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


中文移民日报




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Comment withdrawn.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-17-2018 at 05:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Comment withdrawn.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-17-2018 at 05:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Vox.com's Dara Lind writes the following on April 9 with regard specifically to the so called: "catch and release" laws which protect mainly Central American women and children with legitimate claims to asylum in the US from incarceration or summary deportation while their cases are pending. However, her comment could just as well to Trump's entire agenda of using "border security" as an excuse to stir up fear and hatred of Mexican, Muslim and other dark skinned immigrants as part of his drive toward authoritarian power.

    To quote Dara Lind:

    "Rhetorically, the trope of widespread, pernicious, 'catch and release' should be understood as a new variation on Trump's favorite themes: that immigrants are infiltrating the homeland and importing violence and crime, and border agents can't be as tough as they need to be because of feckless politicians - Democrats mostly- who don't believe in borders."

    https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/1719009...migrants-trump

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-17-2018 at 05:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Comment withdrawn

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-18-2018 at 01:15 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Comment withdrawn.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-18-2018 at 01:16 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is always welcome to respond to my point on the merits. My point, simply put, is that Trump's sending National Guard soldiers to the Mexican border as part of a stated effort to "seal the border" and build a wall against Mexico, two things that no previous president has ever advocated doing to the best of my knowledge, at a time when illegal border crossings are reportedly at one of the lowest points in years, is very hard to justify on any reasonable grounds of utility or necessity.

    However, sending in troops (even in a limited capacity, as was the case with his two immediate predecessors), has unquestionable propaganda value in stirring up the same kind of anti-immigrants prejudice which played a major role in getting Trump elected in the first place, and has, very arguably, sustained his support among his base despite new revelations of alleged corruption and abuse of power in his administration which are appearing in the media on an almost daily basis.

    Accusing commentators who make serious, fact-based points about less than positive aspects of Trump's immigration policies and his administration in general of being "blinded by anger and hatred" is not going to make the facts on which those perfectly justified expressions of opinion are based go away.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law




    Updated 04-16-2018 at 03:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not going to respond to anything else Roger says about this article. He is blinded by anger and hatred.

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan started by arguing that Trump was only the continuing border policies of presidents Bush and Obama. Now, Nolan is arguing that Trump is pursuing a different policy from President Obama, who Nolan says had allegedly lost interest in fighting illegal immigration (even though President Obama deported more than 2 million people, the largest number so far of any president in our history).

    Which is it? Is Donald Trump continuing in President Obama's footsteps, as Nolan's article contends, or is Trump doing things differently on the border?

    And is Nolan suggesting that President Bush and President Obama were not "doing something to fight illegal immigration" because, unlike Trump, they did not call for sealing the border or building a 2,400 mile 30 ft. high border wall (different from 700 miles of fencing in my dictionary)?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    If Roger takes a closer look at my article, he will see that my point is just that national guard troops provided useful assistance to the border patrol for previous administrations. I never indicated in any way that the border patrol was able to secure the border with that assistance.

    The border will never be secure without effective interior enforcement. You can't stop illegal crossings when the crossers know that they will be home free once they reach the interior because only aliens caught near the border and serious criminals are deported, i.e., Obama's enforcement policy.

    And the only comparison I made was to point out that the guard was a good thing in previous administrations and likely to be a good thing for Trump's administration, IF he uses them the same way that Bush and Obama did. We don't know yet how he intends to use them. But that doesn't seem to matters to his critics.

    The reasoning goes, "He is an immigrant hating bigot, so everything he does is bad." That's right, isn't it Roger?

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 04-08-2018 at 05:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With illegal Mexican border crossings at the lowest level in many years, as far as actual apprehensions are concerned - one can always speculate and make wild, unreliable, guesses about people who may come across without being caught - and with the "caravan" of an estimated 1,000 desperate women and children reportedly on their way north to exercise the right they may have to seek asylum under US law now having been broken up by the Mexican authorities, it is hard to see what urgency there is for sending (unarmed) troops to the border now.

    There is good reason to believe that this is nothing more than a public relations gesture by Trump to assuage Fox News right wing critics such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity who are reportedly upset with Trump for signing the omnibus spending bill without border wall funding, and to reassure his white nationalist base that, yes, he really still does hate Mexican and other brown-skinned immigrants. See Heather Digby Parton, writing in salon.com on April 6:

    https://www.salon.com/2018/04/06/tru...e-ann-coulter/

    Meanwhile according to one report, eight Catholic bishops along the border have injected a note of reality into the border controversy, in welcome contrast to Trump's demagogic posturing.

    Here is the bishops' statement about the Mexican border, as reported in the Baltimore Sun:

    "This is not a war zone but instead it is comprised of many peaceful and law abiding communities that are also generous in their response to human suffering."

    The bishops added that Trump's harsh rhetoric:

    "promotes the dehumanization of immigrants, as if all were threats and criminals."

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...407-story.html

    Is there any other real purpose to Trump's threat to seal the Mexican border and his obsessive insistence on building a border wall of a kind that none of his predecessors in the White House has ever spoken about or even imagined, but that despots or would-be despots such as Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Un have been familiar with?

    Now, Viktor Orban, Hungary's anti-immigrant (and judging by his repeated attacks on George Soros, arguably also antisemitic) strongman, is also building a wall to keep Middle Eastern and African immigrants out of Europe.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1692MH

    These tyrants are the real inspiration for Trump's Mexican border policies, not President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-16-2018 at 03:09 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan started by arguing that Trump was only the continuing border policies of presidents Bush and Obama. Now, Nolan is arguing that Trump is pursuing a different policy from President Obama, who Nolan says had allegedly lost interest in fighting illegal immigration (even though President Obama deported more than 2 million people, the largest number so far of any president in our history).

    Which is it? Is Donald Trump continuing in President Obama's footsteps, as Nolan's article contends, or is Trump doing things differently on the border?

    And is Nolan suggesting that President Bush and President Obama were not "doing something to fight illegal immigration" because, unlike Trump, they did not call for sealing the border or building a 2,400 mile 30 ft. high border wall (different from 700 miles of fencing in my dictionary)?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-16-2018 at 03:07 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Once again, Donald Trump is the worst enemy of the people who try to defend him. In this case, no one has been louder or more vociferous than Trump in claiming that his border enforcement policies are the diametric opposite of those of previous administrations; especially Obama's, which Trump has falsely accused again and again of allowing illegal immigrants, criminals and drugs to "pour into" the US through our "open border".

    If Trump is wrong about Obama failing to secure the border, how do you explain the fact that there were so many aliens in removal proceedings during his administration that Trump inherited an immigration court backlog crisis from him? A crisis that was so out of hand when Trump took office that he has not been able to make any progress in dealing with it.

    Nolan also fails to mention that Trump is claiming that his purpose in using National Guard troops is to "seal the border" until his wall is built.

    Interesting comment. Roger apparently approves of border security that allows illegal crossings and condemns attempts to prevent any illegal crossings from occurring.


    When did either Bush or Obama claim that they were planning to seal the border or build a wall?

    Obama voted for the Fence Act of 2008 when he was a Senator. That authorized and funded the construction of 700 miles of border fencing. But Roger’s right that he didn’t build any new fencing while he was president. He seemed to lose interest in border security measures when he became a candidate for presidency.

    Interestingly, Hillary Clinton experienced the same transition. She voted for the Fence Act too when she was a senator and seemed to lose interest when she became a candidate for the presidency. Also interesting that her husband, Bill, signed IIRIRA when he was president and in his signing statements praised it for doing something to fight illegal immigration.

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This updated reply to Nolan's article is posted as of 10:05 pm on April 9.

    An April 9 article in the Washington Post (sorry- I don't have a link - please go to their website), says that the troops that Trump is sending to the border will not be authorized to arrest any migrants or carry out armed surveillance. They will be doing support tasks only.

    Therefore, Trump's claim that he is using these troops to "seal the border" is pure fantasy - as much of a lie as almost everything else he has been saying about immigration.

    My earlier responses to Nolan's article appear below:

    Once again, Donald Trump is the worst enemy of the people who try to defend him. In this case, no one has been louder or more vociferous than Trump in claiming that his border enforcement policies are the diametric opposite of those of previous administrations; especially Obama's, which Trump has falsely accused again and again of allowing illegal immigrants, criminals and drugs to "pour into" the US through our "open border".

    Nolan also fails to mention that Trump is claiming that his purpose in using National Guard troops is to "seal the border" until his wall is built.

    When did either Bush or Obama claim that they were planning to seal the border or build a wall?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 04-16-2018 at 03:10 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Thanks, Roger.
    Nolan Rappaport
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This is an excellent article by Nolan, one of his best. It shows that there is no magic wand or silver bullet solution to the immigration court backlog crisis, and that there are problems with disparities in decision-making among judges, the selection of immigration judges and, in the opinion of many, due process, which imposing numerical quotas would do nothing to remedy and might even aggravate.

    Finally, Nolan raises the possibility of a legalization program as at least a partial solution. Are the president and Congressional leaders in both parties listening?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Yes, folks, here is the very latest news on Trump's latest (April 1) twitter rant against non-white immigrants, showing exactly how much Donald Trump "loves" the Dreamers; and how he is their very best, absolute, true-blue Best Friend - no doubt about it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/u...tion-daca.html

    With "best friends" like Donald Trump, DACA recipients don't need any enemies.

    For more about the tirade of poisonous hatred which Trump let loose against Dreamers, Mexicans, and, by extension, non-white immigrants in general while on his way to church to honor the principle of good will toward all people which is celebrated all over the world on Easter Sunday, see The Guardian (April 1):

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-attacks-nafta

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 04-01-2018 at 09:09 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    A comment from Paul Schmidt, a very highly respected, liberal immigration lawyer. You should visit his excellent blog on immigration issues.
    http://immigrationcourtside.com

    This seems like an interesting idea that could work if, and it’s a big “if,” the parties can get over their respective “all or nothing” approaches.

    For the Dems, it gives the Dreamers closure, permanent status, and a path to eventual citizenship. A very big deal!

    At the same time, the GOP and Trump basically get three of “Trump’s pillars” in some form or another.

    Yes, the inclusion of the “parent bar” could be a sticking point for the Dems. But, it will be at least three to five years after the Dreamers get their “green cards” before any of them would be eligible to naturalize. By that time, both the thinking and the politics behind the issue of status for parents of naturalized U.S. citizens could well change. We would definitely have better data about the “real universe” in terms of numbers.

    Even now, many Dreamers no longer have two living parents who would be able to or interested in immigrating. Estimates of “future impact” based on the assumption that each Dreamer would “immigrate” two parents always have appeared wildly exaggerated to me. A “special immigrant program” would provide better data.

    Also, once Dreamers become Lawful Permanent Residents and U.S. citizens, they are likely to be in a position favorably to influence the dialogue about parental migration.

    PWS
    03-27-18

    http://immigrationcourtside.com/2018...-save-the-day/

    Posted by Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 03-28-2018 at 10:25 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Again, my above comments do not imply any criticism of Nolan's own goal in making constructive suggestions about possible immigration compromise solutions. I am only pointing out that compromise is harder than ever in an atmosphere created by a president who has consistently been demeaning and denigrating whole groups of immigrants and parts of the world because of their skin color or religion.

    Trump also has to deal with even more hysterical critics on the right whenever he does something reasonable, such as finally accepting that he had no choice other than to sign the omnibus spending bill despite its refusal to fund his border wall of hatred and contempt against Mexican and other non-white immigrants.

    See my own March 26 Immigration Daily blog comment on this topic.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-27-2018 at 07:58 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have never criticized Nolan for supporting compromise immigration legislation in principle. In fact, Nolan has frequently argued that immigration reform should take the political needs of both parties into account, and this is also eminently reasonable in principle.

    But at the same time, Nolan has blamed the Democrats in a number of recent comments for failing to pass immigration reform when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency. But if the Democrats had rammed through their own bill when they had the chance without Republican input, would this not have gone against Nolan's own advice to take the interests of both sides into account?

    As for the US Constitution, most people interpret the first amendment as guaranteeing the right to disagree with someone else's opinion, just as I frequently do in response to Nolan's comments on immigration.

    Isn't opposing views what free speech is all about?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-27-2018 at 04:53 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan's suggestions are clearly well-meant, but there is a problem because of the fact that Trump himself has poisoned the negotiating atmosphere both for any deal involving the wall and for any deal involving in changing the legal immigration system because of his intemperate attacks on minority immigrants in both contexts.

    His statements on the wall have almost all been in the context of making poisonous attacks on Hispanic and other non-white immigrants, legal and otherwise, as "criminals", "rapists", drug dealers and gang members; and his attempts to justify abolishing the visa lottery and eliminating "chain migration" (itself a misleading and pejorative term - much like "anchor babies" in the birthright citizenship context) have generally been made along with statements smearing family and diversity immigrants as alleged security risks, criminals and terrorists also (as in his State of the Union Address).

    This makes it harder for the Democrats to negotiate on these issues without creating an impression that they would be enabling an agenda of hate and demonization against non-European immigrants by reaching an agreement with Trump.

    Trump's notorious January 11 "shithole" comments about black and Hispanic immigrants didn't help a great deal in this regard, either.

    Nolan also points out that the Democrats, in 2013, were willing to agree to abolish the visa lottery in return for a comprehensive CIR bill.

    This does not mean that the Democrats were opposed to the lottery or that they looked down on or despised its largely African beneficiaries because they were not from "countries like Norway", as Donald Trump has done.

    It just means that the Democrats thought that it would be a good compromise in order to benefit millions of unauthorized immigrants in the US from all over the world.

    This is not a reason to suggest that the Democrats were opposed to the diversity visa lottery on policy grounds. There is no evidence that this was the case.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-27-2018 at 07:56 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    And, again with the greatest respect to Nolan for his distinguished record of immigration scholarship and commentary and his many valuable contributions to the immigration discussion, the real issue in this discussion is not just the narrow one of whether one particular organization, FAIR, has overcome its origins of having been founded by an overt racist, John Tanton, a fact which is beyond any reasonable dispute.

    There is a much more fundamental question which inevitably arises in discussing almost any aspect of immigration policy in the Donald Trump era, namely whether Trump owes his entire presidency to overtly racist immigration policies and proposals, beginning with his vicious initial campaign attack on Mexican immigrants as "criminals', "rapists" and drug dealers, and continuing up to his nearly shutting down the government on March 23 due to anger at Congressional rejection by both parties, including his own party, of his demand for $25 billion to fund his border wall of hatred and humiliation against Mexican and other non-white immigrants.

    For a clear, powerfully argued opinion that Trump owes his election as president in large part to his racist immigration proposals (and, arguably, to Hillary Clinton's cowardice in failing to oppose Trump's racism head on) see Siddique Malik, writing in the Louisville Courier-Journal on March 21:

    https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...ats/394679002/

    Incidentally, judging from some of Malik's other published articles, he is by no means a "Trump-hating liberal" (as I have sometimes had the privilege of being referred to myself), but takes positions closely aligned with some of Trump's most conservative supporters on other issues, such as a tough line toward North Korea and guarding against the alleged spread of "Sharia Law" in the United States.

    Nor have I ever said that Trump can do nothing right on immigration. Even though he did so grudgingly and reluctantly, the fact is that he did finally sign the omnibus spending bill even though it denied him the funding he had requested for the wall and more immigrant arrests and incarceration.

    For this act of rationality and common sense, Trump received a terrible pounding from the immigrant-haters over at Fox News.

    When immigration history looks back at Trump in the future, he will have at least that to his credit.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 03-24-2018 at 04:30 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 137 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: