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. 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

  2. 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

  3. ACLU Also Explains How Trump's Retweets of Anti-Muslim Hate Videos Will Undermine DOJ's Muslim Ban Defense Strategy in Court. Roger Algase

    This comment is a follow-up to my November 29 comment (appearing in the November 30 issue of Immigration Daily) about Trump's retweeting of inflammatory videos posted by far right anti-Muslim extremist in the UK purporting to show "Muslims" engaging in despicable acts of violence. In my comment, I suggested that Trump's retweeting of this openly Islamophobic material could doom his Muslim ban defense strategy in various federal courts (and the Supreme Court, if the case reaches that Court again).

    The reason, as I suggested, is that by retweeting these hate videos, (which bring back uncomfortable memories of similar material that the Nazi propaganda machine directed against the Jews, not to mention home-grown anti-Semitic American hate propaganda of a century ago, such as the infamous "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" disseminated by another famous wealthy tycoon of that era, Henry Ford), Trump demolished whatever may have been left of his court arguments that the Muslim ban orders were motivated by national security rather than pure bigotry. My November 29 comment is available at:

    A November 30 article by ACLU communications director Amrit Cheng supports the above contention which I outlined in my own article. See:

    Trump's Lawyers Say the Muslim Ban Has No Bias, But His Tweets Show Otherwise

    Cheng writes:

    "Trump's prejudice against Muslims reveals itself at every turn - because he is the one revealing it. He showed his bias with Wednesday's tweets, with pronouncements like 'Islam hates us' and with every version of the Muslim ban...

    Not surprisingly, courts have repeatedly recognized that the president's Muslim bans are inextricably tied to the president's flagrant prejudice and his repeated promises to ban Muslims from coming to the United States."

    Cheng also writes:

    "Yesterday's tweets can be added to Trump's long list of anti-Muslim statements and actions..."

    And as I pointed out in my November 30 Immigration Daily comment, the tweets completely give the lie to the claim by his defenders that Trump's history of anti-Muslim campaign statements took place "too long ago" to be used against him in the ongoing Muslim ban litigation, which the ACLU will continue to pursue before the 4th Circuit on December 8, according to Cheng's article.

    Trump's anti-Muslim campaign statements, to be sure, took place between one and two years ago, which itself hardly qualifies as ancient history.

    But his vicious Islamophobic retweets took place on November 29, 2017 ten months after his first Muslim ban executive order. And just in case any of Trump's defenders may have happened to overlook this little detail, on November 29, 2017, Donald Trump was no longer a presidential candidate, who might arguably have been entitled to some leeway in his statements while seeking office (at least according to his supporters' theory of presidential campaigns).

    He was the president of the United States and had been so for close to a year.

    And as Cheng aptly puts it in his article:

    "We should all be outraged that the president of the United States is promoting and endorsing videos that are plainly designed to fan the flames of anti-Muslim hatred. The decision to do that is reckless, dangerous and contrary to fundamental American values that protect all of us from religious discrimination."

    And this is the ultimate point about the entire controversy ovr the Muslim ban executive orders and Trump's history of other bigoted statements and actions against Muslim immigrants (and threats against Muslim Americans, we also must not forget).

    It is not only the rights of Muslims, or of immigrants that are at stake. It is also the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of religion, that Trump is now putting in danger by his campaign of fear, hatred and prejudice against Muslims and other non-white, non-European immigrants.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 12-01-2017 at 05:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Will Trump's Shocking Retweets of Extremist Anti-Muslim Hate Videos Spell Legal Doom for His Latest Muslim Ban Executive Order? Roger Algase

    Update, November 30, 5:13 pm

    For the latest reaction to Trump's anti-Muslim tweets, see, The Guardian, November 30:

    Far right hatemongers cheer Trump's Twitter endorsement

    My original comment follows:

    As both the US and the UK are reeling from the shock of Trump's retweets of vicious proto-fascist anti-Muslim hate videos originally posted by Jayda Fransen, who has a reputation for anti-Muslim extremism in the UK, one question immediately arises: can Trump's latest Muslim ban order survive this latest expression of the president's venomous animosity against the entire world Muslim community, not just those who may be suspected of terrorist sympathies?

    I will not even describe the vile content of the videos, which cannot help but recall the unspeakable attacks against Jews as being violent criminals and degenerates promulgated by Julius Streicher in his infamous publication Der Stuermer, and which ultimately led to his execution as a Nazi war criminal.

    Details of the videos, and of the horrified reaction in both the UK and the US to the fact that a president of the United States was actually capable of spreading such material can be found at:

    and at:

    However, the concern raised by Trump's spreading of this material in defiance of the conscience of the world is only part of the story. There is also the question of whether there will be any legal consequences in the still pending dispute over Trump's latest Muslim ban executive order.

    As everyone who has been following the Muslim ban litigation will have no difficulty in remembering, the central issue in the various lawsuits involving the three different versions of Trump's bans on entry to the US by citizens of various overwhelmingly Muslim countries (plus, in the latest version, a couple of non-Muslim ones thrown in for obvious cosmetic purposes) has been whether the ban is motivated by genuine national security reasons, as Trump and his Department of Justice have argued; or whether, as its opponents claim and an overwhelming majority of the 4th Circuit judges sitting en banc ruled regarding the second version of the Muslim entry ban ban, it was motivated by unconstitutional "animus" against Muslims and their religion in general affecting the rights of American citizens.

    Aside from the DOJ's argument that (in effect) INA Section 212(f) gives the president the power of a dictator or an emperor to ban any immigrants he wishes from our shores (and airports) for any reason he chooses, an argument which is untenable when the constitutional rights of US citizens to freedom of religion are affected; the issue whether the president has a legitimate national security justification for the ban has come down to a question of fact concerning Trump's actual motivations in issuing the ban orders, rather than just the theoretical pretexts set forth in the ban orders themselves (such as that Syria, for example, was placed on a terror sponsorship list almost 40 years ago)!

    In arguing that Trump's real motivation for the ban orders (which he has since criticized himself as being too weak and "politically correct") was hatred of and prejudice against Muslims as a religious group, not genuine national security concerns, opponents of the ban cited a host of Trump's campaign statements, such as, to give only one example out of many: "Islam hates us".

    In opposition to this argument, the Muslim ban's defenders argued that campaign statements were irrelevant; they were too far back in the past; this would open the door to using something that a president might have said as a high school student in order to overturn future executive orders, etc., etc.

    In other words, based on this time-worn strategy (going back to the time of Aristotle) of reductio ad absurdum, (he eis to adunaton apagoge in ancient Greek), the Muslim ban's defenders were asking the federal courts to blind themselves to the obvious reality that Trump had made hatred of Muslims and their religion in general, not just the need to protect against unquestionably dangerous terrorist groups such as ISIS, a centerpiece of his campaign.

    However, the 4th and 9th Circuits, as well as various federal district courts, refused to put on the blinders or ignore the reality staring them in the face, and the Supreme Court essentially punted on this entire issue.

    Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a 10-3 majority of the full 4th Circuit court on May 25, 2017 in IRAP v. Trump, stated, in words which deserve to be forever engraved in America's legal history as a nation of freedom, democracy and equal justice for all:

    "When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the 'inevitable result' is 'hatred, disrespect and even contempt' toward those who fall on the wrong side of the line. [Citation omitted.] Improper government involvement with religion 'tends to destroy government and to degrade religion' id, encourage persecution of religious minorities and nonbelievers, and foster hostility and division in our pluralistic society. The risk of these harms is particularly acute here, where from the highest elected office in the nation has come an Executive Order steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group."

    For a summary of and link to the full decision, see:

    If the above is true of an executive order which at least pretended to be based on rational and objective national security considerations, even if these, as the 4th Circuit and other federal courts also determined, were essentially nothing but window dressing; it is even more true when the holder of the highest office in our nation deliberately publicizes patently false and vicious material, based on nothing but pure hatred, against a particular religion.

    Now, by retweeting the vile expressions of anti-Muslim hatred posted by an anti-Muslim extremist who has herself been convicted of anti-Muslim violence according to the above news reports, Trump has totally destroyed any possible argument that his own previous inflammatory anti-Muslim statements as a candidate should be disregarded as explaining the real reasons for his Muslim ban orders.

    The Supreme Court, and various lower federal courts following the Supreme Court's decision, have, on a temporary basis, allowed some parts of Trump's latest Muslim ban order to stand (the first two orders now having been rescinded by the administration itself).

    All of these courts should now, on their own motion, put the ban cases back on their calendars and, on the basis of this shocking new and unassailable evidence of Trump's obviously deep-seated personal "animus" against all Muslims, not just terrorists, they should strike down Trump's latest Muslim ban in toto, every single word of it, from alpha to omega - beginning to the end.

    Since the following is a political issue, rather than a legal one, I will not go into the question of how much longer Congress can continue in good conscience to avoid beginning impeachment proceedings against a president whose ongoing expressions of bigotry against a major world religion which some 2 or 3 million peaceful, law abiding and patriotic US citizens also belong to raise increasingly serious questions, not just about the legality of his immigration policies, but about his fitness for the highest office in the land.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 11-30-2017 at 05:14 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Haitiís temporary protected status never intended to be permanent. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    Otherwise deportable aliens cannot be deported while they have Temporary Protected Status (TPS), but they revert back to being deportable when their TPS status has been terminated. Consequently, it was not surprising when, a day after Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke announced that she was terminating Haitian TPS, an article appeared asking, ďIs Trump going to deport 59,000 Haitians who fled a humanitarian crisis?Ē

    Duke delayed the effective date of the termination by 18 months to allow for an orderly transition, and no one knows what Trumpís enforcement priorities will be 18 months from now. Moreover, if he does not get the immigration court backlog under control, he may not be able to put the Haitians through removal proceedings.

    Nevertheless, they will be deportable when their status expires if they havenít obtained lawful status on some other basis. And they cannot compel Duke to reinstate their TPS status.

    The same fate awaits TPS aliens from nine other countries when their status is terminated.


    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.

Page 2 of 268 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: