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



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. Forcing 1-Year-Old Babies to Defend Themselves in Immigration Court is Beyond Cruel and Insane. It Might be Crime Against Humanity. Roger Algase

    The following comment has been expanded and updated as of July 9 at 8:59 am:

    Every president leaves behind a legacy, or at least is remembered for one or a very few things in particular.

    Donald Trump seems to be doing everything possible to make sure that, more than any other president in our history (since he did not start this travesty, but is instead putting previous abuses on steroids) he will be remembered, not only as the president who was so obsessed with keeping Hispanic and other non-white immigrants out of the United States that he tore more than 2,000 young children from their parents and put them in shackles, cages, empty office buildings and desert tents, but the president who forced one-year old children to bone up on US immigration law sufficiently to be able to defend themselves before judges in deportation hearings.

    And, as thinkprogress.org reports, his administration is doing so after, in many cases, the parents of the children involved have already agreed to accept deportation after being lied to by DHS officers who told them that once deported, they would be reunited with their children. It now appears that many of these deported Central American parents might never be reunited with or see their children again.

    https://thinkprogress.org/migrant-to...-8474ea86129d/

    The above horrifying report raises a perfectly legitimate question as to whether "removal hearings" under the above conditions deserve to be called judicial or legal proceedings at all, at least as these have been understood during the 5,000 years during which proceedings under the name of law have been recorded throughout human history, beginning with ancient Egypt and Babylonia

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/cuneiform-law

    or whether America's current immigration court proceedings involving young children should more properly be called a crime against humanity, as a June 23 article in the Harvard Crimson suggests. See:

    Should We Send Trump to the Hague?


    https://www.thecrimson.com/column/af...rump-to-hague/

    For more about the ramifications of Trump's child separation policy, which has now been officially cancelled, but which is still causing what may be irreparable damage to many Central American and other non-white immigrant children and their families, see The Guardian, June 5:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-from-parents

    I will leave it to Donald Trump. Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller, the architects of this regime's immigration agenda, to answer this question.

    However, while they are figuring this out, it is also important to note that these terrible abuses, this cruel mockery of any concept that has ever gone under the name of Rule of Law, are not isolated policy decisions. They are part of a larger picture of a president, and his administration, who are determined to roll back a half century of progress toward racial justice and equal opportunity for immigrants to America from all parts of the world, not just white Europe, as was the case under the openly bigoted 1924 "Nordics-only" national origins immigration act which Sessions had such high praise for in his immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans authored in January, 2015, only three and a half years ago.

    The crying, screaming babies and other terrified young children who are being dragged into immigration court after being torn away from parents whom they might never see again and told by the Trump regime that they have to represent themselves in front of often confused immigration judges, who could never have imagined while they were in law school that they would ever have to preside over such a travesty, are only part of a larger picture.

    This larger picture also includes potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other immigrant families who are facing the prospect of being split up by Trumps' assault on legal immigration from countries which are "not like Norway" - his attempt to abolish extended family immigration and the Diversity Visa; his revocation of TPS for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been living in America peacefully and productively for many years but lack the president's essential immigration requirement of having a light-colored skin; his DACA cancellation; his Muslim Ban which has just been upheld by a Supreme Court which is now on the point of becoming even more right wing and authoritarian as we speak; and even Trump's hypocritical attempts to make employment-based H-1B and other legal visas and green cards much more difficult - unless, of course, the sponsored immigrants happen to be working at Mar-a-Lago.

    And the crying, screaming devastated young children who are now being dragged into immigration court without parents, without lawyers (in many cases) and without the faintest idea of what is going on or ability to stand up for themselves, are only the beginning of a movement which, based on Trump's campaign statements and those of many of the anti-immigrant zealots who helped him gain the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million votes, could very soon lead to millions of American-born children - and adults, losing their birthright US citizenship - again for having the "wrong" skin color.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/polit...nia/index.html

    When this happens, as it very likely will begin to if Trump survives the Mueller investigation into his assorted alleged scandals, and especially if he wins another term (or, not inconceivably, becomes president for life under our fragile and easily overturned constitution), the screaming babies now being hauled into his deportation courts will very possibly not be the only brown-skinned people in America who may have quite a lot to cry about.
    _______________________
    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 obtain work visas and green cards. His practice is focused on work visas through specialty occupation (H-1B) and extraordinary ability (O-1), as well as green cards through labor certification and through marriage or other family relationships.

    Roger also writes about immigration law from the standpoint of racial equality, equal justice before the law and fundamental human rights, all of which are now under unprecedented attack. His email address is
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 07-16-2018 at 10:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Supreme Court Says Foreign Nationals Have No Due Process Rights Here. By Matt O'Brien

    Introductory note. I didn't write this article. Although I think it is correct to some extent, the author seems to have ignored our treaty obligations not to send aliens to countries where they will be persecuted or tortured.

    Contrary to what the liberal media and open-borders advocates say, immigrants are not owed same constitutional protections as regular Americans
    July 5, 2018


    President Donald Trump recently suggested that illegal aliens should be sent back to their countries of origin without hearings and the years of litigation that often follow.

    He branded the current process, which permits illegal aliens to repeatedly contest orders of removal, as “a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order.”

    The mainstream media wasted no time in characterizing his suggestion as a “push to end due process for illegal immigrants.” And multiple news outlets made all manner of wild claims about the so-called rights of illegal aliens. But once again, in an effort to portray the chief executive as a xenophobe, the open-borders lobby has gotten its facts backward.

    Trump is actually right on the mark. Much of the current legal framework for removing illegal aliens from the United States consists of badly reasoned federal district-court decisions, ridiculous settlement agreements, and politically motivated policy decisions.

    The open-borders lobby and its handmaidens in the mainstream media have consistently represented this hodgepodge as a clear articulation of “affirmative rights.”

    But that representation is misleading.

    Illegal aliens are entitled to considerably less immigration due process than their advocates would have us believe.

    And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:

    It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. "As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law." Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.; Hilton v. Merritt)

    "It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self- preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." (Ekiu v. United States)

    The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. (Wong Wing v. United States)

    "Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien." (Knauff v. Shaughnessy)

    Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)

    Read more at https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...s-rights-here/



    About the author. Matt O'Brien is the former chief of the national security division within the fraud-detection and national-security directorate at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). He has also served as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s assistant chief counsel in the New York District. He is currently director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

    Updated 07-08-2018 at 01:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: