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



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

description

  1. Could Donald Trump's Dangerous Demographic Delusions Destroy Our Democracy? Roger Algase

    Update: November 8, 3:50 pm:

    For an extensive fact check of many of the false, inflammatory claims regarding immigration and immigration policy that Donald Trump made in his August 31 Phoenix immigration speech see: Washington Post, September 1:

    Fact-checking Donald Trump's immigration speech

    by Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Glenn Kessler.

    (I am sorry that I am not able to find the complete link; the article can be easily accessed on Google.)

    My original post follows:

    It is not the function of this blogging site to take sides or comment on political matters, but as Immigration Daily points out in its November 7 editorial, today's election involves immigration policy issues which are arguably more prominent than they have been in over a century. It is no exaggeration to say that the outcome could have a major effect on America's immigration system and demographics for at least the next fifty years, just as the momentous 1965 immigration reform law, which is now under attack from some restrictionists and which Donald Trump, at least indirectly, criticized in his August 31 Phoenix immigration address by referring to "decades old", "outmoded" immigration laws, has done in the past half century.

    Therefore it would be both a rejection of reality and, I sincerely believe, a disservice to Immigration Daily readers not to make a few observations about today's election and its potential effect on immigration, as well as the democratic institutions on which our immigration system is based.

    There are, to be sure, those who believe that no matter who wins today, our immigration system, and our democracy, will somehow go on or muddle through as usual, without any major changes. With all due respect, this ignores the doctrine of plenary power by the "political branches" of government, namely Congress and the executive, which has been central to our immigration law ever since the late 19th century and its notorious Chinese exclusion laws.

    It also overlooks the enormous power that the executive branch, namely the president, has in determining immigration policy through wide ranging regulations and "policy memos", not to mention agency decisions by the AAO, BIA, USCIS Service Centers, and various ICE and CBP officials. I have given some USCIS examples in my November 7 Immigration Daily comments.

    No lawyer who has any immigration experience at all can dispute the fact of the extensive power that these officials, and the president who is responsible for appoint them, wield. True, their power is not unlimited. They are subject to control by Congress, and in many instances, by the federal courts, despite the plenary power doctrine.

    Would it irrelevant to ask who controls at least one of the two parties in Congress and who appoints the federal judges who have at least some oversight over the immigration system? The president, of course. It is often pointed out, of course that our system of government is based on checks and balances.

    But what kind of checks and balances will there on immigration policy when a president has the power, not only to appoint the official carrying out that policy, but when he has control over at least one, if not both Houses of Congress, and has the power to appoint not only the Supreme Court but the lower court judges who would (in some instances) be reviewing that policy?

    We should also not ignore INA Section 212(f), which gives the president almost unlimited power to suspend any kind of immigration for almost any reason whatever. Could Donald Trump be relied on to exercise caution and restraint in using these enormous governmental powers?

    How much restraint has he shown in his actions and comments during his campaign? According to the latest reports, Trump's own campaign advisers do not even trust him enough to let him continue to use his Twitter account.

    It is also argued that a president can be reined in by the media, or by public opinion. How much a a check would the media be on a president who is now threatening to "open up" the libel laws to stifle criticism, who has said that he is "fine" with sending American citizens to Guantanamo and with using torture, and who is threatening to jail his opponent for the White House if he is elected?

    Still, all of this might not create much concern for immigration advocates except for one thing: from start to finish, whether in talking about Mexican immigrants in June 2015 at the beginning of his campaign, or Somali immigrants just this past weekend, Donald Trump's attitudes to immigration from outside white Europe, have been characterized by just two words: fear and hatred.

    Beginning with his characterization of Mexican (and by extension, other Latino immigrants) as "criminals", "rapists" and "drug dealers" at the beginning of his campaign, and continuing with his proposal to ban Muslims from all over the world from coming to the United States last December (now morphed into a ban from countries that "sponsor terror", i.e. Muslim countries), together with his attacks on Syrian refugees, not only as "terrorists" but as allegedly impairing America's "quality of life", whatever that means (and we know what it means - remember the segregationists who touted the "Southern Way of Life" before the civil rights era?), Trump has made it clear that immigrants from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia (whose leaders he also pillories as allegedly cheating on trade and currency issues beyond the scope of these comments), are not welcome in America under his administration.

    In speech after speech, he has ranted against alleged "criminal" and "terrorist" immigrants who are "pouring" into the country, allegedly uncontrolled and unregulated, in order to kill American citizens and "destroy our country", "invited" in by an "open borders" administration (which has so far deported 2 million people, more than any other administration in US history).

    However, even for those who believe that a return to the white, Christian, Nordics-only immigration policies of our pre-1965 immigration laws would be in America's best interests (such, as, evidently, columnist and Trump-supporter Ann Coulter, who on November 7, suggested that only Americans with four grandparents born in the US should be allowed to vote - which would mean that Donald Trump himself would be ineligible since he had a German-born grandfather and Scottish-born grandmother - see:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ndparents-born

    one has to ask - what would be the effect on our democracy of imposing these policies?

    We have some examples from still-recent history - the Japanese-American internment policies of WW2. While Trump has never endorsed this policy or called for interning American Muslim citizens, ha has stated that we may have to do the "unthinkable" in order to "protect" ourselves. He has suggested that this could include surveillance of Muslim US citizens and their places of worship. What kind of respect for the Constitution does this show?

    I could talk about many other aspects of our Constitution which would be in danger under a Trump administration - the right to due process under the 14th Amendment, whose guarantee of birthright citizenship Trump also wants to take away from millions of US born Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern and black children, the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel in immigration proceedings - already under assault from the Obama administration, which is also very arguably violating the Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment of immigrants seeking asylum and related relief - I could go on and on.

    But my point is clear, Trump's own stated immigration proposals not only violate the basic rights of immigrants, but they are the gateway to endangering, if not destroying the freedom and democracy of all Americans as well.

    I will close by urging all readers who have not yet voted to do so today before it is too late. I voted earlier this morning - since this is a non-political blog, I will keep the information about whom I voted for for president myself completely confidential.
    ______________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional workers from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com




    Updated 11-08-2016 at 03:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Trump Attacks Somali Immigrants, Calls For Reversal of Federal Appeals Court Anti-Discrimination Decision. Roger Algase

    Donald Trump ended the last weekend of his presidential campaign on Sunday, November 6 just as he began it almost 18 months ago, with an attack on a minority immigrant group. This time, however, his target was not Mexicans or Latinos, but Somali immigrants.

    Speaking in Minneapolis, where there is a large Somali refugee community, Trump, despite his very slim chances of winning in heavily Democratic Minnesota, passed up an opportunity to make an appearance in a more closely contested nearby state, Wisconsin, in order to weigh in against the "disaster" which he sees as taking place in Minnesota, namely the admission of Somali refugees to that state.

    The Guardian reports that there are 85,000 Somali Americans, with the largest concentration living in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul. Of these, there has been exactly one mass stabbing attack by a single individual who was shot dead by police, which attack was promptly condemned by Somali community leaders.

    Three Somalis, two of them US citizens and one a lawful permanent resident, have pleaded guilty to trying to join ISIS, and according to the same report, more than 30 young Somali men are suspected of having left the US to join ISIS or the East African terror group al-Shabaab.

    These small numbers have not stopped Trump from claiming that Somali immigrants in general are a danger to Twin Cities residents as a whole.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-migrants-isis


    Trump also stated, with regard to arrangements made by the federal government to allow Somali refugees to settle in Minnesota, allegedly without sufficient background checks (which the paper also explains as consisting of multiple interviews with various US security agencies taking up to two years)

    "it's horrible what they're doing, and if you want people to pour into Minnesota all you have to do is vote for Hillary Clinton."

    (Whether or not one agrees with Trump's immigration policies and proposals or not, no one can accuse him of using arcane or abstruse language in his speeches. In the unlikely event that we were not to hear any further from Trump after this election, whatever the result, his plain speaking style - as opposed to the content - would surely be missed by many.)

    The Guardian also points out that Somali immigrants have become a target for domestic (white) militia terrorists, as in the case of three men who were recently arrested in Kansas for allegedly planning to bomb an apartment building with a number of Somali residents and where one apartment was used as a mosque.

    Trump also took the opportunity to condemn a recent (October 3) Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision by Judge Richard Posner ruling against an attempt by Trump's running mate. Indiana Governor Mike Pence, to bar Syrian refugees from settling in his state.

    Trump has said that he would bar refugees from settling in states without the approval of local governments, adding:

    "You've suffered enough in Minnesota".

    As The Guardian's story also explains, Judge Posner, (writing for a unanimous three-judge panel) found in his decision that Pence's actions were discriminatory, and were:

    "...the equivalent of his saying...that he wants to forbid black people to settle in Indiana not because they's black but because he's afraid of them, and since race is not his motive he is therefore not discriminating."

    The case in question is Exodus Immigration v. Pence. (7th Cir. October 3, 2016)
    ______________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's practice is focused on H-1B specialty occupation, O-1 extraordinary ability and J-1 trainee work visas, as well as green cards through labor certification (PERM) and opposite sex or same sex marriage. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com









    Updated 11-07-2016 at 08:15 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Could There Be a Long "Black Night" of Legal Immigration Petition Denials, Inaction or Revocations After the Election? Roger Algase

    The ancient Greek poet Hesiod, who some scholars think may have been a younger contemporary of Homer, wrote the following in his most famous work, Theogony:

    ek chaeos d'erebos te melaina te nux egenonto

    ("Out of Chaos...black night came into being.")

    Could there be a black night for legal immigration after Tuesday's election, coming up after what can only be described as a chaotic presidential campaign?

    Up to now, almost all of the focus on immigration policy during the presidential campaign has been on enforcement measures to secure the border against illegal immigration, or immigration by criminals and terrorists, and to bring about the departure of up to an estimated 12 million people who have entered the US illegally or overstayed their legal permission to be in this country.

    There has been much less discussion about reducing or terminating legal immigration, including work visas and both employment and family-based green cards.

    However, one of the two major party presidential candidates, who could very realistically be elected as our next president on November 8, has already promised to abolish two of the main pillars of legal employment-based immigration, namely H-1B work visas and labor certification green cards.

    He claims that these two programs hurt the wages and job opportunities of American workers. He has also suggested that all work visa programs should require US employers to recruit US workers first, which would effectively end whatever is left of employment-based immigration.

    But beyond that, in his much publicized Phoenix August 31 immigration address, this same candidate expressed a clear and openly stated distrust, if not outright hostility, toward immigration in general. He stated that current levels of immigration were far too high and needed to be reduced to "historical levels".

    This proposal has been estimated as likely to result in turning away 30 million potential immigrants who would otherwise be admissible under our laws, according to a recent article in The Atlantic mentioned in one of my recent Immigration Daily posts.

    This candidate also, in the same address, referred to "decades-old" and "outmoded" immigration laws (an evident reference to the 1965 immigration reform law which is the foundation of our current, race-neutral, immigration system) which he claims allegedly need to be revisited by a commission which he would appoint for this purpose.

    This candidate didn't say who would be on the commission, but it is not unreasonable to assume that it would be packed with strong opponents of "third world" immigration and people who have been calling for a "time out" on further immigration for many years - names such as Ann Coulter, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach come to mind, as well as leaders of well known restrictionist organizations such as CIS (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and Numbers USA.

    It would not be surprising if Senator Jeff Sessions, (R-AL) one the strongest opponents of all immigration in Congress, who has reportedly been advising Trump on immigration policy, were to find a place on this proposed commission.

    Given the antipathy that Donald Trump has shown toward most if not all forms of immigration, not only in his Phoenix speech, but in other campaign speeches in which he has warned that "uncontrolled" immigration could "destroy America", it is instructive to look at some of the possible legal steps that the president could take to halt all immigration, or at least major parts of immigration under our current system, without requiring any change in the law or permission from Congress.

    There are several such legal avenues to doing so, which I will discuss below.

    The first, and very possibly the easiest, would be to instruct the head of DHS to order the USCIS director to issue new policy guidance memos defining key terms in the statutes on which the various employment-based benefits are based in such a way that it would be all but impossible to approve most employment based NIV petitions such as H-1B, O-1, L-1, E-2, etc.

    This is would not all that difficult to do. One example is the January 8, 2010 H-1B policy memo by USCIS Associate Director of Service Center Operations Donald Neufeld, which defined the term "employment" in the H-1B statute and regulations in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to approve H-1B petitions for employees working at remote sites.

    Another way of assuring denial of many, if not all, H-1B petitions is though the practice that many USCIS Service Center examiners are already adopting of defining the term "specialty occupation" in such a way that whatever job description is at issue in the petition is sure to fail to meet the definition.

    While going into detail on this issue is beyond the scope of this comment, I can give one example: recently some USCIS Service Center examiners have been denying H-1B petitions for what used to be the regularly approved H-1B specialty occupation of Market Research Analyst.

    The grounds for denial has been that since the US Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH). lists several fields of study (around half a dozen) as being related to the above job title, rather than just one or two, this position is not a specialty occupation because it allegedly does not require a bachelor degree in a specific field of study as a prerequisite.

    I do not mean to imply that this strategy of defining away a particular statutory or regulatory term so that it is virtually impossible to meet the definition works only with H-1B petitions.

    It can (and does) work with almost any kind of employment based petition - whether using such a strict and convoluted definition of the term "manager" for L-1A purposes that it becomes almost impossible to qualify as a manager, or defining the O-1 extraordinary ability standards in a way so that it becomes impossible to meet those requirements, a sufficiently creative USCIS official with knowledge of the specific requirements of any given employment-based NIV category (or I-140 immigrant petition category) can develop definitions of these standards that would put approval beyond the reach of most if not all petitioners.

    The above would not require any statutory changes or even issuing new regulations under the APA. However, it might require a change in a statute or regulations to insulate this strategy from federal court review, by making a decision to approve or deny any given NIV or immigrant employment based petition "discretionary". See Systronics Corp. v. INS 153 F. Supp 2nd 7 (D.D.C. 2001).

    One should not estimate the power of federal government agencies to effectuate wide changes in policy, which can have the effect of a major change in a regulation or statute but without going through any of the required procedures, simply by issuing policy memos.

    There is no reason why USCIS or DHS policy memos cannot be used to bring large parts of the legal immigration system to a halt under the direction of a president who might have this as his objective.

    Of course, policy memos, carefully and properly written, can also go a long way in the other direction, by liberalizing many aspects of the legal immigration system. One should not be surprised to see such memos being issued if the other major party candidate, Hillary Clinton, is elected president.

    Another, related strategy which might be used by a president determined to cut down or halt immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and other areas of the world which he might oppose for various reasons, might be to announce through DHS or USCIS that new regulations are in process for the various visa categories I have mentioned above, and that no petitions for these benefits, including all NIV employment categories and I-140 green card petitions, will be accepted or acted upon until the new regulations are issued - which would never happen during his presidency.

    This might require the president to use his authority to suspend immigration of any type he chooses for just about any reason on "national interest" grounds under INA Section 212(f), which I have commented on previously. That authority is in the statute, and it gives the president virtually unlimited discretion.

    But why assume that a president who has shown as much hostility to legal immigration in general as Donald Trump did in his August 31 Arizona speech would stop at halting most or all new employment-based legal immigration?

    What about people who already have approved I-140 petitions and are waiting for their green cards? At least they are safe, are they not?

    Think again: the DHS also has very broad power to revoke previously approved green card (I-130 and I-140) petitions under INA Section 205, which reads as follows:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.

    This provision has already become controversial under the Obama presidency, particularly concerning revocation of EB-1 extraordinary ability green card I-140 petitions - something thing I also commented on previously in Immigration Daily.

    Under a Donald Trump presidency, we might conceivably be hearing a good deal more about this provision.
    ________________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com


    Updated 11-06-2016 at 08:49 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Trump Could Turn New York Into a Ghost City Without Immigrants, While New Allegations of Visa Violations By His Wife Come to Light. Roger Algase

    Update, November 5, at 10:42 am:

    While Donald Trump in his August 31 Phoenix speech proposed draconian enforcement measures against immigrants who overstay their visas or otherwise violate the immigration laws in any way, there appears to be one immigrant who may have allegedly been involved in a more serious violation than mere overstay. I refer to his own wife, Melania Trump, whose alleged immigration violation Trump appears ready to reward by installing her in the White House as First Lady (of Fraud, if the AP's unproven allegations are true) if he is elected president.

    See:

    https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d

    The latest AP report states:

    "Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to the Associated Press."

    If this report is true, it might well mean, as I have explained before in a previous post about Melania Trump, that she could have allegedly lied about her intended activity in the US, not only to get a visitor visa in the first place, but again on entering the US.

    It would not also be unreasonable to speculate that she would have at least had an incentive to lie again when she applied for her green card (based on a marriage to a man other than Trump about which details have never been revealed).

    On the green card application, there is a question about whether one has ever tried to obtain a visa though fraud or misrepresentation. No one knows how Melania Trump answered that question.

    When she became a US citizen, there could have, allegedly, been another problem: the citizenship application has a question about whether one has ever committed a crime that one has not been charged with. Visa fraud, is, of course, a crime (even though merely overstaying a visa, which Donald Trump has vowed to put an end to, is not).

    No one knows how Melania answered that citizenship question.

    I am emphatically not in any manner suggesting or implying that Melania Trump should be investigated or prosecuted for any alleged (and so far unproven) visa or immigration fraud, either criminally and/or though revocation of her US citizenship and subsequent deportation.

    I am only suggesting that, in appropriate cases (perhaps several million of them, through a sensible legalization plan of the kind that Hillary Clinton - whom Trump wants to lock up because she might have sent some emails which might have been classified and might have been hacked - has proposed), Trump might wish to show the same kind of tolerance or latitude for immigration violations committed by immigrants who are not beautiful European models such as his wife, but who may have different skin colors or religions, and may come from other parts of the world than mainly white Europe.

    One might want to remind Donald Trump that many of these Latino, Asian, Muslim and other non-European immigrants also have American citizen husbands, wives or children, even if these family members are not running for president.

    My original post appears below:

    Last night (November 3), my wife and I, who are both big fans of Korean cuisine, decided to have dinner at one of the many new Korean restaurants which seem to be constantly opening in Manhattan's "Koreatown". For those who do not know or have never been to New York, this refers to the single block on 32nd street between Fifth Avenue and Broadway, just off Herald Square, one of the busiest and most active locations in New York, or anywhere in America, just about any time of the day or night.

    In Herald Square itself, one can stand on any street corner for five or ten minutes and have good chance of hearing up to a dozen foreign languages being spoken from all parts of the world as people go by on their way to the countess stores, large and small, eating places and other businesses run by and/or employing people seemingly from every country on earth, in this booming center of American prosperity.

    Herald Square, along with Times Square about ten blocks away, may be one of the largest areas in New York which owes its prosperity in large part to immigrants from over the world, but there are countless others - Union Square, St. Mark's Place, Columbus Circle, West 72nd street ("Verdi Square") and East 86th Street (Yorkville - once a mainly German neighborhood), to name only the few which I am most familiar with - throughout not only Manhattan but all of the five boroughs of New York City.

    Walking along 32nd street's Koreatown, I was struck especially by the number of young, well dressed people, most likely students or business and professional workers, walking by the restaurants and the stylish boutiques, most of which were still open even though it was after 9:00 pm. Since this was Koreatown, most were from Asia, and one could hear not only Korean but also Chinese, being spoken everywhere along the block as well as both of America's national languages, English and Spanish, together with other languages from various parts of the world.

    The restaurant where my wife and I were lucky enough to find a table and order our favorite bibim bap Korean dish, together with kimchee and other Korean appetizers, and delicious Korean beer with a brand name I had never heard of, was jammed with young people, mainly from Korea, but, by appearance, from many other nationalities as well, including, of course, the United States, as Korean food ia also popular with many other Americans besides myself.

    Being an immigration lawyer, I could not help wondering what kind of visas they were here with, or how they had obtained their green cards. Some customers, no doubt, were visitors, especially since South Korea is now a visa waiver country. Very possibly, the South Asian man in a business suit at the table next to mine who was busy working away at his laptop while he ordered might have had an H-1B visa.

    Along this line of speculation, I started asking myself how much chance he would have of renewing that visa (assuming my guess were correct), or even keeping the one he might (hypothetically) have now, if the Republican presidential candidate, who has promised to abolish the H-1B visa category (along with labor certification green cards - see below) were to win next Tuesday's election.

    If this restaurant was typical of most others on the block and throughout New York, many, if not most, of the servers might well have been F-1 students earning some badly needed cash to help pay for their tuition - that is, if they were still attending school at all, something which cannot necessarily be assumed.

    Nor have I ever known of a restaurant customer asking a waiter or waitress whether he or she has optional practical training or some other kind of work permission as the food was being served.

    And this got me thinking: suppose that a hypothetical US president and administration were to carry out the proposals with respect to both legal and illegal immigration set forth in the August 31 Phoenix, Arizona immigration address by the Republican candidate, Donald Trump.

    It would not take very long for the lights to go out and the people to disappear from West 32nd Street and much of neighboring Herald Square, and from prosperous business centers throughout New York City - and America.

    In Part 2, I will take a look at the details of Trump's immigration proposals to see exactly how New York City's transformation from one of the greatest cities of the world into a virtual ghost town could be accomplished if these proposals were ever to go into effect.
    _____________________________
    Roger Algase is a native-born New Yorker and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been practicing business and skilled worker immigration law in New York for more than 35 years.

    Roger especially enjoys Korean, Indian, Chinese and Japanese food, among other international cuisines. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com







    Updated 11-05-2016 at 05:02 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Immigrant of the Month: Nigerian Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka Says He Will Tear Up His Green Card if Trump is Elected. Roger Algase

    For Immigrant of the Month, I propose Wole Soyinka, the great Nigerian dramatist and writer, who became Africa's first Nobel Prize Winner for Literature in 1986.

    Soyinka, who was imprisoned in Nigeria during its civil war, later fled the country, and received a death sentence in absentia, is now a US permanent resident and scholar-in-residence at New York University's Institute of African Affairs.

    The Guardian quotes Soyinka as saying the following about Donald Trump, based on Trump's anti-immigrant statements:

    "The moment they announce his victory, I will cut my green card myself and start packing up."

    See:

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-if-trump-wins

    While Soyinka actually appears to be mistaken as the specific statement which The Guardian quotes him as attributing to Trump, namely that green card holders would allegedly have to leave the US and re-apply to come back into the US (Trump has said this in relation to unauthorized immigrants, not legal residents); he is still accurate in focusing on Trump's general hostility toward legal as well as illegal immigration.

    This was made clear in Trump's August 31 Phoenix address on immigration policy, in which Trump, among other things, called for a reduction in legal immigration back to "historical levels", something which could lead to very significant reductions in immigration from Asia, Latin America and Africa - as many as 30 million fewer immigrants total, according to the Pew Research Center's directer of Hispanic research. See: The Atlantic, September 8:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ration/499061/


    Trump also referred to decades old immigration laws as "outmoded", which in all likelihood includes the 1965 immigration reform law which opened up immigration quotas to people who were not from Northern Europe for the first time since 1924).

    The 1965 immigration reform law was very controversial at the time it was enacted. It aroused intense opposition from legislators who were concerned that it would change America's racial makeup from mainly white to more diverse - which it has of course done - to the consternation of some of today's restrictionists who have never accepted this law and would like to return to the previous mainly whites only immigration system. See, POLITICO, August 20:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ump-gop-214179

    It is true that Trump has never directly called for repealing the 1965 law or reducing non-white immigration per se, but Wole Soyinka is one of the greatest authors, poets and human rights advocates alive today. He can recognize a dog whistle when he hears it.

    Soyinka is well known for speaking out against dictatorship and religious intolerance in all its forms, including but not limited to radical Islam.

    He has also been critical of "xenophobic immigration policies in the West". See


    http://nyuiaaa.org/event-items/wole-soyinka/


    Wole Soyinka is a superb candidate for Immigrant of the Month, if not of this entire election cycle.
    _______________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse ethnic/religious backgrounds and nationalities obtain work visas and green cards for more than 35 years. Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 11-03-2016 at 12:58 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: