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.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

description

  1. Trump's DOJ Went Back to Supreme Court, But Failed, to Bar Muslim Grandparents, Bringing Back Memories of 1936 Nuremberg Laws. Roger Algase

    POLITICO reported in July that Trump's Department of Justice, in an apparent effort to make sure that not one single more Muslim immigrant is allowed to enter the US than absolutely required by the courts, appealed to the Supreme Court from a ruling by a Honolulu federal judge that Muslim grandparents should be considered "close relatives" and therefore exempt from Trump's six Muslim country ban executive order.

    Since grandparents are not in an age group generally associated with the danger of terrorist attacks, and, to the best of my knowledge, there have few if any reports of terror attacks by seniors in America, Europe, or anywhere else in the world, the "national security" pretext for barring Muslim grandparents from the US is so absurd that the whole dispute would verge on comedy - if there were not also a very dark historical precedent for obsession over grandparents in a legal enactment.

    I refer to the 1936 Nazi Nuremberg laws. These laws, which were the prelude to the ultimate goal of total exterminations of the Jewish people, had very precise definitions of who was Jewish, and therefore subject to discrimination and eventual elimination.

    http://www.britannica.com/topic/Nurnberg-Laws

    One of the best known features of that law was determining how many Jewish grandparents a person needed to have in ordered to be considered Jewish.

    This does not in any way imply that the Trump administration is anti-Semitic or supports genocide or extermination in any form. Of course it is not and does not. But using grandparents as means to advance an agenda of discrimination against any targeted minority group, whether German Jews nine decades ago or Muslim immigrants to America today, sets an unfortunate precedent and brings back memories of some of the world's darkest history.

    My respectful suggestion to the president, and to his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who already raised eyebrows less than three years ago by praising the same US Coolidge-era "Nordics" only 1924 immigration law in Sessions' January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans that Adolf Hitler praised some 90 years earlier in Mein Kampf, would be to let Muslim grandparents well enough alone, and to focus on real national security issues instead.

    The world has already been there about targeting grandparents of unpopular minorities. We do not need to go there again.

    The POLITICO report is at:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...vel-ban-240543

    Fortunately, on July 19, the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ's appeal and ruled that grandparents and other close relatives of US citizens are exempt from the Trump-Sessions Muslim entry ban.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/politi...nts/index.html

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 08-22-2017 at 10:48 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Congress unlikely to pay for border wall, but Trump has other options. By Nolan Rappaport



    © Getty

    President’s Trump appears willing to risk a government shutdown this fall in order to secure funds for his promised wall on the United States-Mexico border. His prospects are slim, considering Republicans lawmakers need the support of Democrats to pass a bill to fund the government.

    Trump has other options, however.

    If the president is unable to get funding for the wall, he will need another way to improve border security that Congress could agree to fund. An enforcement program to reduce the number of people making illegal crossings is a viable alternative.

    The program should include measures to prevent the removal of aliens who would benefit our national interests if they are allowed to remain. An enforcement-only approach would be counterproductive.

    Mexico certainly won’t pay for the wall. In a leaked phone conversationTrump had earlier this year with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Nieto said, “I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.”

    And Congress may not pay for it either.

    The House recently approved a spending bill that includes $1.6 billion towards building the wall, but it has stalled in the Senate. Senate Republicans apparently want to avoid the very same spending showdown with the Democrats that Trump is willing to cause.

    Read more at
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rump-has-other

    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author.
    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.







  3. Congress unlikely to pay for border wall, but Trump has other options. By Nolan Rappaport



    © Getty

    President’s Trump appears willing to risk a government shutdown this fall in order to secure funds for his promised wall on the United States-Mexico border. His prospects are slim, considering Republicans lawmakers need the support of Democrats to pass a bill to fund the government.
    Trump has other options, however.

    If the president is unable to get funding for the wall, he will need another way to improve border security that Congress could agree to fund. An enforcement program to reduce the number of people making illegal crossings is a viable alternative.

    The program should include measures to prevent the removal of aliens who would benefit our national interests if they are allowed to remain. An enforcement-only approach would be counterproductive.
    Mexico certainly won’t pay for the wall. In a leaked phone conversationTrump had earlier this year with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Nieto said, “I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.”
    And Congress may not pay for it either.
    The House recently approved a spending bill that includes $1.6 billion towards building the wall, but it has stalled in the Senate. Senate Republicans apparently want to avoid the very same spending showdown with the Democrats that Trump is willing to cause.

    Read more at
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rump-has-other

    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author.
    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.







  4. Bannon's Ouster is Not Likely to Stop Trump's March Backward Toward the 1924 Europeans Only Immigration Regime. Roger Algase

    The media are now consumed with the news on August 18 that Donald Trump has suddenly (or maybe not so suddenly - there were warning signs according to many reports) fired Stephen Bannon as his senior strategist.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-house-241792

    Since Bannon, by all accounts, played a major role in Trump's Muslim ban and many other of his policies adversely affecting immigrants from non-white parts of the world, if not actually being the chief architect of these policies, there is speculation that Bannon's ouster may signify a big reversal for Trump on immigration, or at least a halt in his progress toward a whites-only immigration regime, as shown most recently in Trump's support for the RAISE Act.

    As I have mentioned in a recent comment, white supremacist leader Richard Spencer, who has added to his notoriety by his role in organizing the neo-nazi Charlottesville demonstration on August 12 has praised the RAISE Act as "awesome", and looking at this bill which would drastically cut all immigration from outside Europe it is easy to see why he thinks so. See:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10067

    As for Bannon himself, his initial statement after being ousted would indicate that policy disagreements, not just White House personality disputes, or more presidential panic over the tightening net of the Mueller investigation

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...15505?lo=ap_d1

    (both of which are beyond the scope of my comments here) were at least a major factor in Bannon's forced departure.

    According to Bannon's statement (on August 18):

    "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...or-over-241809

    Since immigration, especially involving exclusion and mass deportation of immigrants from non-European areas of the world, was clearly a key part of Bannon's vision for a Trump presidency, there might be reason to hope that Bannon's ouster might bring about some change in Trump's focus so far on using immigration policy to make America whiter.

    However, it could be even more likely that Trump, whose record during the presidential campaign, not to mention as president, has been full of disparaging remarks and hostile actions against Latinos, Muslims and other non-European immigrants, no longer needs Bannon and is now capable of imposing a whites-only immigration agenda on America without him. As David A. Graham writes in The Atlantic (August 18):

    "The one view that seems likely to persist, even without Bannon around, is Trump's embrace of the politics of white resentment and racially divisive rhetoric. In a sense, Trump is right that Bannon is a newcomer: Trump has flirted with racism for decades."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...thered/537354/

    (By the way, Mr. Graham, can we please stop using meaningless euphemisms such as "white resentment" or "white identity politics" when what we are really talking about is racism and hatred toward people of color which have been an unfortunate, but very real part of America's immigration history, ever since Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in 1857 that black people could never be US citizens?)

    See also, Newsweek, August 18:

    Steve Bannon's Exit Won't Make Trump's White House Any Less Racist

    http://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon...-miller-652225

    However, any analysis of what Trump's immigration policies might be without Bannon has to begin with a look at what Trump's policies in this area have been with Bannon.

    An excellent place to begin this examination is with a February 28 article in the L.A. Times by Brian Bennet entitled:

    The real goal of Trump's executive orders: Reduce the number of immigrants in the U.S.


    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...228-story.html

    As the following discussion will show, the word "immigrants" in the title of Bennet's article should be taken to mean: "non-white immigrants".

    Bennet writes:

    "At the same time that the European share of migration has dropped, the overall foreign-born share of the US population has increased, quadrupling in the five decades since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act took effect. In 1960, the U.S. had 9.7 million foreign-born residents. In 2014, it had 42.2 million."

    He continues:

    "That change has alarmed right wing nationalists like Miller and Bannon, who see Trump's administration as an opportunity to change those migration trends for decades to come...

    Nations, including the U.S. are undermined by too high a level o diversity, Bannon has argued.

    'The center core of what we believe, that we're a nation with an economy, but not just an economy in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a -a reason for being,' Bannon said."

    What does all this mean? A little earlier in the same article, Bennet quotes Tanya Golash-Boza, a sociology professor at UC Merced who studies immigration and race:

    If you were going to say, 'We don't like that equalization we did in 1965, we need to go back', that is going back to a time when the United States was more overtly racist..."

    Or from another vantage point, maybe the United States is going forward - to a white supremacist, neo-Nazi future, the future which the torch bearing demonstrators in Charlottesville holding signs saying "Blood and Soil" - a direct translation of the slogan"Blut und Boden" from the Hitler era - are hoping to have in store for America.

    From that perspective, Bannon's ouster is not likely to change the basic outlook in the Trump administration - that Latino, Muslim, Asian and African immigrants are dangerous for this country and do not really belong in America.

    Bannon, one can argue, has already done his damage to the race-neutral, color-blind (in principle) immigration system that America has had for the past 50 years. He (with the help of Stephen Miller, who still remains in the White House) has already given us the Muslim ban order which is now pending before the Supreme Court.

    Bannon has also unquestionably been a driving force behind Trump's expanded deportation dragnet, his "Hire American" executive order attacking mainly Asian H-1B workers, and most recently of all, Trump's support for the RAISE Act, which would drastically reduce legal immigration from non-white parts of the world - in a major step backward to the openly racist 1924 "national origins" immigration act which cut off immigration from Asia, the Middle East and Africa entirely, as well as barring all but a few Jews and Catholics from Eastern and Southern Europe - a law which Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, praised as a Senator in his 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans - and which Adolf Hitler also praised some 90 years earlier in Mein Kampf.

    Justin Guest, a professor at George Mason University, gives a more complete list of Stephen Bannon's legacy of helping steer the Trump administration backward toward an earlier era of white supremacist immigration policies. He writes in The Guardian, on August 18, as follows:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...se-nationalism

    "25 January 2017: Heightened immigration enforcement and broadened the category of people subject to deportation.

    25 January: Ordered the construction of a border wall and the tripling of border agents.

    25 January: Ordered the removal of funding from so-called sanctuary cities.

    26 January: Ordered a weekly list of crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities.

    27 January: Suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program.

    27 January: Ordered a ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

    6 March: Ordered a ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries...

    2 August: Supported bill to cut all documented [legal] immigration into the U.S. in half.

    15 August: Declined to specifically condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists after terrorist attack in Charlottesville, Virginia.
    (Italics added.)


    Can anyone argue, seriously and in good faith, that the last item in the above list, (which I have put in italics), namely refusing to denounce neo-Nazi and white supremacist violence explicitly, is not directly related to and intimately connected with the other eight items, all of them aimed at reducing or cutting off non-white immigration, in that same list?


    No reasonable person, no person of good will, could deny that connection with a straight face.

    Professor Guest sums up Bannon's main "achievement" as Trump's Senior White House adviser as follows:

    "Bannon's most attainable, sustainable - and frightening - achievement is white Americans' renewed sense of racial consciousness...He has wielded pervasive fear about demographic change into immense, cathartic, political capital in support of Trump and his crusade against political correctness, foreigners and other threats to the historic American social hierarchy."

    What could Guest possibly mean by "historical American social hierarchy" above?

    Clearly, Guest is referring to nothing other than white supremacy, a movement which unquestionably owes a great debt of gratitude to Stephen Bannon during his brief tenure in the White House - as well as to the president whom he was working for.

    Very arguably, Trump does not need Stephen Bannon any more in order to continue to move America's immigration system back toward the white supremacist regime that was in force during a large part of the last century, right up until the 1965 immigration reform law that Trump and his administration are now working so hard to undermine or overthrow.

    Trump can now get along quite well without Stephen Bannon.

    ____________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards, without regard to ancestry, ethnic background or religion, in the true spirit of America.

    Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 08-20-2017 at 02:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. And This Supreme Court Justice is Going to Help Decide Whether Trump's Muslim Ban Executive Order is Valid? Roger Algase

    POLITICO reports on August 17 that the newest, Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at an event to be sponsored in September by the non-profit Fund for American Studies at Donald Trump's D.C. Hotel.

    According to the same report, the hotel, which is frequented by Republican operatives, lobbyists and cabinet officials is already making even than bigger than expected profits as a result of patronage by individuals and groups seeking to influence the administration.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...l-event-241738

    By giving the keynote address, Justice Gorsuch will very arguably be helping to boost the business profits of the same president whose Muslim ban executive order, one of the best publicized and most controversial actions of his entire presidency to date, Gorsuch will participate in ruling on the validity of in this fall's Supreme Court term.

    And this is what they call impartial justice?


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 08-17-2017 at 11:49 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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: