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


Chinese Immig. Daily




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

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also says that he thinks that Trump would be willing to compromise on "chain migration" if he gets his wall.

    In this respect, Nolan was not a very good prophet. Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators presented a compromise bill that would have given Trump at least some funding for the Wall, but did not contain the drastic reductions in family-based legal immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America that Trump is demanding.

    A February 17 Washington Post article describes in detail how Trump and his administration lobbied furiously against that bill and ensured that it would fail in the Senate.

    See:

    Trump administration assault on bipartisan immigration plan assured its demise.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-18-2018 at 10:30 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Also, for a perceptive and instructive article suggesting that Robert Mueller's latest Russia indictments could cast further doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's entire presidency (which, arguably, could impair his ability to turn America's immigration system back toward the bigoted white supremacist regime in effect from 1924 to 1964 by ending large parts of the legal family immigration system and eliminating the diversity visa lottery entirely) see, POLITICO:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...16163?lo=ap_d1

    This is, of course, without even mentioning the moral legitimacy which Trump forfeited by falsely and demagogically suggesting that mainly Asian, Latin American and African family and diversity visa sponsored legal immigrants are "security threats", while opposing any legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of people such as the deranged American madman who brutally killed 17 Americans, almost all of them children, at a high school in Florida on February 14.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-17-2018 at 10:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For anyone who is interested in the facts and figures about how current immigration policies (including the family immigration which Trump is so eager to eliminate) are making America less white and more diverse, see a very recent (February 8) study by migrationpolicy.org

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...-united-states

    And for a well-researched and clearly explained comment dealing with the underlying racism in Trump's entire immigration agenda, see:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/168973...mp-immigration

    See also, Amanda Marcotte, writing in Salon.com on February 16:

    Trump's immigration policy in brief: Total racist shutdown

    https://www.salon.com/2018/02/16/tru...cist-shutdown/

    I recommend these articles to anyone who is seriously interested in gaining a deeper understanding of why Donald Trump is so anxious to make major cutbacks in family immigration and to eliminate the diversity visa lottery entirely.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-16-2018 at 10:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan is not interested in reading the statistics I have cited in my own blog comment, or paying any attention to the history of family immigration discussed in the WSJ article cited above, a history which Nolan certainly must be well aware of anyway as a leading authority on immigration law, I cannot force him to do so.

    That does not mean that the statistics I have mentioned showing that abolishing family immigration and the diversity visa would have almost twice as much impact on black and Latino immigrants as white ones do not exist. They are there - in the citations I have referred to in my own article. Nor does it change America's recent immigration history, including the reasons why family immigration in its current form was adopted in 1965 and the original version of the visa lottery was adopted between around 1990 to 1994 - both measures for the purposes of making it easier for white immigrants to come to the US than those from Asia, Africa or Latin America.

    Nolan may not want to respond to the statistics or this immigration history, but that will not make them go away.

    I also respectfully suggest to Nolan that the fact that Donald Trump would not be here at all, let alone president of the US, were it not for the same kind of family immigration (i.e. coming to join US siblings) which he now wants to abolish; and that Trump's own in-laws are now in the US legally together with Trump's USC wife - which Trump's proposals would make more difficult or impossible for millions of other American citizens with foreign born parents whose skin color might be different from that of most citizens of "countries like Norway" - may strike some, perhaps even quite a few, ilw.com readers as relevant to our present topic under discussion.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-15-2018 at 02:28 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    A couple of further thoughts on family immigration, or, in Trumpspeak, "chain migration":

    1) If family immigration is as "horrible" as Trump claimed in his December 29, 2017 tweet, or as bad for national security as he claims in a February, 2018 official White House statement, why was it perfectly fine when Trump's own German grandfather and Scottish mother came to the US the same way to join their siblings?

    2) According to a February 13 Washington Post story, Melania Trump's Slovenian parents are now in the United States, even though the White House refuses to give information about their visa or immigration status.

    If Trump is successful in ending family immigration by parents of US citizens, will he ask Congress to make an exception for members of the Trump family?

    In summary, it seems that Trump is dividing the world into two groups for immigration purposes. The first group is made up of the Norway countries, from which immigrants are welcome.

    The other group is made up of the No Way countries.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    This has nothing to do with my article or my request for a factual basis for his claims. This is just Roger rambling into a Trump tirade.

    Nolan Rappaport
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If Nolan doesn't wish to read the studies cited in my easily accessible February 14 blog comment which I have provided a link to above, which show that ending family immigration in its present form would disproportionately impact non-white areas of the world compared to Europe, with the greatest negative impact being on Latin America and Africa - the same areas which Trump has recently disparaged as having "shithole" countries, I cannot force him to.

    However, if Nolan is having a problem locating my blog in the same February 14 issue of Immigration Daily which contains his own above article, here is the link once again:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10384

    This comment includes the references to the two studies I have mentioned. There is no need to repeat the details here when the full studies themselves are so easily available online at the citations I have provided.

    Nolan also overlooks the history of what Trump disparaging calls "chain migration".

    A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which I am sure that Nolan will agree, does not have a reputation as a left-wing, liberal, or partisan Democratic publication, provides the history of the family immigration provisions of the 1965 immigration reform act which was meant to end 40 years of overt racism against immigrants who were not from "countries like Norway" (including a ban on Jewish refugees who might otherwise have been able to escape the Holocaust).

    As this article, entitled The Curious History of 'Chain Migration' shows, the original supporters of the 1965 reform law, including President Lyndon Johnson, wanted to base America's immigration system on skills and "merit", much as Trump and his supporters are claiming that they want to do so now (when Trump is not attacking H-1B visas, that is).

    However, "conservatives" in both parties were concerned that basing immigration solely on skills would upset the pattern of white dominance in immigration that had been the norm for the previous 40 years.

    Therefore they proposed making visas available through family immigration in the belief that this would favor immigration from Europe. It didn't work out that way.

    Now, 50 years later politicians who want to restore European dominance in immigration want to end family-based immigration because they don't like the results, which were vast increases in legal immigration from outside Europe as compared to Europe. The link to this article is:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cur...ion-1516376200

    I am providing this link for the benefit of ilw.com readers who may not know immigration history as well as Nolan, who is one of America's leading and most highly respected immigration law authorities, and must therefore undoubtedly be familiar with this history.

    What is the point of mentioning this history? Only to show that family immigration, in common with most if not all other immigration issues throughout US history, has always involved questions of race and ethnicity.

    No one who claims to provide a serious view of US immigration policy can ignore this reality.

    Trying to argue that Trump's insistence on ending family immigration in its current form has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, especially in view of Trump's notorious January 11 comments and his consistent attempts to demonize entire non-white immigrant groups as "criminals", "rapists", "terrorists", and "job stealers"; or, more recently, in Trump's assaults on family immigration and the visa lottery (which was also initially meant to benefit white immigrants almost exclusively, as Nolan also well knows) as a "security risk" based on virtually zero evidence, is not all that different from arguing that the sky is not really blue or that wheels are square instead of round.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I repeat, "Stop giving me research assignments. If you have a reliable factual basis for your wildly improbable claims, state it."

    And no more history lessons either.

    The truth is that you have no factual basis for your claims, isn't it?

    Nolan Rappaport
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    A couple of further thoughts on family immigration, or, in Trumpspeak, "chain migration":

    1) If family immigration is as "horrible" as Trump claimed in his December 29, 2017 tweet, or as bad for national security as he claims in a February, 2018 official White House statement, why was it perfectly fine when Trump's own German grandfather and Scottish mother came to the US the same way to join their siblings?

    2) According to a February 13 Washington Post story, Melania Trump's Slovenian parents are now in the United States, even though the White House refuses to give information about their visa or immigration status.

    If Trump is successful in ending family immigration by parents of US citizens, will he ask Congress to make an exception for members of the Trump family?

    In summary, it seems that Trump is dividing the world into two groups for immigration purposes. The first group is made up of the Norway countries, from which immigrants are welcome.

    The other group is made up of the No Way countries.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-15-2018 at 12:28 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan doesn't wish to read the studies cited in my easily accessible February 14 blog comment which I have provided a link to above, which show that ending family immigration in its present form would disproportionately impact non-white areas of the world compared to Europe, with the greatest negative impact being on Latin America and Africa - the same areas which Trump has recently disparaged as having "shithole" countries, I cannot force him to.

    However, if Nolan is having a problem locating my blog in the same February 14 issue of Immigration Daily which contains his own above article, here is the link once again:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10384

    This comment includes the references to the two studies I have mentioned. There is no need to repeat the details here when the full studies themselves are so easily available online at the citations I have provided.

    Nolan also overlooks the history of what Trump disparaging calls "chain migration".

    A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which I am sure that Nolan will agree, does not have a reputation as a left-wing, liberal, or partisan Democratic publication, provides the history of the family immigration provisions of the 1965 immigration reform act which was meant to end 40 years of overt racism against immigrants who were not from "countries like Norway" (including a ban on Jewish refugees who might otherwise have been able to escape the Holocaust).

    As this article, entitled The Curious History of 'Chain Migration' shows, the original supporters of the 1965 reform law, including President Lyndon Johnson, wanted to base America's immigration system on skills and "merit", much as Trump and his supporters are claiming that they want to do so now (when Trump is not attacking H-1B visas, that is).

    However, "conservatives" in both parties were concerned that basing immigration solely on skills would upset the pattern of white dominance in immigration that had been the norm for the previous 40 years.

    Therefore they proposed making visas available through family immigration in the belief that this would favor immigration from Europe. It didn't work out that way.

    Now, 50 years later politicians who want to restore European dominance in immigration want to end family-based immigration because they don't like the results, which were vast increases in legal immigration from outside Europe as compared to Europe. The link to this article is:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cur...ion-1516376200

    I am providing this link for the benefit of ilw.com readers who may not know immigration history as well as Nolan, who is one of America's leading and most highly respected immigration law authorities, and must therefore undoubtedly be familiar with this history.

    What is the point of mentioning this history? Only to show that family immigration, in common with most if not all other immigration issues throughout US history, has always involved questions of race and ethnicity.

    No one who claims to provide a serious view of US immigration policy can ignore this reality.

    Trying to argue that Trump's insistence on ending family immigration in its current form has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, especially in view of Trump's notorious January 11 comments and his consistent attempts to demonize entire non-white immigrant groups as "criminals", "rapists", "terrorists", and "job stealers"; or, more recently, in Trump's assaults on family immigration and the visa lottery (which was also initially meant to benefit white immigrants almost exclusively, as Nolan also well knows) as a "security risk" based on virtually zero evidence, is not all that different from arguing that the sky is not really blue or that wheels are square instead of round.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-15-2018 at 10:45 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Stop giving me research assignments. If you have a reliable factual basis for your wildly improbable claims, state it.

    And get your issues straight. The diversity visa program would have a greater impact on non whites, but the Dems are fine with ending that program. Why aren't you claiming that they want to hurt non white immigration?

    Trump's demand to end chain migration is the controversial one. I will get you started on a rational position. The statutory provision that established the visa number system prohibits basing numbers on race. Are you saying that has been violated? If so, by whom and when? As far as I can tell, the statutory provisions have been followed, which means that visa numbers have been handed out without regard to race. So I don't think it is possible for you to prove that there is a bias against non whites in the system.

    But I will hold my comments so you can have a chance to provide a rational, factual basis for your claims. I suspect that it will be a very long wait.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-14-2018 at 11:49 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's chief of staff may say that non-criminal immigrants should not have to worry about deportation, but that is not what his attorney general or ICE director have been saying. More to the point, prioritizing immigrants convicted of serious crimes for deportation is not what ICE has actually been doing.

    Almost every day brings another story news of a non-criminal immigrant (or immigrant convicted of some trivial offense or other) who has been in America without status for many years and otherwise leading a normal, productive life who has been wrenched away from his or her family, often including screaming, weeping, young American children, and then put on a plane or locked up in some remote location to be sent back to his or her country of origin.

    And as for tens of millions of non-European legal immigrants having come to the United States through what Trump calls "chain migration" in the past 50 years since this program was put into effect (ironically, in the hope that it would boost immigration from Europe) the figures I have seen run to about 30-40 million legal family-based immigrants during this time, many from Europe, but mostly from other parts of the world - since white people are not in the majority on this planet.

    There have also been about a million legal diversity based immigrants in the past 20 years, a large number of them from sub-Saharan Africa.

    If the above family-based immigrant figures are not accurate, I will print a correction as soon as possible.

    As to the disproportionate effect that cancelling "chain migration" and the diversity lottery would have on non-white immigrants compared with immigrants from Europe, I refer Nolan to the two recent studies that I cite in my February 14 Immigration Daily blog comment.

    If Nolan believes that these studies or figures are wrong, he is free to explain why he thinks so.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-14-2018 at 09:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, “Trump's four point Framework, if that is what Nolan is referring to, might or might not lower total immigration, but it would eliminate two of the most important sources of legal immigration from outside Europe, which have accounted between them for tens of millions of legal immigrants over the past decades from Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, namely extended family immigration and the visa lottery.”

    Yes, Roger, I am talking about Trump’s four-point framework. Those are his demands in exchange for legalization of 1.8 million undocumented aliens.

    If you had been paying attention when you read my previous articles, and I am assuming you read them before writing comments about them, you would know that the Democrats don’t care about the Diversity Visa Program. Schumer’s Gang of Eight bill in 2013 would have terminated that program, as would the parallel bill that Gutierrez and other representatives were working on in the House.

    That leaves chain migration. I can’t discuss that with you if you are going to make up statistics to support your position. Or do you have reliable information to support your claim that tens of millions of legal immigrants over the past decades……. came in through the diversity visa program and chain migration?

    I am particularly interested in your basis for thinking that family-based immigration is biased towards non-white immigrants. Africa, for instance, benefits greatly from the diversity visa program because so few Africans can come here on family-based visas. In fact, that is the requirement for participation in the program.

    If it is true, as you are claiming, that most of the family-based visas are for non-white immigrants, maybe we should find a way to balance it out to give more white immigrant relatives a chance to come here.

    Let’s look at some objective facts on family-based immigration. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. I am taking this information from the March 2018 Visa Bulletin.
    https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...arch-2018.html

    This is how the numbers are divided up. I have bolded the categories that would be eliminated by terminating chain migration. You should be able to calculate how many visa numbers would be eliminated, but I have no idea how you would figure out how many nonwhite immigrants that would include. Surprise me. Note that the family members of citizens take the biggest hit.

    FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

    First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

    Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers:

    A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

    B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

    Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

    Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

    Roger says, “Moreover, Trump also supports the RAISE Act, which would cut all legal immigration in half…”

    I hear he thinks mushroom pizza tastes bad and has contempt for men who cry when they watch sad movies, but those things don't have anything to do with his platform either.

    Roger says, “Nolan also says that Trump has not threatened to deport the Dreamers if there is no DACA deal. It is true that Trump has not said he will do so in so many words. But he has referred recently to the "March 5 deadline" and that accepting Trump's draconian terms is the Dreamers "Last Chance".”

    That’s right, but if Roger paid attention to the positive things Trump says instead of just looking for things he can twist into material for a tirade, he would know that when Trump terminated the program, he tweeted that he had provided a six-month grace period for congress to act, and that if they didn’t, he would revisit the program.

    Trump has tried harder to help the Dreamers than you or anyone else who is criticizing him, and his chief of staff said recently that aliens who do not get into trouble with the law have little to worry about. And that’s just common sense. The immigration court backlog crisis has limited Trump to deporting pretty much the same people that Obama was deporting. The difference is that he lets ICE arrest noncriminal aliens too, but they don’t have the time to be doing it on more than an occasional, random basis.

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As the newspapers report yet another horrific gun attack at an American school, this time in Florida, with the deaths of at least 17 innocent American children as of this writing, Donald Trump is even further along the way to being remembered as the president who tried to demonize millions of peaceful, law-abiding legal legal immigrants who came to America though family or diversity visas as "security risks" (in an official White House statement, not a "late night tweet") while doing nothing to stop the gun violence which takes thousands of innocent American lives every year.

    Meanwhile members of immigrant communities throughout America are holding their breath hoping that they will not be demagogued and scapegoated by the president because whatever immigration history, if any, the suspect might or might not have, since his nationality has not yet been made public.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's four point Framework, if that is what Nolan is referring to, might or might not lower total immigration, but it would eliminate two of the most important sources of legal immigration from outside Europe, which have accounted between them for tens of millions of legal immigrants over the past decades from Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, namely extended family immigration and the visa lottery.

    Moreover, Trump also supports the RAISE Act, which would cut all legal immigration in half. I have provided references to two reputable studies in my own February 14 ilw.com comment which show that these proposals (as well as the similar House Goodlatte bill) would have an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect on legal immigration from Latin America and Africa as opposed to Europe, where Trump's own grandfather and mother came from through the kind of family reunification that he now wants to take away from primariy non-white immigrants.

    Nolan also says that Trump has not threatened to deport the Dreamers if there is no DACA deal. It is true that Trump has not said he will do so in so many words. But he has referred recently to the "March 5 deadline" and that accepting Trump's draconian terms is the Dreamers "Last Chance".

    Last chance before what? Last chance before Trump invites them to the White House (or Mar-a-Lago) to watch video games or play Tiddly Winks with him together over friendly glasses of tequila?

    Or maybe, does "Last Chance" mean that March 5 is the last chance for Dreamers to accept an offer to march in Trump's North Korea-style military parade as his tanks roll through the streets and the jet planes roar overhead?

    Sometimes an obvious meaning doesn't have to be spelled out. Anyone who doesn't understand that might need to go and see "Godfather I" once again and reflect on what "I will make you an offer you can't refuse" means.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 02-14-2018 at 07:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    This learned and scholarly article about previous immigration legislative proposals is full of impressive, but irrelevant facts and figures. It obscures and distorts the real issue, which is not alleged Democratic failure to approve measures against illegal immigration, as in Nolan's above examples of past legislative battles, but Trump's current demands for drastic cutbacks in legal immigration.

    It is no secret that Trump's insistence on eliminating the diversity visa lottery and major parts of family immigration would have the greatest impact on immigration from non-white areas of the world.

    Asia, the Middle East, and especially what Trump calls "shithole" countries of Africa and Latin America would be hurt the most if Trump gets his way on gutting the foundation of the legal immigration system which America has had for the past 50 years that has been open to the entire world, not just white Europe, as his non-negotiable price for protecting almost 800,000 Dreamers against his own threats to deport them if his demands to eliminate or vastly reduce legal immigration from countries that are not "like Norway" are not met.

    For more on this see my February 14 comment:

    Trump Goes Full Racist and Authoritarian; Threatens to Veto DACA Bill if it Doesn't Cut Back on Non-White Legal Immigration

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10384

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger apparently has not read Trump's four-point proposal. It does not lower legal immigration. And he hasn't threatened to deport the Dreamers.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-14-2018 at 04:36 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This response to Nolan's above article is updated to include a link to my Immigration Daily article, updated as of February 17. on this same topic.

    Readers are welcome to access my comment:

    "Could Threats to Deport Dreamers be Trump's 'McCarthy Moment' and the End of a Presidency Whose Legitimacy is in Doubt Thanks to Russia?"

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10390

    My original response to Nolan's above article follows:

    Nolan's learned and scholarly article about previous immigration legislative proposals is full of impressive, but irrelevant facts and figures. It obscures and distorts the real issue, which is not alleged Democratic failure to approve measures against illegal immigration, as in Nolan's above examples of past legislative battles, but Trump's current demands for drastic cutbacks in legal immigration.

    It is no secret that Trump's insistence on eliminating the diversity visa lottery and major parts of family immigration would have the greatest impact on immigration from non-white areas of the world.

    Asia, the Middle East, and especially what Trump calls "shithole" countries of Africa and Latin America would be hurt the most if Trump gets his way on gutting the foundation of the legal immigration system which America has had for the past 50 years that has been open to the entire world, not just white Europe, as his non-negotiable price for protecting almost 800,000 Dreamers against his own threats to deport them if his demands to eliminate or vastly reduce legal immigration from countries that are not "like Norway" are not met.

    For more on this see my February 14 comment:

    Trump Goes Full Racist and Authoritarian; Threatens to Veto DACA Bill if it Doesn't Cut Back on Non-White Legal Immigration

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10384

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-17-2018 at 08:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan writes above:

    "It is unfortunate that so much of what people think about Trump's immigration policies comes from his middle of the night tweets."

    But for better or for worse, many people do rely on Trump's immigration tweets as providing insights into his thinking on this issue. One such example is a commentator by the name of Nolan Rappaport, who has written an entire article on about one of Trump's tweets and why Nolan thinks that the tweet is accurate. This article is dated quite recently, February 11, actually, and its title is:

    "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERS"

    Nolan's entire article, not just the title, contains a lengthy defense of why Nolan believes that this particular tweet, which he quotes verbatim at the beginning of his article, was essentially correct.

    Anyone who wants to read this article will not have a very hard time finding it. It appears immediately above.

    If it is OK for Nolan to quote and discuss one of Trump's tweets as a basis for his policies when Nolan agrees with the tweet and thinks that it reflects on Trump favorably - to the point of writing an entire article about it, why is it wrong for another commentator, such as myself, to discuss a different Trump tweet as also providing an insight in to Trump's immigration policies and explain why he disagrees with that tweet?

    Are Trump's tweets to be taken seriously as policy statements only when Nolan thinks that they make Trump look good, but then disregarded as of no significance when someone else objects to a different tweet, such Trump's delusional one about the NYC Halloween attacker and his "23" phantom "chain migration relatives" - which I mention above and even Nolan does not try to defend?

    How can there be any kind of serious discussion about Trump's immigration policies with that kind of a ground rule?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-14-2018 at 09:36 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is unfortunate that so much of what people think of Trump's immigration policies comes from his middle of the night tweets. I don't think they are a reliable way to figure out what he is willing to do in formal negotiations. They probably just represent passing thoughts expressed in the few sentence form of a tweet.

    I think that Trump would be willing to compromise on chain migration if he got the wall he wants.

    As for Roger's view of the wall being symbolism for Nazi Germany and the other evil things, I think it would be insane to block the construction of a wall that would improve border security because people who share Roger's bizarre associations find the prospect offensive.

    And it would be almost as bad to block it because it might offend Mexico and Central America. They are the source of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and the rest of the things we need a wall to protect ourselves against. We wouldn't need a wall if Mexico secured its own border to prevent illegal crossings from Mexico in the United States.

    And, frankly, I don't believe that Mexico is "offended" by the prospect of a wall to secure the US border against illegal crossings. I think they are objecting because they don't want to cut off the flow of undocumented aliens into the US because the Mexican economy benefits greatly from the money they send home to Mexico while they are working in the US. And the Central American countries also receive large amounts of money from their undocumented workers in the US.

    See my article, " In 2012, foreign workers in the United States sent remittances to their home countries totaling more than $123,273,000,000,"
    http://discuss.ilw.com/showthread.ph...olan-Rappaport.

    I'm sure that number has risen considerably since then.


    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 02:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with Nolan that what Trump and his supporters call "chain migration" and what is more accurately known as family immigration beyond the immediate nuclear family, is the biggest sticking point - not the Wall - or even the diversity visa lottery.

    Unfortunately, Trump's recent tweets and other statements on this issue indicate that he is so committed to gutting family immigration as we have known it for the past 50 years, that he even suggest that "we don't have a country" unless this "horrible" (see his 12/129/2017 tweet) form of legal immigration is abolished.

    If Trump can be persuaded to back down on this demand, then a deal that all sides could live with might be possible.

    As for the Wall, the symbolism is simply dreadful, for anyone who knows anything about the Berlin Wall or the Nazi's Warsaw Ghetto Wall - not to mention the anti-immigrant Wall that is being built today by politicians in Hungary, one of whom wants to register the entire Jewish population of that country - the same population which the Nazis exterminated in almost in toto in WW2.

    But if Trump is so anxious to humiliate Mexican and other Latin American immigrants that he cannot get along without a physical Wall - OK, let him build it. One day soon, a future president, who may not necessarily be a Democrat, will tear it down anyway.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I didn't criticize Schumer's 2013 bill because it was one sided. I criticized it because it gave false hope to vulnerable aliens who lived in fear of being deported. The Dems passed it in the Senate over opposition from 70% of the senate republicans and then they fed the media statements about how it would pass in the house if the republicans put it on the floor for a vote.....knowing that a bill opposed by the Republicans wasn't going to be allowed to skip the legislative process to go directly to the floor for a vote.

    In other words, the Dems had no rational basis for expecting that bill to be enacted.

    If they had made the changes necessary to gain Republican support, it would have passed and been signed into law.

    The main Republican objection to Schumer's 2013 bill was that it would have legalized millions of undocumented aliens but it did not have enforcement measures to prevent a new group of undocumented aliens from taking their place in ten or so years, which is what happened with IRCA.

    And now, Schumer is doing the same thing in his negotiations with Trump. His proposals would legalize millions of undocumented aliens, but he is offering the same kind of inadequate border security measures that he offered in his 2013 bill knowing that Trump is insisting on a physical wall. Why a physical wall? Because walls are very difficult for children to cross, which makes a wall an ideal choice for preventing aliens from coming here illegally as children, i.e., the DACA situation.

    This time, however, it isn't just about preventing a new group from taking the place of the ones being legalized. Trump also wants to end the Diversity Visa Program and Chain migration. But Schumer's 2013 bill would have terminated the Diversity Visa Program. That's not a deal killer for the Dems. That leaves chain migration as the deal killer. But have the Dems tried offering him the wall and ending the Diversity Visa program if he will postpone chain migration for another time? I mean the wall he is demanding, not surveillance devices and a few barriers.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 10:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Let us also take a closer look at why Nolan, who can justly be called one of America's leading immigration law authorities, and whose comments always deserve to be taken seriously, is now criticizing the Democrats for failing to introduce of pass immigration reform legislation in 2008-2011, when they held the White House and had a super-majority in Congress.

    Since Nolan would have a hard time claiming that the Republicans had even the slightest interest in immigration reform (a/k/a "amnesty") at that time, any bill that the Democrats might have introduced and passed would have been open to criticism from Republicans as "partisan", "one-sided" and "divisive".

    Nolan himself has often written about the need to take the "political objectives of both parties" into account in any immigration reform legislation, and he has (with a good deal of justification) complained that Congress has been unable to pass a truly bipartisan immigration bill in more than 30 years.

    Why is Nolan now criticizing the Democrats for not doing something 7-10 years ago which Nolan has often condemned himself - namely passing "one-sided" legislation which the other party would have been sure to oppose?

    Here is what Nolan had to say in 2013 about an immigration reform bill that a Democratic Senator, Edward Kennedy, introduced together with a Republican Senator, John McCain, as long ago as 2005!

    "Who first said that the
    the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again with different results?...I am sure that some Republican Congressmen had the same thought when Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) and colleagues introduced the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, which was supposed to permit the creation of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in return for increased enforcement measures."

    See Nolan Rappaport,, February 8, 2013

    What is IRCA and What Does It Have to Do With Comprehensive Immigration Reform

    (Sorry, I don't have a reliable link- access is available through Google.)

    Does Nolan seriously think that any immigration reform bill that the Democrats might have introduced or passed in 2008-2011 would have been any different from the 2005 measure that Nolan himself panned as "insanity" only five years ago?

    And, further to show that Nolan is opposed to any immigration bill that he thinks is one-sided or partisan (especially if it is introduced by the Democrats) Nolan blasts the bill that passed the Senate in 2013, mainly with Democratic support (and only a smattering of Republicans) as "one-sided" in his comments only a few paragraphs above!

    If Nolan didn't like Democratic sponsored immigration reform proposals in 2005 and in 2013 (since McCain has always been a maverick Republican on immigration - often siding with the Democrats - as he did again in the 2013 "Gang of 8"), does Nolan really expect readers to believe that he would have supported a similar Democratic bill in 2008-2011?

    If a mainly Democratic immigration bill was "one-sided" in 2013 in Nolan's view, would this have been any different if the Democrats had introduced and passed their own bill, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years earlier in the face of almost certain unanimous Republican opposition?

    It would conflict with virtually every scholarly, well-researched and carefully considered comment on immigration that Nolan has written up to now to think that he would have supported any immigration bill that the Democrats might have introduced or passed without Republican support.

    Yet now, Nolan is condemning the Democrats for failing to introduce or pass the same kind of "one-sided" legislation that he has criticized so often, and so consistently, up to now (and, as I have indicated above, not without justification).

    Surely, Nolan does not really think that there would have been a single Republican vote in either chamber in favor of any CIR bill that the Democrats might have introduced in 2008 - 2011.

    How many Republicans voted for CIR in 2013? A few courageous Republican Senators of good will did, but not very many. And the Republican leadership did not even allow the Senate-passed bill to be introduced or debated, much less voted on, in the House.

    Now, Donald Trump is trying to use this recent history of almost rock-solid Republican opposition to immigration reform - which the Republicans have condemned as "amnesty", loudly and consistently in unison - as if they were an ancient Greek chorus - as evidence that, somehow, the Democrats are really the anti-immigrant party.

    Nothing in my above comments implies any lack of respect for Nolan and his well-deserved reputation as a distinguished immigration law expert. Nor am I criticizing Nolan's worthy goal of producing an immigration reform bill that truly attempts to accommodate the needs of both parties.

    I am
    only pointing out what, at least on the surface, might appear to be a certain lack of consistency in Nolan's criticizing the Democrats now for not doing something which, based on many of his previous comments, he would surely have opposed them for having done if they had in fact passed an immigration reform bill 7-10 years ago by riding roughshod over what would almost certainly been fierce and vocal Republican opposition.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 10:04 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 133 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: