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



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

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

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. With travel ban, SCOTUS can correct for lower courts' anti-Trump bias. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    According to Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, the lower U.S. courts have created a “Trump exception” to settled law on presidential powers with their travel ban decisions. They have ignored the Supreme Court’s admonition that courts may not “look behind” a “facially legitimate” reason for an executive order, which in these cases was a national security interest in stricter vetting.

    Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, but his case became moot when he replaced the temporary travel ban with a permanent program with the Presidential Proclamation he issued on September 24, 2017, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.”

    When fourth and ninth circuit courts enjoined implementation of his proclamation, he went back to the Supreme Court. On December 4, 2017, the Court ordered stays of the fourth circuit and the ninth circuitinjunctions.

    The Court did not state its basis for granting Trump’s stay request in either decision, but stays are not granted for meritless cases. I expect Trump to prevail on the merits of his case.

    According to Trump’s memorandum in support of a stay, the proclamation is the culmination of an extensive, worldwide review process, which was conducted by multiple government agencies to determine what information is needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    The baseline incorporates three categories of criteria:

    1. Identity-management information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide information needed to determine whether individuals seeking benefits under our immigration laws are who they claim to be. The criteria in this category include whether a country issues electronic passports embedded with identity data, and whether it reports lost and stolen passports to appropriate entities.
    2. National security and public-safety information. The United States expects foreign governments to provide information about whether nationals of their countries who seek entry into United States pose national security or public-safety risks. This includes such things as whether the country releases suspected terrorist and criminal-history information when it is requested.
    3. National security and public-safety risk assessment. This includes an evaluation of national security risk indicators, such as whether the country provides a safe haven for terrorists, and whether it regularly fails to accept back its nationals who are subject to final orders of removal from the United States.


    Published originally on The Hill.

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

  2. With travel ban, SCOTUS can correct for lower courts' anti-Trump bias. By Nolan Rappaport

    Accidental post. Please delete.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 12-06-2017 at 04:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Supreme Court Ignores Trump's Islamophobic Tweets, Upholds Latest Muslim Ban and Moves US Back Toward 1924 "National Origins" Exclusion. Roger Algase

    Update, December 5 at 6:26 am:

    The Guardian newspaper quotes the Center for Constitutional Rights as issuing the following statement about the Supreme Court's December 4 decision to allow the full latest version of Trump's Muslim ban executive order to take effect pending that Court's final decision on the merits of the ban, while completely ignoring the president's retweets of anti-Muslim hate videos by a right wing UK extremist to Trump's 43 million Twitter followers; even though disseminating the videos showed beyond any possible dispute what Trump's real reason for the ban orders has been right from the start:

    "We will not allow this to become the new normal...Whatever the courts say, the Muslim ban is inhumane and discriminatory. We must continue to demonstrate that we reject and will continue to resist the politics of fear, anti-Muslim racism, and white supremacy."

    My original comment follows:

    In my two recent comments in reaction to Trump's horrifying retweets of anti-Muslim hate videos originally posted by a woman with a record of right wing extremism and Islamophobia in the UK, I contended (on November 29) that Donald Trump had demolished whatever claims to good faith national security reasons he might ever have had in issuing the various versions of his Muslim entry ban orders.

    I also argued that, in the light of these vicious presidential tweets, which brought back disturbing memories of the subsequently executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher's attempts to label all Jews as dangerous criminals in his infamous Der Stuermer publication, the Supreme Court should immediate reopen the Muslim ban litigation and strike down every word of the latest version of Trump's executive order on this topic from beginning to end.

    In a follow-up comment, posted on November 30, i also presented extracts from the ACLU's comment on the same issue. This comment also argued that Trump had irretrievably undermined his legal argument to the effect that the various Muslim ban executive orders were allegedly justified by genuine national security considerations by retweeting the hate videos to his 43 million Twitter followers.

    However, on December 4, the Supreme Court did the exact opposite of what I had urged and what the ACLU had also indicated was the correct legal approach. Instead, in a 7-2 decision, with only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting, the High Court upheld the latest version of the Muslim ban, without any exceptions or limitations, for the duration of the federal court litigation on the ban.

    This will, by the terms of the decision, last until the Supreme Court itself issues a final disposition, either by refusing to grant certiorari after the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts render their final decisions (which of course is extremely unlikely), or by granting certiorari from one or both of these anticipated decisons and issuing a final judgment (almost inevitable).

    While, ostensibly, this latest Supreme Court decision is not on the merits, and is only pendente lite, legal experts were quick to point out that the Court was very likely tipping its hand about how it is likely to rule on the merits of the entry ban executive order. For links to the two identical orders, each one relating to a different lower court case, see Scotus Blog at:

    For CNN's news story on the Supreme Court decision in the light of Trump's retweet of the UK ultra-nationalist anti-Muslim hate videos, see:

    In these two brief unsigned one-page decisions, without any written explanations, either for the majority decision or the dissent by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, the Supreme Court has, very arguably, struck a blow against the integrity and independence of the entire federal court system. It did so by appearing to take at face value a purported "national security" justification for the latest Muslim ban order which Trump, in his latest tweets of the despicably vile videos indended to label all Muslims as violent criminals, has now himself demolished as a total sham, if not an attempted fraud upon the court.

    But the Supeme Court has done more that merely making a decision potentially affecting the human rights of millions of people in the six affected Muslim countries (since adding two non-Muslim countries to the latest version of the ban order was never anything more than cynical window dressing that no one took seriously), and the constitutional rights of 2 or 3 million Muslim American citizens to have their religion treated on an equal basis with all others and not made into an object of scorn and contempt.

    This latest decision also goes a long way to sanction banning entire populations from entering the United States purely based on their citizenship or national origin, in a throwback to the openly bigoted 1924 immigration act which banned almost all Jews, Catholics, Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans, as well as Southern and Eastern Europeans, from immigrating to the United States on racial and religious grounds, using national origins as a transparent excuse.

    In the December 4 decision, therefore, in addition to striking a blow against the equal rights and status in our society of American Muslim citizens, and bolstering the claims of a president with pronounced authoritarian tendencies to dictatorial (or imperial) control over the entry by non-citizens to the United States, the Supreme Court has now taken a major step to resurrecting the practice of legitimizing bigotry on the basis of national origin, in a throwback to the discredited ideology of racial and religious prejudices of a century and more ago.

    2,000 years ago, a young 1st century A.D. Roman poet, Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (Lucan), writing about the murderous civil wars of the previous century in his epic poem De Bello Civile (before he himself was murdered by Nero, one of the worst tyrants the world has ever known), penned the immortal words: iusque datum sceleri canimus ("I sing of legality bestowed on infamy.") Nothing could better describe the attempts to legitimize the obvious bigotry which, as Donald Trump has made clear again and again, in every possible way, forms the basis of his Muslim entry ban orders, including the one which the Supreme Court has just upheld.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-05-2017 at 01:00 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Republicans' Faustian Bargain Enables Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda and Abuse of Power. It also Recalls Hitler's 1933 Takeover. Part 2. Roger Algase

    This comment will continue and conclude my previous one on this topic, which was originally posted on on December 2.

    It seems that hardly a day goes by without fresh evidence of Trump's twin dangers to America's democracy in the form of a) pursuing a white supremacist immigration agenda aimed at reducing immigration from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America as much as possible; and. b) by no means unrelated, engaging in ongoing abuses of power which could ultimately lead to a one-man dictatorship in America.

    Therefore, it becomes increasing important, and indeed urgent, for immigration advocates and everyone else who cares about the rule of law in America to look at the details of Faustian Bargain that Congressional Republicans are making with Trump in order to enable both his whites-only immigration agenda and his attempt to unravel America's democracy and concentrate all power in himself.

    In my initial comment, I mentioned Trump's horrific retweeting of unspeakably vile videos distributed by a right wing extremist Islamophobic UK woman, Jayda Fransen, purporting to make all Muslims appear to be violent criminals; just as the later executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher made Jews appear to be criminals by nature in his infamous Der Stuermer publication.

    I also mentioned the latest indication of the ongoing abuse of power by the Trump administration in trying to impede the Russia investigations, as evidenced by former national security advisor and top campaign official Micheal Flynn's plea of guilty to lying to the FBI. Flynn himself, as I also showed in my initial comment, also has a long and unenviable record of vicious anti-Muslim statements, completely in keeping with Trump's own attempts to exploit bigotry against Muslim immigrants as both candidate and president.

    However, even since my initial comment was posted only one day ago, Trump has now, very arguably, given fresh evidence of what, according to expert opinion, could very arguably be called obstruction of justice in connection with his dealings with Michael Flynn.

    The Hill reports on December 2 that in a tweet that same day, Trump claimed that he knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI at the time that Trump met with then FBI director and allegedly asked Comey (whom Trump fired shortly afterward), not to investigate Flynn.


    Legal experts: Trump's latest tweet could lead to obstruction of justice charges

    The Guardian reports that Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe was more explicit. The paper quotes Professor Tribe as follows, concerning Trump's latest tweet:

    "That's a confession of deliberate, corrupt, obstruction of justice."

    In view of Trump's ongoing, and increasing, assaults against the principle of racial justice and equality in immigration which has been at the foundation of US immigration law and policy for the past half century (if not always strictly followed in actual practice); as well as the constantly unfolding evidence of abuses of power which run counter to the basic principles of American democracy, why have the leaders of America's governing party, which controls both houses of Congress and a majority of America's state houses and state legislatures, as well as the White House itself, been so reluctant to speak out against the president's abuses?

    The answer is in what the German magazine Der Spiegel, in two articles cited in my initial comment, calls the Faustian Bargain with Donald Trump. For any readers who may not be familiar with this epic poem by the greatest of all German writers, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust is the story of an individual who made a bargain with the Devil in the hope of achieving his (Faust's) wishes. Events did not work out exactly as Faust has hoped they would.

    The second of two articles (dated August 19) in the English-language edition of this magazine, one of the most respected throughout Europe and the world, which I cited in my initial comment, describes the Republican leaders' bargain with Trump as follows:

    "The chasm between Trump and the Republican mainstream has also become deeper. Allies are stunned at their president's willingness to protect violent racists...

    problem is that conservatives have been unable to find a way out of the Faustian bargain they made with Trump. If they let him fall, they are almost certain to suffer mightily in midterm elections next autumn. But the party has also become increasingly concerned that there is no way to control this president ..."

    It is not only a foreign magazine that has used the term Faustian Bargain to describe the Republican party's relationship with Donald Trump, however. A leading Republican Senator, Jeff Flake (Arizona), has also used the same expression.

    Flake, who, not coincidentally, was as a member of the bipartisan Republican "Gang of Eight" which attempted to bring about Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2013 said, of the Republicans' support for Donald Trump:

    "If this was our Faustian bargain, then it was not worth it."

    But what exactly does this Faustian Bargain consist of? And why does it recall a similar alliance between a conservative establishment and an ultra-nationalist racist movement which enabled Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany in 1933?

    The answer is in the tax bill which the Republican-controlled Senate has just passed. The Republicans' wealthy individuals and corporate backers are the ones who stand to benefit from huge tax cuts which will ultimately be paid for by middle class and less affluent American in the form of higher tax rates for themselves and severe cuts in or elimination of essential government programs and services, such as, very possibly, Social Security, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act. As financial expert John Wasik writes in on December 1:

    "After doling out outlandish tax breaks to corporations and the ultra-affluent, fiscal conservatives will demand that future tax legislation 'pay for itself'. This will lead to cutting social programs that the majority of retired and poor Americans need and want."

    The Republican Senators and Representative who depend on campaign donations from those wealthy individuals and interests are perfectly willing to go along with Trump's white nationalist, authoritarian, anti-immigrant agenda as long as they get their tax cuts (and gutting of environmental and other regulations hated by wealthy corporate interests) enacted, signed by the president and/or promulgated by his administration, as the case may be.

    A precient article in put it bluntly just over a year ago, about three weeks after the 2016 election:

    " typically cast as a form of complicity with Trump...

    genuinely does pose threats to the integrity of American institutions and political norms. But he does so largely because his nascent administration is sustained by support from the institutional Republican party and its standard interest and business group supporters. Alongside the wacky tweets and personal feuds [now, one year later, morphed into openly racist tweets, speeches and executive orders full of hatred and venom against Muslim and other non-white immigrants, as well as authoritarian conduct coming closer and closer to actual obstruction of justice] Trump is pursuing a policy agenda whose implications are overwhelmingly favorable to rich people and business owners."

    In other words, to put it in plainer language, Republicans and their wealthy financial backers are willing to put up with, to the point of enabling or even actively aiding and abetting a president and administration that pursue an openly radical right race-based agenda of keeping non-white immigrants out of the United States; while conducting mass deportation and ethnic cleansing of those who are already in the country. These same wealthy interests and their Republican supporters in Congress are also willing to tern a blind eye toward a president who is methodically destroying our system of checks and balances and other institutions which place limits and controls on his power.

    They are also perfectly willing to leave the president free, allegedly, to obstruct justice by firing or threatening to fire any government official who stands in the way of his climb toward absolute one-man rule.

    As indicated above, all that these wealthy backers and their Republican allies in Congress ask in return to remaining silent in the face of the president's return to a whites only immigration agenda similar to the one which was set in place in the US more than 90 years ago, in 1924, and which Adolf Hitler wrote about favorably in Mein Kampf, as well as the destruction of our democracy and its replacement by a 21st century version of fascist rule, is for the president to help enact their tax cuts and gut the environmental, consumer protection and other regulations which stand in the way of making these wealthy individual and corporate interests even richer than before.

    This may indeed be radical in a democracy such as America as we know it, but there is a precedent for this kind of Faustian Bargain - going back to Hitler's rise to power in 1933.

    This alliance between traditional conservative big business interests in Germany and the Nazis' radical racist and authoritarian agenda is described as follows in a May 20, 2016 article by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy published by the Brennan Center for Justice, called:

    How Big Business Bailed Out the Nazis

    Torres-Spelliscy's article, which I also mentioned in the first part of my comment on this issue on December 2, begins:

    "it's a largely forgotten piece of history, but in 1932 the German Nazi Party was facing financial ruin. How did the Nazis move from being broke to being in control of the German government just a year later? The Nazi party was bailed out by German industrialists in early 1933."

    She continues:

    "The industrialists who led the way were two huge German firms, I.G. Farben and Krupp...According to
    The Arms of Krupp, the Nazi Party was essentially bankrupt in 1932...

    Regardless of the party's financial problems, Hitler was named Chancellor in late January, 1933. He called for elections in early March. With less than two weeks left before the vote, Herman Goering sent telegrams to Germany's 25 leading industrialists, inviting them to a secret meeting on February 20, 1933...Hitler addressed the group, saying 'private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy.' He also told the men he would eliminate trade unions and communists. Hitler asked for their financial support and to back his vision for Germany."

    The result, according to the article, was as follows:

    "[T]he industrialists became so enthusiastic that they set about to raise 3 million strengthen and confirm the Nazi Party in power...

    At the February meeting, the I.G. Farben executives gave the Nazis 400,000 marks, and a total of 4.5 million marks by the end of 1933...This infusion of corporate cash saved the Nazi Party from financial disaster."

    Of course there are important differences between Germany in 1933 and America as it approaches 2018, 85 years later. Donald Trump is not a Nazi (despite his reluctance to condemn American neo-Nazis for their violence in Charlottesville). His targets are primarily Muslim, Latin American and Asian immigrants, not Jews. (He is vehemently pro-Israel, and his influential daughter and son-in-law are both Jewish).

    Unlike Hitler and the Nazis, America's president does not support genocide or mass murder against anyone; nor is he interested in a war of conquest or in expanding American territory. (North Korea is a different matter.)

    Nor has Trump ever openly expressed a belief in racial superiority of any group of people as a matter of ideology, even though his immigration policies would clearly have the effect of turning the US back to a system that would favor white European immigrants over all others, in keeping with his July 6 Warsaw address which I have commented on previously.

    But despite the above clear and very important differences between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, and between 21st century America and 1930's Germany, Torres-Spellicy's concluding comment is a grim warning about what the current Faustian Bargain between establishment Republican politicians seeking tax and regulatory benefits for their billionaire financial backers on the one hand, and Trump, with his authoritarian abuses of power and his coterie of white nationalist anti-immigrant zealots on the other, can lead to. She writes:

    "As the book Hell's Cartel explains, the history of the German industrialists' support of Hitler shows 'what can go wrong when political objectives and the pursuit of profit become dangerously entwined'. One can only surmise what might have happened if the businessmen had simply said 'no' to Hitler that night."

    What will happen to America if the political leaders in a party which now controls all levels of power in this country are so eager to gain benefits for their billionaire financial backers that they are unable to say "no" to Donald Trump's move toward the destruction of America's democratic institutions, fueled by his white supremacist immigration agenda?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-04-2017 at 11:51 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Tax Breaks for Rich Donors Show Why GOP Supports Trump's Attacks on Muslims, Immigrants and Democracy. Faustian Bargain Recalls 1933. Roger Algase

    Future historians may come to look back on the events of the past few days as one of the critical turning points in America's transition from a democracy to a dictatorship under the presidency of Donald Trump. In this transition, Trump's relentless assault on non-white immigrants in general, and Muslim immigrants in particular, may well turn out to have played a key, or even essential role, much as Hitler's attacks on the Jews enabled his rise to power in 1933.

    First, on November 29, came the shocking news that was, (or should have been) a jolt to all people of decency and good will everywhere, regardless of religious affiliation or ethnic background, that Trump had retweeted several vile and horrific videos originally produced by an Islamophobic, allegedly proto-fascist woman in the UK, Jayda Fransen, who had herself been convicted of religiously aggravated harassment of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, to his more than 40 million Twitter followers.

    Then on December 1, there was the news that Michael Flynn, who was briefly Trump's national security adviser and has served as one of his top campaign staffers, someone who also has a notorious history of anti-Muslim hate, as documented a year ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):

    had pleaded guilty to the felony of lying to the FBI in connection with Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation of possible obstruction of justice by Trump or his close associates in matters related to alleged connections with Russia.

    And finally, in the early morning hours of Saturday, December 2, the Republican-controlled Senate, in the face of unanimous opposition from the Democratic minority, passed a tax bill which is, without the slightest question, an enormous transfer of wealth upward from ordinary Americans, millions of whom voted for Trump because of his populist campaign promises to improve their economic well-being and "drain the swamp" in Washington, to a small group of billionaires and other super-wealthy Republican campaign donors.

    Is there a connection between these three events, and is there a parallel with another series of events which led to the Adolf Hitler's rise to power overthrowing democracy in Germany in 1933? See, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Brennan Center for Justice blog (May 20, 2016):

    How Big Business Bailed Out the Nazis

    I will have more to say about this article in the second part of this comment.

    Certainly, one would like to have the luxury of being able to ignore the resemblances to Hitler's takeover of power in 1933. Today's immigration advocates might also very likely wish that we could continue to look at immigration policy today in a vacuum, as merely a series of technical issues which can be understood and dealt with purely on their own terms.

    But events are making it inescapably obvious that closing one's eyes and burying one's head in the sand against the larger context of Donald Trump's war on Muslim and other non-white immigrants from the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as on less affluent and minority Americans; and trying to overlook his escalating attacks on America's constitutional system of limited government and separation of powers, is no longer realistic, or even possible, for anyone who cares about preserving America's immigration system - and our democracy - as we know them.

    On February 6, only three weeks after Trump took over the White House as the result an election in which he was resoundingly defeated in the popular vote, the German Magazine Der Spiegel published an article predicting that Trump's presidency would turn out to be based on a "Faustian Bargain" with the devil of dictatorship. See:

    Trump and Bannon Pursue a Vision of American Autocracy

    The magazine wrote:

    "...Trump and Bannon have together mounted an attack against the institutions of democracy...

    [Trump] is governing by decree and ruling like an autocrat."

    Significantly, the examples of autocracy that the article gave were related to immigration:

    "Surrounded by his tiny circle of close advisors, [Trump] began hatching one presidential decree after another, including orders to build a wall along the border to Mexico and an entry ban for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries."

    But the article also showed that Trump's autocratic tendencies affected his policies in general, not just immigration:

    "The president said he 'absolutely 'feels' that torture 'works'...

    And, in summary:

    "There is a great deal at stake. His [Trump's] presidency raises questions about the resilience of American democracy and its institutions and over how far a man can go who will test the constitutional powers of the president. And whether America, the model of democracy, is susceptible to the new authoritarianism of the 21st century."

    As mentioned above, this precient article was written at the very beginning of Trump's presidency, well before Trump raised questions about whether he was trying to obstruct justice by firing FBI director James Comey; before he attacked the media from the White House as "enemies of the people" and threatened to "revoke the license" of CNN for airing unfavorable stories about him; before he threatened the independence of the judiciary as president by attacking a "so-called judge" who ruled against his Muslim ban order and, though the DOJ, presenting an obviously bad faith defense of the ban which was designed to mislead the courts while, at the same time, claiming that his office gave him imperial or dictatorial powers over the admission of immigrants to the United States.

    But the Republican party's Faustian Bargain with Donald Trump encompasses not only failing to oppose Trump's attacks on the foundations of our democracy, namely a free press and separation of powers under the constitution. It also includes going along with Trump's extreme white supremacist agenda, as also shown in his immigration policies as well as many other statements and actions as both candidate and president too numerous to list here in full.

    The same German magazine Der Spiegel, in a second article published on August 19, six months into Trump's presidency and just after his failure ro condemn the killing of an anti-Nazi protester by right wing extremist thugs in Charlottesville, wrote, regarding Trump's refusal to condemn the alt-right, neo-Nazi violence which led to the death of an innocent woman:

    "The most powerful man in the world shied away like a Nazi apologist from identifying the source of evil- and this in a country that once helped defeat Adolf Hitler."

    The same article also stated:

    "And it's not just garden variety racism that Trump sowed during his campaign and is harvesting now, but hatred for all minority groups.

    This same article then also went on to accuse the Republican party of making a Faustian Bargain with Donakf Trump.

    Again, the above was written before Trump reaffirmed and even intensified his hatred for minority groups by spreading Jayda Fransen's vicious hate videos attacking Muslims, one of the main immigrant minority groups that Trump is trying to bar from and expel from the United States.

    But what does all of this have to do with the the outrageous tax cuts for its billionaire campaign donors which the Republican party has just rammed through the Senate in a party line vote, with only one principled Republican Senator, Bob Corker of Tennessee, joining the unanimous Democrats in opposition?

    Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona has also sued the term Faustian Bargain to describe the Republican Party's relationship with Trump (see Part 2 of my comment, dated December 3) - even though he very arguably made his personal Faustian Bargain with his party by voting for the tax giveaway to the wealthy, which will also raise taxes on millions of middle class and less affluent Americans. As some are now warning, the huge tax cuts for billionaire Republican donors may also lead to cuts in medicare and social security which could, in the opinion of budget experts, prove devastating for many millions of Americans as well.

    Many seniors and other Americans who voted for Trump may be forced to pay a heavy price for enabling his agenda of reducing non-white immigration in America.

    I will continue my discussion of this Faustian Bargain, and how it resembles the one which German industrialists made with Hitler in the 1930's, in the second part of this comment to appear shortly.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-04-2017 at 09:18 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 2 of 269 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

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