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 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Half a million aliens a year enter as visitors and never leave and neither candidate has a solution to that problem.





    Congress asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for more than 20 years for a report on how many nonimmigrant alien visitors have overstayed their admission periods. DHS finally produced a report this year. It includes overstays who entered the United States as nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure through an air or sea Port of Entry in FY2015. DHS determined that 527,127 of them remained here when their admission periods expired. To put that number into perspective, the Border Patrol only apprehended 331,333 aliens making illegal entries on the Mexican border in FY2015.

    The report does not include nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure who entered at a land Port of Entry on the Mexican or Canadian borders, or nonimmigrant visitors who have other classifications, such as foreign government officials, aliens in transit through the United States, treaty traders and investors, students, international representatives, temporary workers and trainees, representatives of foreign information media, exchange visitors, intracompany transferees, NATO officials, or religious workers.

    Terrorists have come into the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. In her opening statement at a hearing on overstays, Martha McSally, Chairwoman of the House Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, noted the following examples of terrorists who were overstays:


    • Mahmud Abouhalima, an Egyptian convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, worked illegally in the U.S. as a cab driver after his tourist visa had expired;
    • At least four of the 9/11 hijackers were nonimmigrant visitors who had overstayed their visas or had violated the terms of their visitor status;
    • More recently, Amine el-Khalifi attempted to conduct a suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2012. He entered the United States in 1999 on a tourist visa and never left; and
    • A man who had returned to the United States despite being out of status on his student visa as an overstay, was arrested in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing for helping to destroy evidence.


    The report also finds that 153,166 of the overstays came from a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country, which includes a number of European countries. Terrorist attacks in Europe have raised concern about the possibility that terrorists will use the VWP to come to the United States. Congress responded to that concern by passing the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which placed additional restrictions on eligibility for travel to the U.S. without a visa under the VWP. It excludes aliens who have been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, (I) in Iraq or Syria; (II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism; or (III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the DHS Secretary. DHS has added three countries – Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.

    The Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Prevention Act is not going to prevent terrorists from using the VWP to come here without visas. ISIS and other terrorist organizations have or can recruit citizens of VWP countries who will not be excluded by that Act. The door is still wide open.

    A new Administration will address the overstay problem in a few months, but I am not optimistic about the likelihood that either of the candidates for the presidency will be able to solve that problem.

    According to Donald Trump, “If we don’t enforce visa expiration dates, then we have an open border – it’s as simple as that.” He addresses this problem in Point 8 of his 10-Point Plan to Put America First. He promises to ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports. He also has promised to make individuals who refuse to leave at the time their visa expires subject to criminal penalties.

    A fully implemented entry-exit tracking system would make it possible to compile lists of overstays, and this would be useful for determining whether VWP countries should be allowed to remain in the program. The system, however, would not tell ICE where the overstays are located; and if ICE cannot find them, it cannot arrest them and put them in removal proceedings. From an enforcement standpoint, it would be more productive to concentrate on making the Visa Waiver Program more secure. For suggestions, see my article, “Is the Visa Waiver Program as secure as it is supposed to be?” Trump’s other idea is not any better. Aliens who enter without inspection have been subject to criminal penalties for many years now, and I have not heard anyone claim that it has been an effective deterrent to such entries.

    Hillary Clinton’s immigration policies would make this situation even worse by completely removing the possibility that an alien who overstays would be deported. She has promised to focus enforcement resources on detaining and deporting individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety. At a Democratic Presidential Debate on March 9, 2016, she said that if she is elected, she will not deport any undocumented alien children and she will only deport undocumented adult aliens who have criminal records. This would attract aliens from the VWP countries who would like to live and work in the United States but are not eligible for Lawful Permanent Resident status. They could come here freely with an online computer registration certificate and a passport without being concerned about deportation for overstaying. The same would be true of the other groups of nonimmigrant visitors. They all would be free to remain in the United States with impunity when their authorized periods of admission end.



    This article was published originally on Huffington Post.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...=1477887832457

    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 the 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 twenty years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.


    Updated 10-31-2016 at 05:55 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase


    Update: October 31, 12:50 pm:

    The Hill reports that at an October 30 rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Donald Trump made the following statement about Hillary Clinton's immigration policies:

    "[Hillary Clinton] wants to let people just pour in...You could have 650 million people pour in...You triple the size of our country in one week."

    He didn't say what the source of this information was. Perhaps in one of Hillary Clinton's emails which even the FBI has overlooked and which is known only to Donald Trump?

    See:

    http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...grants-into-us

    A Happy Halloween to all Immigration Daily Readers!

    My original post appears below.

    The following comments have been revised as of October 31 at 6:00 am:

    In the light of media speculation over an October 28 FBI letter concerning purported newly discovered emails which, according to the letter, might or might not be related to the FBI's previous investigation of alleged but unproven "national security" lapses involving Hillary Clinton, it is instructive to look at the immigration proposals of the two presidential candidates to see what effect they might have on America's national security.

    What does "national security" mean? It can mean many things, but one thing is axiomatic: America's national security begins with supporting and upholding our Constitution, as was emphasized by 50 Republican former national security officials who publicly expressed doubts about Donald Trump's adherence to or belief in that document in a recent statement. See New York Times, August 8:

    50 G.O.P. Officials warn Trump Would Put Nation's Security 'at Risk'


    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us...rump.html?_r=0

    I will begin by looking at the alleged national security implications of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals, especially her support of legalization for certain unauthorized immigrants.

    Hillary Clinton's legalization proposals have come under criticism as allegedly favoring "amnesty" and "open borders", and inviting or enabling criminals, drug dealers and terrorists to come into into the United States.

    Typical of this rhetoric is the inflammatory language about the alleged dangers of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals contained in the statement of the unabashedly pro-Trump Border Patrol Union. See:

    http://bpunion.org/index.php/newsroo...ation-policies

    Trump himself has also accused Hillary Clinton of being a "co-founder and MVP of ISIS", and (at the October 19 presidential debate) of bringing untold numbers of Syrian refugees into the US who are "definitely ISIS-aligned".

    In his August 31 Phoenix, Arizona speech on immigration, Trump was also quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying about Clinton that:

    "She doesn't know what she's doing except open borders and let everybody come in and destroy our country."

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html

    Allegations such as those quoted above do not need or deserve any further comment.

    Regarding the possible effect of Trump's immigration proposals on America's national security, Trump claims that by engaging in mass deportation of mainly Latino and other nonwhite immigrants on a scale previously unheard of in US history, by building a Wall with Mexico and by banning most, if not all, Muslim immigrants on the basis of either religion (his original proposal), or national origin (his more recent version), he would protect America's national security against a lot of "bad hombres".

    For those who do not know Spanish, I will translate Trump's above words with the Latin term gens invisum, which Virgil uses in Book I of the Aeneid to mean a despised race or nationality.

    But even assuming that banning members of an entire nationality, race or religion (as was done, for example, under the Chinese exclusion laws, and by America's refusal to accept more than a small number of Jewish immigrants who were trying to flee Hitler in the 1930's - the parallel with today's attitudes toward Syrian refugees which I have discussed in previous comments), might keep out some bad people, it is also important to consider the national security issues raised by adopting immigration policies that would tend to undermine the values, or even in some cases, the specific provisions, of the US Constitution mentioned above.

    These are discussed in depth in a July 13 statement by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D Romero as reported in the Washington Post, see:

    ACLU Director: We will defend the constitution against a President Trump

    See also the companion ACLU report:

    THE TRUMP MEMOS

    https://action.aclu.org/sites/defaul...trumpmemos.pdf

    Director Romero's statement about the potential danger that Trump's immigration-related proposals could pose to the Constitution, which is the undisputed foundation of America's national security, begins as follows:

    "Donald Trump's proposed policies, if caried out, would trigger a constitutional crisis. By our reckoning, a Trump administration would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth amendments if it tried to implement his most controversial plans."

    Romero then turns specifically to immigration:

    "On immigration policy, there is simply no way a Trump administration could deport more than 11 million within two years of taking office. To achieve such a feat, Trump's deportation machine would have to arrest 15,000 people a day on immigration charges, seven days a week, 365 days a year."

    Romero then discusses the effect of such actions on constitutional rights:

    "The only way to accomplish this would be to shred the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. To carry out such an order, immigration agents would have to engage in suspicionless interrogations and arrests, unjustified traffic stops, warrentless searches of workplaces and homes, and door-to-door raids in immigrant neighborhoods. There can be little doubt that agents would relay on racial profiling and target people of Latino and Hispanic descent disproportionately, violating their right to equal protection of the law regardless of their race or national origin."

    He continues:

    "After rounding up undocumented immigrants...that would inevitably include U.S. citizens by mistake - the Trump administration would run face-first into the due process protections afforded every person inside the United States under the Fifth Amendment. It is inconceivable that 11 million undocumented immigrants could go before a judge in any reasonable amount of time...

    And if Trump keeps them locked up, as he has proposed, he'll deprive these people of their liberty - possibly for years, without due process of law. The Southwest border under Trump's proposals would become a police state."

    At this point, with all due respect to Mr. Romero and the ACLU, I would offer one point of disagreement with his last quoted sentence. There are unauthorized immigrants who have settled in every part of the United States.

    It is not only the Southwest border area that would become a police state in a Trump administration.

    (I am sorry - I am unable to find a working link for the above Washington Post story - please look it up on Google.)

    To be continued in Part 2 of this series.
    _________________________________
    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 obtain work permits and green cards, based solely on their qualifications and without regard to their ethnic background or religious affiliation, in accordance with the race-neutral immigration system which America has had in place for the past half century, since 1965, and which may now be in danger as well.

    Roger believes that any attack on the constitutional rights of immigrants puts the freedom and national security of all Americans, including protection against authoritarian governmental power, at risk.

    His email address is algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 10-31-2016 at 01:27 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: