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!
Immigration LLC.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The latest (September 15) White House comment to the effect that Trump might insist on Congress passing the RAISE Act, which would take America a long way back toward the whites-only immigration system that Jeff Sessions praised in his immigration "Handbook" less than 3 years ago (and Adolf Hitler also claimed to have been inspired by 90 years earlier) as a condition of agreeing to sign any legislation granting relief to the DREAMERS does not bode well for their chances of receiving any help from a president who has had kind and supportive words for DACA recipients at the same time that he has pulled the rug out from underneath them.

    See my September 15 comment.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-15-2017 at 07:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Excellent idea! This makes a great deal of sense and I fully support it.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    "Third world", of course, as used by immigration opponents, means people of color, people who would have have been considered racially and biologically "unfit" to immigrate to the United States according to the "Nordics"- only Coolidge era 1924 immigration act which Jeff Sessions praised so highly in his immigration "Handbook" in 2015 (and which Adolf Hitler also wrote about favorably in Mein Kampf nine decades earlier).

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-09-2017 at 01:12 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Updated reply, September 9, 1:33 pm

    For readers who may be interested in a perspective on Trump's inhumane cancellation of DACA based on the law, rather than an agenda of pro-Trump apologies and spin, no matter how harmful his speeches and actions are to America's immigrant and minority communities, a September 8 article by law professor Marjorie Cohn entitled:

    Sessions is Wrong: There is no Legal Justification for Ending DACA

    provides useful background and information on this issue and on the real reasons for the president's unjustifiable decision.

    My original reply to the above comment by Nolan Rappaport follows:

    If the president and attorney general are sincere about finding a "humane" legislative solution for DACA, every American of good will should support them in this effort. But was there anything "humane" about ending DACA in the first place, even with a six-month delay?

    It is true that Trump avoided a potentially politically embarrassing lawsuit over the legality of this program from a few state governors in his own party, but a president who really cared about the DREAMERS and who had an attorney general with a less racist anti-immigrant record than Jeff Sessions (who, less than 3 years ago, praised the same Coolidge era white supremacist 1924 immigration law that Adolf Hitler also praised some 90 years earlier) would have been willing to defend DACA in court.

    As I pointed out in my own recent Immigration Daily blog comment, more than 100 immigration law professors from all over the US recently sent Trump a letter upholding DACA as a legally valid exercise in prosecutorial discretion, supported by ample judicial precedent. Many other legal experts agree.

    This is not a one-sided, open and shut legal issue, as Jeff Sessions and his alt-right white nationalist supporters would like the public to think.

    There was certainly not very much good will or "humane" feeling toward minority immigrants in Sessions' September 6 DACA announcement - it is full of falsehoods and rehashing of racist anti-immigrant stereotypes that have been around in America for more than a century, with only the targets changed.

    Yes, Trump could have cancelled DACA immediately instead of doing so in slow motion over a six-month period. True, he is calling on Congress for a legislative fix (which would probably only happen against great odds, given the Republicans' own positioning as a "white identity" party over the past 2 or 3 decades, if not longer).

    Trump has also stated that he will "revisit" the DACA cancellation if Congress does not act within six months.

    This is all to the good, and the president deserves some credit for not following the hard-right, white nationalist line by cancelling DACA immediately.

    But, "humane", when Trump could have defended DACA in court with a strong chance of success in front of any judge who was willing to pay attention to legal precedents?

    Only George Orwell would call Trump's slow motion DACA cancellation "humane".

    Fur further comment on this issue, see my own blog comments on Sessions' speech; one is dated September 6 and the other is dated September 8.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-09-2017 at 12:41 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I always welcome comments from readers who are interested in a serious discussion of immigration issues, and I am happy to reply to those comments.

    There is no point in replying to any other types of comments.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I also don't understand Nolan's claim that Trump cancelled DACA in the most "humane" way possible.

    What is "humane" about the anxiety and suffering that he is causing to nearly 800,000 young people who were brought to America through no fault of their own, have no criminal records, and many of whom are now in school earning degrees which will enable them to contribute the most to American society?

    (If my information is correct, a few have even become licensed attorneys.)

    The most "humane" approach to DACA would have been not to terminate it at all, rather than to cave into the white supremacists in the president's own supporter base (assuming that he does not share their views himself - a very big assumption) who do not want any more non-European immigrants in America, and who want to kick out as many Latino and other immigrants of color as possible who are already here.

    Having said that, if Trump is ready to make a deal on DACA with "Chuck and Nancy", as a late news report (in POLITICO) advises, that might not be such a bad sign.

    Everyone seems to agree that a legislative solution would be best, if a reasonable one (that does not include Wall funding or the RAISE Act!) is possible.

    But in the meantime, going along with the white nationalist agenda of ending DACA, whether in slow motion over six months or immediately, as the KKK and other racist demonstrators carrying torches and signs with Nazi-era slogans in Charlottesville would no doubt have preferred, can only be called "humane" if one is reading George Orwell.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-09-2017 at 04:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update: September 9, 4:30 pm:

    Nolan Rappaport may call Trump's decision to end DACA "humane" (and George Orwell would no doubt have agreed), but the Los Angeles Times hit the nail right on the head in its September 5 editorial:

    Ending DACA was an act of pure cruelty by Trump

    Needless to say, this was hardly Trump's first act of mindless, savage, cruelty toward non-white, non-European immigrants since taking office as president. Nor is it likely to be his last.

    My original comment follows:

    Neither Nolan, nor Sessions, mentions that over 100 law professors from all over the US had sent a letter to Trump upholding DACA's legality as a valid exercise in prosecutorial discretion, with many precedents to support it. See my own comment on this point.

    However, there may be some hope in Trump's tweet that he will "revisit" DACA if (as expected) Congress does nothing about it in the next 6 months.

    This might possibly indicate that the president could be moving away from the white nationalist rabble-rousers who have been his base supporters so far.

    Let us hope so.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-09-2017 at 03:32 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update, September 7:

    All readers who are interested in the truth about DACA, as opposed to Sessions' recycling of alt-right nationalist falsehoods and propaganda about this now rescinded program, should turn to an excellent, September 6 fact checking article by Cristina Lopez-G. in Media Matters (also available at called:

    Jeff Sessions' Announcment to scrap DACA Was Packed with Racist, Right Wing Media Lies

    Despite the sensational-sounding title of the above piece, it is in fact a sober, well-documented explanation of four main points concerning Sessions' DACA speech:

    First, it was merely a rehashing of baseless anti-DACA talking points which right wing sites such as Stephen Bannon's Breitbart News and SPLC-designated anti-immigration hate groups have been peddling for a long time. ever since DACA was originally promulgated by President Obama.

    Second, the claim that DACA was an illegal "amnesty" (a pejorative term not found anywhere in the immigration laws but preferred by anti-immigrant hate groups) or a "magnet" for attracting illegal immigrants is nothing more than a malicious myth.

    Third the argument that DACA was an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power has been refuted by numerous reputable law professors. It is at the very least open to responsible legal argument on both sides, not a settled, open and shut proposition as Sessions falsely claimed in his speech.

    Last but not least, as the above Media Matters article also shows, there are no statistics or any other evidence to back up the claim that DREAMERS are taking jobs away from Americans - that claim is just one more item of the racist anti-immigrant propaganda which Sessions spouts so effortlessly.

    My revised earlier comment follows below:

    Sessions DACA announcement immediately recalls his praise of the openly racist whites only immigration act of 1924 in his January 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans - the same law which Adolf Hitler praised in Mein Kampf nine decades earlier and which all historians of that period agree added to the Holocaust death toll by barring Jewish refugees who were trying to escape the Nazi gas chambers and ovens by seeking safety in the United States.

    Underneath all the empty attempts to put a pseudo- legal gloss on the president's appalling cruelty and inhumanity in smashing the hopes for a decent life in America of almost 800,000 young people who were brought to the US without any choice or fault of their own and whom even Sessions admitted pose no harm or danger whatsoever to this country, lies Sessions' message of hate against minority immigrants - the same message of hate which Congress adopted nine decades ago against not only Jewish immigrants, but Italian, East European, Middle Eastern, African and Asian ones in the Johnson-Reed immigration act which Sessions held forth as a model for America to follow in his above mentioned 2015 handbook.

    Sessions himself made this clear and let the cat out of the bag near the end of his September 5 remarks when he praised the RAISE act, whose methodology may differ somewhat from that of the 1924 law, but whose purpose is the same - to cut off non-white, non-European immigration to the United States.

    Having said the above, there is one important difference between the RAISE Act and the 1924 Act which Jeff Sessions and Adolf Hitler both thought so highly of. The 1924 law contained no restrictions against immigrants form Latin America and other parts of the "Western Hemisphere". In that sense, the RAISE Act, which is expressly targeted against Latino immigrants by eliminating key family quotas and requiring English proficiency for legal immigrants, is even more bigoted than the 1924 law.

    Certainly, the above does not mean that I have any intention of comparing Sessions with Hitler - that would be totally unustified.

    But Trump's heartless action, (even if partly concealed by some crocodile tears or well publicized "vacillation" or "soul searching" - not things that the president is well known for) against almost 800,000 vulnerable, harmless young immigrants by eliminating DACA may be the end of the road for them - but it is only the beginning of the Trump/Sessions larger agenda of ethnic cleansing of non-white immigrants in America - not only though mass deportation but by slamming shut the gates to legal immigration for most, if not all people who do not happen to stem from European ancestry.

    An incredibly sad day for America - and, in all likelihood, a sign of even worse ones to come as far as non-European immigrants and their families in America are concerned in Donald Trump's America.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-07-2017 at 09:21 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As a further thought, since Nolan does not seem to be willing or able to respond to my previous points raised above concerning the inconsistencies and internal contradictions in his own legal arguments regarding SB 4, if the Trump administration is really interested in protecting the public against dangerous criminals, rather than using state criminal justice systems to widen the mass deportation dragnet by placing detainers on immigrants charged with minor crimes, many of whom may in fact be innocent and never convicted, the logical approach would be to prioritize serious criminals for deportation, as President Obama claimed to be doing.

    Instead, Trump is using enforcement resources which everyone concedes are not unlimited to go after every unauthorized immigrant in America, even those who have no criminal records at all. This, obviously, means fewer resources are available to go after the really dangerous people.

    That may be helpful in reducing the non-white population of America, which, very arguably, is the real goal of the Trump administration and its enthusiastic white nationalist base supporters, but can Nolan explain how this dilution of immigration enforcement resources protects the public against the really dangerous criminals among America's immigrant population?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-05-2017 at 06:16 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Also, while Nolan may or may not be interested in discussing the human and societal implications of an immigration enforcement policy ueber alles, i.e. enforcement purely for its own sake, without regard to its effect on the lives and families of the people affected, or of America's values of openness and tolerance as a nation, it is also necessary to point out that the argument over whether state officials should honor federal immigration detainers is part of a larger picture concerning whether the president's emphasis on enforcement against every single unauthorized immigrant in the US today is wise, fair or humane, rather than meant as a sop to the most intolerant, bigoted elements in his own voter base (or, as some have argued, in the president's own psyche).

    The president's reported decision to end DACA, which has nothing to do with "criminal aliens", but everything to do with deserving young students who came here through no fault of their own, but are preparing themselves to contribute to society through their skills and education, is a case in point.

    As a staunch Republican
    columnist, Jennifer Rubin, writes in the September 5 Washington Post:

    "However this [ending DACA] turns out, the GOP under Trump has defined itself as the white grievance party - bluntly, a party fueled by concocted white resentment aimed at minorities. Of all the actions Trump has taken, none has been as cruel, thoughtless or divisive as deporting hundreds of thousands of young people who've done nothing but go to school, work hard and present themselves to the government."

    Certainly, people who are being charged with crime or have finished serving their sentences may be less sympathetic or deserving than the nearly 800,000 Dreamers (and their families) whose lives would be devastated by terminating DACA, but Trump has himself emphasized that his enforcement policies are not aimed at prioritizing criminals, but at deporting as many immigrants as he possibly can.

    In this sense, his detainer policy and ending DACA are directly related: they are part and parcel of the same policy of the ethnic cleansing of America through mass deportation of mainly Latino and other non-white immigrants that the president appears to be adopting as his core immigration agenda - and legacy.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-04-2017 at 12:16 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan's contention that forcing the states to honor unrelated civil federal immigration detainers on people suspected or convicted of violating state criminal laws is necessary to protect the public against "dangerous criminals" ("aliens" or otherwise - Nolan is using that as a purely pejorative term here, as if being an "alien" made a "dangerous criminal" even more dangerous) not only fails as a matter of legal logic, but as a matter of reality.

    During its short lived publication of crimes that various immigrants had allegedly been charged with or convicted of under the president's VOICE program, it became clear that the overwhelming majority of these alleged offenses were relatively minor ones such as DUI, trespassing, or the like, with some attempted assaults, etc. also thrown in.

    If the short-lived VOICE program shed any light at all on the use of federal detainers, it was to show that they were essentially just one more tool to try to catch and deport immigrants who were in the US without authorization in support of the president's mass deportation agenda against both "criminal" and non-criminal immigrants, not as protection against "dangerous criminals" as Nolan claims above.

    I will not even get into a discussion of studies showing that all immigrants, both legal and otherwise, commit crimes at a lower rate than native born US citizens.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-04-2017 at 12:38 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan argues that Texas' SB 4 was intended to protect the public by preventing the release of "dangerous alien criminals" after they have been dealt with by the state's criminal justice system.

    What is Nolan's basis for assuming that Texas or any other state is incapable of determining, through its own criminal law procedures, whether any given individual, "alien" or otherwise, who may be suspected of committing a crime is guilty, and, if so, how long a time the person should be incarcerated for?

    As a matter of logic, Nolan's argument that forcing the states to hold someone whom its criminal justice system has finished with, either though failure to file or dismissal of charges, determination of innocence after a trial, or the person's having finished serving the sentence if convicted, merely because the person may be subject to arrest and detention on unrelated federal civil grounds, i.e. being present in the US in violation of the immigration laws, with further criminal law enforcement is self-contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever.

    As Nolan points out in his own discussion of the federal court's SB 4 injunction, state criminal matters and federal immigration matters are entirely separate, and our constitutional system gives the states, not the federal government, the power to decide how long someone convicted of a state crime should remain behind bars.

    Federal immigration detainers have nothing to so with any criminal process; they are entirely civil matters. Arguing that honoring civil federal detainers is necessary to protect the public against crime is entirely fallacious.

    Using inflammatory examples such as Kate's having being killed by a non-US citizen (so reminiscent of the furor over Mass. Governor Michael Dukakis having released Willie Horton from jail before the 1988 presidential campaign) for political purposes by stirring up resentment over racial minorities, whether US citizens, as in the Willie Horton case, or immigrants, as in Kate's case, may make good propaganda, but it does nothing to bolster Nolan's legal argument.

    To put it more simply, how long a state should incarcerate someone suspected ot convicted of crime is like oranges.

    A civil proceeding to remove someone who is in this country without legal permission from the US is like apples.

    Essentially, the Federal District Court in the SB 4 case held that oranges and apples should not be mixed up.

    By arguing that federal civil detainers are necessary, not just to enforce the immigration laws, but to protect the public against dangerous criminals, Nolan is mixing oranges with apples, rather than making any valid legal point.

    And to return to SB 4, if Nolan feels that the Texas criminal justice system is soft on crime and may be releasing "dangerous criminals" into society too soon, he should be encouraging the Texas legislature to enact stricter state criminal laws, rather than relying on the federal government to enforce an unrelated set of civil statutes known as the immigration laws.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-04-2017 at 10:50 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For my latest comment on exactly what kind of "blessing" Trump may have in mind for Dreamers (as mentioned in the title of Mr. Rappaport's above article), see my September 1 blog comment in Immigration Daily:

    Will Trump End DACA as Part of His White Supremacist Agenda, Or Will He Hold Dreamers Hostage to His Wall of Shame?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I notice that Nolan (or someone else?) appears to have deleted a series of his own comments above defending various points in his above article. Therefore the context of the various points I am responding to above is now missing. I will, however, continue to let my comments stand on their own, as they all make what I see as valid and important points relating to the subject of Nolan's article, namely Trump's border Wall proposal, even if there might no longer be two sides to this discussion.

    I trust that even Trump's strongest defenders could not reasonably take offense at my sincere suggestion that Trump might have the potential to become one of America's greatest presidents - if he is willing to change his course.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-30-2017 at 07:52 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not the one who is attributing "bad motives" to Donald Trump - his own words and actions toward minority immigrants, American people of color and anyone who opposes or disagrees with him speak for themselves, notwithstanding Nolan's constant, but steadily more transparent and less convincing, attempts to whitewash, spin and make up excuses for him.

    Trump's constant assaults and attempts to dehumanize and demonize non-European immigrants and anyone else who does not fit in with the white supremacist agenda of the people who carried Nazi slogans in Charlottesville whom Trump refused to criticize directly, or the sparse (according to the reports I have seen) crowd that showed up to cheer his pardon of America's racist sheriff who locked up Latino immigrants in concentration camp conditions and then boasted about it, Joe Arpaio, cannot be explained away so easily no matter how creative Trump's apologists or supporters might be in trying to put a less unfavorable gloss on them, or to disregard them completely.

    The fact that Trump is the president, not some right wing radio talk show host, makes his racism and authoritarianism all the more dangerous for America and the American people, and makes it even more important to speak out for the real America and our real values of freedom, democracy and racial/religious equality as Americans.

    This is not to say that Trump is all bad on immigration. Against all expectations, he has not cancelled DACA (yet). He has followed federal court decisions greatly limiting the scope of his Muslim ban orders despite his strong disagreement with these decisions.

    Stephen Bannon has now been fired.

    The legal immigration system is still functioning, despite attempts by the administration to make it more cumbersome and onerous by making the application forms longer, and more confusing vague; and, most recently to slow down approvals by requiring personal interviews, even in routine employment-based adjustment of status cases.

    Meritorious immigration applications are still being approved (despite a blizzard of either incompetent or outrageously biased H-1B RFE's which I will write more about separately in one of my own blog posts - these were hardly unknown, or even unusual, under previous administrations - especially coming from the USCIS California Service Center).

    I do not practice in the deportation area, but from what I see on, total deportations are not much higher, or possibly even lower, than they were at this stage under President Obama, despite Trump's attempts to "unleash" ICE against immigrants who were low priority for deportation under President Obama.

    Trump's opponents and critics, including a growing number of Congressional leaders in his own party - Nolan would have to admit that I am very far from being Trump's only critic, or his harshest one - I do not write ilw. blog posts (as opposed to a couple of Letters to the Editor, where I have raised questions about his mental health that so many people are asking these days) calling the president's sanity into question, as many commentators are now doing elsewhere - are still free to speak out and are not being arrested or made to disappear.

    America is still a democracy; the Statue of Liberty is still standing, and immigrants from all parts of the world, including those from a certain religious group known as Muslims who seems to be out of out of favor with Donald Trump, are still coming to the United States with legal visas.

    Millions of non-white, minority group, American citizens are still registered to vote despite the obvious intention of Trump's "voter fraud" commission, led by Kris Kobach, the author of failed voter suppression and immigrant persecution laws in many states, to disenfranchise them.

    The momentous immigration reform law of 1965, one of the major turning points in America's entire immigration history, which opened up immigration to qualified people from the entire world, not just white northern Europe is still in force.

    This law has not been and probably never will be replaced by the RAISE act which is aimed at taking America at least half way back to the bigoted "Nordics" only 1924 law, and which Trump strongly supports (the RAISE Act, that is - only Jeff Sessions, among Trump's still remaining top advisers, has openly supported the 1924 immigration act, which Adolf Hitler also wrote about so favorably some 90 years ago in Mein Kampf).

    But the warning signs, signs that very big changes in the direction of an authoritarian, white supremacist regime in America, are under way in Donald Trump's America, are out there, albeit in incremental stages. Many nations which lost their freedom did so in stages, not overnight. I could refer to one country in particular which I don't have to mention specifically, since Nolan knows exactly which one I mean, and so do most readers.

    But Trump has been the president for less than eight months. Nolan says, in a different context (the Wall) that we should in effect give the guy a chance to show what he can do. But what he has done so far, both in his harm to America's non-white, non European ancestry immigrant and US citizen minorities, and to America's democratic system of checks and balances, is a matter of great concern to everyone who believes in democracy and racial equality.

    The border Wall proposal is part of that larger picture.

    But as Nolan points out, Trump will be the president of the United States for almost four more years (or, perhaps eight years - let us hope not for life, as in many other countries that have lost their freedom).

    There is still time for Trump to change course and to become a president who stands for the best in America, for all Americans without regard to race, color, or religion, as he sometimes promises when he is not turning away from his teleprompter.

    Does Trump have the inner potential, the nobility of spirit, to turn away from his present destructive course and to respect the dignity and humanity of everyone who is now present in this country, or who wants to come here in accordance with our laws, no matter what the color of their skin may be or what part of the world they may be from?

    Is he willing to entrust his future as president to the support of all Americans of good will, rather than a dwindling minority of white supremacist extremists such as the ones we saw in Charlottesville?

    Many presidents and other leaders have changed before in America.

    Lyndon Johnson began his career as a typical bigoted segregationist Southern Democrat of his time, but he eventually became America's great civil rights president.

    Earl Warren, who as governor of California was one of the major agitators for Japanese- American internment, became the Chief Justice who authored the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, perhaps the most important one in America's entire history, ending legal school segregation.

    Does Donald Trump have it in him to outgrow the white supremacist, anti-democratic tendencies which have characterized his immigration and many other policies to date, and become a truly great president who respects the humanity and equal rights of all Americans and other people who want to become part of and contribute to our society?

    If he does, there could not be any better way to start than by abandoning and renouncing his ludicrous and invidious Mexican border Wall proposal.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-30-2017 at 02:37 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I cannot possibly disagree with Nolan's assessment that Trump's border Wall is not the best way of spending US taxpayers' money (since Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for it is nothing more than an empty boast which even Trump himself knows better than to take seriously).

    However, there is a more fundamental basis for opposing the Wall. This is that the Wall is just another part of Trump's overall strategy of dehumanizing Latino and other non-European immigrants, the same strategy which was also behind Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio. As Michael Gerson writes in the August 28 Washington Post:

    "Arpaio made a career of dehumanizing prisoners in his charge. His pardon sends the signal that some people are less than human...Trump has employed dehumanization as a political tool from the start - of refugees, of migrants, of Muslims. By his pardon of Arpaio, he has metaphorically pardoned his own cruel and divisive approach to politics. It is a further step toward Trump's normalization and entrenchment of bigotry in our public life."

    Trump's border Wall is also part and parcel of this strategy of dehumanizing, not only immigrants, but American citizens of Mexican or other non-European ancestry too, such as in his remarks about Indiana-born Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel.

    When Trump first announced his plan for the Wall, he did it as part of a speech in which he dehumanized Mexican immigrants as "criminals", "rapists" and "drug dealers".

    That is the real reason, not the cost, logistics or politics of the issue, why Trump's border Wall should never be built - not one single foot of it.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-29-2017 at 01:12 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am only referring to Nolan's own comment above:

    "Unless a law is passed to raise the debt limit, the government will run out of money to pay its bills, which would trigger a default. This would jeopardize the world's faith in America's ability to pay its bills and that faith serves as the underpinning of the entire global financial system."

    No one could put it more clearly and accurately than that. It is true that Trump, to the best of my knowledge, has not threatened to veto a bill raising the debt limit. As Nolan points out, Trump has only threatened to veto a bill funding the government and avoiding a government shutdown, which is bad enough, but, as Nolan correctly states, not as serious as destroying the entire world financial system.

    But any parent who sees a child playing with matches is going to put a stop to it immediately, because if something does catch fire, no one knows where the fire will stop. The same is true with threatening to cause financial havoc if Trump doesn't get his way with the Wall.

    Nolan suggests that all we may be talking about is another 47 miles of Wall. If that is enough to satisfy Trump, then it, arguably, might not be worth fighting over.

    But will a president who has just pardoned a former sheriff who boasted about holding minority immigrants in what he himself called "concentration camp" conditions and who went out of his way to torment and humiliate his detainees, as a 2011 DOJ investigation determined (see my August 28 Immigration Daily comment on Joe Arpaio's pardon) be satisfied with only 47 more miles of Wall?

    When the president ranted in Phoenix about shutting down the government if he doesn't get funding for his border Wall, was he talking about only an additional 47 miles?

    Nolan also claims that a majority of Democrats voted for a border wall, and least in principle. Nolan has far more expertise in that legislative history than I do, but the argument that Democrats support Trump's 30 (or 40) foot high border Wall now is absurd, as Nolan must surely know. If Nolan can point to a single Congressional Democrat who has spoken out in favor of Trump's Wall, let him furnish that Democrat's name.

    If the Democrats supported the Wall now, Trump would not need to threaten to shut down the US government, with all of the severe hardship which Nolan knows as well as anyone else would be caused to untold millions of Americans (and legal immigrants) who deal with the government or use its services.

    How can any president who cares about the American people and wants to put America first as much as Trump says he does show such evident eagerness to shut down this country's government, especially over a Wall which no one seriously argues is essential to America's security and even Nolan admits is not the best way to deal with illegal immigration?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-29-2017 at 05:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The Wall may be important for Trump's ego, but he is far too smart to risk destroying the world's economy in order to build it. My guess is that the physical Wall will never be built.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update, September 3:

    To the outrage of every person of good will in America who believes in racial equality and a fair immigration system that is not skewed against people of color, late September 3 news reports say that Trump has decided to end DACA in six months.

    If he does so, he will be writing another chapter in America's shameful history of bigotry that began with the Chinese exclusion laws in the 1880's and continued with the whites-only 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act which his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, had such high praise for in his 2015 immigration "Handbook" as a Senator (and which Adolf Hitler had also praised some 90 years earlier in Mein Kampf).

    And what would be the purpose of the six month delay? Is it a cynical ploy to try to force Congress to pass a DACA measure of its own (which Congress has so far refused to do) and to include funding for Trump's border Wall of shame, hatred and humiliation against Mexican, Latino and other non-white immigrants as a condition of signing such a measure?

    This would be holding the hopes and future in America of nearly 800,000 young people who were brought here without authorization through no fault of their own and most of whom know no other country but the US hostage to Trump's fantasy of building a Wall, not only against Latino immigrants, but against the core American principles of justice and equality for all, and, ultimately, against our democracy.

    My earlier comments follow:

    Update, September 1:

    Does it really make any sense to agree to and accept one form of hatred and prejudice against non-white immigrants, namely Trump's border Wall of shame and humiliation directed against Latin American, and by extension, all non-white immigrants, in return for a presidential agreement not to engage in another form of hatred directed against non-European immigrants, namely ending DACA and dashing the hopes for a decent life and future in America of 800,000 innocent young people, many of them university students looking forward to productive careers in the US, who came to America through no fault of their own and pose no danger or harm whatsoever to this country of our society?

    Isn't standing up against prejudice and bigotry against minority immigrants in all its forms more in keeping with America's core principles of racial equality and justice for all?

    See also my September 1 Immigration Daily blog post:

    Will Trump End DACA as Part of His White Supremacist Agenda, Or Will He Hold Dreamers Hostage to His Wall of Shame?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law.

    My original responses to the above article appear below:

    (Mr. Rappaport's own comments in response to mine have apparently been deleted for some reason.)

    What is the real purpose of Trump's border Wall? Nolan himself points out that it is not the best option by any means for preventing illegal immigration; employer sanctions, or what Nolan calls "cutting off the jobs magnet" would be more effective in Nolan's view, and many other experts would agree with him.

    So why is the Wall so important to Donald Trump? Obviously, as a symbol of exclusion and humiliation of Mexican and Latino immigrants in general - that is why when Trump first proposed the Wall, he promised to make Mexico pay for it.

    A typical example of the strong(er) flexing their power over the weak(er), and, if you will, of the white race (Trump's America) forcing a non-white people to submit to its will.

    At what price?

    Destroying the world's economy by refusing to raise the US debt ceiling and and causing unimaginable suffering and hardship to hundreds of millions of people inside and outside the US through a financial catastrophe such as the world has never seen before if the US defaults on its financial obligations, as might happen if Trump doesn't get funding for his Wall and vetoes a debt increase measure without that funding?

    Is the Wall so vital to America's security as to take the risk of wrecking the world's economy out of spite if the Wall is not built?

    Nolan argues that the Wall and preserving the world's economy are equally important. He says:

    "The risks
    are high on both ends of the equation - financial security and border security."

    Is this a genuine equation - the Wall on one side and the economic structure of the entire world, which depends on the US not defaulting on its obligations, on the other?

    Is sending a symbolic message to the Mexican and Latin American people that Donald Trump doesn't want "their kind" in the United States as important as preserving the world from financial disaster?

    Anyone who thinks so may know something, or even a great deal about immigration, but this is not a sign of very wide knowledge of the world's economy.

    The Wall that Donald Trump thinks is so important that he might be willing to destroy the world's economy in order to get it is more than just a symbol of hatred and animosity toward non-white immigrants - it is also a symbol of totalitarian rule, not democracy.
    The Communists built their Berlin Wall as a symbol of tyranny. The Nazis built the Warsaw Ghetto Wall to help exterminate the Jews.

    Those Walls have long since been torn down. Does America need to build a new one?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-04-2017 at 01:59 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Donald Trump has shocked and horrified America with his unpardonable pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who boasted about running immigrant detention facilities which he himself called a "concentration camp" and about openly defying a federal court order which led to his criminal conviction.

    Trump's pardon is not only an assault against the basic human rights of Latino and other non-white immigrants, but against all Americans of color, as shown by the condemnations of the pardon issued by the NAACP, ACLU and a host of other organizations that are primarily concerned with protecting the rights of all Americans to equal justice and the rule of law, which Trump also has put in danger through his pardon.

    Even without Trump's threats to cancel DACA, the Arpaio pardon alone is enough to show once again what we all knew from the moment that he first began his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans immigrants criminals, rapists and drug dealers and threatening to build a Wall of shame, hatred and humiliation against them - Trump is America's Bigot in Chief.

    See my August 25 comment:

    Trump Delights White Supremacists With Arpaio Pardon and May End DACA in Moves Back Toward 1924 Visa Law and Segregation Era

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

Page 1 of 121 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: