

    I also wonder why he is saying that Trump isn't really trying to make America safer with his regulation to screen social media statements of people involved in immigration processes like visa petitions (the example I used). He had the power to authorize social media screening. He doesn't have the power to get gun control laws enacted. If you doubt me, ask Obama. He did his best to get gun laws enacted and gave up, and he wasn't faced with a Republican congress that controlled both houses.

    Or is Roger just saying that Trump shouldn't waste time on trying to protect us against terrorist attacks because the failure to enact gun control is causing more deaths than terrorist attacks? If that's Roger's point, he should have blamed Trump for not finding a cure for cancer, or preventing deaths caused by drunken drivers, etc. Many things cause more deaths than the failure to enact gun control laws.

    The Las Vegas killer did not have a police record or anything else in his background that would have prevented him from buying guns if there had been gun laws in effect when he was arming himself for the attack. Also, I think the automatic rifles he used are illegal already.

    His final comment is a sarcastic statement about finding foreign terrorists on Facebook. I explain in my article that social media checks could have prevented the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Is Roger saying that attack wasn't bad enough to be worth preventing, or what?


    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-03-2017 at 10:13 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 123 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: