ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Latino US Citizen is Detained by ICE in Donald Trump Era. Another Warning That President's Deportation Agenda Hurts Americans Too. Roger Algase

    In one more story about how Latino and other minority US citizens are being put in greater danger of ICE detention and fear of deportation in the Donald Trump era, the Los Angeles Times reports on May 24 that a US born Latino woman from San Bernardino, CA Guadalupe Plascencia, was detained and held for an entire day in ICE custody after being released from a local detention center, where she had been held on a bench warrant for allegedly failing to appear in court as a witness many years before.

    The newspaper reports as follows:

    "But as she tried to leave the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, Plascencia said she was met by immigration enforcement agents, handcuffed and placed in the back of a van. Plascencia would spend the rest of the day in ICE custody, fearful that she would be deported despite becoming an American citizen some 20 years ago, following an amnesty program initiated by Ronald Reagan.

    'I felt helpless, like I was no one', she said in a recent interview. 'Here they talk about that moment, I realized, we don't have rights.'".

    According to the news story, Plascencia repeatedly insisted to ICE officers that she was a US citizen and showed them her California driver's licence, without avail.

    Finally, she was released after her daughter showed ICE her mother's passport, and she is now preparing a lawsuit against ICE. She also told the LA Times that she was verbally abused by ICE agents during her detention and told that she was "no one" until her status was cleared up.

    The full story is at:

    There have been many press reports about how happy some ICE officers are that they are now "unchained" from previous Obama-era restrictions on whom they could arrest or detain, and that they are now free to "do their job".

    In Donald Trump's America, does "doing their job" also include detaining or arresting US citizens who may "look" as if they belong to a Latino or other non-white minority?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 05-26-2017 at 10:55 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. 4th Cir. Upholds Stay of Muslim Ban Order: Majority and Dissent Both Misinterpret Key Phrase in Supreme Ct. Decision. Roger Algase

    On May 25, the full U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 10-3 decision, upheld most of a District Court's injunction against the president's revised executive order barring an estimated 180 million people from six more than 99 per cent Muslim countries from entering the United States for alleged national security reasons.

    The Court's majority determined that the president's asserted national security justification for the order was essentially a sham and was thrown in after the fact to try to justify a religious ban, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the government from disfavoring a particular religion.

    The full text of the decision, along with the concurring and dissenting opinions can be found at

    The main issue in the case, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, was whether the courts have the power to look behind the surface language of the Executive Order and analyze its history in order to determine its real; purpose, or whether they are bound by the four corners of the order itself.

    In his majority decision, Chief Judge Gregory quoted the old saying "None are so blind as those who will not see." and held that the courts, under the doctrine laid out in the controlling Supreme Court case of Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), have the power to review a decision by the executive branch to deny a visa or entry to the US (to one person, in that case, not 180 million people) unless the decision to keep someone out of the US is for reasons that are "facially legitimate and bona fide".

    Judge Gregory ruled that Trump's six Muslim country entry ban met the test of being "facially legitimate" because the order nowhere mentions Islam as a religion, but, on its face, is based only on nationality.

    However, relying mainly, but not exclusively, on a long history of undeniably anti-Muslim statements that Trump made during the presidential campaign, and what the judge called the "vague" nature of the national security justifications set forth in the executive order, he held that the government failed to meet the second part of this test, namely that the order was issued in good faith.

    In his dissent, however, Judge Niemeyer argued that the courts have no power to look behind the reasons for an entry ban executive order unless the order shows on its face that it was issued in bad faith. Moreover, the dissenting judge argued, looking into a presidential candidate's campaign statements in order to determine the history of an executive order would inhibit free political debate.

    Without going at this time into the circumstances and history of Kliendienst v. Mandel, which I have written about previously, but just looking at the plain words of the key phrase, "facially legitimate and bona fide", which both the 4th Circuit's majority and dissent agreed was the controlling standard for determining the validity of the president's six country entry ban executive order, it is evident that both sides misinterpreted this phrase as applied to the case at hand.

    First, there can be no doubt that, purely as a matter of fact, Judge Gregory's majority opinion is unassailable in its conclusion that the executive order was issued in bad faith based on the history of Trump's constant attacks on Muslims as a religion during the campaign (such as, as quoted by the Court: "Islam hates us", to give only one example).

    Judge Gregory did not mention, but could have done so, that Trump also showed more than ample evidence of anti-Muslim animus after becoming president by appointing General Michael Flynn and Breitbart News Editor Stephen Bannon, both of whom are on record as making the strongest possible statements imaginable against Islam as a religion (Flynn called Islam as "cancer") as top presidential advisers.

    (According to news reports, Trump still even now regrets having fired Flynn in an unrelated scandal.)

    While Judge Gregory was unquestionably on solid ground on the question of the president's lack of good faith in issuing the order, as set forth in the above Mandel standard, the jjudge was mistaken in concluding that Trump's executive order met the first part of Mandel's two-part test, i.e. being "facially legitimate".

    Judge Gregory found that Trump's order was legitimate on its face because it did not specifically mention Muslims or target Islam as a religion. In other words (my own, not Judge Gregory's), since the order did not say: "I hate Muslims and I want to keep as many of them out of my country as I can legally get away with barring." it was "facially" acceptable.

    With all due respect to Judge Gregory, this was a clear misreading of Trump's executive order.

    How could a blanket order barring 180 million people (to use the figure Judge Gregory mentions in his decision), consisting of the entire population of six almost 100 percent Muslim countries (with only a few exceptions which Trump's own presidential spokesperson and adviser, Stephen Miller referred to as merely "technical" - see Judge Gregory's opinion), be anything other than a ban directed against Muslims as a religion on its face?

    Even the infamous 1880's and 1890's laws banning citizens of China, known at that time and to subsequent history as the "Chinese Exclusion Laws" did not ban every Chinese citizen - they "only" banned Chinese "laborers". Chinese citizens who were "merchants" were not covered by the ban.

    But no one ever argued, or has ever argued since, that the exclusion laws were not directed against Chinese as an ethnic group merely because there were some exceptions (in all likelihood many millions of people, if one counts all of the people in China at the time who would have qualified as "merchants").

    Indeed the Supreme Court itself, in the "Chinese Exclusion Case" (Chae Chan Ping, 1889), made clear in upholding the original exclusion law, that the intent was to bar Chinese immigrants because of their race.

    Therefore, Judge Gregory's finding that Trump's executive order was "facially legitimate", and was only defective because of its failure to meet the good faith requirement was incorrect.

    Turning to Judge Niemeyer's dissent, an equally serious, if not even more so, misunderstanding of the Mandel phrase "facially legitimate and bona fide" becomes apparent.

    Judge Niemeyer interprets the term "facially" to mean both "facially legitimate" and "facially" bona fide. But this is an obvious tautology.

    Under this interpretation, "legitimate and "bona fide " would mean the same thing, because a statement that is not in good faith on its face cannot possibly be "legitimate".

    Moreover, how can it ever be possible to tell that a statement is made in bad faith just by looking at the four corners of the statement itself? "Bad faith" always implies misrepresentation or intent to deceive.

    If a statement is based on a lie, how can anyone tell that merely from the statement itself, unless the statement admits that it is false, which never happens?

    (In that case, it would recall the ancient Greek paradox: "All Cretans are liars. I am from Crete. Am I lying or telling the truth?")

    Therefore, while Judge Gregory's conclusion was correct that the president's executive order was unconstitutionally invalid as religious discrimination because the national security justification was given in bad faith, he should also have determined that the order was illegitimate as prohibited religion discrimination on its face as well.

    With regard to Judge Niemeyer's dissent, the argument that the executive order was valid because it showed no sign of bad faith on its face, was flawed, because, by definition, it is virtually impossible for bad faith ever to appear on the face of any document, and one can only tell if there is bad faith through extrinsic evidence.
    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 (including H-1B, O-1, J-1 work visa and green card Labor Certification applicants, among others) from diverse parts of the world to realize their dream of living and working in America.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 05-26-2017 at 04:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Trump's "Unimaginably Cruel" Budget Betrays his American Voters to Pay for Immigrant Detention and Border Wall. Roger Algase

    Donald Trump has released a budget proposal which would devastate millions of Americans who voted for him in the hope that he would protect or raise their standards of living, by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from urgently needed lifelines for less affluent Americans, including Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Social Security Disability, in order to spend more money on, among other things, immigration judges, immigration focused US attorneys, deputy marshals and more prison space to detain unauthorized immigrants; and, last but not least, his obsession with the Mexican Border Wall.

    This is according to two POLITICO news reports:


    CNN now reports that Trump's proposed budget also includes $1.6 billion to pay for the first few dozen miles of the "bricks and mortar" wall.

    The Hill, in a May 23 story, quotes Hillary Clinton, who defeated Trump in the presidential popular vote contest by almost 3 million votes last November, as saying that Trump's budget reaches "an unimaginable level of cruelty" towards [American] children, people with disabilities, women and seniors.

    Certainly, some may try to dismiss these comments as merely partisan words from a "sore loser" (or popular vote winner, to be more accurate), but millions of working class and low income voters in Appalachia and other areas who gave Trump his electoral college victory may be forced to agree with her comment as they see their own children go hungry, or find themselves no longer able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when they are suffering from illness, due to Trump's proposed budget cuts.

    To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, it may be cold comfort for the millions of American families whose lives would be devastated by losing their "bread" due to these heartless cuts in essential programs, that they may be able to "eat the cake" of knowing that at least some of the money diverted away from these programs will be used to prosecute and lock up more Latino, Middle Eastern, Asian and black immigrants, in the case of most of whom their only "crime" consists of seeking a better life in this country, and to build a Wall as a symbol of the message that immigrants of color are no longer welcome in America.

    The terrible effect that Trump's shifting money over from programs desperately needed by millions of his own voters so he can cause even more panic, fear and despair among immigrants, and break up even more immigrant families, is just another of the many lessons that Americans are coming to learn in the "Donald Trump Era", showing that policies which are ostensibly directed only against immigrants can bring even greater suffering and hardship to Americans.

    We may be seeing many more such examples during whatever time may remain in Donald Trump's presidency, given the ongoing accumulation of scandals allegedly involving the White House.
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's practice is concentrated primarily in H-1-B specialty occupation, O-1 extraordinary ability and J-1 trainee work visas; and in green cards through labor certification and through opposite sex or same sex marriage. His email address is

    Updated 05-24-2017 at 12:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Republicans are preparing extreme immigration measures. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty Images

    The Trump administration has found a way to deport millions of undocumented aliens without hearings, and the Republican-controlled congress is working on enforcement-only legislation.

    On May 16, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), introduced the Davis-Oliver Act, H.R. 2431. Davis and Oliver were law enforcement officers who were murdered by an alien returning to the United States illegally after being deported twice.

    Highlights from Labrador’s summary of the Davis-Oliver Act.

    • It provides states with congressional authorization to enact and enforce their own immigration laws to end the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement.

    • It withholds certain federal grants from jurisdictions that refuse to honor immigration detainers or prohibit their law enforcement officers from giving immigration-related information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    • Jurisdictions that refuse to honor detainer requests and release criminal aliens may be sued by the victims of crimes the aliens commit after they are released.

    • It makes membership in a criminal gang grounds for deportation.

    • It requires background checks to be completed before immigration benefits can be granted.

    Criminalization of undocumented aliens.

    Section 314
    makes crimes out of illegal entry and unlawful presence. If an offender does not have three misdemeanor convictions or a felony conviction, a first offense can result in imprisonment for up to six months. Subsequent offenses can result in imprisonment for up to two years.

    If the alien has three misdemeanor convictions or a felony conviction, however, the term of imprisonment can be up to 20 years. This is not as harsh as some of the criminal provisions which are in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) already. Smuggling an alien into the country or helping one to remain here unlawfully (harboring) may “be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life” if it results in the death of any person.

    Home free magnet.

    President Obama created what I call the “home free magnet”, when he focused enforcement on undocumented aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes or had been caught near the border after making an illegal entry. Aliens wanting to enter the United States illegally knew that they would be safe from deportation once they had reached the interior of the country.


    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.

  5. Trump's Attacks on Clinton as "Weak" on Muslim Refugees Helped Him Win. Should the Courts Ignore This in Muslim Ban Lawsuits? Roger Algase

    The following comment, which has been revised and expanded as of May 21, will continue with some of the points I discussed in my earlier comment on this topic dated May 9.

    Amid the countless reasons put forth by innumerable pundits for Hillary Clinton's losing an election that even Donald Trump has (accurately, for once) said she should have won, ranging from the Alpha of alleged Russian hacking of the DNC to the Omega of a letter by a certain government official by the name of James Comey, there is one important factor that has been largely overlooked by the media, but should not be overlooked by the Federal 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals.

    This is the role that the use of specifically anti-Muslim attacks directed against Hillary Clinton by Trump and his supporters may have had in determining the outcome of the election. The nature of these attacks, and their importance, deserve to be among the factors that the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts should consider in determining the legality of Trump's latest six Muslim country entry ban order.

    While Trump's revised executive order's actions against refugees, also blocked by the Hawaii federal judge's order now under review by the 9th Circuit, have received far less publicity, they are also arguably just as important to a judicial assessment of Trump's real motives for the entry ban order as the six almost 100 per vent Muslim country ban itself.

    Which of Trump's and his supporters many attacks on Muslims, and, especially Muslim refugees, am I referring to, and why are they so important to the six Muslim country and world-wide refugee ban litigation?

    Let us take a close look at an October 2016 article, appearing just a month before the election, in Breitbart News, then under the direction of Stephen Bannon, who, as every Muslim and non-Muslim in America knows, is now Trump's senior presidential adviser. The article bears a title typical for this publication, which has never been known for using restrained language:

    Critics: Hillary Clinton Plans to Flood U.S. With Muslim Refugees

    The article begins with a dire warning:

    "More than 45 per cent of the refugees resettled in the United States in FY 2016, 38,556 out of 84,995 were Muslim, according to the Department of State's interactive website. Of the 12,587 Syrian refugees who were resettled in the United States in FY 2016, more than 99 per cent, 12,487, were Muslim."

    The article then, after quoting from a National Review piece attacking the Democrats for supporting "aggressive multiculturalism" (an obvious code word for Latino, Middle Eastern, Asian and black immigrants) as opposed to "patriotic assimilation" (i.e. European immigrants, as were favored by the discredited and long since repealed 1924 Immigration Act which Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions had such high praise for as a Senator only two years ago, in his 2015 Immigration Handbook for Congressional Republicans), continues with a direct attack on Hillary Clinton.

    quotes from an article by Ann Corcoran, who specializes in blogging against Muslim refugees, when she is not warning that America is in danger of being taken over by Sharia law. See:

    According to Corcoran, as quoted in Breitbart's above referenced article:

    "If Clinton is elected, she will certainly bring in at least 200,000 refugees in her first year, the majority of whom will be from Muslim dominated countries...

    Hillary Clinton is clearly hiding her real plans from the American people. If she wins the election, she...will...flood the country with refugees from countries that hate us..."

    Breitbart also states:

    "Voters strongly oppose President Obama's plan to bring 110,000 Middle Eastern and African refugees to this country next year, up from 85,000 this year, and view that decision as an increased danger to national security, according to a Rasmussen poll."

    Is there any question about which religion the overwhelming majority of Middle Eastern Refugees and a large percentage of anticipated African refugees would belong to?

    But, as Breitbart News also makes clear in the same article, wildly inflated numbers of refugees whom Hillary Clinton allegedly planned to bring to the United States were not merely bandied about by Donald Trump's surrogates or supporters, but by Trump himself and his top immigration adviser, Jeff Sessions:

    "On September 20 in High Point, North Carolina, GOP nominee Donald Trump, citing a Senate study, said: 'Altogether Hillary Clinton's plan would bring in 620,000 refugees in her first term, alone, with no effective way ti screen or vet them. Her plan would cost $400 billion in terms of lifetime welfare and entitlement costs.'"

    And what "Senate study" did Trump have in mind when he made this speech? Breitbart reports:

    "But the 620,000 estimate does not come from the Trump campaign. Instead, it comes from a statement released by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chaired by Sen, Jeff Sessions (R-AL)"

    And this was not Trump's only attack against Clinton based on the issue of predominantly Muslim refugees: Mother Jones reported the following about a speech Trump made at a September, 2016 rally in Ft. Myers, Florida:

    "Trump attacked Clinton as weak on immigration and terrorism, saying the Democratic nominee 'has the most open borders policy of anyone ever to seek the presidency.' He also falsely claimed that ISIS prefers that Clinton win the election. "They want her so badly to be your president, you have no idea.'"

    The same report also states:

    "Later in the day, the Trump campaign issued a statement that called for 'extreme vetting' of refugees and keeping the number of Syrian refugees in the United States at their current low levels."

    Here are some excerpts from Trump's statement referred to in the above story:

    "Today, Hillary Clinton showed that she will say anything - and blame anyone - to shift attention away from the weakness she showed as Secretary of State. The Obama-Clinton doctrine of not taking ISIS seriously enough has emboldened terrorists all over the world. They are hoping and praying that Hillary Clinton becomes president so they can continue their savagery and murder...

    That's why I've proposed extreme vetting for immigrants from troubled parts of the world where terrorists live and train and oppose Hillary Clinton's 550% increase in the number of refugees from the conflict in Syria."

    What, exactly, did Trump mean by the term "extreme vetting"?

    Is it anything other than a Muslim entry ban?

    It is nothing other than that, according to Trump's response at his October 9, 2016 debate with Clinton: Here is the exchange, as reported in the transcript of the debate:

    "RADDATZ: Would you please explain whether or not the Muslim ban still stands?

    It's called extreme vetting." [Italics added.]

    After this bald admission that the Muslim ban and "extreme vetting" are one and the same thing, Trump continued as follows, according to the debate transcript:

    "We are going to areas like Syria where they're coming in by the tens of thousands because of Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550 percent increase over Obama. People are coming into our country like we have no idea who they are, where they are from, what their feelings about our country is [sic], and she wants 550 percent more. This is going to be the great Trojan Horse of all time...

    But I don't want to have...hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their values and their love for our country."

    In addition to Trump's utterly baseless claim that the US was letting in refugees from Syria "when we know nothing about them" (after the normal 2-year screening process which was in place for Syrian refugees under Obama!), the last sentence of Trump's above response goes beyond the specific issue of terrorism and into the larger "cultural" attack which has been used to exclude unpopular minority immigrants from the time of the anti-Irish Know-Nothings in the mid-19th century, the Asian exclusion laws around the turn of the 20th century, and the anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924.

    Here, Trump is suggesting that, even apart from any alleged terrorist connections or sympathies, Syrian refugees may not fit in with American "values", or may be lacking in "love" for America, just as Chinese immigrants were accused by the US Supreme Court of being unable to assimilate in is notorious Chae Chan Ping decision in 1889, and as every other minority immigrant group in our history has been accused of at one time or another.

    Taken as a whole, Trump's above remarks show a clear pattern of using the terror issue as an entry way to excluding all members of an entire major world religion from the United States (just as Trump is now using "crime" as an excuse to ramp up the deportation of 11 million mainly Latino immigrants).

    Is this something that the 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit and other federal courts which may be deciding the legality of Trump's Muslim ban orders can be expected to turn a blind eye to?

    There is a powerful case to be made for the proposition that Trump's rhetoric accusing Hillary Clinton of being "weak" against the alleged danger of admitting Muslim refugees did more to help him win the electoral vote last November (while losing the popular vote to Clinton by almost 3 million votes) and become president than any other factor (including, to be sure, Clinton's own perceived weakness as a candidate, symbolized by her vapid, meaningless and now totally forgotten campaign slogan: "Stronger Together" ). (Oy!)

    In issuing the original and revised Muslim ban orders, was Trump's real concern one of national security? Or was he instead fulfilling a campaign promise (yes, even presidents sometime do that, now and then) that he made in his notorious worldwide Muslim ban speech of December 7, 2015?

    Isn't this something that the federal courts, under the doctrine of separation of powers on which our democracy depends, have not only the right, but the duty, to look into?

    And wouldn't this be the case even if Trump had not, after becoming president, continued his previous anti-Muslim policies by appointing Michael Flynn, who said that the Muslim religion was a "cancer", and Stephen Bannon, the Breitbart News chief who believes that the "West" is in a "War of Civilizations" with the Muslim world, to the highest level advisory positions in his administration?

    And this is not to mention Trump's appointment of Jeff Sessions, the source of the above inflated figures quoted by Breitbart News, whose only purpose was to scare American voters into thinking that this country would be inundated by hundreds of thousands of America-hating Muslim refugees if Hillary Clinton became president, as his Attorney General (with responsibility for defending the Muslim ban orders in court)!

    Are the federal courts obliged to pretend, to adopt a legal fiction that flies in the face of all reality and truth concerning the history of this issue, to the effect that none of the president's Islamophobic statements or actions, before and after his becoming president, have any meaning or connection with the origin and purpose of both the initial seven country version and his latest six Muslim country entry ban order?

    In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) a leading Supreme Court decision involving the capacity of the federal courts to review a State Department visa denial, the Court quoted a statement by Justice Felix Frankfurter, to the effect that the power of the courts to review executive branch immigration decisions might be different if the "slate" (of judicial precedents) were "clean". But, referring to a line of decisions dating from the dark period of the Chinese exclusion laws, Frankfurter said that the slate was not clean.

    In the case of Trump's Muslim ban orders, the issue, to be sure, involves a different "slate" - the president's own speeches and actions, both before and after taking office. Who can possibly say that that slate is clean?

    In conclusion, let us suppose that both of the above Circuit Courts, or the Supreme Court, accept the president's meretricious (from the Latin word meretrix - look it up) argument that the courts have no power to look behind the surface language of the latest six Muslim country entry ban order in order to ascertain its true purpose, and that they are instead required to accept the national security pretext set forth in the order at face value.

    Can there be any possible doubt that if the Muslim entry ban is upheld, the president, whose relationship with the truth has been tenuous at best in most of his immigration statements (as even many of his own supporters would admit), would seize on such a decision as an endorsement of his campaign statements that all Muslims are suspect, including several million loyal American citizens, and that the rights of these US citizens to free exercise of their religion, or their personal freedom from surveillance, or even from WW2 Japanese-American style internment if the untrammeled will of the president so determines, are no long recognized in Donald Trump's America?

    And if the rights of Muslim Americans disappear, how secure will be the rights of the rest of the American people who are not Muslims?

    This is the ultimate danger of Trump's Muslim ban orders, as well as his mass deportation agenda against mainly Mexican and other Latino immigrants. On the surface, they may only appear to affect the rights of non-citizens.

    But history, as well as so many of Trump's own attacks on the media, the judiciary, and just about anyone else who opposes him, show that once the rights and freedoms of immigrants start to vanish, the rights of the American people will soon follow.
    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 receive work visas and green cards.

    Roger's practice is concentrated primarily in H-1B specialty occupation, O-1 extraordinary ability and J-1 trainee work visas; and in green cards through labor certification, and through opposite sex or same sex marriage. His email address is

    Updated 05-24-2017 at 07:52 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 239 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: