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. Revoking Critics' Security Clearances; Attacking Free Press: What Began as Trump's Assault on Immigrants is Leading to Full Dictatorship. Roger Algase

    Much as one would like to limit discussion of the Donald Trump presidency strictly to topics that affect immigration exclusively and do not deal with larger issues at all, it is becoming more and more impossibly to overlook the elephant in the room. This elephant is the acute and immediate danger to America's democracy as a direct outgrowth and consequence of Trump's attacks against and persecution of minority immigrants.

    Turning away from or refusing to acknowledge the direct connection between Trump's anti-immigrant agenda and his rapid movement toward setting himself up as America's dictator and Supreme Leader, in the style of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Joseph Stalin, would make no more sense than focusing on Adolf Hitler's attacks on the Jews, horrible as the consequences were, only by themselves, and ignoring the overthrow of democracy which those attacks led to.

    (The above does not in any way imply that Trump is a Hitler supporter, a Nazi, an antisemite or an advocate of mass murder or genocide. He is very clearly none of the above.)

    I say this in the context of two recent articles in The Guardian, that venerable British newspaper which is functioning as the conscience of America with regard to both immigration and democracy. One of these articles deals with Trump's latest attempt to use authoritarian power to shut down Robert Mueller's Russia investigation - namely revoking the security clearance of former CIA director Brennan in order to stifle dissent.

    The second article, and editorial deals the Trump's direct threat to democracy by trying to close down America's free press. As shown by a closer look at a ranting speech which Trump gave before a business group one month ago, on June 18 (I hope readers will not mind my excursion into this "ancient history"), these two latest assaults on democracy are the direct outgrowth o Trump's ongoing vicious and delusional attacks on minority immigrants - attacks which as Trump himself boasted in the speech (one of his few truthful statements) got him elected as president.

    The Guardian reports the following about the reaction of responsible intelligence experts to Trump's revoking the security clearance o former CIA Director John Brennan for his support of the Mueller investigation into Trump's ties with Russia - ties which could, not inconceivably, be more dangerous to US security than the presence of millions of unauthorized immigrants:

    "...a joint letter from 12 former senior intelligence officials [called] Trump's action 'ill-considered and unprecedented'. They said it 'has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances - and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech'."

    In other words, this was the action of a dictator concerned about threats to his own power, not the leader of a democratic country.

    Meanwhile, in reaction to Trump's attempt t muzzle a free press and shut down any criticism or opposition, The Guardian's August 15 editorial comments as follows on the fact that over 300 editorials are appearing in newspapers all over America condemning Trump's assault on independent journalism:

    "Mr. Trump's abuse of the press is grimly familiar now. He calls the US press 'enemies of the people'...He recently called the press 'dangerous and sick'...He has called journalists 'the lowest from of humanity'...

    Inescapably, this campaign has consequences...Almost half of Republican voters (44%) believe the president should be able to close news organizations for 'bad behavior'. In another poll this week, a majority of Republican voters (51%) say that the news media are 'the enemy of the people'."

    Are Trump's attacks on the news media any different from the Nazis' assault against the "Lugenpresse" ("Lying newspapers")?

    But what do these and other equally dangerous attacks on the foundations of our democracy - such as Trump's threat to abolish the immigration courts while stating that "We need border security, not judges" come from? What was their origin?

    As this above statement indicated, it all started with Trump's attacks against minority immigrants - his attempts to demonize and dehumanize not only Mexicans and Muslims, but all immigrants with a darker skin color than is normally found in the "Countries like Norway" which Trump pointed to in a January 11 White House comment as the main, if not only, legitimate source of immigration to the US in his view.

    One of the clearest, and most recent, examples of the symbiotic connection between Trump's attacks on immigrants and his attempt to extinguish democracy itself was in a disjointed, delusional rant in front of a business group on June 18. For a detailed report on the speech, see,

    Trump's Speech to National Federation of Independent Businesses is the Proud Rant of a Dictator

    The following extracts from that speech will show that the above headline is by no means unwarranted or overblown. To the contrary, the bitter anger and hostility that Trump has been showing toward brown immigrants from the beginning of his presidential canpaign, while of course different in substance - no,Trump is not a Nazi, a Hitler supporter or an antisemite in any way, shape or form - still cannot help recalling Hitler's attacks on the Jews in tone.

    To be continued.

    Updated 08-17-2018 at 09:29 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Cancer of Trump's Racist Agenda Spreads From "National Security" Muslim Ban to "Public Charge" Ban Against Millions of Brown Immigrants. Roger Algase

    Those who warned that Donald Trump's first Muslim Ban executive order issued almost immediately on becoming president 18 months ago was only the curtain-raiser to world-wide exclusion of non-white legal immigrants are now being proven right, as the fake "national security" pretext for the Muslim ban is now morphing into an even more phony "public charge" ban which could affect millions of Mexican and other non-European immigrants, as opposed to some 200 thousand caught up in the Muslim ban.

    The only difference is that the initial Muslim ban caused widespread outrage among the American people leading to court action and the ultimate withdrawal of the order.

    Now, a Trump adminnistration plan to impose a much wider ban based on absurdly inflated and distorted "public charge" grounds - which themselves had their origin in attempts to keep out Chinese, Jewish and other immigrants considered "racially undesirable" by the bigots of a century ago or more ago - and could affect many more immigrants than the Muslim ban, has caused hardly a murmur among the public and our politicians, and no lawsuit plans to date that I am aware of.

    This increasing public acceptance of escalating authoritarian outrages against targeted minority groups is the way that a society loses its democracy, as the example of Germany in 1933 shows.

    In the latest outrage involving the Trump administration's expanded use of the Public Charge exclusion grounds against legal immigrants who are totally self-supporting and have always been in compliance with our immigration laws down to the last comma, dotted "i" and crossed "t", the Houston Chronicle reports that a Mexican woman with a steady job and career in her country and a legal visitor visa, and who has made numerous trips to the US to visit her US citizen daughter and never overstayed by even a single day, was denied entry at the airport by CBP officers, had her visa cancelled and was barred from returning to the US for five years mainly on "Public Charge" grounds - because she used a legal US government program to help pay for a medical emergency on a previous visit.

    Apparently as an afterthought, with no evidence other than the fact that she had made a number of legal visits to see her American family and always left on time, CBP also determined that she was inadmissible to the US as an "intending immigrant".

    The Trump/Miller/Sessions message to immigrants, not only from Mexico, but from every part of the world, is becoming clearer and clearer with every new assault on the basic dignity and human rights of immigrants seeking to enter the United States in full compliance with our laws as written by Congress in accordance with our democratic system of government - not as unilaterally rewritten by the above triumvirate themselves.

    This message is, obviously:

    "We don't care what type of visa or other legal permission you may have. Don't even think of entering the United States unless you are 'Intending' - to be white."
    Roger Algase is a New York attorney and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who has been practicing immigration law for 40 years. He concentrates mainly in the areas of skilled and professional work visas (H-1B); extraordinary ability business, scientific and artist visas (O-1); and green cards through PERM Labor Certification and family relationships. He also represents F-1 students who are beginning their business or professional careers.

    Roger represents immigrants from diverse parts of the world. He believes that respecting the fundamental American values of racial equality and basic human rights in our immigration system is essential to maintaining our democracy - which is threatened today as rarely, if ever, before in this country's history.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 08-15-2018 at 09:23 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. ACLU’s lawsuit may force Trump to stop granting asylum applications. By Nolan Rappaport

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prevent his domestic abuse decision from being used for credible fear determinations in expedited removal proceedings.

    Sessions is trying to eliminate the need for asylum hearings on applications that are based on improper persecution claims. These meritless cases are contributing to an immigration court backlog crisis. If he is prevented from doing this by issuing precedent decisions to provide guidance on how asylum cases are supposed to be handled, the administration will resort to more extreme measures.

    The United States does not have to grant any asylum applications. Asylum is discretionary, and the Supreme Court has held that the president can suspend the entry of aliens into the United States when he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    The court declined to decide whether “some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of a president’s finding is appropriate.” It seems unlikely, however, that the court would reject a president’s finding that discretionary asylum grants should be suspended until the immigration court backlog crisis is brought under control because allowing the backlog to continue is detrimental to the interests of the United States.

    This would not leave asylum seekers without a way to avoid persecution. Withholding of removal is available too and it is mandatory when eligibility has been established. The main difference in eligibility requirements is that asylum just requires a well-founded fear of persecution, and withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted.

    But withholding does not entitle aliens to remain in the United States. It just prevents them from being deported to a country where they will be persecuted.

    The backlog crisis.


    Published originally on The Hill.

    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.

    Updated 08-13-2018 at 04:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Double Standard Toward Melania Trump's Parents' "Chain Migration" is not the Only Stench of Immigration Hypocrisy in Trump/Miller Era. Roger Algase

    In my August 10 Immigration Daily comment, I wrote about the stench of hypocrisy in Donald Trump's venomous attacks on family immigration by labeling the estimated 40 million mainly non-European parents, adult children and siblings of US citizens who have legally immigrated to the US in the past half century as "criminals" who "do not love America" and came here through "horrible chain migration"., even as Melania Trump's white parents, who by all indications, came to the US the same way, have now attained their US citizenship.

    Now, even Melania Trump's own parents' lawyer, Michael Wildes, is calling Trump's vicious and delusional attacks on extended family immigration "unconscionable.", as Trump continues his utterly delusional attacks on this visa, such as the following:

    "The chain is like a disaster. You bring one person in, you end up with 32 people."

    As I have pointed out in previous comments, even strong immigration opponents such as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies have pointed out that numbers such as these are totally impossible under current law. They are pure presidential fantasy, without the remotest relation to reality, and are invented purely to dehumanize non-white legal immigrants as people who are coming into the country uncontrolled, i.e. "infesting" or "invading" America, to use Trump's language from recent speeches at his rallies.

    One rather doubts that the president and first lady are spending much time talking about where to find space for her parents' "32 relatives."

    But Trump administration hypocrisy is not limited to Trump's in-laws' method of immigration, which Trump has had no problem with when his own white family members use it but acts as if it will destroy America when brown people do.

    See, POLITICO, August 13:

    Stephen Miller is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I'm his Uncle

    In this powerfully written op-ed, Miller's own uncle condemns Miller for promoting bigoted immigration policies which would have not only prevented his own Jewish ancestors from immigrating to the US at the turn of the 20th century, but might have led to their being wiped out in Czarist Russia.

    This appalling, shameless, example of immigration hypocrisy on Miller's part creates a stench which makes Donald Trump's own hypocrisy smell like fine perfume by comparison.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-13-2018 at 08:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. As Melania's Parents' Gain US Citizenship, Trump's Hypocrisy in Attacking "Chain Migration" for Non White Immigrants Smells Even Worse. Roger Algase

    Along with, I am sure, many other readers, I am happy to congratulate Melania Trump's parents on becoming U.S. citizens - always an encouraging and heartwarming immigrant journey.

    Congratulations are also in order for the First Lady, who, presumably, since there is no other way that her Slovenian parents could have become US permanent residents, sponsored them through the same extended family immigration visa that millions of American citizens have used to sponsor their parents from every part of the world in the past 50 years.

    As the nation wishes Melania and her new American parents all the best, we should also ask why her husband is so violently opposed to using this same avenue of immigration, which he attacks as "horrible chain migration" and tries to link with violent crime, when the immigrants involved are not from white Europe, but are from other parts of the world where people have darker skin color.

    There is an odor of hypocrisy about the president's double standard in this issue which creates an even worse stench every time that Trump makes a new speech demonizing and vilifying immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America for coming to America legally in precisely the same way that Melania Trump's parents came from Europe.

    Trump claims that he wants to move from a family immigration system to a "Merit-Based" one, but that apparently doesn't apply when his own family is involved. What is "Merit-Based" about that?

    Is America moving toward a two-tier immigration system, in which legal visas that are acceptable for white immigrants, including those in the president's own family (since his own mother and grandfather also come to the US through "chain migration") are off limits for everyone else?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-10-2018 at 06:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 309 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: