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



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

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. ACLU Also Explains How Trump's Retweets of Anti-Muslim Hate Videos Will Undermine DOJ's Muslim Ban Defense Strategy in Court. Roger Algase

    This comment is a follow-up to my November 29 comment (appearing in the November 30 issue of Immigration Daily) about Trump's retweeting of inflammatory videos posted by far right anti-Muslim extremist in the UK purporting to show "Muslims" engaging in despicable acts of violence. In my comment, I suggested that Trump's retweeting of this openly Islamophobic material could doom his Muslim ban defense strategy in various federal courts (and the Supreme Court, if the case reaches that Court again).

    The reason, as I suggested, is that by retweeting these hate videos, (which bring back uncomfortable memories of similar material that the Nazi propaganda machine directed against the Jews, not to mention home-grown anti-Semitic American hate propaganda of a century ago, such as the infamous "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" disseminated by another famous wealthy tycoon of that era, Henry Ford), Trump demolished whatever may have been left of his court arguments that the Muslim ban orders were motivated by national security rather than pure bigotry. My November 29 comment is available at:

    A November 30 article by ACLU communications director Amrit Cheng supports the above contention which I outlined in my own article. See:

    Trump's Lawyers Say the Muslim Ban Has No Bias, But His Tweets Show Otherwise

    Cheng writes:

    "Trump's prejudice against Muslims reveals itself at every turn - because he is the one revealing it. He showed his bias with Wednesday's tweets, with pronouncements like 'Islam hates us' and with every version of the Muslim ban...

    Not surprisingly, courts have repeatedly recognized that the president's Muslim bans are inextricably tied to the president's flagrant prejudice and his repeated promises to ban Muslims from coming to the United States."

    Cheng also writes:

    "Yesterday's tweets can be added to Trump's long list of anti-Muslim statements and actions..."

    And as I pointed out in my November 30 Immigration Daily comment, the tweets completely give the lie to the claim by his defenders that Trump's history of anti-Muslim campaign statements took place "too long ago" to be used against him in the ongoing Muslim ban litigation, which the ACLU will continue to pursue before the 4th Circuit on December 8, according to Cheng's article.

    Trump's anti-Muslim campaign statements, to be sure, took place between one and two years ago, which itself hardly qualifies as ancient history.

    But his vicious Islamophobic retweets took place on November 29, 2017 ten months after his first Muslim ban executive order. And just in case any of Trump's defenders may have happened to overlook this little detail, on November 29, 2017, Donald Trump was no longer a presidential candidate, who might arguably have been entitled to some leeway in his statements while seeking office (at least according to his supporters' theory of presidential campaigns).

    He was the president of the United States and had been so for close to a year.

    And as Cheng aptly puts it in his article:

    "We should all be outraged that the president of the United States is promoting and endorsing videos that are plainly designed to fan the flames of anti-Muslim hatred. The decision to do that is reckless, dangerous and contrary to fundamental American values that protect all of us from religious discrimination."

    And this is the ultimate point about the entire controversy ovr the Muslim ban executive orders and Trump's history of other bigoted statements and actions against Muslim immigrants (and threats against Muslim Americans, we also must not forget).

    It is not only the rights of Muslims, or of immigrants that are at stake. It is also the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of religion, that Trump is now putting in danger by his campaign of fear, hatred and prejudice against Muslims and other non-white, non-European immigrants.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-01-2017 at 04:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Will Trump's Shocking Retweets of Extremist Anti-Muslim Hate Videos Spell Legal Doom for His Latest Muslim Ban Executive Order? Roger Algase

    Update, November 30, 5:13 pm

    For the latest reaction to Trump's anti-Muslim tweets, see, The Guardian, November 30:

    Far right hatemongers cheer Trump's Twitter endorsement

    My original comment follows:

    As both the US and the UK are reeling from the shock of Trump's retweets of vicious proto-fascist anti-Muslim hate videos originally posted by Jayda Fransen, who has a reputation for anti-Muslim extremism in the UK, one question immediately arises: can Trump's latest Muslim ban order survive this latest expression of the president's venomous animosity against the entire world Muslim community, not just those who may be suspected of terrorist sympathies?

    I will not even describe the vile content of the videos, which cannot help but recall the unspeakable attacks against Jews as being violent criminals and degenerates promulgated by Julius Streicher in his infamous publication Der Stuermer, and which ultimately led to his execution as a Nazi war criminal.

    Details of the videos, and of the horrified reaction in both the UK and the US to the fact that a president of the United States was actually capable of spreading such material can be found at:

    and at:

    However, the concern raised by Trump's spreading of this material in defiance of the conscience of the world is only part of the story. There is also the question of whether there will be any legal consequences in the still pending dispute over Trump's latest Muslim ban executive order.

    As everyone who has been following the Muslim ban litigation will have no difficulty in remembering, the central issue in the various lawsuits involving the three different versions of Trump's bans on entry to the US by citizens of various overwhelmingly Muslim countries (plus, in the latest version, a couple of non-Muslim ones thrown in for obvious cosmetic purposes) has been whether the ban is motivated by genuine national security reasons, as Trump and his Department of Justice have argued; or whether, as its opponents claim and an overwhelming majority of the 4th Circuit judges sitting en banc ruled regarding the second version of the Muslim entry ban ban, it was motivated by unconstitutional "animus" against Muslims and their religion in general affecting the rights of American citizens.

    Aside from the DOJ's argument that (in effect) INA Section 212(f) gives the president the power of a dictator or an emperor to ban any immigrants he wishes from our shores (and airports) for any reason he chooses, an argument which is untenable when the constitutional rights of US citizens to freedom of religion are affected; the issue whether the president has a legitimate national security justification for the ban has come down to a question of fact concerning Trump's actual motivations in issuing the ban orders, rather than just the theoretical pretexts set forth in the ban orders themselves (such as that Syria, for example, was placed on a terror sponsorship list almost 40 years ago)!

    In arguing that Trump's real motivation for the ban orders (which he has since criticized himself as being too weak and "politically correct") was hatred of and prejudice against Muslims as a religious group, not genuine national security concerns, opponents of the ban cited a host of Trump's campaign statements, such as, to give only one example out of many: "Islam hates us".

    In opposition to this argument, the Muslim ban's defenders argued that campaign statements were irrelevant; they were too far back in the past; this would open the door to using something that a president might have said as a high school student in order to overturn future executive orders, etc., etc.

    In other words, based on this time-worn strategy (going back to the time of Aristotle) of reductio ad absurdum, (he eis to adunaton apagoge in ancient Greek), the Muslim ban's defenders were asking the federal courts to blind themselves to the obvious reality that Trump had made hatred of Muslims and their religion in general, not just the need to protect against unquestionably dangerous terrorist groups such as ISIS, a centerpiece of his campaign.

    However, the 4th and 9th Circuits, as well as various federal district courts, refused to put on the blinders or ignore the reality staring them in the face, and the Supreme Court essentially punted on this entire issue.

    Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a 10-3 majority of the full 4th Circuit court on May 25, 2017 in IRAP v. Trump, stated, in words which deserve to be forever engraved in America's legal history as a nation of freedom, democracy and equal justice for all:

    "When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the 'inevitable result' is 'hatred, disrespect and even contempt' toward those who fall on the wrong side of the line. [Citation omitted.] Improper government involvement with religion 'tends to destroy government and to degrade religion' id, encourage persecution of religious minorities and nonbelievers, and foster hostility and division in our pluralistic society. The risk of these harms is particularly acute here, where from the highest elected office in the nation has come an Executive Order steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group."

    For a summary of and link to the full decision, see:

    If the above is true of an executive order which at least pretended to be based on rational and objective national security considerations, even if these, as the 4th Circuit and other federal courts also determined, were essentially nothing but window dressing; it is even more true when the holder of the highest office in our nation deliberately publicizes patently false and vicious material, based on nothing but pure hatred, against a particular religion.

    Now, by retweeting the vile expressions of anti-Muslim hatred posted by an anti-Muslim extremist who has herself been convicted of anti-Muslim violence according to the above news reports, Trump has totally destroyed any possible argument that his own previous inflammatory anti-Muslim statements as a candidate should be disregarded as explaining the real reasons for his Muslim ban orders.

    The Supreme Court, and various lower federal courts following the Supreme Court's decision, have, on a temporary basis, allowed some parts of Trump's latest Muslim ban order to stand (the first two orders now having been rescinded by the administration itself).

    All of these courts should now, on their own motion, put the ban cases back on their calendars and, on the basis of this shocking new and unassailable evidence of Trump's obviously deep-seated personal "animus" against all Muslims, not just terrorists, they should strike down Trump's latest Muslim ban in toto, every single word of it, from alpha to omega - beginning to the end.

    Since the following is a political issue, rather than a legal one, I will not go into the question of how much longer Congress can continue in good conscience to avoid beginning impeachment proceedings against a president whose ongoing expressions of bigotry against a major world religion which some 2 or 3 million peaceful, law abiding and patriotic US citizens also belong to raise increasingly serious questions, not just about the legality of his immigration policies, but about his fitness for the highest office in the land.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 11-30-2017 at 04:14 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Haitiís temporary protected status never intended to be permanent. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    Otherwise deportable aliens cannot be deported while they have Temporary Protected Status (TPS), but they revert back to being deportable when their TPS status has been terminated. Consequently, it was not surprising when, a day after Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke announced that she was terminating Haitian TPS, an article appeared asking, ďIs Trump going to deport 59,000 Haitians who fled a humanitarian crisis?Ē

    Duke delayed the effective date of the termination by 18 months to allow for an orderly transition, and no one knows what Trumpís enforcement priorities will be 18 months from now. Moreover, if he does not get the immigration court backlog under control, he may not be able to put the Haitians through removal proceedings.

    Nevertheless, they will be deportable when their status expires if they havenít obtained lawful status on some other basis. And they cannot compel Duke to reinstate their TPS status.

    The same fate awaits TPS aliens from nine other countries when their status is terminated.


    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author. Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

  4. "Pocahontas", Puerto Rico and (Right Wing) Populism: Trump's Prejudices Against Minority Americans Also Explain His Immigration Policies. Roger Algase

    Update: November 29, 11:07 am:

    It's not just "Pocahontas". Trump has also just retweeted an extremist anti-Muslim hate video from the UK, causing outrage in both the UK and the US.

    Update, November 29, 9:23 am:

    For a comment by Princeton University Professor of Religion and African-American Studies professor Eddie Glaude, Jr. stating that Trump's "Pocahontas" racial slur was an attack, not only on Native Americans, but on all brown-skinned people, see:

    With every new slur and racial attack against non-white people in general, and immigrants in particular, coming from the president, it becomes more and more difficult to escape the conclusion that deeply rooted racial prejudices are at the very core of Trump's immigration agenda.

    My original comment appears below.

    The notion of a president of the United States using a demeaning racial slur against a group of people he is purportedly honoring and praising for their contributions to American society would be unthinkable for most Americans, even in the "Donald Trump Era". But that is exactly what Trump did on November 27 in a speech to a group of elderly Navaho native Americans who had rendered invaluable service during WW2 by developing a code which could not be broken.

    Even in the midst of his praise for their service, Trump was unable to avoid using his favorite racial epithet against native Americans: "Pocahontas."

    To put it into perspective, what would the reaction be if a US president were to address a group of African-Americans while talking about "Uncle Tom". or if her were to give a speech in front of a Jewish organization containing a reference to "Shylock"?

    But this story is not significant just because of a single racial remark (made while Trump, in an arguably even more serious insult to Native Americans, stood in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, a president who became famous for exterminating them).

    This one single racial epithet is a window into the denigrating attitude that Trump has shown toward non-white Americans in other, far more serious instances, notably in his response (or lack of it) to the hurricane disaster in Puerto Rico. It is also reflected in his courting of white nationalists, also known as Right Wing Populists.

    One might even say that the 3 "P's" of Trump's disparagement of non-white Americans, "Pocahontas", Puerto Rico and white nativist Populism, tell us more about the purpose of Trump's agenda of making drastic reductions in immigration from non-European parts of the world than any fancy, convoluted immigration executive orders or policy statements coming out from the White House or the DHS could possibly do.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 11-29-2017 at 10:07 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. If Trump Really Believes in "Defending Western Values", He Should Heed the Pope's Call to Respect The Dignity of All Immigrants. Roger Algase

    As described in detail in my November 20 post, Donald Trump's July 6 Warsaw speech was a virtual manifesto for keeping non-European immigrants out of the United States in order to preserve the "values", "civilization" and "traditions" of "the West" which Europe and America had "inherited" from "our ancestors" (white ones, that is). Indeed, Trump, in that speech, called protecting the borders of "the West" "the most fundamental issue of our time."

    However, even though Trump gave his speech (which had very uncomfortable echoes of the "Blut und Boden" - ("Blood and Soil") slogan of the Nazis who once occupied Poland and exterminated Warsaw's Jews with the help of their own Warsaw Ghetto Wall -which Trump's proposed Mexican Border Wall inevitably brings to mind) in Poland, one of the most Catholic countries in all of Europe, the president's interest in "Western Values" does not seem to extend to paying any attention to the words of the Pope, one of the greatest symbols of Western traditions and values of all time.

    Reuters, in a November 24 article:

    Pope criticizes politicians for stoking racism over immigration

    reports that the Pope has issued a message called:

    "Migrants and Refugees: Men and Women in Search of Peace"

    The article quotes Pope Francis as follows:

    "Many destination countries have seen the spread of rhetoric decrying the risks posed to national security or the high cost of welcoming new arrivals, and doing so demeans the human dignity due to all sons and daughters of God."

    The Pope also said:

    "Those who, for what may be political reasons, foment fear of migrants instead of building peace are sowing violence, racial discrimination and xenophobia, which are matters of great worry for all those concerned about the safety of every human being."

    If the president cares as much about the values and civilization of "the West" as he claimed to do in his Warsaw speech, he might want to think about showing a little more respect for the greatest "Western" value of all - the universal value of tolerance and respect for all human beings, as reaffirmed by the Pope.

    And if Trump is not willing to follow the values exemplified by the Pope, he might do just as well by basing his immigration polices on the maxim of the great 1st Century A.D. Roman poet Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus) who, though not a Christian, lived his short life (before being killed by the emperor Nero) at a time when Christianity was just beginning. Lucan famously wrote (in his epic poem De Bello Civili about Rome's brutal and destructive civil wars of the century just before his own):

    Inque vicem gens omnis amet ("May all nationalities live in harmony with each other.")

    Following both the message of Christianity, as reaffirmed by Pope Francis, as well as the great humanist admonition of a Roman poet of 2,000 years ago, would be a welcome change from Trump's current policies of division, discrimination, deportation and demonization against non-European immigrants.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 11-27-2017 at 04:55 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

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