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



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Report: Trump Set to Expand Muslim Ban, Using "Vetting Non-Compliance" Instead of "Terror Sponsorship" as Pretext. Roger Algase

    A September 22 report in The Guardian indicates that Donald Trump, who has been frustrated again and again by the federal courts in attempting to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States, and who vented his frustration last week in a tweet calling for a "larger", "tougher" and "more specific" ban, may be seeking to accomplish that goal with a different strategy by widening the number of affected countries and changing the pretext for imposing the ban.

    It will be remembered that the supposed rationale for imposing his original seven Muslim country ban and its subsequent six country version was that the countries concerned were on a US government terror sponsorship list, even though no one from any of the affected countries had ever been suspected of being involved in a terror attack in the United States.

    The new rationale, according to the above report, may be that the countries concerned are failing to cooperate with US "vetting" procedures by withholding certain information about their citizens from US authorities.

    According to The Guardian and other media, the new ban may be directed against a wider group of countries, but may also be more "specific" in terms of stricter "screening" questions affecting certain visa applicants or classes of applicants, rather, than banning every citizen of the entire country.

    Regardless of changes which may be made in the list of affected countries, in the mechanism for enforcing the ban, or in the pretext for imposing the ban in the first place, Trump's tweet last week made clear that the purpose of the revised ban, if any, would still be the same - keeping as many Muslim immigrants out of the United States as the federal courts will allow him to get away with.

    The Guardian's report is at:

    To this admittedly irreverent observer, Trump's anticipated change in the pretext for the Muslim ban policy, i.e. alleged failure to cooperate with US "vetting" procedures rather than alleged terror sponsorship, reminds me of an old French movie which I saw many years ago.

    In the movie, a panhandler in a crowded Paris neighborhood is soliciting money from passers-by by carrying a large sign saying AVEUGLE ("Blind").

    Suddenly it starts to rain, and everyone runs indoors to take shelter from the downpour, including the panhandler, whose cover of pretending to be blind has now been blown away.

    But as soon as the rain stops, the panhandler, unfazed, emerges into the street again, but this time with his sign turned around to read: SOURD-MUET ("Deaf and Dumb").

    Trump may change his excuses and his mechanisms for barring Muslim immigrants from the United States, but his purpose remains the same - to keep as many adherents of this religion as possible from entering the United States as visitors or immigrants (just as another US statute, enacted almost a century ago in 1924, did with Jewish, Catholic and most non-European immigrants from around the world in a tradition which the Trump administration is following all too faithfully now, but only with some of the targeted ethnic/religious groups changed).

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-22-2017 at 09:31 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Sessions Continues Administration's Demonizing of Latino Immigrants as Criminals and "Gang Members". Roger Algase

    POLITICO reports on September 21 that A.G. Jeff Sessions, who long ago earned notoriety as the Senate's most vocal anti-immigrant member, and who in a January, 2015 "Handbook" for Senate Republicans lavishly praised the "Nordics"-only 1924 "national origins" act which cut off virtually all immigration from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, continued the Trump administration's campaign against Latino immigrants by attacking unaccompanied minors trying to escape gang violence in Central America as being gang members themselves.

    According to the above report, Sessions called these children "wolves in sheep's clothing". while also calling for Trump's Mexican border Wall to be built.

    Whether any of the more than 13,000 children from Central American countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras who have been admitted to the US under the Department of Health and Human Services' Refugee Resettlement Program are gang members remains to be proven, since Sessions did not refer to any hard evidence to back up his charge.

    One thing is clear, however. America now has an attorney general - and a president - who, as a general matter (despite the president's commendable support for DACA legislation - something that Sessions is unlikely ever to support)

    do not welcome immigration by people of any age from Central or South America (or any other part of the world besides Europe).

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-22-2017 at 11:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Trump's Support for "Larger", "Tougher", Muslim Ban Recalls 1920's Ban Against Jewish Immigrants. Will the Supreme Ct. Take Note? Roger Algase

    Update, September 20:

    As the Jewish Rosh Hashana arrives, my best wishes to all readers for a Happy New Year. L'Shana Tova!

    As the New Year begins, let every American hope that the Supreme Court will finally strike down Donald Trump's Muslim ban Executive Order once and for all, and that America will not repeat the sad history of racial and religious bigotry that it engaged in by barring Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust and the years leading up to it.

    Never Again!

    The following is a revised and expanded September 18 version of my original September 16 comment:

    On September 15, Donald Trump tweeted the following with respect to his six-country Muslim ban which is still under consideration by the Supreme Court:

    "The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"

    The above is an unmistakable reference to Trump's original, December 2015 call for a world wide ban on entry by Muslims into the United States. That proposal, as well as his "watered down" Executive Order versions issued after taking office as president, have brought on a storm of condemnation from across the political spectrum, including many leaders in Trump's own party.

    Certainly, Trump's original world-wide ban proposal, if not the later versions, was just about as "large". "tough" and "specific" as one can imagine.

    Therefore the president's latest tweet raises a serious question as to whether he has ever given up the idea of a world-wide Muslim entry ban as his ultimate goal.

    Trump's comment also brings back disturbing memories of a period, beginning almost 100 years ago, when America did in fact impose what a amounted to virtually a world-wide ban on members of another unpopular religious group of the period - adherents of the Jewish religion and everyone else who had Jewish ancestry.

    As every student of America's immigration history and of American history in general knows well, this ban was accomplished through enacting the 1924 Johnson-Reed "national origins" quotas immigration act. This law, in effect, limited immigration to populations from northern Europe, known as "Nordics" in the racially motivated parlance of that time, and drastically reduced immigration quotas for Eastern and Southern Europe where most of the world's Jewish population lived (as well as virtually eliminating immigration quotas for all other areas of the world outside the "Western Hemisphere").

    Just as Trump's call for a ban on Muslim immigrants grew out of ongoing attempts by US politicians and media figures to exploit prejudice against all of the world's 1. 6 billion Muslims in general, using 9/11 and subsequent attacks by jihadist extremists an excuse, the 1920's ban against Jewish immigrants was based on widespread anti-semitism.

    Jews in general were accused of being racially, religiously and culturally inferior, and of being "Bolsheviks" or belonging to an "international Zionist conspiracy". They were attacked by politicians and in the media as being dangerous, disloyal and unfit to assimilate into American society, just as Muslims are now being accused of not only being potential terrorists but of wanting to "impose Sharia law" in the United States.

    Anti-semites of that time also had a famous and wealthy businessman, Henry Ford, as one of their leading exponents - but far from the only one. For more on Henry Ford's attacks against the Jews and their influence on the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, see:


    The effects of America's 1924 ban on Jewish and other non - "Nordic" immigration were pervasive, reaching far beyond the boundaries of the United States itself. They included inspiring the racist, and ultimately genocidal ideology of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers.

    Noted Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs describes these effects in chilling detail in his March 19 article:

    The Muslim ban and American history

    He writes, concerning the enactment of the 1924 immigration law which imposed an almost complete ban on Jewish immigration to the US:

    "During this process, there was an attentive and approving observer abroad, Adolf Hitler. Hitler praised the new U.S. immigration policy in 'Mein Kampf', writing among other things that 'There is currently one state in which one can observe at least the weak beginnings of a better conception...The American Union...simply excludes the immigration of certain races.'"

    No one can possibly have any doubts about which people were included among the "races" which the future German Fuehrer was referring to in the above passage.

    Professor Sachs also writes concerning the history of the above law:

    "in fact, in the 1930's, the Nazi lawyers looked to various aspects of U.S. racial legislation - including the immigration codes based on country of national role models for Germany's race-based citizenship, which of course culminated in the Nuremberg Codes."

    Trump's Muslim ban cannot be fully understood in any of its various versions without reference to this supremely shameful part of America's past, which every scholar of that period with any amount for credibility agrees added to the death toll of 6 million Jews in Hitler's gas chambers and ovens during the Holocaust.

    Ironically, even though few if any commentators make any reference to this, by barring almost all immigration from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act also excluded virtually the entire Muslim world from immigrating to the US as well. Admittedly, that "Muslim ban" of almost a century ago was not as "specific" as the one which Donald Trump is now trying to impose.

    In about three weeks from now, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments concerning the legal validity, or lack of it, regarding the latest, six-country version Trump's Muslim ban order. Will the nation's highest Court be willing to consider the dark history behind Trump's Muslim ban in rendering its decision?

    (Disclaimer: My comments should not be taken as a suggestion that Trump is in any way anti-Jewish or supports any form of genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth.)

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-20-2017 at 08:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Will Trump Hold DREAMERS Hostage to the RAISE Act in an Effort to Take America Back 100 Years to a Europeans Only Immigration System? Roger Algase

    The opening two sentences of the following comment have been revised as of September 16 at 5:39 pm:

    To be sure, Trump has showing encouraging signs of backing away from at least one of his trademark attacks against minority immigrants, by becoming the target of vitriolic criticism from his anti-immigrant right wing base over indications that he might make a deal with Democratic leaders to agree to sign a law protecting DREAMERS from deportation, without insisting on funding for his pet border Wall project of humiliating Mexican, and by extension all non-white, immigrants.

    However, a POLITICO report on the afternoon of Friday, September 15 once again shows signs that the president may be moving back in the other direction on immigration, where he seems to be most comfortable. The report states that White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders has indicated that the president might tie support for the RAISE Act to agreement to make a deal for a legislative fix for DACA.

    According to the report, Sanders stated that while specific administration immigration priorities will only be announced over the next 7-10 days, supporting the RAISE Act was one of the things "we would probably like to see" in return for an agreement on DACA.

    In other words, if this statement is accurate (and it may very well be, in view of the strong support that Trump has already expressed for the RAISE Act), the president would in effect be asking Congress to overturn a half century of legislation opening up immigration to qualified applicants from every part of the world as the price of granting relief from deportation to the nearly 800,000 young people who are now protected by the DACA program which Trump has just cancelled and is now phasing out over the next six months.

    This would be a heavy price indeed. Enacting the RAISE Act would repeal the 1965 immigration act that ended four decades of bigoted, mainly Europe-only immigration quotas under the previous 1924 law, and would replace it by a heavily Eurocentric system that would also be skewed in favor of native English speakers. This would take America a long way back toward the infamous 1924 "national origins" system - which Adolf Hitler, among others, praised because of its inherent racial biases in favor of immigrants from the so-called "Nordic" countries of northern Europe.

    Tying relief for DACA recipients into an agreement to return to a system of white supremacist immigration of nearly a century ago would in effect be the same as opposing any relief for the DREAMERS at all.

    Moreover, by raising the RAISE Act (no pun intended, of course) as a possible bargaining chip in return for agreement on DACA, the Trump administration would not be only showing a lack of interest in reaching making any serious attempt to help the DREAMERS whom Trump himself has had many supportive words for in his recent statements (even while pulling the rug out from under them), but it would be indicating the ultimate purpose of all his immigration policies - namely returning to Europe-only immigration as it was in 1924, or something resembling that system.

    One cannot forget that Adolf Hitler was not the only person who wrote (in Mein Kampf) that he supported the 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act. See, The Guardian (2004):

    Hitler's debt to America

    Donald Trump's own attorney general and top immigration adviser, Jeff Sessions, also supported this same Coolidge-era 1924 law less than 3 years ago in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans; and again in a radio interview later that year with Breitbart News editor Stephen Bannon, who would also later (until very recently, when he was finally thrown out) become a top immigration adviser in the Trump administration.

    The POLITICO report is available at

    In which direction will the president go toward from now on - the direction of reason, humanity, racial equality and compassion for minority immigrants which he has indicated in some of his positive recent statements in support of the DREAMERS? See:

    Or will he turn back toward the white supremacist foundation for America's immigration system of nearly a century ago, as his own attorney general and the president's alt-right supporters are in effect urging him to do, and as many of his own campaign statements and immigration actions as president have also indicated he prefers?

    As an example, for his latest statement in support of a "larger" and "tougher" Muslim ban, see:

    This statement does not exactly indicate any softening or pivoting by the president toward immigration policies that would show more tolerance for non-European immigrants; nor does it indicate acceptance of America's role and, yes, identity, as a diverse, multicultural, multiracial (and multilingual) nation of the 21st century, rather than as a white supremacist country of the past.

    Donald Trump cannot go in both directions, forward toward a more tolerant and accepting immigration future based on America's founding principle that all people are created equal, or back toward a white supremacist, Europeans-only immigration past, at the same time.

    He must choose one of these directions, or the other.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-16-2017 at 04:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. With 'Dreamers' out, bring aliens under temporary status in. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    The Temporary Protected Status program (TPS) provides refuge in the United States to more than 300,000 aliens from a total of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

    They are supposed to leave when it is safe for them to return to their own countries, but it can take many years for conditions in their countries to improve. The need for TPS can last for decades.

    It does not include a path to permanent resident status, but should aliens who have lived in the United States for decades be required to leave when their TPS is terminated?

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) says that at some point they have been here so long that they should be allowed to remain permanently: “There should be some rational way to transition people who have been here for a long time … who because of the length of their stay have basically become valued members of our community.”

    What is TPS?

    TPS provides a safe haven for aliens who would face one of the following conditions if they were to return to their own countries:


    Published initially by 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.

Page 1 of 256 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: