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
    Perhaps Nolan will feel inclined at some point to respond to the merits of my comment, namely that Trump's "Hire American" executive order is illegal because its overall purpose directly contradicts numerous parts of the immigration law which do not require employers to "hire American" before offering a job to a foreign citizen or sponsoring that person for a work visa in a variety of specific instances.

    Trump, obviously doesn't like those parts of the INA. For example, he has said that H-1B visas, which are mainly for the high-skilled professional foreign workers whom Trump hypocritically professes to favor by supporting the RAISE Act, should either be abolished or made subject to a Labor Certification requirement in every case.

    But if Trump doesn't like the H-1B visa in its present form, the way to change that is by going through Congress, not by issuing an executive order which directly contradicts the purpose of the H-1B law. This comment also applies to many other visas which, according to the law, do not require employers to give preference to American workers.

    Though Trump might not understand or like it, these laws cannot all just be simply abolished by presidential order.

    Robert Mugabe may once have had such powers in Zimbabwe. Donald Trump does not have this power in America.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-17-2017 at 05:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Be patient Roger. Only three things in life are certain, death, taxes, and that the courts will invalidate all of Trump's executive orders. No, I forgot one, that Roger will say it will lead to the destruction of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 11-16-2017 at 06:58 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This is not the first article that Nolan has written on the subject of the backlogged immigration courts. This is not to deny that it is a serious problem - both for immigrants who may have to wait for many years to assert whatever defenses they may have against deportation, while in many cases languishing in detention the whole time; and for the Trump administration which is anxious to move as many Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern and other non-white immigrants as possible out of the country as fast as possible.

    But is expanding the number of immigrants who are shipped out of the country through expedited removal without even minimal due process of law really a good solution?

    As soon as due process of law starts to disappear for immigrants, how much longer will it still be available for American citizens?

    At a time when our democracy is under threat on many fronts from this administration - with freedom of the press, independence of the courts, and minority voting rights all under attack, to name just a few, (not to mention the administration's latest call for a second special counsel to punish Hillary Clinton for losing an election -which she actually won by almost 3 million votes - while Trump pals around with a dictator in the Philippines who has reportedly murdered thousands of his own citizens), expelling potentially hundreds of thousands, or even millions of immigrants without any right to a court hearing based on whatever theory creates a very dangerous precedent for the rights and fundamental freedoms of Americans as well.

    Ethnic cleansing has led to dictatorship in many other countries. It can happen here.


    While dealing with the problem of our "drowning" immigration courts, to quote from the title of Nolan's article, we have to be careful to protect our democracy from drowning also.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-14-2017 at 12:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There are two ways of dealing with the problem of millions of unauthorized workers filling jobs that American workers don't want. One is to turn America into a police state by ramping up prosecutions, including not only those for hiring illegal workers but also for "harboring", or "assisting unauthorized immigrants, which, might, at least in theory fill up our jails with lawyers who give them legal advice or doctors who give them medical services, among millions of other Americans who have contacts or dealings with immigrants of any nature.

    The other would be to make more legal visas available. I respectfully suggest that the latter solution would not only make more economic sense, but would be more in keeping with America's values as a democracy and a nation of immigrants.

    The only "drawback" is that this would mean giving legal status to more non-white immigrants, especially from Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

    That would not fit in well with the immigration agenda of a president who was elected in large part by demonizing Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants as "criminals". "rapists", drug dealers and now, "M-13 gang members", and who is now trying to reduce or eliminate legal immigration from outside white Europe in many different categories across the board - by cutting back on refugees, pushing for eliminating the Africa-friendly DV lottery, asking Congress to pass the RAISE Act which would eliminate all less skilled immigration and most family immigration; and last but not least - I almost forgot! - the Muslim ban executive orders.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-07-2017 at 09:58 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan is certainly entitled to express his opinion about my comments, just as I am about his.

    And, again with the highest respect for Nolan and his distinguished record of immigration law scholarship and advocacy, I would point out that our discussion is by no means limited to immigration enforcement, important as it is, but also includes proposals to make radical changes in existing immigration laws - such as by promoting the RAISE Act, abolishing the DV lottery - the subject of Nolan's above article - reducing family immigration and refugee admissions, among other proposals - all of which would have their greatest impact on immigration from non-white parts of the world.

    I am advocating in favor of preserving America's legal immigration system essentially as it is (with of course a number of tweaks - such as a lot more H-1B visas - yes we do need more high skilled immigration - and this is a good way to accomplish that without penalizing refugees or immigrants from poorer countries who may not be able to afford a PH.D from Oxford or the University of Paris).

    Whatever negative terms anyone who opposes my views on this may want to use, such individual or individuals are of course free to do so.

    That is what democracy means.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Roger, the difference is that if I am right, your comments are destructively shutting off free discussion, but if I am wrong, I am just wrong.

    Nolan Rappaport
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is certainly entitled to express his opinion about my comments, just as I am about his.

    And, again with the highest respect for Nolan and his distinguished record of immigration law scholarship and advocacy, I would point out that our discussion is by no means limited to immigration enforcement, important as it is, but also includes proposals to make radical changes in existing immigration laws - such as by promoting the RAISE Act, abolishing the DV lottery - the subject of Nolan's above article - reducing family immigration and refugee admissions, among other proposals - all of which would have their greatest impact on immigration from non-white parts of the world.

    I am advocating in favor of preserving America's legal immigration system essentially as it is (with of course a number of tweaks - such as a lot more H-1B visas - yes we do need more high skilled immigration - and this is a good way to accomplish that without penalizing refugees or immigrants from poorer countries who may not be able to afford a PH.D from Oxford or the University of Paris).

    Whatever negative terms anyone who opposes my views on this may want to use, such individual or individuals are of course free to do so.

    That is what democracy means.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-05-2017 at 01:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    ilw.com is a forum for everyone who has a viewpoint on immigration. This includes both those who agree with the opinions expressed in any given article and those who do not agree with those opinions.

    The free and open expression of opinion is, in my view, even more vital as an expression of our democratic values when one is responding to comments on immigration by a leading and well-respected authority on immigration law such as Nolan Rappaport.

    True, in any free and open discussion of an emotional issue such as immigration, some people on both sides are bound to be offended.

    That is part of the debate.

    To change the subject somewhat, anyone who might take offense at my criticism of Trump should be gratified to know that my views about the president are not always negative.

    I heartily congratulate him on the news that USCIS has approved the petitions for 70 H-2B foreign workers to work at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, despite the fact that they would not have been able to qualify to work in the US under the RAISE Act, which Trump enthusiastically supports; and also despite the fact that according to The Hill (11/4) a local employment agency claims that more than 5,000 US workers were available for these jobs.

    Congratulations, Mr. President!

    Buy American, Hire American!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Your comments frequently have nothing to do with the things I say in my articles, and they discourage the free exchange of ideas.

    When you compare Trump to Hitler with your hate-filled condemnations of his immigration policies, you aren't just addressing him. Your condemnations apply to everyone who agrees with his policies.

    And before Trump came on the scene, you were doing the same thing to republicans who want the immigration laws of our countries enforced.

    Sadly though, you aren't the only one who is doing this. The democrats have been relying on ad hominem attacks for a long time now.

    You are destroying the right to free speech by treating people who disagree with you that way.

    Nolan Rappaport


  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    ilw.com is a forum for everyone who has a viewpoint on immigration. This includes both those who agree with the opinions expressed in any given article and those who do not agree with those opinions.

    The free and open expression of opinion is, in my view, even more vital as an expression of our democratic values when one is responding to comments on immigration by a leading and well-respected authority on immigration law such as Nolan Rappaport.

    True, in any free and open discussion of an emotional issue such as immigration, some people on both sides are bound to be offended.

    That is part of the debate.

    To change the subject somewhat, anyone who might take offense at my criticism of Trump should be gratified to know that my views about the president are not always negative.

    I heartily congratulate him on the news that USCIS has approved the petitions for 70 H-2B foreign workers to work at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, despite the fact that they would not have been able to qualify to work in the US under the RAISE Act, which Trump enthusiastically supports; and also despite the fact that according to The Hill (11/4) a local employment agency claims that more than 5,000 US workers were available for these jobs.

    Congratulations, Mr. President!

    Buy American, Hire American!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 11-05-2017 at 10:49 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, please stop commenting on my articles.
    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 11-04-2017 at 05:12 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Funny, but even though I also practicing immigration law back when the predecessor to the Diversity Visa, known as the AA-1 visa lottery, was in effect back in 1992-1994, and only people white majority countries, mainly in Europe, were allowed to apply (with only two exceptions that I can remember - Japan and Indonesia) I don't remember seeing any complaints that this visa should be abolished because it was "random" in nature.

    I don't know how many people remember that visa today, but, as a reminder, it gave heavy preferences to Ireland and Poland in particular, on the theory that the white countries of Europe were "Adversely Affected" (hence "AA") by existing, non-discriminatory, immigration policy.

    Not many people may remember this detail, but the openly the Eurocentric AA-1 lottery visa (and it was advertised this way - no attempt was made at concealing its purpose), included automatic waivers of inadmissibility for both visa fraud and previous deportation!

    How about that for "random" selection!

    Needless to say, the current DV-1 visa, which helps many more immigrants from Africa and Asia than from Europe, contains no such automatic waiver.

    I don't remember seeing any articles at the time by anyone in favor of abolishing the AA-1 visa, which was almost entirely limited to white immigrants and was openly promoted on that basis, If anyone did object to the AA-1 program because it was too "random", or was "not the best way to select immigrants", I would be glad to see the citations.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-04-2017 at 02:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am glad to see that Nolan has focused on my main point, which is that Trump regards not only our country's judicial system, but its entire democratic system of checks and balances, as an irritating nuisance standing in the way of getting whatever he wants. This attitude clearly resembles Adolf Hitler and presents a great danger to our democracy. Under Trump, America is heading toward a fascist dictatorship.

    Certainly there are people who may be offended by this view, as well as by my comments on the white supremacist agenda that forms the core of Trump's immigration policies.

    But the fact that Nolan might not like some of my comments does not make them any less accurate or pertinent.

    Nolan also seems to be afraid that some ID readers who are able to influence immigration policy may pay attention to my comments. I hope he is right. Either way, Immigration Daily is a great and unique publication because it is a forum for all views on immigration and every expression of opinion - including Nolan's.

    As for Trump and Hitler, anyone who knows anything about 20th century history knows that there were many people, even including knowledgeable and responsible Jewish leaders, who did not take Hitler seriously either - who thought he was nothing more than a clown or a buffoon - until it was too late.

    Whenever Nolan has time, he might also want to read the beginning of my comment, where I point out a number of extremely important ways in which Trump is not like Hitler.

    Nolan also mentions immigration negotiations. Of course, this would be a good idea and everyone would hope that this route might be productive .

    But people who have absolute power are not always inclined to negotiate.

    There was once a British prime minister who thought that he could negotiate a deal with Hitler at a place called Munich.

    Someone by he name of Neville Chamberlain

    Nolan talks about negotiating a deal on immigration. As I mention above, this is a great idea. Hopefully this might still be possible, but the more power Trump gets, the less likely it is that there well be negotiations on anything.

    From Day One of his presidency, Trump has been trying to make radical changes in America's immigration system through executive orders, not through negotiations with Congressional leaders.

    (Hopefully, DACA might turn out to be an exception).

    But for the most part, only our independent courts have stopped him from making large parts, of not all, of our immigration system dependent solely on his will.

    No wonder that he has so much hatred and contempt for the courts.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-04-2017 at 11:43 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Picked up a quick example of Roger's offensive remarks glancing at his blog in this issue of ILW.com. He says the following:

    "the issue is whether America will continue to have a system of justice that is not dependent solely on the will of Donald Trump, just the German courts depended on the will of their Fuehrer.


    Trump's use of the New York attack in service of his agenda of exploiting fear and hatred against not only Muslim, but all minority immigrants; and as an excuse for his assault on America's entire system of justice, comes straight out of Adolf Hitler's playbook."

    Nolan Rappaport
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, “I am not a participant in any negotiations. I am only expressing an opinion about what I see as the overall intent and purpose of Trump's immigration agenda.”

    The way you express your opinion is offensive.

    Roger says, “This is not a political blog site; it as a site for comment on substantive immigration issues,”

    Your comments have some substance by mainly you use pejorative terms and make Nazi Germany comparisons….mixed in with your white supremacy accusations.

    Roger says, “Moreover, since no one involved in any negotiations is likely ever to read or pay the slightest attention to my views on any immigration topic, Nolan has nothing to worry about when I share my views with other ilw.com readers.”

    It’s insulting to Sam and the ILW.com staff to suggest that their readers are people who have no influence over immigration.

    Roger says, “Also, Nolan's point cuts both ways. If my views are offensive to some immigration opponents, his may also be offensive to some immigration advocates. Is that any reason not to express them?”

    I don’t call people names, say they are white supremacists, or compare their views to Hitler, and so on. If you didn’t express yourself that way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    Nolan Rappaport
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not a participant in any negotiations. I am only expressing an opinion about what I see as the overall intent and purpose of Trump's immigration agenda, which is also shared by some, but definitely not all, Congressional Republicans, and is opposed by virtually all Congressional Democrats.

    This is not a political blog site; it as a site for comment on substantive immigration issues, and my comments are submitted in that spirit. Any ilw.com readers are free to comment about the substance of my, Nolan's, or any other person's ideas - who might welcome such comments or might not welcome them is not pertinent.

    Moreover, since no one involved in any negotiations is likely ever to read or pay the slightest attention to my views on any immigration topic, Nolan has nothing to worry about when I share my views with other ilw.com readers.

    Also, Nolan's point cuts both ways. If my views are offensive to some immigration opponents, his may also be offensive to some immigration advocates. Is that any reason not to express them?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-03-2017 at 03:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Diverting DV visas over to make more family and employment-based visas available in other categories is in and of itself not such a horrible idea.

    But that is not what the Trump administration is planning. Instead, Trump wants to make drastic cuts in family immigration by enacting the RAISE Act, and he is also attacking employment-based immigration through the RAISE Act (for less skilled workers) and through his "Buy American, Hire American" executive orders aimed against both skilled and unskilled employment immigration.

    I won't even mentioned the unprecedented number of H-1B RFE's this year, or the new USCIS policy of requiring green card interviews for all employment categories, including the most highly skilled ones, in order to delay and obstruct legal immigration - including highly skilled immigration, a large part of which is from China and India, as much as possible.

    The obvious purpose is to make big reductions in all immigration; and especially, through the RAISE Act, immigration from outside Europe.

    When we talk about ending or cutting back visa programs, whether refugees, Diversity visas, H-1B, family quotas, or whatever, we have to look at the overall picture.

    Just discussing individual parts of the jigsaw puzzle in isolation doesn't tell us very much about the puzzle itself.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I share your concern about what the parties would want a point system to favor, but I am concerned about the Dems, the Republicans, and Trump; not just Trump.

    However, I am most concerned about people who antagonize the politicians before the negotiations start....which is what you tend to do. That does not make them more cooperative.

    Nolan Rappaport
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Diverting DV visas over to make more family and employment-based visas available in other categories is in and of itself not such a horrible idea.

    But that is not what the Trump administration is planning. Instead, Trump wants to make drastic cuts in family immigration by enacting the RAISE Act, and he is also attacking employment-based immigration through the RAISE Act (for less skilled workers) and through his "Buy American, Hire American" executive orders aimed against both skilled and unskilled employment immigration.

    I won't even mentioned the unprecedented number of H-1B RFE's this year, or the new USCIS policy of requiring green card interviews for all employment categories, including the most highly skilled ones, in order to delay and obstruct legal immigration - including highly skilled immigration, a large part of which is from China and India, as much as possible.

    The obvious purpose is to make big reductions in all immigration; and especially, through the RAISE Act, immigration from outside Europe.

    When we talk about ending or cutting back visa programs, whether refugees, Diversity visas, H-1B, family quotas, or whatever, we have to look at the overall picture.

    Just discussing individual parts of the jigsaw puzzle in isolation doesn't tell us very much about the puzzle itself.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-03-2017 at 12:30 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's reported initial reaction to the despicable terrorist attack in New York was right on point - something that no American in either party could possibly find fault with - stop ISIS from coming over here.

    Since this was obviously an ISIS-inspired attack, down to the smallest detail, according to newspaper reports, it would have been natural to expect that the president would have followed up with more ideas about how we can in fact stop ISIS - which as Trump accurately said, was the real culprit in this attack.

    Is there a way that we can detect and combat signs of radicalization among Muslim US citizens and legal immigrants without violating their constitutional rights?

    Are there more resources that our security agencies and devote to dealing with what appears to be an abundance of ISIS social media sites giving people instructions about how to commit mass murder with whatever kind of weapons?

    Are there ways we can make America's Muslims feel more like welcomed US citizens and less like 2nd class pariahs, thereby depriving the ISIS monsters of a valuable recruiting tool?

    I son't know the answers to these questions, but they are ones that a responsible president, who really cares about our national security, might be expected to raise (and I don't mean RAISE)!

    But after a sound initial reaction, what did Trump actually do? He veered off from national security into attacking a visa program which has never been a source of terror attacks in the past, and is used by immigrants from countries all over the world, most of which have never had the slightest connection with radical Islam - some have, to be sure, but not enough to actually sponsor any terrorist attacks in the US.

    And suppose that this particular deranged attacker (as Trump also accurately called him), did come here with a Diversity Visa, which is not even yet established as a proven fact as far as I have seen.

    As Nolan points out, this visa has been in use for almost three decades - since 1990. How many of the more than a million other immigrants who have used that visa over this time have committed terrorist attacks in the US? None, as far as I know.

    So Trump is veering away from national security issue by raising this issue, and is off on a different policy planet.

    Nolan states that there is a policy argument for abolishing DV. Even if there is, and I will show in another comment that the "policy" reasons for abolishing DV are bogus and hypocritical - time does not permit now - is the tragic death of 8 people (5 of whom were legal foreign visitors) in a despicable act of murder really the best time to discuss a basically unrelated policy issue such as the DV visa?

    Not by any reasonable standard, unless the president's purpose was only to demagogue this issue as he has demagogued every other attack on our soil that is connected to an immigrant or immigrants in any way, in support of his white nationalist anti-immigrant agenda.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-01-2017 at 09:58 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I stopped reading Roger's blog when I saw that he was going to use the terrorist incident as a stepping stone to lecture the world on the evils of white nationalism. As interesting at that may be to Roger, it has nothing to do with this incident.

    The two pertinent issues are whether there is some way to identify lone wolf terrorists before they strike, and whether the Diversity Visa Program (DVP) should be terminated.

    I worked on Lone Wolf terrorism to some extent when I was a policy advisor at DHS. It's a very difficult problem. The only thing I am sure of is that Roger isn't going to solve it by ranting about Trump's white nationalist immigration program.

    The DVP, however is not such a difficult problem. It has been rationally debated for many years now. By rational, I mean without reference to white nationalist immigration agendas.

    The arguments in its favor have weakened over the years. The key point in opposition to it is that there are other, more desirable ways to use the 50,000 visas that it hands out every year in a lottery.

    That argument is particularly appealing to Trump and others who support the RAISE Act. They certainly would prefer giving the visas to high skill immigrants who are needed in the United States.

    I wonder. If they propose using the 50,000 visas a year to create an LPR visa for immigrants who normally would apply for an H-1B visa, will Roger call that a white nationalist plot? Certainly, that would be consistent with the stated objectives of the RAISE Act.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 11-01-2017 at 06:57 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I am sorry to see that Nolan apparently has so little confidence in the ability of people who speak out against perceived governmental injustices or harmful policies to accomplish any change.
    .....
    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    We don't seem to be able to communicate. I have told you many times that your comments about Trump are extremely offensive. That's why you have no chance of having an impact on what he does, not because the opinions of individual Americans don't count.

    If I didn't believe that the opinions of individuals can matter, I wouldn't be writing an op-ed every week for The Hill. In fact, I think the idea for the notorious Travel Ban came from one of my articles. "If he is elected to the presidency, Donald Trump will have statutory authority to suspend the entry of all Muslim aliens," (April 20, 2016), http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0420-Rappaport.pdf

    "I predict that he would develop a criterion for the proclamation that would be similar to the one recently established by the overwhelmingly bipartisan Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015,7 which was enacted to prevent terrorists from using the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). Nationals who enter under the VWP are not subjected to the scrutiny of the visa application process. The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act prohibits travelers who are in one of the following categories from using the VWP:


    • Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, or countries listed under specified designation lists at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions); and

    • Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, or Sudan."


    I mention that a ban might be found unconstitutional if it were based on religious, but it never occurred to me that anyone would think a ban based on that criterion might be called religious discrimination.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-28-2017 at 07:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am sorry to see that Nolan apparently has so little confidence in the ability of people who speak out against perceived governmental injustices or harmful policies to accomplish any change.

    If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tomas Paine or Benjamin Franklin had had such an attitude, there would be no United States of America today.

    If Theodore Herz, Chaim Weizman and many other Jewish leaders had remained silent on issues affecting the Jewish people, there would never have been a State of Israel.

    I am of course not comparing myself with any of the above individuals.

    More specific to the immigration context, the historic 1965 immigration reform law, which ended 40 years of the bigoted, anti-Jewish, anti-Asian, and anti-other non-"Nordic" immigration policies of the 1924 Immigration Act (which Stephen Bannon, Jeff Sessions and other past and present Trump immigration advisers still have had kind words for - and which Trump himself indirectly praised in an August 31, 2016 immigration address as a presidential candidate) did not come about all by itself.

    It took many years of speaking out against the pre-1965 immigration system, which added to the Holocaust death toll and which Adolf Hitler praised in Mein Kampf, before it was finally abolished.

    Does Nolan think that the critics of that racially bigoted, anti-Semitic 1924 immigration law were speaking out to no purpose and should have kept silent?

    I very much doubt it.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 10-28-2017 at 04:09 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 125 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: