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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "Never Again."

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

    Never Again!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Nolan Rappaport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-29-2017 at 09:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Does this mean that any negative news or comment about Trump should automatically be considered "Fake News?" and that only favorable news about him can be relied on as true? If that ever becomes the case, then America will really become another North Korea.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I don't know how much of what you hear from the news media is true, and neither do you. My point is that you accept anything negative that you hear about Trump because it supports your view of him.

    Nolan Rappaport
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Does this mean that any negative news or comment about Trump should automatically be considered "Fake News?" and that only favorable news about him can be relied on as true? If that ever becomes the case, then America will really become another North Korea.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger,

    Do you believe everything you read in the news? You might want to be a little skeptical.

    Nolan Rappaport
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Nolan's last point, DHS Acting Secretary Elaine Duke, according to several news reports, got some very heavy and angry arm twisting from White House Chief of Staff John Kelly when she postponed a decision about terminating TPS for another group of non-white immigrants, Hondurans.

    In fact, according to some news reports, the arm twisting that Duke received from Kelly, who was obviously acting on Trump's behalf since that is Kelly's job, was so intense and offensive that Duke actually threatened to quit.

    Kelly also reportedly said that Duke's refusal to end TPS for the Hondurans now was "delaying" White House goals.

    We all know what those goals are. Anyone who has doubts about that can read my own ilw.com comment on the Honduran TPS issue, which also has links to the relevant news reports.

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10219

    Duke may not have had similar bullying and arm-twisting from the White House in connection with her decision to terminate TPS for Haitians, but, in view of the above reported TPS history regarding Hondurans, she may not have needed it.

    She is certainly capable of reading the Handwriting on the Wall, and I am not referring to Trump's proposed Wall of hatred and humiliation against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants.

    I am referring the the Wall in the Biblical Book of Daniel and the words written on that Wall:

    Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

    I also note that there are plenty of countries where the press or members of the public may be intimidated from publishing or posting negative news reports or comments about policies or actions of leaders who hold positions of power.

    Russia, alleged connections with which by Trump's campaign and/or close associates are now under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and have already resulted in indictments and one guilty plea, is one such country.

    Fortunately, the United States of America is not (yet) on that list of repression, and critics of Donald Trump's immigration policies are still free to speak out.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 11-28-2017 at 09:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    The issue is not whether, as the title to Nolan's article suggests it is, TPS is intended to be permanent. No one claims that it is, and whoever wrote that title is raising a red herring argument.

    The real issue is whether Haiti, the poorest country in the entire western hemisphere, is now in a position to take the TPS holders back.

    Expert opinion, which Nolan does not mention to any great extent in his article, is clear that Haiti is not ready to take these Haitian citizens back.

    Naomi Steinberg, senior director of policy and advocacy at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) states:

    "There is a significant need there [in Haiti] for medical care, for education, for work opportunities...there has been a cholera epidemic, hurricanes, other natural disasters...there is not an infrastructure in place to absorb all these returnees."

    See my November 24 Immigration Daily comment on this issue:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10246

    What prompted the decision to end TPS for 50,000 Haitian immigrants? Was it an objective study of conditions in Haiti and whether that country is really able to absorb the returnees? Or was it Trump's desire to proceed with his "ethnic cleansing" agenda of overseeing the departure from the US of as many non-white immigrants as possible as quickly as possible?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger says, “The issue is not whether, as the title to Nolan's article suggests it is, TPS is intended to be permanent. No one claims that it is, and whoever wrote that title is raising a red herring argument.”


    Roger knows that I don’t write the titles to my articles or even see them before the articles are published.


    Roger says, “The real issue is whether Haiti, the poorest country in the entire western hemisphere, is now in a position to take the TPS holders back.”


    No, that is not the real issue. Let’s look at the pertinent statutory provision instead of looking to an “expert” who does not appear to have done this either.

    (A) Periodic review.-At least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state (or part thereof) under this section the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state (or part of such foreign state) for which a designation is in effect under this subsection and shall determine whether the conditions for such designation under this subsection continue to be met.

    (B) Termination of designation.-If the Attorney General determines under subparagraph (A) that a foreign state (or part of such foreign state) no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall terminate the designation

    To be meaningful, Roger’s objection to terminating TPS should focus on whether the consequences of an earthquake that occurred seven years ago still warrant TPS.


    Roger says, “Expert opinion, which Nolan does not mention to any great extent in his article, is clear that Haiti is not ready to take these Haitian citizens back.

    Naomi Steinberg, senior director of policy and advocacy at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) states:

    "There is a significant need there [in Haiti] for medical care, for education, for work opportunities...there has been a cholera epidemic, hurricanes, other natural disasters...there is not an infrastructure in place to absorb all these returnees."”


    This has nothing to do with the earthquake that occurred seven years ago. But if those conditions are as bad as she claims, they might justify a new grant of TPS, which is a possibility I said the Haitian TPS aliens should look into.


    Roger says, "What prompted the decision to end TPS for 50,000 Haitian immigrants? Was it an objective study of conditions in Haiti and whether that country is really able to absorb the returnees? Or was it Trump's desire to proceed with his "ethnic cleansing" agenda of overseeing the departure from the US of as many non-white immigrants as possible as quickly as possible?"


    Such decisions are not made by the President of the United States. Staff at DHS made recommendations to a DHS official who reviewed them and passed them on to Acting Sec. Duke, and she made the decision. Your absurd character assassinations are going to get you into trouble if you aren’t careful to limit them to celebrities and other persons who can’t sue you for libel.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 11-28-2017 at 06:11 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The issue is not whether, as the title to Nolan's article suggests it is, TPS is intended to be permanent. No one claims that it is, and whoever wrote that title is raising a red herring argument.

    The real issue is whether Haiti, the poorest country in the entire western hemisphere, is now in a position to take the TPS holders back.

    Expert opinion, which Nolan does not mention to any great extent in his article, is clear that Haiti is not ready to take these Haitian citizens back.

    Naomi Steinberg, senior director of policy and advocacy at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) states:

    "There is a significant need there [in Haiti] for medical care, for education, for work opportunities...there has been a cholera epidemic, hurricanes, other natural disasters...there is not an infrastructure in place to absorb all these returnees."

    See my November 24 Immigration Daily comment on this issue:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10246

    What prompted the decision to end TPS for 50,000 Haitian immigrants? Was it an objective study of conditions in Haiti and whether that country is really able to absorb the returnees? Or was it Trump's desire to proceed with his "ethnic cleansing" agenda of overseeing the departure from the US of as many non-white immigrants as possible as quickly as possible?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-28-2017 at 02:58 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, “Nolan is correct that the BIA has generally rejected threats of gang violence against children or young people as a basis for asylum. The BIA has been widely criticized by legal analysts, however, for relying on a strained, overly technical definition of what constitutes "membership in a particular social group" for asylum purposes, and some federal circuit courts have overruled the BIA in specific instances on this issue.”

    It’s not a “strained, overly technical definition of what constitutes ‘membership in a particular social group’ for asylum purposes.” I haven’t read the Board’s position in a very long time, but my understanding is that a “particular social group” can’t include the entire population of a country, which certainly would be true of gang violence.

    Roger says, “It would be more accurate to say that asylum law based on gang violence related claims is in a state of transition.”

    I wouldn’t hold out much hope that it is going to go your way. Obama appointed liberal board members, and Trump almost certainly will go in the other direction. But most importantly, even the liberal board members didn’t buy the position you are hoping for.

    Roger says, “But, as so often happens in immigration law, technical legal arguments such as the one over the definition of a "social group" are only facades for much deeper policy divisions.

    The issue which Nolan raises of how asylum for refugee claims for Central American children should be handled is only one aspect of the larger debate going on right know as the which parts of the world America should be accepting immigrants from.



    My article must not be very clear. I don’t care where the UACs apply for relief. My concern is the dangerous journey they take to get here from Central America, something Roger appears to see as being too insignificant to warrant a comment. Apparently, he is indifferent to the plight of young children being sold into a life of sexual slavery, or young girls being raped on the journey to America.

    Should our immigrants continue to come from every part of the world, as has been the case for the past 50 years, or should they come only from white Europe, as was the case for the previous four decades before that?”

    Roger, you have to separate the two forms of relief. The UACs are not applying for refugee status. They are making illegal entries into the US to apply for asylum, and asylum is 100% discretionary. If our immigration court backlog continues to grow uncontrollably, we could see Congress passing a law suspending the consideration of asylum applications. It could provide for deportation to a refugee camp in cases where an alien appears to have a legitimate persecution claim.

    Nolan Rappaport
Page 1 of 126 1231151101 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: