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



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

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Trump, Congress have options on the table to prevent family separation. By Nolan Rappaport

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions' “zero-tolerance policy” for illegal entrieshas caused widespread outrage, but he has just modified a similar zero-tolerance policy that was already in effect.

    President George Bush initiated Operation Streamline in 2005, which required criminal prosecution of all unlawful border crossers in certain sectors. Magistrate judges conducted en masse hearings. As many as 80 defendants at a time pled guilty.

    The program continued when Barack Obama became the president.
    This graph depicts the number of illegal entry prosecutions from April 2007 – April 2018.

    With Operation Streamline, however, deference was given to limits in judicial and detention capacity, which resulted in daily caps on the number of aliens who were charged.

    Executive Order.

    President Donald Trump has issued an executive order stopping DHS from separating children from their parents while they are being detained.

    But the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions requires the release of detained alien children “without unnecessary delay,” which has been interpreted to be no more than 20 days.


    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author. Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

  2. Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban. Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks that it is necessary to protect the country, a victory in what has been a priority since Trump’s first weeks in office and a major affirmation of presidential power.

    The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the opinion.

    Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban, the first of which was issued in January 2017. But the administration had been hopeful about the Supreme Court, because it had previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it.

    Roberts wrote that the presidential proclamation that led to the ban “is squarely within the scope of presidential authority.” And he rejected arguments that it was based on the predominant religion of most of the affected countries.

    “The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices,” he wrote. “The text says nothing about religion.”


    Tags: travel ban Add / Edit Tags
  3. Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Muslim Ban as Exercise of Presidential Power. Will This Allow Trump to Rewrite All Immigration Laws Alone? Roger Algase

    In what is already being called a "Sad Day for America" and drawing comparisons with the notorious Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions. the 5-4 right wing Supreme Court has upheld Trump's Muslim ban order as a "legitimate" exercise of presidential power.

    Will this give Trump authority to rewrite all of the nation's immigration laws by himself in a white supremacist image? I will withhold further comment until after I have seen and read the decision, other than to point out that based on these preliminary reports, the Court majority appears to have deliberately closed its eyes to the overwhelming evidence that all of Trump's Muslim ban orders were motivated by hatred and prejudice against Muslims and their religion, not by any legitimate or genuine national security considerations.

    The danger is that this decision may not only lead to depriving Muslim immigrants and US citizens of all constitutional protections, but could accelerate America's march toward dictatorship under Donald Trump.

    What will come next from this right wing Supreme Court majority? Will the next step be to uphold internment of all Muslims in a throwback to Korematsu if there is another terrorist attack? Will this court uphold internment of all of Trump's opponents on "national security" grounds as some of the dictators that Trump had expressed admiration for are now doing?

    Or will the right-wing dominated Court one day soon uphold a ban on immigration by every racial or religious group that Trump regards as less than human and wants to keep out of America because its members do not have white skins or come from "Countries like Norway"?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-26-2018 at 11:24 AM 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: