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
    Surely, a highly respected authority on immigration law with Nolan's vast knowledge and experience must be able to find a better way to rebut opinions he disagrees with than attempting to dismiss them as "outbursts".

    My last "outburst" consisted of quoting from and commenting on a decision of a federal judge only days ago ruling that Trump's DACA termination was illegal, in part because of evidence that it was motivated by racial animus against minority immigrants, and comparing that with earlier court decisions invalidating Trump's Muslim ban orders.

    Were those court decisions merely "outbursts" too?

    There was once a time when quoting from and commenting on judicial decisions was called "legal discussion", not an "outburst".

    The same applies to my comments on a number of points that Nolan has raised in his own article. This also used to be called "legal discussion" once upon a time.

    Today, January 15, we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., one of the greatest Americans of all time, who, 55 years ago, in 1963, made an immortal speech containing the words "I Have a Dream", and whose legacy Donald Trump himself paid homage to in January 12 statement that upheld the equality of all people regardless of country of birth and directly contradicted his statement the day before that African and Haitian immigrants were inferior to immigrants from Norway.

    As a young Harvard Law School graduate, I had the great honor and privilege of working for a distinguished lawyer and close friend and adviser to Dr. King, Clarence B. Jones, who was representing Dr. King in federal copyright litigation involving the "I Have a Dream" speech. I played a small but not totally insignificant role in helping prepare the paperwork for that litigation - including copyrighting the speech itself.

    I can still remember that time, when Dr. King himself was denounced by his segregationist opponents as a "demagogue" and a "rabble-rouser" and was falsely accused of having Communist sympathies, before finally being assassinated because of his support of equal rights for black people.

    As we honor Dr. King's legacy today, we should also be saddened by the fact that we now have a president who, only one day before honoring that legacy himself, stated, according to at least one highly respected US Senator who was present, that America doesn't want immigrants from "shithole" parts of the world where people have the same skin color as Dr. King.

    I trust that Nolan, in keeping with his own distinguished reputation as a respected legal scholar and immigration law authority, will not try to dismiss my comments about my experience working on behalf of Dr. King, however small and brief, and how this experience relates to immigration issues today, as a mere "outburst."

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-15-2018 at 09:06 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I say Roger, "can no longer control his outbursts," and he responds with three more outbursts.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-14-2018 at 10:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In a further indication that Trump's racially charged comments about immigrants from various parts of the world are hurting his legal arguments in federal court in support of his various immigration initiatives, including terminating DACA, US District Judge William Alsup, who ordered the administration to begin accepting DACA applications again a few days ago, issued the following statement in a new ruling on January 12, as POLITICO reports

    "These allegations raise a plausible inference that racial animus was a motivating factor in the decision to end DACA."

    This indicates that Muslim Ban litigation is not the only instance in which federal judges are beginning to determine that various immigration initiatives by the Trump administration are motivated by racial or religious animosity.


    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-racism-daca-dreamers-judge-339512


    In reality, there is a strong factual case to be made that ALL, or nearly all, of Trump's immigration actions as president are motivated by racial and religious "animus", and that Trump's latest outrage against African and Haitian immigrants is part of a pattern of hatred against non-white immigrants dating from his vicious attack against Mexican "criminals" and "rapists" and call for a worldwide Muslim ban as a presidenial candidate up to now - not just an isolated "foolish" comment, as Nolan contends above.-

    In the same way, as I will show further in my own blog comment (along with the three ilw.com blog comments of my own which I have already written about Trump's racist 'shithole' remarks!), Trump's statement that America needs immigrants from Norway more than from Africa and Haiti is unlikely to help him in future litigation concerning his mass exclusion, mass deportation, agenda.

    The title of Nolan's article suggests that Trump has a "winning plan" on DACA.

    If he does, it must be something other than calling Latino immigrants "criminals' and 'rapists' , shouting that 'Islam hates us' and accusing black immigrants of coming from 'shithole' countries and preferring white-skinned immigrants from Scandinavia instead.

    That is not a "winning plan" , and let us hope that the president comes to realize that one day, sooner rather than later.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 01-14-2018 at 11:42 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Certainly, no one could possibly suggest that I am the only person who objects to Trump's racist "shithole" comment. See, for just one example, POLIIICO (January 12):

    Trump's 'shithole' comment denounced across the globe.

    This article has a long list of Congressional and other US leaders who have denounced Trump's racial slur against dark- skinned immigrants.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...eaction-337926

    For a sampling of international leaders and public figures who have also condemned Trump's January 11 "Shithole" comment in the strongest possible terms, see:

    The Guardian (January 12):

    'There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...untries-remark

    To give just one example of this international criticism, which reflects that coming from many quarters in the US as well, The Guardian quotes the UB Human Rights spokesman, Rupert Colville, as follows:

    "There is no other word one can use but racist. You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as 'shitholes', whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome."

    How can anyone reasonably dispute the accuracy of Mr. Colville's comment?

    Obviously. Trump was saying, in the plainest and crudest language possible, that he would not agree to any DACA solution (the precise subject of Nolan's article) that does not reduce the number of African and Caribbean legal immigrants in the future.

    The Hill also describes the reaction in the United States and abroad to Trump's comment as follows:

    "Lawmakers, media figures and world leaders have all decried Trump's comments. The African Union, representing all 55 African countries, demanded Saturday that Trump apologize for his remarks."

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...to-trump-hotel

    The same story in The Hill also carries a photo a protest using a graphic image, in the form of the word "SHITHOLE" being projected onto the front of the Trump DC hotel.

    While Trump's comment shames the entire American nation and all of its citizens, it is encouraging to know that we still live in a free country where this form of protest is allowed, despite many remarks by the president that he would like to see greater limits on free speech in America - a chilling reminder that racism and dictatorship almost always go hand in hand.


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 01-14-2018 at 04:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Obviously, Nolan is unable to answer my points. Otherwise, he would not resort to calling them "outbursts".
    Nolan seems to have a double set of views. Any opinion that he supports is a "comment"; any opinion that does not is an "outburst."

    What kind of legal discussion is that?


    Trump has made a horrific, racist comment on an immigration issue which has caused shock and outrage in every corner of the world. It could take considerable time and space to list all of the dignitaries and public figures who have expressed horror at this comment, which is directly related to the subject matter of Trump's article, i.e. proposals to change our legal immigration in order to arrive at a DACA deal.

    Nolan has not denied that Trump made this despicable comment, implying that America needs white immigrants but not black ones, nor has Nolan tried to defend it. Instead, he is trying to shrug it off as a just a "foolish comment," and he apparently doesn't want anyone else to talk about it either.

    With the greatest respect for Nolan's distinguished reputation as an immigration law scholar and authority, that is not the way to have a meaningful or sensible discussion about an immigration policy issue which is central to the topic of Nolan's own article.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-15-2018 at 08:57 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger is still doing it. His response to my complaint about using my articles as a platform for his Trump hatred is to launch into another Trump hatred tirade. I have to think that his Trump obsession has taken control of him, that he not only has lost the ability to think objectively, but he can no longer control his outbursts.

    Nolan Rappaport
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The following has been revised as of January 14:

    Nolan tries to dismiss Trump's hate-filled comment against black immigrants as merely a "foolish comment" made in a "private conversation.

    It was in fact much more than that. It was a crude, but crystal clear statement of the negotiating position of the president of the United States of America on a key immigration issue - DACA- in a meeting with leading Senate negotiators. This was not a stray microphone or reporter picking up an offhand remark that someone might have blurted out to a friend on the golf course or in private - which would still have been reprehensible.

    What the president was telling the Senators present by this remark was that he would not agree to any DACA legislation that does not reduce the number of dark skinned immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean and go back to the pre-1965 system of favoring white immigrants from northern Europe.

    This also goes directly to the subject of Nolan's article, which is about Republican proposals on a DACA solution. These proposals, as has been widely reported, would include eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery, which has been a major source of legal immigration from Africa, and sharply reducing family immigration, which has enabled tens of millions of legal immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America to come to the US in the past half century.

    Trump's comment was not just "foolish", it was bigoted and destructive - intended to make any solution to DACA that does not support Trump's racial immigration agenda impossible.
    Nolan's contention that mentioning Trump's vile and racist comment has nothing to do with his article and does not belong in a discussion of the article is therefore entirely misplaced.

    However, I do note that I have taken up a great deal of space talking about Trump's remark, and Nolan has said almost nothing about it, other than that it was "foolish"

    Therefore, and also because I have in fact posted three ilw.com articles of my own on this topic which Nolan might not have have yet read, I have deleted the rest of my original comments in this space in order to give Nolan more opportunity to elaborate his views about why Trump's comment was foolish and share them with his readers:

    Over to you, Nolan.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-14-2018 at 08:52 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My article is about the Republican DACA bill, which I argue is not as likely to be passed as the Trump DACA proposal. What does Roger talk about? A foolish comment that Trump made in what he thought was a private conversation.

    The only thing I don't understand is why Roger keeps making irrelevant comments to my articles that he knows I find offensive. He is almost continuously spreading Trump hatred in his own articles. Why does he have to do it comments to my articles too?

    Nolan Rappaport
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Just so it will be clear which statement by Trump I am referring to, these were his exact words on January 11, as reported by virtually every major news outlet in America, and attested to by Senator Dick Durbin, who was present, without contradiction from any of the other Senators who were present, including those who support Trump:

    "What do we want Haitians here for? Why do we want all these people from Africa here? Why do we want all these people from shithole countries?...We should have people from places like Norway."

    Even though Trump has denied using those exact words, and said that he used other "tough" words instead, no one else who was at the meeting has backed up Trump's denial.

    These words, which have brought outraged reactions from across America and the world, will define Trump's presidency as long as it is remembered. I predict that our grandchildren's grandchildren, and their grandchildren, will be learning about these infamous words in their history books long after today's readers are no longer around to express their horror over the fact than an American president could have said them in the 21st Century.

    This is not the place to go into the full history of Trump's comments insulting and degrading black people in general, including his spreading the "birther" fantasy about President Obama, among other things. But what is most disturbing is Trump's holding up Norway as an example of an ideal source country for immigration.

    Nor are my comments in any way meant to diminish the great contribution that Norwegian and other Scandinavian immigrants have made and are making to American society.

    But Trump's reference to Norway at the same time as expressing his hatred for black immigrants refers unmistakably to the "Nordics -only" racial policies of Adolf Hitler, as well as of America's own dark history of immigration laws based on the theory of "Nordic" racial superiority.

    For more details on this ominous aspect of Trump's bigoted January 11 comment, see an article about the 1924 Immigration Act in Boston Review by Christopher Petrella of Bates College (Maine)

    The Preservation of the White Race


    http://bostonreview.net/forum/after-...ion-white-race

    It is also true that on January 9, only two days earlier, Trump presented an entirely different face, one of openness, tolerance and acceptance toward non-white immigrants. But if those were his real feelings, how could he have then made the horrible, despicable comment quoted above only two days later?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-13-2018 at 07:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with both Nolan and the ACLU about the Republican DACA bill.

    What is the real purpose of ending extended family immigration (a/k/a "chain migration") and the visa lottery?

    Is it really to ensure more careful screening and higher educational/skills qualifications for immigrants, as Trump and other supporters of the RAISE Act claim, or is to stop brown or black people from "shithole countries" in Africa or the Caribbean from coming to the US legally, while turning back to the "Nordics" only immigration regime of 1924 which, among others, Adolf Hitler claimed to be inspired by when he praised that law in Mein Kampf?

    Donald Trump answered that question on January 11, a day that, without exaggeration, it would be fair to say, using the famous words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, will "live in infamy" in America's immigration history and be remembered with revulsion, because of Trump's words, by fair minded Americans of every ethnicity, color, religion and ancestry.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-12-2018 at 06:21 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This comment has been revised and updated as of January 11 at 10:30 pm in the light of Trump's disgusting, appalling, horrifying attack on black immigrants earlier the same day as reported in multiple media outlets and not denied by the White House:

    Specifically, Trump made the following comments at a White House discussion of DACA and related immigration issues:

    "What do we want Haitians here for? Why do we want all these people from Africa here? hy do we want all these people from shithole countries?...We should have people from places like Norway."

    http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-...111-story.html

    Can there still be any doubt why Trump is so insistent about wanting to end "Chain Migration" - and the Diversity Visa lottery which has been especially helpful helpful to immigrants from Africa?

    Here are Trump's comments about "chain migration", as reported in a recent New York Times interview:

    "We have to get rid of chainlike immigration, we have to get rid of the chain. The chain is the last guy that killed...The last guy that killed the eight people...So badly wounded people...Twenty-two
    people came in through chain migration. Chain migration and the lottery system. They have a lottery in those countries.

    They take the worst people in the country, they put 'em in the lottery, then they have a handful of bad, worse ones, and they put them out. 'Oh, these are the people the United States...'...We're gonna get rid of the lottery..."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/u...-excerpts.html

    Anyone with the slightest knowledge of family immigration and the Diversity lottery knows that this barely coherent statement which Trump made during an impromptu interview at his Mar-a-Lago resort, but which is consistent with other similar statements he has made about these same visas, is a bald, barefaced lie from beginning to end.

    Foreign government do not pick Diversity lottery winners or throw their "worst people" into the lottery. That is delusional nonsense, along with the equally weird claim that the Halloween NYC attacker had sponsored 22 (or 23) relatives for immigrant visas.

    As I have pointed out above, even Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a long time advocate of sharply reduced immigration, who generally supports Trump's immigration agenda, was quoted as saying:

    "There's no way that in seven years someone would be able to bring 23 people to the United States. Chain migration doesn't work that fast."


    https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/no-one-can-confirm-trumps-claim-that-the-nyc-attack-suspect?utm_term=.tr41G2Bo9#.ltaEbxJ5e


    But when Trump made these statements, he surely knew that the countries he was talking about as sources of "chain migration" and the Diversity lottery were, with few exceptions, not white European countries.

    This is not only delusional language, but it is also the language of hate. There is no possible justification for this kind of language - especially coming from a president of the United States.

    Inflammatory statements of this type, with their obvious racial connotations, simply cannot be excused by blaming them on defective "staff research" or staff preparation.

    This is pure Donald Trump fantasy, the language of a demagogue at his worst, not a rational discussion of the relative merits of family or Diversity lottery immigration as compared with some other forms of immigration.

    After Trump's vicious, vulgar and venomous attack on black immigrants as reported above and confirmed in virtually every major news outlet in the United States (maybe not Fox News) there cannot possibly be any other word that is adequate to describe Trump and his immigration agenda except for one word only - Bigot.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-11-2018 at 10:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Revised response, as of January 11, at 11:13 pm.

    In view of Trump's horrifying, utterly despicable attack on black immigrants and their "shithole countries" quoted above, and reported in almost every major new outlet in America, there cannot be any other possible conclusion other than that Trump is a vile bigot and racist, and that every additional moment that he sits in the Oval Office to continue spewing his hatred and venom against immigrants of color is a disgrace to America and to Americans of every race, color and creed.

    Stating the obvious fact that Trump's entire immigration policy is motivated by this kind of despicable racism, which echoes Adolf Hitler in holding a "Nordic" country (Norway) out as an example of racial purity in immigration, is not an "ad hominem" attack. It is simple reality, which Trump has now confirmed out of his own mouth
    .

    My earlier comment follows:

    The argument that somehow family immigration in its present form is bad for America (Trump called it "horrible" in a recent tweet - does Nolan agree with that?) is just a warmed over version of the bigoted "national origins" strategy of almost 100 years ago which was used in the 1924 immigration act to keep out Jews, Asians and almost all other non-"Nordic" immigrants without actually mentioning race or religion in the statute.

    The supporters of reducing "chain migration" know very well from the history of the past 50 years which countries and areas of the world would be most adversly affected by making large cuts in family immigration and eliminating the Diversity visa lottery - they would not be white, European countires.

    I have also written on the hypocrisy of Trump's claim that he only favors "merit-based" immigration, while at the same time attacking the H-1B visa, which is more than 80 percent used by Chinese and Indian professionals, which benefits the most highly skilled, highly educated immigrants and which Trump said during the campaign that he wanted to abolish. I refer readers to my January 6 ilw.com comment:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10321

    Moreover, if Trump were only interested in a different conceptual approach to immigration instead of inflaming hatred and prejudice against non-white, non Christian immigrants, he would not be blaming 30 or 40 million family based immigrants for the recent terror attack by one such immigrant. Nor would he be inventing an utterly fictitious, delusional story that the NYC Halloween attacker sponsored 22 or 23 relatives to come to the US though family-based visas.

    As I have pointed out elsewhere, even Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which for many years has supported vastly reduced immigration along Trump's own current lines, and which agrees with most or all of Trump's policies, said that this claim by Trump was "impossible."

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-12-2018 at 04:56 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am encouraged that Roger is willing to acknowledge Trump's efforts to bring the parties together on a solution for the DACA dilemma. However, I disagree completely with his nonsense about chain migration being an effort to maintain the country's white Christian majority.

    Trump just wants to restrict family-based immigration to the nuclear family, spouses and minor children. The other relatives would have to use some other basis for immigrating, just as everyone else in the world has to if they want to immigrate to the United States. In other words, they just won't get preferential treatment any more.

    This is not a new concern. The chairman of the bipartisan U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, said in 1981, that we should not continue a preference system that makes an ever-increasing demand for visas that is disproportionate to the number of visas available. This creates unacceptably long backlogs.


    As of November 2017, there were 4 million aliens with approved family-based visa petitions on the visa waiting list, and that list will grow exponentially when we have a legalization program.

    But the primary basis for Trump's policy is his view that immigration should be based on a merit system. We can't take everyone, so let's select the ones that will be of most benefit to our country by using the kind of merit based systems that are being used in Canada and Australia.

    It if fine to disagree and argue for retaining the present system, despite the fact that it is not working very well. But calling it a way to maintain white supremacy is just another way of saying Trump is a bigot, so everything he does is bigoted. Argumentum ad hominem.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-10-2018 at 10:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump has, once again, made clear that even though he "loves" DACA holders, he will not agree to any bill to help them unless it also includes abolishing the Diversity Visa lottery and a substantial part of family immigration.

    See, The Hill: (January 9):
    Trump: Immigration solution should be a "bill of love"

    (Link to be provided.)

    It is nice to know that Trump "loves" DREAMERS.

    It is only too bad that he loves his white nationalist, Europeans only immigration agenda even more.


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 01-09-2018 at 02:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update, January 13, 2018 at 8:15 am:

    Here once again (see also above) is a "random ink blot" about the real purpose and meaning of Trump's immigration agenda, in the exact words of the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, at a meeting with Congressional figures on January 11, 2018 to discuss DACA policy, as quoted in every major news outlet in America:

    "What do we want Haitians here for? Why do we want all these people from Africa here? Why do we want all these people from shithole countries?...We should have people from places like Norway"

    That is my Trump Rorschach ink blot test result for now.

    For my further comments on Trump
    s cesspool of hate against dark skinned immigrants
    s and preference for "Nordic" ones along the same lines as Adolf Hitler and the American "Eugenics" racists who brought about the bigoted 1924 immigration act which Hitler so admired, see my ilw.com comment:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10330

    If the DREAM Act or any DACA related proposal that might pass Congress is going to be vetoed by the president anyway, as he has in effect promised both in a much more recent tweet than the old one which Nolan referred to and in a barely coherent NY Times interview from which which I quoted verbatim in a recent blog comment of my own (not to mention, confirming statements by WH press secretary Sanders), how is that unrelated to Nolan's article?

    Nothing could be more directly on point. Nolan's claim that the president really wants to help DACA recipients but is being prevented by Democratic overreach in Congress is completely inconsistent with Trump's own recent statements that he will not agree to a DACA solution unless his demand to abolish two key visa programs which benefit mainly non-white immigrants are agreed to - which will never happen.

    I have provided the links to these statements above and Nolan has not refuted my evidence that the president actually made the statements I refer to.

    With regard to my general point that Trump's immigration agenda involves dismantling the race-neutral 1965 immigration system by eliminating visas that have benefited mainly non-white immigrants piece by piece, using the strategy of blaming millions of immigrants in categories such as family immigration or the Diversity visa for the actions of one or two deranged radicalized individuals who came into the US legally as children, the evidence of this pattern in the president's own statements and actions is overwhelming.

    Whether this agenda of incrementally returning our immigration system to the 1924 whites-only one which Trump's AG, Jeff Sessions, praised so highly as a senator in 2015 (and which Adolf Hitler also wrote favorably about nine decades before in Mein Kampf) is related or not to questions which keep popping up in the media about Trump's mental health is an issue which I have no intention of commenting on since I am not a psychiatrist.

    If Trump is fully in his right mind and completely in control of his faculties while trying to move America back toward a whites only immigration regime, rather than doing this as a symptom of mental incapacity of one kind or another, that is even worse than if he is trying to impose a white supremacist immigration agenda out of some kind of condition over which he might, according to some experts, have no control.

    See: New York Times, November 30, 2017:

    Psychiatrists Warn about Trump's Mental State

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/o...sts-trump.html

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-13-2018 at 08:30 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs (3)
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Trump's white nationalist immigration agenda is extremely offensive, and it is an insult to every citizen of this great country which was founded on the principle of the equality of all people.

    Trump and his Congressional supporters are, step by step, and piece by piece, undoing the great immigration reform law of 1965 which abolished the bigoted, white supremacist anti-Jewish, anti-Asian and anti-Middle Eastern/African immigration anti-Middle Eastern act of 1924.

    Every time Trump and his Republican supporters try to tear down any part of the 1965 edifice of racial tolerance and equality in immigration, there is always some pretext: one person (out of 30 or 40 million who have immigrated legally with the same type of family based visa in the past half century) engaged in a terror attack killing 8 people a few months ago, etc., etc. Therefore, Trump wants to abolish the extended family green card.

    He also wants to abolish the Africa-friendly Diversity visa, because the people who use it are "not skilled" enough, while at the same time, he is trying to cut back on H-1B the H-1B visa, which is used mainly by skilled immigrants from India and China, as opposed to Europe.

    For my further comments on this particular example of presidential hypocrisy, see:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10321

    One of the most distinguished immigration law professors in America, former USCIS general counsel Stephen Legomsky, whose immigration law textbook is the standard text at some 185 US law schools, called out this kind of hypocrisy and scapegoating of minority immigrants in a January 4 article which I highly recommend for Nolan to add to his reading list. See: The Hill

    Trump lumps all immigrants together at America's risk

    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...-americas-risk

    Why do I mention Trump's attempts to use one pretext after another to ban entire groups of non-white immigrants from the United States or abolish the visas which allow them to come here legally, in response to many of Nolan's articles?

    Because in one way or another, the subjects of most of these articles have been related in one way or another to Trump's white supremacist, Europeans ueber alles immigration agenda, and they can only be fully understood as being part of that agenda.

    This is not to say that Nolan himself supports such an agenda. Clearly, he does not, and I do not mean to suggest even remotely that he does.

    But I am talking about Trump's immigration agenda in these columns, not Nolan's, mine or anyone else's views, because right now, Trump's are the ones that count - more than everyone else's views put together.

    Therefore, it is important to understand what these views are, and not to side-step that issue.

    In the case of the instant article by Nolan, since it is obvious that Trump will oppose any DACA legislation that does not also abolish or substantially cut back the most important sources of immigration from non-white parts of the world anyway, what is the point of arguing over how many people the Democrats would like to get benefits from in their DACA extension/DREAM Act proposals?

    It is clear that, as long as Trump remains in office (and again, in that connection, I suggest Michael Wolff's new book Fire and Fury as a good read, without expressing any opinion on it myself, as I have not seen or read it more than short excerpts from it) no DACA extension legislation is going to get signed by this president, even if Congress passes such bill, no matter how much the Democrats might agree to scale back their DACA objectives according to Nolan's suggestions.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    This has nothing to do with my article, which is about the need to move the DREAM Act of 2017 through the entire legislative process instead of pushing it through out of regular order.

    If you took a Rorschach Test (inkblot test), you would see Trump's white supremecist polices in the random ink blots.


    Nolan Rappaport
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's white nationalist immigration agenda is extremely offensive, and it is an insult to every citizen of this great country which was founded on the principle of the equality of all people.

    Trump and his Congressional supporters are, step by step, and piece by piece, undoing the great immigration reform law of 1965 which abolished the bigoted, white supremacist anti-Jewish, anti-Asian and anti-Middle Eastern/African immigration anti-Middle Eastern act of 1924.

    Every time Trump and his Republican supporters try to tear down any part of the 1965 edifice of racial tolerance and equality in immigration, there is always some pretext: one person (out of 30 or 40 million who have immigrated legally with the same type of family based visa in the past half century) engaged in a terror attack killing 8 people a few months ago, etc., etc. Therefore, Trump wants to abolish the extended family green card.

    He also wants to abolish the Africa-friendly Diversity visa, because the people who use it are "not skilled" enough, while at the same time, he is trying to cut back on H-1B the H-1B visa, which is used mainly by skilled immigrants from India and China, as opposed to Europe.

    For my further comments on this particular example of presidential hypocrisy, see:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10321

    One of the most distinguished immigration law professors in America, former USCIS general counsel Stephen Legomsky, whose immigration law textbook is the standard text at some 185 US law schools, called out this kind of hypocrisy and scapegoating of minority immigrants in a January 4 article which I highly recommend for Nolan to add to his reading list. See: The Hill

    Trump lumps all immigrants together at America's risk

    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...-americas-risk

    Why do I mention Trump's attempts to use one pretext after another to ban entire groups of non-white immigrants from the United States or abolish the visas which allow them to come here legally, in response to many of Nolan's articles?

    Because in one way or another, the subjects of most of these articles have been related in one way or another to Trump's white supremacist, Europeans ueber alles immigration agenda, and they can only be fully understood as being part of that agenda.

    This is not to say that Nolan himself supports such an agenda. Clearly, he does not, and I do not mean to suggest even remotely that he does.

    But I am talking about Trump's immigration agenda in these columns, not Nolan's, mine or anyone else's views, because right now, Trump's are the ones that count - more than everyone else's views put together.

    Therefore, it is important to understand what these views are, and not to side-step that issue.

    In the case of the instant article by Nolan, since it is obvious that Trump will oppose any DACA legislation that does not also abolish or substantially cut back the most important sources of immigration from non-white parts of the world anyway, what is the point of arguing over how many people the Democrats would like to get benefits from in their DACA extension/DREAM Act proposals?

    It is clear that, as long as Trump remains in office (and again, in that connection, I suggest Michael Wolff's new book Fire and Fury as a good read, without expressing any opinion on it myself, as I have not seen or read it more than short excerpts from it) no DACA extension legislation is going to get signed by this president, even if Congress passes such bill, no matter how much the Democrats might agree to scale back their DACA objectives according to Nolan's suggestions.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-08-2018 at 07:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, "According to every news report I have seen, Trump is holding everything related to DACA, not just an expanded DREAM Act, hostage to agreement by the Democrats to his full immigration agenda, including not only the Wall, but abolishing the Diversity Visa and sharply reducing family immigration (which he calls "chain migration").

    Therefore, the whole point of Nolan's article, namely that Trump would agree to extend DACA in its current form if the Democrats scale back their own demands, is without foundation."

    The Democrats have misrepresented the situation by obscuring the distinction between DACA and the DREAM Act. But I never said or indicated in any way that I think Trump is willing to extend DACA in its current form. My proposal, which I made in my previous article, is to maintain DACA temporarily for the current participants in return for funds to finish the 700 mile fence madated by the Fence Act.

    And that has nothing to do with my current article, which is about the need for hearings and markups on the DREAM Act. The title to the article is, "Democrats out of order on DREAM Act"

    Roger says, "Trump is clearly holding DACA hostage to what has justifiably been called a white nationalist, Europeans-only immigration agenda."

    Roger, you know I find those claims extremely offensive, yet you insist on making them in comments to almost every article I write. Why?

    Nolan Rappaport
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    According to every news report I have seen, Trump is holding everything related to DACA, not just an expanded DREAM Act, hostage to agreement by the Democrats to his full immigration agenda, including not only the Wall, but abolishing the Diversity Visa and sharply reducing family immigration (which he calls "chain migration").

    Therefore, the whole point of Nolan's article, namely that Trump would agree to extend DACA in its current form if the Democrats scale back their own demands, is without foundation.

    Trump is clearly holding DACA hostage to what has justifiably been called a white nationalist, Europeans-only immigration agenda.

    For a report from TIME, long recognized as a reliable news source, with no ax to grind on either side of the immigration issue, on what Trump really said, see:

    http://time.com/5091353/donald-trump-daca-wall/

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-08-2018 at 12:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The conditions are for the DREAM Act, not to help the DACA participants. The Democrats demand the DREAM Act but justify it by saying it's necessary to save the DACA participants. This has distorted what the negotiations with Trump are about.

    In any case, there is no reason to believe that he is going to target the DACA participants for deportation when the six month DACA grace period expires.

    l agree that the Democrats are not going to accept his conditions. The rigidity of their demands and their refusal to make meaningful concessions to the republicans are the reason why we haven't had a major legalization program in more than 30 years.

    Nolan Rappaport
Page 1 of 128 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: