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
    For those who do not want to look at the wider implications of Trump's deportation agenda, but prefer to consider it strictly in isolation from other issues, a good place to start is with a look and the historical background of Trump's deportation policies, going all the way back to the late 19th Century Chinese exclusion laws.

    One of the best introductions to this historical background appears in a February 26 article by Kelly Lytle Hernandez, an Associate Professor of History and African-American Studies at UCLA entitled:

    America's mass deportation system is rooted in racism

    https://theconversation.com/americas...n-racism-73426

    I will be discussing this article in more detail in my own forthcoming blog comment. Anyone who is concerned with the functioning of America's deportation system today can gain valuable insights by reading this article.

    This article shows that there is a direct line from America's policy of barring, first Asian and then Jewish and other Eastern European immigrants, on racial grounds in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries; and Donald Trump's policy of deporting as many Mexican and other Latin American, Asian and black immigrants as logistics will allow, while barring immigrants from as many Muslim countries as the federal courts will let him get away with, today.

    With all due respect to Nolan, who argues that this is not the right place for a discussion of the larger context within which Trump's expanded deportation policies are being carried out, it is also worth pointing out that the open and unabashed racism of America's immigration system during the period from the 1890's to the 1930's coincided with "Gilded Age" economic policies favoring the super-wealthy white elite at the expense of the well-being of all other Americans - policies which led to the Great Depression.

    The Trump administration is not only attempting to return to the bigoted days of whites only immigration by attempting to deport 11 million or more non-white immigrants (however long that may take), but is also attempting to change the legal immigration system to favor mainly white European countries though the RAISE Act and other measures, including proposals to abolish the Diversity Visa and vastly reduce family immigration and less skilled immigration (for immigrants who don't happen to work at Trump's own resorts, that is); and- also - through his "Hire American" executive order - to cut back on primarily Asian skilled immigration such as H-1B.

    Trump is also returning to Gilded Age economic policies, which in view of the above history, is not coincidental, but something which goes hand in hand with his attempts to bring back a white supremacist immigration system and remove millions of non-white immigrants from America.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-15-2017 at 09:58 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I gather that Nolan evidently disagrees with my point that Trump's immigration "enforcement" agenda is just one part of a larger social and economic policy agenda which hurts millions of Americans just as much as, or even more than, it hurts the brown skinned immigrants who are its principal targets. Nolan is entitled to express his views, as I am to express mine.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I didn't write an article about his "larger social and economic policy agenda." It's about the failure of his immigration enforcement program.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I gather that Nolan evidently disagrees with my point that Trump's immigration "enforcement" agenda is just one part of a larger social and economic policy agenda which hurts millions of Americans just as much as, or even more than, it hurts the brown skinned immigrants who are its principal targets. Nolan is entitled to express his views, as I am to express mine.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, "Nolan thinks this has nothing to do with his article. To the contrary, the consequences of Trump's promise to ramp up deportations (whether Trump is ultimately able to fulfill these promises or not) have everything to do with Nolan's article."

    My article is not about the consequences of Trump's campaign promises, a subject I am sick of hearing about. It's about the failure of his immigration enforcement program. As I indicated in my previous comment, it is very interesting that Roger isn't pleased by this development. My explanation is that his Trump hatred has blinded Roger to everything but his obsessive, extreme criticisms of Trump.

    I say, Trump's enforcement program is failing; Roger responds that Trump's economic agenda is destroying America. If it turns out that Trump's economic agenda is failing and I write an article about it, Roger will respond with an accusation on some other topic.

    Nolan Rappaport
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As my above comment makes clear, Trump's promises to "crack down" on "illegal immigrants" and his campaign of exploiting racial hatreds by demonizing primarily Mexican unauthorized immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists", and all Muslim immigrants as "terrorists", played a crucial role in putting him in the White House.

    Who is now paying the price for following Trump's Pied Piper tune of scapegoating immigrants for all of America's problems and promising to deport as many immigrants as possible as quickly as possible?

    The American people are paying the price, in terms of very likely economic hardship and devastation for millions of seniors, young people and ordinary working people of every demographic background.

    And all Americans are paying the price in the increased danger of losing our democracy, as Giroux's above article explains.

    Nolan thinks this has nothing to do with his article. To the contrary, the consequences of Trump's promise to ramp up deportations (whether Trump is ultimately able to fulfill these promises or not) have everything to do with Nolan's article.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-14-2017 at 12:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    America is facing a much bigger problem than the alleged "failure" to kick out millions of non-criminal, mainly Latino, black and Asian "illegal aliens" and break up their families, including millions of American citizens, as quickly as immigration opponents would wish.

    The bigger problem is that millions of middle class and working class white voters, taken in by Trump's false populist anti-immigrant rhetoric during his campaign, elected a president who, together with Congressional leaders in his party, is ramming though tax and budget policies favoring the same super-rich elite which Trump campaigned against as a candidate and which will ultimately devastate the economic well being of millions of Americans who voted for Trump by destroying Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the New Deal social safety net.

    The Trump/GOP agenda will also destroy the economic well being of millions of average American working people by gutting union rights, environmental and work safety regulations, minimum wage and equal wage protections.
    This is especially cynical in the light of Trump's support for the RAISE Act, which would vastly reduce non-European immigration, on the pretext that it would help American workers.

    Political analyst Henry Giroux, who is an expert on the history of fascism, writes about how Trump's blending of an anti-immigrant agenda with economic policies favoring the same corporate elite that he claimed to oppose as a candidate, are having an especially destructive effect on America's young people and moving this country in the direction of a fascist dictatorship.

    Ordinary Americans of all races, creeds, colors and backgrounds, including millions of people in Trump's white voter base, are beginning to pay a very heavy price for being taken in by Trump's anti-immigrant siren song.

    Giroux's December 13 article: Fascism's return and Trump's war on youth is at:

    https://theconversation.com/fascisms...on-youth-88867

    Which will benefit the American people more? Spending more resources and energy on rounding up, incarcerating and ultimately deporting millions of peaceful non-white immigrants, many of whom pay taxes, own businesses which provide jobs or essential services to Americans, or work in jobs which Americans don't want; or preserving the economic well-being of middle and working class Americans which is now being threatened by the economic agenda of Trump and his party that would ruin the economic lives of millions of ordinary Americans to put more money in the pockets of billionaire campaign donors and powerful corporations?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    What does this have to do with my article? It's interesting that Roger reads an article about Trump failing to implement his immigration enforcement program, and his reaction is to complain about Trump's economic agenda. Isn't it?

    Nolan Rappaport
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    America is facing a much bigger problem than the alleged "failure" to kick out millions of non-criminal, mainly Latino, black and Asian "illegal aliens" and break up their families, including millions of American citizens, as quickly as immigration opponents would wish.

    The bigger problem is that millions of middle class and working class white voters, taken in by Trump's false populist anti-immigrant rhetoric during his campaign, elected a president who, together with Congressional leaders in his party, is ramming though tax and budget policies favoring the same super-rich elite which Trump campaigned against as a candidate and which will ultimately devastate the economic well being of millions of Americans who voted for Trump by destroying Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the New Deal social safety net.

    The Trump/GOP agenda will also destroy the economic well being of millions of average American working people by gutting union rights, environmental and work safety regulations, minimum wage and equal wage protections.
    This is especially cynical in the light of Trump's support for the RAISE Act, which would vastly reduce non-European immigration, on the pretext that it would help American workers.

    Political analyst Henry Giroux, who is an expert on the history of fascism, writes about how Trump's blending of an anti-immigrant agenda with economic policies favoring the same corporate elite that he claimed to oppose as a candidate, are having an especially destructive effect on America's young people and moving this country in the direction of a fascist dictatorship.

    Ordinary Americans of all races, creeds, colors and backgrounds, including millions of people in Trump's white voter base, are beginning to pay a very heavy price for being taken in by Trump's anti-immigrant siren song.

    Giroux's December 13 article: Fascism's return and Trump's war on youth is at:

    https://theconversation.com/fascisms...on-youth-88867

    Which will benefit the American people more? Spending more resources and energy on rounding up, incarcerating and ultimately deporting millions of peaceful non-white immigrants, many of whom pay taxes, own businesses which provide jobs or essential services to Americans, or work in jobs which Americans don't want; or preserving the economic well-being of middle and working class Americans which is now being threatened by the economic agenda of Trump and his party that would ruin the economic lives of millions of ordinary Americans to put more money in the pockets of billionaire campaign donors and powerful corporations?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 12-14-2017 at 10:56 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This is no doubt what Dershowitz believes. With all due respect to the professor, there is good reason to believe that the respected Jewish leaders from across the spectrum are showing a greater awareness then the Ban's defenders are showing of America's sad history of barring Jewish and other targeted immigrants from the US because of race or religion, using their countries of citizenship as a pretext; a history which Trump is now repeating with Muslims in place of Jews.

    Again, history is relevant and important in this context. For at least the first six decades of the 20th century, many American politicians and media figures targeted Jews in general as allegedly dangerous to America.

    Jewish immigrants were labelled as "anarchists" "Bolsheviks", "Communists", "internationalists" with loyalty only to a "Zionist state"; and even, during the Hitler period, potential "Nazi spies".

    Antisemitism and hatred against Jewish immigrants was spread by demagogues such as the popular radio figure Father Charles Coughlin, who accused Jews of wanting to control the world, and Henry Ford, a wealthy tycoon of the 1920's and 1930's period whose attacks against Jews in many ways anticipated Donald Trump's attacks on all Muslims (not just Jihadists) as in Trump's well-documented campaign statement: "Islam hates us".

    For more on how America's history of antisemitism led to barring most Jewish refugees from Hitler who had hoped to find safety in America, see:

    https://www.facinghistory.org/defyin...-and-holocaust

    Trump's Muslim ban orders are not the first time in our history that "national security" has been used as a cover for bigotry against a targeted group or groups of immigrants.

    The only thing that is new is that no other US president in modern history has made so many comments expressing open hatred for the targeted group concerned as Trump has done with Muslims.

    I would also point out that Alan Dershowitz, despite his distinguished reputation, is not the only professor who has taught at Harvard. Almost 200 Harvard professors opposed Trump's original version of the Muslim ban.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...gration-order/

    More recently, 45 constitutional law scholars from various US law schools have signed an amicus brief opposing the latest version of the Ban.

    https://news.law.fordham.edu/blog/20...rofessors-say/

    This last cited article also points out that Chad, one of the countries included in Trump's latest Ban list, has been an important counter-terrorism partner of the United States, fighting Al Qaeda and Boko Haram for years.

    The article states:

    "Already, in the aftermath of Travel Ban 3.0, Chad has pulled troops from the fight against Boko Haram in Niger."

    Does Donald Trump really care about America's national security?

    Or is he more concerned about the real reason for the "Travel" Ban -carrying out an agenda of hate which Trump first unleashed in his speech calling for a world-wide ban on admitting Muslims to the US two years ago; and which he has continued in numerous other statements and actions as president - most recently, only a week or two ago, by retweeting vicious anti-Muslim propaganda videos put out by a UK extremist with a reported history of Islamophobia to 43 million Twitter followers?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-11-2017 at 08:39 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, You are missing Dershowitz's main points, which are that the travel "ban" was not religious discrimination and didn't violate the constitution. He says it was based on legitimate security grounds.

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Professor Dershowitz calls Trump's orders a "ban", as he evidently did, according to Nolan's above quote from the professor's statement, why is it wrong for me to call it a ban too?

    Thus, having established that is is indeed a ban, (if Dershowitz is correct, as I think he is), then the only question is whether it is a Muslim ban or not.

    Since more than 99 percent of the people affected by every version of the ban order are obviously Muslims, calling it something other than a Muslim ban is a pretty strained interpretation that bears no connection with the reality of who is actually excluded.

    The legal issue, is, therefore, is whether the federal courts should pay attention to the reality of the ban in terms of whom it is meant to exclude, or whether they should follow a legal fiction suggesting some other explanation.

    This is what makes the reaction of so many of America's Jewish leaders across the spectrum relevant to our legal discussion.

    Why are so many respected Jewish Orthodox, Conservative and Reform leaders standing up for the rights of Muslims, who have not always had friendly relations with the Jewish people?

    Because Jews also know what can happen when America adopts a "Jewish immigration ban" which is disguised as something else - namely the "National Origins" immigration act of 1924 which nowhere mentioned the word "Jew" or Jewish", but in fact added to the death toll in Hitler's ovens and gas chambers by barring citizens of the countries where most of the world's Jews lived from immigration to the US.

    If there is one reaction to the Holocaust on which everyone who deserves to be called s human being can agree, it is

    "Never Again."

    All Americans of good will should have the same reaction as these respected Jewish leaders to Trump's ban on immigration by Muslims in place of the previously targeted Jews:

    Never Again!

    It is sad and shameful for America that the Supreme Court, so far, except for two of its Justices, has apparently not yet been able to see that.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-08-2017 at 04:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    American Jewish leaders across a wide range of views were united in condemning the original version of Trump's Muslim and Refugee Ban last January. They remembered how America once closed its doors to millions of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, just as desperate Muslims who are are now fleeing war and famine in places like Yemen, Syria and Libya are now barred from coming to the United States while Trump is busy retweeting anti-Muslim hate videos similar to the propaganda which the later executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher spread against the Jews in his infamous newspaper Der Stuermer.

    For the Jewish leaders' reaction to Trump's original Muslim ban, which differed only in detail from the latest version which the Supreme Court has just made (for the moment) into the Law of the Land, see:

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/2232...ps-refugee-ban

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    It wasn't a ban, Roger. It was a temporary suspension pending the implementation of a new vetting system. But you don't seem to be willing to consider my views on that situation. How about the views of one of your Harvard colleagues, Alan M. Dershowitz?

    If the case reaches the Supreme Court, a major issue will be whether campaign rhetoric delivered by Donald Trump, when he was a private citizen running for president, may be considered by the courts in deciding on the constitutionality of an executive order. The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.


    Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed.

    Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    American Jewish leaders across a wide range of views were united in condemning the original version of Trump's Muslim and Refugee Ban last January. They remembered how America once closed its doors to millions of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, just as desperate Muslims who are are now fleeing war and famine in places like Yemen, Syria and Libya are now barred from coming to the United States while Trump is busy retweeting anti-Muslim hate videos similar to the propaganda which the later executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher spread against the Jews in his infamous newspaper Der Stuermer.

    For the Jewish leaders' reaction to Trump's original Muslim ban, which differed only in detail from the latest version which the Supreme Court has just made (for the moment) into the Law of the Land, see:

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/2232...ps-refugee-ban

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-08-2017 at 10:25 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Trump didn't do any of the things I mentioned above? He didn't originally call for a world wide ban on Muslims from entering the US and say that "Islam hates us" as a candidate?

    He didn't ban almost 200 million citizens of a group of almost 100 percent Muslim countries purely because of their nationality, very much as Congress did to the Jews and other targeted ethnic/religious groups almost 100 years ago?

    Trump, as president, no longer just a candidate, didn't retweet some vicious Islamophobic videos purporting to make all Muslims look like violent criminals only about one week ago?

    There might be some room for legitimate disagreement over the meaning and significance of these facts, to be sure.

    But no one can deny that these are facts, that these events did take place. If the fact that Trump indeed did and said the above things is denied, then we are surely in George Orwell territory.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Roger says: Trump
    didn't do any of the things I mentioned above? He didn't originally call for a world wide ban on Muslims from entering the US and say that "Islam hates us" as a candidate?

    No, he said that that Muslim immigration should be stopped until the government could do background investigations on the Muslims. At that time, the DHS sec, the FBI director, and others responsible for such background inspections said they couldn't get information about Syrian refugees from within Syria because they did not have anyone in Syria to gather the information. It would have been better if he had limited his statement to that country, but he didn't.

    He did say that there were Muslims who hated America, which is true. Look at the State Department list of terrorist organizations if you don't believe me. But I didn't interpret what he said as meaning that ALL Muslims hate us.

    Roger says: He
    didn't ban almost 200 million citizens of a group of almost 100 percent Muslim countries purely because of their nationality, very much as Congress did to the Jews and other targeted ethnic/religious groups almost 100 years ago?

    That statement is too absurd to warrant an explanation of why it is wrong. I will say, however, that Trump did not write the Travel Ban. I know the guy who did, and I strongly suspect that he based it on an article I wrote when Trump made the infamous Muslim statement as a candidate. You might find it worthwhile to read my article.

    If he is elected to the presidency, Donald Trump will have statutory authority to suspend the entry of all Muslim aliens (April 20, 2017),
    http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0420-Rappaport.pdf


    Roger says, Trump, as president, no longer just a candidate, didn't retweet some vicious Islamophobic videos purporting to make all Muslims look like violent criminals only about one week ago?

    He tweeted some acts of violence committed by people he presumably thought were Muslims. It's a stretch to call the video clips "vicious Islamophobic videos" and ridiculous to say those clips were supposed to make all Muslims look like violent criminals. And he could have portrayed the Muslims in a much more violent light just by telling a staffer to look through YouTube for horrible acts of Muslim violence. Someone sent one to me years ago and I still can't get it out of my mind.

    Roger says: There might be some room for legitimate disagreement over the meaning and significance of these facts, to be sure.

    But no one can deny that these are facts, that these events did take place. If the fact that Trump indeed did and said the above things is denied, then we are surely in George Orwell territory.

    No, the problem is that you don't know the difference between facts and interpretations. Rewrite your accusations without the inflammatory adjectives and you should be able to see what I mean.

    Nolan Rappaport

  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump didn't do any of the things I mentioned above? He didn't originally call for a world wide ban on Muslims from entering the US and say that "Islam hates us" as a candidate?

    He didn't ban almost 200 million citizens of a group of almost 100 percent Muslim countries purely because of their nationality, very much as Congress did to the Jews and other targeted ethnic/religious groups almost 100 years ago?

    Trump, as president, no longer just a candidate, didn't retweet some vicious Islamophobic videos purporting to make all Muslims look like violent criminals only about one week ago?

    There might be some room for legitimate disagreement over the meaning and significance of these facts, to be sure.

    But no one can deny that these are facts, that these events did take place. If the fact that Trump indeed did and said the above things is denied, then we are surely in George Orwell territory.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-06-2017 at 05:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan also hasn't answered my hypothetical question about whether a president who campaigns on a pledge to ban Jews from the entire world from entering the US, and who stated that "Judaism hates America", and who then as president, issues a ban against all citizens of Israel from entering the United States, could be justly accused of acting out of anti-Semitic prejudice no matter what the stated pretext for the ban might be.

    And let me add on additional element to my hypo: suppose that almost a year into his presidency, and only a few days before a major Supreme Court action relating to his ban order, this same hypothetical president has retweeted some (translated, of course) articles from Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer newspaper purporting to show Jews as all being dangerous criminals?

    How could anyone possibly argue with a straight face that this hypothetical ban against immigrants from Israel was motivated by anything other that hatred of Jews, not matter what the claimed pretext for the ban might be?

    He didn't do any of the things you are accusing him of doing.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 12-06-2017 at 04:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also hasn't answered my hypothetical question about whether a president who campaigns on a pledge to ban Jews from the entire world from entering the US, and who states that "Judaism hates America";and who then, as president, issues a ban against all citizens of Israel from entering the United States, could be justly accused of acting out of anti-Jewish prejudice, no matter what the stated pretext for the ban might be.

    And let me add one additional element to my hypo: suppose that almost a year into his presidency, and only a few days before a major Supreme Court action relating to his ban order, this same hypothetical president retweets some (translated, of course) articles from Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer newspaper purporting to show Jews as all being dangerous criminals to the president's hypothetical 43 million Twitter followers.

    How could anyone possibly argue with a straight face that this hypothetical ban against immigrants from Israel was motivated by anything other that hatred of Jews, no matter what the claimed reason for the ban might be?

    Actually, my question is not purely hypothetical only. America actually had a law in effect for more than 40 years which banned almost of the world's Jews from immigrating to the United States, and which was intended by its authors to be for racial religious reasons, as every responsible historian of that period will attest.

    However, even a distinguished, respected and painstaking legal scholar such as Nolan will not be able to find the word "Jews" or "Jewish" anywhere in the text of that law, known as the Johnson-Reed "National Origins" immigration act of 1924.

    It was also, like Trump's Muslim Ban executive orders, ostensibly based on nationality, rather than race or religion.

    Very few visas were made available under that law for the countries where most of the world's Jews happened to live. (That law also did the same thing with Muslims,l Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans, as well as Southern and Eastern European who, all of whom were looked down on as "racially inferior" at that time.)

    Donald Trump, with his ban against entry into the US by almost the entire population of six almost 100 per cent Muslim countries, is taking America back to the spirit, if not the exact letter, of the open;y bigoted Chinese Exclusion Laws and "National Origins" immigration act of 1924.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-06-2017 at 03:56 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Of course, there is no Muslim ban, only a ban almost 200 million people from six countries which happen to be more than 99 percent Muslim, imposed by a president who campaigned on a promise to ban every Muslim in the world from entering the United States; and who only a few days before the Supreme Court's latest decision, disseminated some viciously anti-Muslim videos, intended to make all Muslims out to be dangerous criminals, just as the later executed Nazi war criminal, Julius Streicher, tried to do with the Jews in his infamous Der Stuermer newspaper.

    If Trump's executive orders were not a Muslim Ban, there was never such thing as the Chinese Exclusion Law either because that law was also ostensibly based on nationality (China) rather than race or religion.

    The original (1882) Chinese exclusion law (and its successors) also contained an important exception, i.e. for "merchants", who were not excluded, as opposed to "laborers", who were.

    Despite this, the US Supreme Court, in Chae Chan Ping v. US (1889) determined that the purpose of the exclusion law was racial - and it upheld the law in large part for that reason.

    Evidently, the Supreme Court had more respect for the reality of discriminatory intent in measures excluding immigrants
    than it has now, at least as shown by its two December 4 Muslim Ban case decisions.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-06-2017 at 03:00 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Suppose that America were to elect a president who had made anti-Semitic statements, such as "Judaism hates America" and called for world wide ban on Jewish immigration as a candidate. Suppose that same president then issued a ban against entry by citizens of half a dozen or so countries including Israel, but without mentioning Jews specifically?

    Same reaction by people who are now defending Trump's Muslim ban?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    There is no Muslim ban, Roger.

    Nolan Rappaport
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Suppose that America were to elect a president who had made anti-Semitic statements, such as "Judaism hates America" and called for world wide ban on Jewish immigration as a candidate. Suppose that same president then issued a ban against entry by citizens of half a dozen or so countries including Israel, but without mentioning Jews specifically?

    Same reaction by people who are now defending Trump's Muslim ban?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Certainly, not every news story about Trump or any other topic can be verified, and in the case of the story about Kelly's alleged pressure on Elaine Duke to terminate TPS for 86,000 Hondurans in the US, Duke has denied receiving any pressure from Kelly, though not receiving the phone call itself. She has also denied having any plans to quit the DHS.

    At the same time, the NY Times, Washington Post and other major outlets who ran the story have not retracted it, so readers will have to make their own choice as to its veracity.

    As between respected independent news outlets such as the NY Times, Washington Post and, yes, CNN on the one hand, and Trump supporting organs such as Fox News on the other, it is not hard to tell where the truth generally lies.

    This is why Trump is trying so hard to attack and muzzle a free press in America, in the classic style of dictators the world over.

    But what about the countless stories concerning Trump's own bigoted statements, such as the one that he gave in Warsaw on July 6 as a blueprint for his Europe only immigration agenda?

    I have commented on that statement previously, using the White House's own official transcript. For my most recent comment about how Trump's European supremacist Blut und ​Boden ("Blood and Soil") type Warsaw speech relates to the termination of Haitian TPS in particular, see:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10239

    Is it not also true that Trump, just the other day, used the racist term "Pocahontas"in front of a distinguished groups of native American WW2 veterans, and that he did so while standing in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, who is famous for having persecuted and exterminated native Americans?

    As a Princeton professor, Eddie Glaude Jr. pointed out in reaction to Trump's use of this racial slur, this was an insult not only to native Americans, but to all brown-skinned people.

    https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...-heart-country

    Haitian TPS holders are also brown-skinned people, and Trump's "Pocahontas" comment is a racial slur against them as well.

    If Trump wants to defend himself against the accusation that his entire immigration policy is based on white supremacy and racial prejudice against brown people. avoiding racial epithets in his public statements (and apologizing, not only for "Pocahontas" but also for his many attacks against various non-white immigrant groups in general) would be a good way to begin.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-29-2017 at 09:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 126 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: