ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



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

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Not Just "Terror" Claims: Trump Says Syrian Refugees Would Hurt "Quality of Life". Roger Algase

    Donald Trump has let the cat out of the the bag about where he stands on Syrian Refugees. The Guardian reports that his opposition to them is not just based on alleged "terror" concerns (over people who are fleeing from terror perpetrated by the twin horrors of ISIS and the Assad dictatorship, backed by Russia's own dictator, Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has had a least a few good things to say about).

    In addition to labeling Syrian refugees (once again) as potential terrorists, Trump is now saying that they would affect America's "quality of life",

    Here is the exact quote from Trump, speaking about Syrian refugees at a rally in Toledo, Ohio, as reported in The Guardian on September 21:

    "Not only the danger of it all-this isn't only a matter of terrorism, but alswo a matter of quality of life. We want to make sure we're only admitting those into our country who support our values and-love - and I mean love - our people."


    What, exactly, does Trump mean when he doubts that Syrian refugees would be good for for America's "quality of life", that they might not support "or values" or "love our people"?

    Is there something "un-American" about wanting to flee from war, persecution and dictatorship, and from the horrors of ISIS fanaticism which Trump, on other occasions, has described as graphically and accurately as anyone else (in support of his advocacy of using torture).

    Does wanting to settle in a country of freedom and democracy, one which was founded on the principle of refuge from tyranny and political or religious persecution, mean a rejection of "American values", or lack of love for the American people?

    Or is Trump's statement a not so veiled claim that people from parts of the world outside Europe, and of non-white skin color or non-Judeo-Christian faith, are incompatible with America's "quality of life"

    Is Trump identifying America's "quality of life with the notorious "Nordics-only" national origins immigration quotas of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act which favored Northern Europeans and excluded Jewish, Italian, Polish, Hungarian and, "coincidentally" all Middle Eastern immigrants?

    Perhaps a further explanation from Trump about what he means when he says that Syrian refugees endanger America's "quality of life" would be in order.

    Trump might also wish to share with us where he got his preposterous idea that Hillary Clinton wants to bring in "620,000" refugees in her first term - a figure which, according to The Guardian's above article, has "been proven false by independent fact checkers."
    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 to make it possible for mainly skilled and professional immigrants of diverse nationalities and ethnic/religious backgrounds to accomplish their goals of becoming productive, contributing members of American society and improving our quality of life.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-22-2016 at 11:22 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Trump's immigration lies endanger America's democracy. Roger Algase

    On September 20, Immigration Daily published an editorial with the simple, and all too accurate title: Liar Trump.

    The comment lists fourteen specific lies that Trump has told during his campaign, most of which relate to immigration, and it also made clear that "the list goes on and on".

    History shows that all dictators take and hold onto their power by using the Big Lie strategy, based on Adolf Hitler's theory that as long as one repeats a lie often and loudly enough, people will start to believe it.

    Are Donald Trump's lies connecting Muslim immigrants, or even immigrants in general, with terror any different?To give just one example, after last weekend's New York bombing attack, which was made by an unknown person at the time, and is known to have been made by a disturbed Muslim US citizen who was already previous known to the FBI and had no known connection with any terrorist group (much like the Orlando killer) Donald Trump claimed:

    "There have been Islamic terrorist attacks in Minnesota and New York City and New Jersey. These attacks and many others were made possible because of our extremely open immigration system which fails to properly vet or screen the individuals coming into our country."

    (Italics added.)

    The truth (as it later turned out), is that the bombing suspect, born in Afghanistan, was brought to the US as a child by his father, who later, in 2014 asked the FBI to investigate his own son for possible terrorist sympathies!

    Does this show that the father was not properly screened when he entered the US? And what kind of screening could anyone have done on the child?

    But Trump's rush to blame "open" immigration, allegedly led by "ISIS founders and MVP's" Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (another huge Trump lie) is typical of his strategy of blaming all Muslims, and by extension, immigrants in general, for every mass or attempted mass attack in America, is not by any means new.

    Richard Cohen, in a September 20 Washington Post article: Trump's Hitlerian disregard for the truth, describes how this happened in Germany.

    See (same article but with a slightly different title):

    This does not mean to say that Trump is the same as Hitler. As Cohen points out in his article, Trump is not anti-Semitic.

    I was among those who defended Trump against what I considered to be an unfair charge of anti-Semitism, based in the resemblance between a sheriff's badge used in one of his campaign ads against Hillary Clinton and a Jewish six-pointed Star of David.

    As Cohen also points out, Trump has never suggested invading any other countries. Nor, it is important to add, has Trump ever proposed mass extermination.

    Trump is certainly not Hitler. The man with the blond mop of hair is not the same as one with the mustache.

    But there is a very close, and uncomfortable, similarity between Trump's repeated false attacks on immigrants, including but not limited to Muslim ones, as agents of terror, and Hitler's attacks on the Jews for "declaring war on Germany" as described in Richard Cohen's article.

    As Cohen says:

    "There is no lie that cannot be believed. Even after Germany had murdered most of Europe's Jews...many Germans believed...that their country's defeat only 'confirmed the "power of world Jewry."'"

    He concludes:

    "At the advent of the Hitler era, [Germany] was a democracy, an advanced nation...It had a unique it cannot easily be likened to the contemporary US. But it was not all that different either. In 1933, it chose a sociopathic liar as its leader. If the polls are to be believed, we may do the same."
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been representing mainly skilled and professional immigrants in work visa and green card cases for more than 35 years. Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-22-2016 at 08:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" vs. Trump's "Basket of Deportables". Roger Algase

    Hillary Clinton has recently drawn a lot of flak for calling Donald Trump's supporters, most, if not all of whom can, without much dispute, be called anti-immigrant, a "basket of deplorables".

    It would not be unfair, on the other hand, to say that Trump regards up to 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the US as a "basket of deportables".
    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, of diverse nationalities and ethnic/religious backgrounds, obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-20-2016 at 03:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Deportation Without Due Process? by Nolan Rappaport

    Our immigration court system is in the midst of a crisis. The number of cases awaiting resolution reached 496,704 as of the end of June 2016, and the flow of new cases exceeds the number of cases completed each month so that the backlog will continue to grow. The end of June figure represents an average backlog of 1,819 cases for each of the 273 immigration judges. It would take about 2.5 years to clear up this backlog even if there were no new cases coming in. The House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing on this on December 3, 2015. The solution considered at the hearing was to increase the number of immigration judges. Certainly, that would help, but I do not believe that the supply of qualified lawyers is big enough to make a sufficient increase. Even if it were possible, the resulting increase in decisions from the immigration court would greatly increase the backlog at the Board of Immigration Appeals. An alien who is dissatisfied with the decision of an immigration judge can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and his deportation will be postponed while the appeal is pending.

    The Board faced a similar backlog crisis in 1999 during the Administration of Bill Clinton. Unsuccessful attempts were made to handle the backlog by adding Board members and increasing support staff. When it became apparent that a different approach was needed, Attorney General Janet Reno changed the regulations governing the Board to reduce the number of cases that would receive a full review by creating a “streamlining panel.” Cases that can be disposed of quickly are directed to the streamlining panel for expedited processing by a single Board member. The rest of the cases are directed to a merits panel where they will be reviewed by three members. On the streamlining panel, a staff attorney reviews the file, prints out a form order that affirms or reverses the judge’s decision, and then a member signs the decision or sends it back to the staff attorney for a different disposition.

    I predict that something similar will be done to reduce the caseload of immigration judges. The obvious choice would be a modified stipulated removal program. Stipulated removal permits an alien in removal proceedings who does not want to fight deportation to waive his right to a hearing. When an alien has agreed to stipulated removal, an immigration judge will sign a deportation order without a hearing if he is satisfied that the requirements for a stipulated removal order have been met.

    I asked Wayne Stogner, a retired immigration judge, about this practice. He told me that stipulated removal orders were not common in his court, but he could recall times when 25 or so stipulated removal orders would be handed to him in chambers. The aliens were not present when he reviewed the orders. He only signed stipulated removal orders when he was satisfied from reviewing the documents that the aliens knew their rights and that their agreement to stipulated removal was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

    Stipulated removal was authorized by section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Initially, the implementing regulations specified that immigration judges could only accept such stipulations from individuals who were represented. In 1997, this language was amended by the Clinton Administration to allow the immigration judge to accept stipulations from unrepresented aliens.

    Former President Bill Clinton signed IIRIRA into law. It was included in a larger bill. In those days, it was possible to oppose “illegal” immigration without being called a racist or a bigot. When his chief of staff, Leon Panetta, gave a briefing on IIRIRA, he said, “We were able, I think, as a result of this negotiation to be able to modify — eliminate the large hits with regards to legal immigrants while keeping some very strong enforcement measures with regards to illegal immigration.” Moreover, Bill’s formal statement at the signing ceremony includes the following comment.

    This bill, ... includes landmark immigration reform legislation that builds on our progress of the last three years. It strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system—without punishing those living in the United States legally.

    The pertinent part of the stipulated removal provision, section 240(d) of the INA, reads as follows:

    (d) Stipulated Removal. The Attorney General shall provide by regulation for the entry by an immigration judge of an order of removal stipulated to by the alien (or the alien’s representative) and the Service. A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien’s removability from the United States.

    The essential elements of a stipulated removal order are specified in, 8 C.F.R. 1003.25, which provides that the stipulation must include an admission that all factual allegations contained in the charging document are true; a concession of deportability or inadmissibility; and a waiver of the right to appeal the order. The objective of the regulation is to make sure that the alien knows what he is doing when he signs a stipulated removal agreement.

    The stipulated-removal program was rarely used until President George W. Bush ramped up immigration enforcement in 2004. From 2004 to 2010, more than 160,000 aliens were deported on the basis of stipulated removal orders. I was not able to find more recent statistics.

    According to the American Immigration Council, the vast majority of the 160,000 aliens who agreed to stipulated removal orders between 2004 and 2010, were in detention and were not represented by an attorney. Consequently, it is doubtful that their agreements really were voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

    There were strong objections to the streamlining panel too.

    Published initially on Huffington Post.

    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.
  5. INA 212(f): Trump's path to dictatorship over immigrants and US citizens? Pt. 2. Roger Algase

    First, I want to thank the readers who took the time to read my comments on this subject in Part 1 posted on the morning of September 19, and to share their reaction.

    One theme that seems to have been common to more than one of the people who wrote comments is that INA Section 212(f), which gives the president broad powers to exclude immigrants based solely on his/her own determinations is primarily an anti-terror statute.

    One comment, for example, describes the law as giving the president power to exclude immigrants who are a "danger" to the US. In reality, the word "danger" or "dangerous" appears nowhere in this provision, which I quoted in full in Part 1 of my comments.

    The operative words in the statute are much broader, namely immigrants who are "detrimental to the interests" of the United States.

    Of course, this obviously includes immigrants who are a "danger", but it goes far beyond that. A president could find that immigrants are "detrimental" to the interests of the United States for almost any reason that he or she could conjure up - economic, social, or (and I know that some people don't like it when I use this word) racial.

    It may be taboo among some people to bring up this subject now, but for most of our history, race was not only not taboo when crafting immigration laws, but it was considered essential.

    This was certainly true when the first Chinese exclusion law was enacted in the 1880's, and it was true when the "Nordics -only" Johnson-Reed immigration act was enacted in 1924. This is to name only two of the most famous (or infamous) immigration laws in America's history that were openly based on racial considerations.

    This is why 1965 was one of the most momentous years in our entire immigration history, because that was the year when Congress abolished the 1924 law and, for the first time in more than 80 years (or perhaps the first time ever) instituted an officially race-neutral immigration system to America.

    That is why it is disturbing, to say the least, to read Trump's August 31 immigration speech and see his references to "outmoded", "fifty-year old" immigration laws which, in his view, need to be revisited.

    Another feature in Trump's Arizona speech also relates to the extremely broad scope of INA Section 21(f). This is the notion that there are allegedly too many immigrants; that we need to cut immigration down to "historical" levels.

    Does INA Section 212(f) give the president the power to find that law-abiding, hard working, tax-paying, productive legal immigrants who love their families just as much as Trump loves his own immigrant wife, along with his other family members, are "detrimental" to the interests of the US - simply because a president may think there are too many immigrants (especially non-white ones, which one has to suspect is a major concern among restrictionist legislators and organizations whose decades-long anti-immigrant rhetoric Trump, arguably, appears to have borrowed from in his Arizona speech)?

    Based on the plain language of this statute, the answer has to be "yes". The above consideration could certainly be a reason to bar any and all further immigration to the US under Section 212(f).

    This is an extremely broad and far-reaching statute - not just an anti-terror protection. And it is exactly the kind of law that Trump says he loves - and would like to use as president, according to his own statements as reported in the Washington Post on June 15. And, lest anyone accuse me of making "unsubstantiated" allegations about Trump. I will quote his exact statements as reported in that article.

    But first, i will quote Attorney Matt Kolken, whom the Washington Post, in the same article, reports as stating the following:

    "The immigration law was designed to give as much authority to the executive branch as humanly possible, and to preclude the judicial branch from being able to review these decisions".

    This is an entirely accurate assessment of Section 212(f), and also makes clear that this provision is not limited to dealing only with national security or terrorism issues, as some people mistakenly assume.

    Now, over to Donald Trump. This is what he has to say about Section 212(f), as quoted in the Washington Post (again, with apologies to any readers who may think that quoting Trump's own exact words about the immigration laws shows a lack of proper respect for America's potential next Leader and who seek to raise a Furor over that issue).

    First, Trump is quoted as follows on June 13:

    "The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons. Now, any class - it really is determined and to be determined by the president for the interests of the United States. And it's as he or she deems appropriate."

    The WP also quotes Trump as saying the following on the same day, June 13:

    "The president has the right to ban any group or anybody that he feels is going to do harm to our country. They [the presidents] have an absolute right...And so the president of this country has the right to do this."


    Let me begin by defending Trump with regard to the above quotations against any possible accusation that he misrepresents or distorts the immigration laws. In this case, Trump's characterization of INA Section 212(f) is entirely correct - except for one little quibble:

    This section does not give the president authority to ban everyone from entering the US. The law only applies to "aliens" (a pejorative term for foreign citizens or immigrants, based on a Latin word which, among other things, means "strange" or "hostile", and which no longer belongs in our laws - if it ever did - and hopefully will one day be removed as part of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform law).

    But other than the fact that the president has no power under this law to bar US citizens from entering the United States, Trump is totally right about the content of this section, and especially in his use of the word "absolute" to describe the power it confers on the president to bar foreign citizens.

    But the word "absolute" in Trump's above quoted remarks, while "absolutely" accurate, should also be a matter of concern to those who care about America's democracy for exactly that reason.

    It is also noteworthy, that while Trump's above quoted interpretations of INA Section 212(f) were made in response to a horrific mass killing which of course raised serious concerns about terror and national security, the clear implications of his remarks go far beyond questions of publkic safety and security, and into the realm of "absolute" power, to use Trump's own word.

    For reasons that will be explained further in my next post, this could be well looked at as an example of Trump's entire presidential campaign in microcosm, one in which preying on fear of Muslim and other minority immigrants could become a stepping stone to seizing absolute power.
    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 and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-20-2016 at 10:20 AM 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: