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.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Don't get me wrong, It was just as unfair, just as cruel, just as senseless, for ICE to arrest Irish-born John Cunningham, a non-criminal immigrant and business owner who overstayed his visa waiver permission almost 20 years ago as it is for ICE to do the same to thousands of Latino, Asian and black immigrants who are in the same or similar, positions.

    I am not for one instant recommending that Trump should arrest and deport more harmless, non-criminal white immigrants.

    I am only opposing Trump's ethnic cleansing of darker skinned immigrants who present no more danger to the US than John Cunningham.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40332646

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, did you know that participants in the Visa Waiver Program must sign a waiver agreeing to forfeit the statutory right to appear in immigration court if they remain in the U.S. for longer than 90 days? That means Cunningham wasn't even entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge before he was deported.

    He didn't just overstay for 90 days. He stayed here for more than 20 years, presumably knowing that he was violating our immigration laws by being here.

    Roger, where does your "harmless, non-criminal immigrants" standard come from? Can you show me the provisions in the INA that exempt harmless, non-criminal immigrants from deportation?

    And can you explain to me why it is unfair, cruel, and senseless for the President of the United States to deport aliens who are here illegally in violation of the laws passed by our elected representatives and signed into effect by previous presidents?

    Was Bill Clinton being unfair, cruel and senseless when he signed IIRIRA into law? IIRIRA has done more harm than anything else that has happened in the immigration field....ever.

    Are you going to say he didn't know what he was signing? Consider what he said in his formal statement at the signing ceremony. He explicitly acknowledged that he was in favor of strengthening the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration. The pertinent part of his statement reads as follows:

    This bill, ... includes landmark immigration reform legislation that builds on our progress of the last three years. It strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system—without punishing those living in the United States legally.

    Don't believe me? Read it yourself. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=52021


    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 05-21-2018 at 09:16 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Don't get me wrong, It was just as unfair, just as cruel, just as senseless, for ICE to arrest Irish-born John Cunningham, a non-criminal immigrant and business owner who overstayed his visa waiver permission almost 20 years ago as it is for ICE to do the same to thousands of Latino, Asian and black immigrants who are in the same or similar, positions.

    I am not for one instant recommending that Trump should arrest and deport more harmless, non-criminal white immigrants.

    I am only opposing Trump's ethnic cleansing of darker skinned immigrants who present no more danger to the US than John Cunningham.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40332646

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-21-2018 at 04:26 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With regard to Nolan's last sentence above, my more than 30-year record of representing immigrants from every part of the world, Europe included, without regard to race, creed color or national origin, speaks for itself, and I have never advocated racial discrimination against any group of immigrants.

    I have only opposed policies which would give preference to white immigrants because of their skin color, such as Trump himself advocated on January 11 when he condemed immigration from "shithole" countries such as Haiti and countries of Africa, and stated that he wants more immigrants from "Countries like Norway."

    Readers who are interested in learning more about Stephen Miller and his role in shaping Trump administration immigration policy can check out:

    https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/...stephen-miller

    And the best advice that anyone could possibly give Donald Trump about immigration policy comes out of Africa, in the form of a Kiswahili proverb:

    "Bora kujenga madaraja kuliko kuta."

    ("It is better to build bridges than walls.")

    Would Trump be willing to listen to this wise advice?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, You are fretting constantly over your perception that ICE is arresting more nonwhite aliens than white aliens.

    The only way to fix that problem would be for ICE to arrest fewer aliens who are nonwhite and more who are white.

    But wouldn’t choosing who to arrest on the basis of race be racism?

    I have a suggestion. How about prioritizing which aliens ICE should arrest without reference to race but leave the ICE officers free to arrest any other deportable alien they want to arrest. That's Trump's policy. Under Obama, ICE officers had to get permission from a high level supervisor before they could arrest an alien who wasn't in a priority category.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 05-21-2018 at 02:25 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Nolan's last sentence above, my more than 30-year record of representing immigrants from every part of the world, Europe included, without regard to race, creed color or national origin, speaks for itself, and I have never advocated racial discrimination against any group of immigrants.

    I have only opposed policies which would give preference to white immigrants because of their skin color, such as Trump himself advocated on January 11 when he condemed immigration from "shithole" countries such as Haiti and countries of Africa, and stated that he wants more immigrants from "Countries like Norway."

    Readers who are interested in learning more about Stephen Miller and his role in shaping Trump administration immigration policy can check out:

    https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/...stephen-miller

    And the best advice that anyone could possibly give Donald Trump about immigration policy comes out of Africa, in the form of a Kiswahili proverb:

    "Bora kujenga madaraja kuliko kuta."

    ("It is better to build bridges than walls.")

    Would Trump be willing to listen to this wise advice?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-21-2018 at 12:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Donald Trump doesn't need anyone like me to tell him whom to deport. He already has Stephen Miller.

    Not to mention that Trump also has some ideas of his own - which have a lot to do with skin color and religion -about what kinds of immigrants he wants in this country and which ones he doesn't think have a right to be here - or to be called human beings.

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/201...als-immigrants

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    No, Roger, you are the one espousing selective prosecution, not Trump. He has told ICE and DHS that no one is above the law and that they are free to arrest any apparently deportable alien they encounter. And I am yet to hear you even claim that they are arresting aliens who do not appear to be deportable.

    Or are you claiming that deportable aliens with certain
    skin color and religion are above the law?

    How is it not being a racist to complain because Trump isn't just deporting white aliens?

    What do you have against white aliens?


    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 05-20-2018 at 09:49 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Donald Trump doesn't need anyone like me to tell him whom to deport. He already has Stephen Miller.

    Not to mention that Trump also has some ideas of his own - which have a lot to do with skin color and religion -about what kinds of immigrants he wants in this country and which ones he doesn't think have a right to be here - or to be called human beings.

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/201...als-immigrants

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 05-20-2018 at 08:50 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, "Donald Trump, of course, hasn't killed or attempted to kill anyone, but he has destroyed quite a few families and lives of people whose only "crime" was being present in the United States without the right documents, while having the "wrong" ancestry, skin color or religion."

    That's a funny way for a lawyer to look at it, particularly an immigration lawyer.

    Trump only deports aliens who are here in violation of our laws. And he didn't write those laws. They were written by our elected representatives and signed by previous presidents., e.g., Bill Clinton signed IIIRA, which took the discretion almost completely out of immigration law.

    Apparently, Roger thinks presidents should ignore the law and only deport aliens he thinks should be deported. Maybe we should set up a government deportation policy office for Roger so he could provide this valuable service on a formal basis.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 05-20-2018 at 01:47 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not a Shakespeare scholar, but to the best of my limited knowledge of this play, Macbeth may have failed to accomplish his ultimate goal, but he did manage to do a great deal of damage to other people, and to elementary justice and the rule of law, along the way.

    This could also very arguably be another resemblance between Macbeth and Donald Trump, besides the one that Nolan mentions above.

    Donald Trump, of course, hasn't killed or attempted to kill anyone, but he has destroyed quite a few families and lives of people whose only "crime" was being present in the United States without the right documents, while having the "wrong" ancestry, skin color or religion.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-20-2018 at 11:47 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    No doubt about that. Trump certainly did not invent the idea of violating due process. The question is how far he plans to go with it.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  10. MKolken's Avatar
    Due process violations like deporting children without a lawyer?
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Alex Nowrasteh's article, which Matt Kolken cites above, gives a number of different reasons why Trump purportedly might not be able to deport as many immigrants as Obama did.

    One of the reasons Nowrasteh mentions is that Obama's deportation figures were allegedly "padded" by including people removed at the border.

    In any event, deportation numbers do not necessarily tell the full story. Whether the immigration court system is providing fundamental fairness and due process of law to people in removal proceedings is a related, but separate, issue.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 05-18-2018 at 11:13 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. MKolken's Avatar
    "Try as he might, [Trump's] administration will not be able to ramp up removals to the level seen in the first term of the Obama administration."

    https://www.cato.org/blog/state-immigration-enforcement
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    It is not a big secret to ilw.com readers that I do not always agree with Nolan on every single point. But I congratulate him on reaching this milestone and on all of his painstaking work, careful research and well-argued comments.

    We all owe Nolan a vote of thanks for sharing his views, whether one agrees with all of them or not.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Thanks, Roger.

    Nolan
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is not a big secret to ilw.com readers that I do not always agree with Nolan on every single point. But I congratulate him on reaching this milestone and on all of his painstaking work, careful research and well-argued comments.

    We all owe Nolan a vote of thanks for sharing his views, whether one agrees with all of them or not.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-15-2018 at 09:40 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    That is without question a clear case. However Nolan also cites an ACLU memo listing a number of hypothetical situations which conceivably could be prosecuted even though mens rea is far less clear.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    But there is no reason to expect the prosecutors to take weak cases. Federal prosecutors aren't stupid people. When there are exponentially more good cases than they will ever be able to prosecute, it is extremely unlikely that they will take weak ones that would put them in jeopardy of an unnecessary constitutional challenge.

    Nolan Rappaport
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    That is without question a clear case. However Nolan also cites an ACLU memo listing a number of hypothetical situations which conceivably could be prosecuted under this very broad statute even though mens rea would be far less clear than in Nolan's last example.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-14-2018 at 03:50 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As shown by the federal circuit court decisions mentioned in one of the legal discussions which Nolan cites, the term "harboring" is so broad that it can mean almost any kind of contact between a US citizen or LPR and an immigrant who lacks legal status in this country. If the purpose of relying on this law is to make life uncomfortable for unauthorized immigrants by creating a climate of fear and terror among Americans who have any kind of connection with someone who may appear to be foreign born, the harboring statute would be the way to do this.

    That is if Americans are willing to live in an Orwellian (or North Korean style) totalitarian society.

    But the very broadness of the harboring statute could also render it completely useless as an immigration enforcement tool - based on a finding that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, since "harboring" can mean almost anything under the sun.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Again, Roger, there is a Mens Rea. Harboring law only applies to people who knowingly or in reckless disregard help undocumented aliens to remain here unlawfully.

    The harboring provision, however, could be subject to being invalidated as unconstitutionally vague. That's why I pointed out that it can apply to an extreme range of actions.

    I'm not an expert on constitutional law, so I don't know how likely that is. I think, however, that it will not happen until there are prosecutions that illustrate the problem, which may not occur.

    Sessions has advised the prosecutions to limit themselves to cases involving at least three aliens, and the prosecutors aren't likely to waste their time on problematic cases when so many easy cases are out there. I will be very surprised if they bring criminal proceedings for a capital federal felony offense against people whose conduct requires a stretch to support the harboring claim.

    It's easy to speculate about extreme abuses, but if the speculations aren't based on clear, objective facts, they are a waste of time.

    I won't pay attention to Roger's concerns until he can point to a case in which someone was sentenced to prison for something as innocuous as giving a postage stamp to an undocumented alien.

    The case I used as an example in my article involved an organization that was advertising assistance in crossing the Arizona dessert without being caught by the border patrol on an internet website.

    The guy who was prosecuted was a volunteer for that organization. He met three illegal crossers at a barn that was mentioned in the advertisement and provided them with food and lodging until they could recuperate enough to continue their illegal journey into the US. I wasn't able to include all of this in my article. 800 word limit on how long my articles can be.

    Hard to argue that he didn't know he was assisting illegal crossings.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 05-14-2018 at 03:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    As Sessions draws up his list of hospitals to raid so he can arrest doctors for giving emergency medical treatment to immigrants without checking their immigration status documents first; landlords who rent to immigrants or hotels which give them rooms without doing the same; or bus and car drivers who accept unauthorized immigrants as passengers, all of which could very arguably be considered as violations of what Nolan correctly points out is the extremely broad interpretation which can be given to the term "harboring" in the statute; Sessions might also want to compare notes about how the crime of harboring Jews was handled by the German authorities before 1945.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/w...r-of-jews.html

    This might also give Sessions some pointers on how to deal with attorneys or public interest organizations or immigrant advocacy groups which offer any kind of advice, assistance or support to unauthorized immigrants.

    Sessions might also not want to fail to arrest the US citizen or LPR spouses or other family members who live with unauthorized immigrants without turning them over to ICE for deportation. If that isn't "harboring", under the statute, then what else is?

    Finally, what about Immigration Judges who grant continuances or bonds to unauthorized immigrants in removal proceedings? Isn't that "shielding" immigrants from deportation too, at least temporarily?

    Sessions already has the power to fire such judges. How about locking them up as well?

    These are just a few helpful suggestions to make sure that America's immigration laws are fully and effectively enforced.
    I will have no further comment on this article.

    Except for one other thing - Sessions should also make sure that there is enough prison space (private prisons preferred, of course - Trump's big campaign donors are entitled to some reward, are they not?) to hold all the priests, ministers and rabbis who might be thinking of offering their places of worship as a refuge or sanctuary to any immigrants who lack legal status in the US.

    As for mosques that might be doing the same thing, I will say nothing.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Harboring only applies to conduct that assists undocumented aliens to stay here illegally. But I think Roger is right about Sessions prosecuting citizens and LPRs for harboring family members. That's why I conclude with the observation that the price for such prosecutions might be too high.

    I don't think Sessions will need more prison space. If he conducts a large scale, nationwide program to prosecute people who are violating the harboring laws, the sentences will be so outrageously severe that few people will be willing to take a chance on helping someone they know is here illegally. Some people are going to receive life sentences and others will be executed.

    That's the way most laws work. The best example is tax law.I suspect that most people pay their taxes and avoid obvious cheating out of fear that IRS will come after them, and there is good reason to fear IRS.
    They don't impose life sentences or execute anyone, but they can seize all of a person's assets and severely restrict what he can do with his income until his debt is paid.

    It's really very simple. Effective immigration enforcement isn't possible with the current backlog. As I point out in my article, when Sessions realizes this, he will turn to ways to encourage aliens to leave on their own volition, i.e., self-deportation. And harboring prosecutions won't be his only option.

    It's coming.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 05-14-2018 at 03:06 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As Sessions draws up his list of hospitals to raid so he can arrest doctors for giving emergency medical treatment to immigrants without checking their immigration status documents first; landlords who rent to immigrants or hotels which give them rooms without doing the same; or bus and car drivers who accept unauthorized immigrants as passengers, all of which could very arguably be considered as violations of what Nolan correctly points out is the extremely broad interpretation which can be given to the term "harboring" in the statute; Sessions might also want to compare notes about how the crime of harboring Jews was handled by the German authorities before 1945.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/w...r-of-jews.html

    This might also give Sessions some pointers on how to deal with attorneys or public interest organizations or immigrant advocacy groups which offer any kind of advice, assistance or support to unauthorized immigrants.

    Sessions might also not want to fail to arrest the US citizen or LPR spouses or other family members who live with unauthorized immigrants without turning them over to ICE for deportation. If that isn't "harboring", under the statute, then what else is?

    Finally, what about Immigration Judges who grant continuances or bonds to unauthorized immigrants in removal proceedings? Isn't that "shielding" immigrants from deportation too, at least temporarily?

    Sessions already has the power to fire such judges. How about locking them up as well?

    These are just a few helpful suggestions to make sure that America's immigration laws are fully and effectively enforced.
    I will have no further comment on this article.

    Except for one other thing - Sessions should also make sure that there is enough prison space (private prisons preferred, of course - Trump's big campaign donors are entitled to some reward, are they not?) to hold all the priests, ministers and rabbis who might be thinking of offering their places of worship as a refuge or sanctuary to any immigrants who lack legal status in the US.

    As for mosques that might be doing the same thing, I will say nothing.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-14-2018 at 01:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As usual, Nolan makes a valid point by showing that there are limits to immigration court access undef current US (and foreign) law, especially in the asylum area.

    It is also true that Trump's remarks were made in the asylum context, since that is what the "caravan" people were seeking.

    But Trump's remarks were by no means limited to asylum. He threatened to "close up our country", not just the asylum courts; and to seal our borders against all immigrants, not just asylum seekers, because of the border wall issue, which also goes beyond asylum. He also implied that America does not need any (immigration) judges at all.

    Asylum cases are only one part of our immigration court system, and Trump was clearly suggesting abolishing the entire system.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-07-2018 at 05:12 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 138 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: