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!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM


  1. Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on DACA

    Note: A lot of comments are going to be made on the Administration's decision to rescind DACA. In fact, I am working on an article about it myself. Although you may disagree with what the Administration has done, it's important to take the time to learn the Administration's reasons for doing it. Consequently, I am posting the formal statement of those reasons. Nolan Rappaport

    For additional information, See DHS Secretary's memo at

    Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on DACA

    Tuesday, September 5, 2017
    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Good morning. I am here today to announce that the program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama Administration is being rescinded.

    The DACA program was implemented in 2012 and essentially provided a legal status for recipients for a renewable two-year term, work authorization and other benefits, including participation in the social security program, to 800,000 mostly-adult illegal aliens.

    This policy was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern after Congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of illegal aliens.

    In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.

    The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences. It also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.

    We inherited from our Founders—and have advanced—an unsurpassed legal heritage, which is the foundation of our freedom, safety, and prosperity.

    As the Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the Constitutional order is upheld.

    No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed.

    Societies where the rule of law is subject to political whims and personal biases tend to become societies afflicted by corruption, poverty, and human suffering.

    To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. That is an open border policy and the American people have rightly rejected it.

    Therefore, the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means all cannot be accepted.

    This does not mean they are bad people or that our nation disrespects or demeans them in any way. It means we are properly enforcing our laws as Congress has passed them.

    It is with these principles and duties in mind, and in light of imminent litigation, that we reviewed the Obama Administration’s DACA policy.

    Our collective wisdom is that the policy is vulnerable to the same legal and constitutional challenges that the courts recognized with respect to the DAPA program, which was enjoined on a nationwide basis in a decision affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.

    The Fifth Circuit specifically concluded that DACA had not been implemented in a fashion that allowed sufficient discretion, and that DAPA was “foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan.”
    In other words, it was inconsistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers. That decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court by an equally divided vote.

    If we were to keep the Obama Administration’s executive amnesty policy, the likeliest outcome is that it would be enjoined just as was DAPA. The Department of Justice has advised the President and the Department of Homeland Security that DHS should begin an orderly, lawful wind down, including the cancellation of the memo that authorized this program.

    Acting Secretary Duke has chosen, appropriately, to initiate a wind down process. This will enable DHS to conduct an orderly change and fulfill the desire of this administration to create a time period for Congress to act—should it so choose. We firmly believe this is the responsible path.

    Simply put, if we are to further our goal of strengthening the constitutional order and the rule of law in America, the Department of Justice cannot defend this type of overreach.

    George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was clear about the enormous constitutional infirmities raised by these policies.

    He said: “In ordering this blanket exception, President Obama was nullifying part of a law that he simply disagreed with.….If a president can claim sweeping discretion to suspend key federal laws, the entire legislative process becomes little more than a pretense…The circumvention of the legislative process not only undermines the authority of this branch but destabilizes the tripartite system as a whole.”

    Ending the previous Administration’s disrespect for the legislative process is an important first step. All immigration policies should serve the interests of the people of the United States—lawful immigrant and native born alike.

    Congress should carefully and thoughtfully pursue the types of reforms that are right for the American people. Our nation is comprised of good and decent people who want their government’s leaders to fulfill their promises and advance an immigration policy that serves the national interest.

    We are a people of compassion and we are a people of law. But there is nothing compassionate about the failure to enforce immigration laws.

    Enforcing the law saves lives, protects communities and taxpayers, and prevents human suffering. Failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and even terrorism.

    The compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness, enforce our laws, and, if Congress chooses to make changes to those laws, to do so through the process set forth by our Founders in a way that advances the interest of the nation.

    That is what the President has promised to do and has delivered to the American people.
    Under President Trump’s leadership, this administration has made great progress in the last few months toward establishing a lawful and constitutional immigration system. This makes us safer and more secure.

    It will further economically the lives of millions who are struggling. And it will enable our country to more effectively teach new immigrants about our system of government and assimilate them to the cultural understandings that support it.

    The substantial progress in reducing illegal immigration at our border seen in recent months is almost entirely the product of the leadership of President Trump and his inspired federal immigration officers. But the problem is not solved. And without more action, we could see illegality rise again rather than be eliminated.

    As a candidate, and now in office, President Trump has offered specific ideas and legislative solutions that will protect American workers, increase wages and salaries, defend our national security, ensure the public safety, and increase the general well-being of the American people.
    He has worked closely with many members of Congress, including in the introduction of the RAISE Act, which would produce enormous benefits for our country. This is how our democratic process works.

    There are many powerful interest groups in this country and every one of them has a constitutional right to advocate their views and represent whomever they choose.

    But the Department of Justice does not represent any narrow interest or any subset of the American people. We represent all of the American people and protect the integrity of our Constitution. That is our charge.

    We at Department of Justice are proud and honored to work to advance this vision for America and to do our best each day to ensure the safety and security of the American people.

    Updated 09-07-2017 at 02:50 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Over 100 Immigration Law Professors' Letter Supporting DACA Didn't Stop Trump From Ending It. Will Legal Immigration Be "Rescinded" Next? Roger Algase

    Update, September 6, 2:43 pm:

    As expected, Trump, in a statement made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announced on the morning of September 5 that the president is ending DACA in six months.

    It appears that as between the advice of over 100 experienced and knowledgeable law professors who support DACA as a legal exercise of prosecutortial discretion, and the advice of an attorney general who, as a Senator, had a long record of opposition to immigration from non-white parts of the world, Trump has chosen the latter - to the surprise of no one, given Trump's own numerous anti-immigrant speeches and actions, and his support from white supremacist leaders whom he refuses to disown.

    Also not surprisingly, Sessions, in making the announcement admitted that the Dreamers are not doing any harm to the United States, but he based the decision to cancel the program on the supposed need to limit immigration in general. In his words:

    "The nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means that all cannot be accepted."

    This may sound like simple and straightforward language, but it is in fact no different from what FAIR and other anti-immigrant groups who want to cut off or drastically reduce immigration from outside Europe have been saying for many years.

    Trump's decision today has ominous implications, not only for the DREAMERS who were brought to the US illegally as children though no fault of their own, but for everyone who wants to come to or stay in the US through our legal immigration system, especially if they come from parts of the world other than Europe, which was so heavily favored in the 1924 law that Sessions expressed such admiration for less than three years ago.

    Slate also reports on September 5 that Sessions praised the RAISE Act, which would make drastic cuts in legal immigration, especially from outside Europe, near the end of his speech announcing the termination of DACA. I have not yet seen a full copy of that speech.

    The Slate report, under the title: Sessions' DACA speech was full of nativist lies, can be accessed through Google. I do not have a direct link.

    For another news report on Sessions' statement, see:

    My earlier comment appears below.

    According to the latest DACA news reports, the president's anticipated September 5 announcement ending this program in six months is expected to emphasize the supposed difficulty of defending DACA in court, and its alleged illegality as an abuse of executive power.

    It is not hard to understand why the president's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, might be advising the president that DACA is bound to lose in court and that there would be no point in defending it, as POLITICO and other news outlets are also reporting. See:

    But the reported objections by the AG to this program are suspect. There is every reason that they are based on ideological reasons, not solid legal analysis. As I have mentioned many times in previous comments, but it is still important not to forget, Sessions, in a 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, supported the openly bigoted, Northern Europeans only 1924 immigration law which Adolf Hitler had also written about favorably in Mein Kampf nine decades earlier.

    See The Guardian: Hitler's debt to America

    It is hardly surprising that Sessions, or Trump's other leading immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, a former Sessions aide who has also been associated with white supremacist immigration views,

    would try to convince the president (who, based on his own record of statements and actions against Latin America, Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants as candidate and president, apparently does not need very much convincing) that DACA, which benefits mainly Latino and other non-white, non-European immigrants, has no legal basis and cannot be defended in court.

    But is this conclusion really valid as a matter of serious legal analysis? Not according to over 100 immigration law professors who wrote a letter to Trump on August 14 upholding the validity of DACA as a legitimate exercise in prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. Their letter states:

    "In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion...Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law."

    For an article containing a direct link to the full text of the law professors' letter, go to:

    Whose legal advice will the president listen to? Will he follow that of his attorney general who, as a Senator, praised a bigoted, whites only 1924 immigration law which, among many other things, every serious student of that period's history acknowledges added to the death toll in the Holocaust by barring all but a few o the Jewish refugees seeking safety from Nazi genocide from coming to America, or will the president listen to the opinion of more than 100 immigration law professors from every part of the United States?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-05-2017 at 01:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Federal court's pro-sanctuary cities decision can cripple enforcement. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    At the end of August, a federal district court in Texas ruled against that state, halting an immigration enforcement law shortly before it was to go into effect.

    The court issued a preliminary (temporary) injunction to halt the implementation of five allegedly unconstitutional provisions in Texas’ anti-sanctuary city law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), including one that would require law enforcement agencies in Texas to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any immigration detainer issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    This means that the court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs (in this case, the parties opposing the state of Texas) will succeed in establishing that those provisions are unconstitutional when a decision is rendered on the merits of the case.

    If the decision on ICE detainers is correct, which seems to be the case, it could cripple ICE’s ability to prevent removable criminal aliens from absconding when they are released from custody by state and local law enforcement agencies.

    Detainers ask the state or local law enforcement agency that is detaining a removable alien to (1) notify DHS as early as practicable before the suspected removable immigrant is scheduled to be released from criminal custody; and (2) maintain custody of the subject for up to 48 hours beyond the time he would otherwise have been released so that DHS can assume custody of him.

    The decision’s rationale.


    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.

    Updated 09-04-2017 at 02:44 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Trump's Decision to End DACA is Only the Beginning; Severe Cutbacks in Legal Immigration and Ending Birthright Citizenship May Be Next. Roger Algase

    Update, September 3, 9:38 pm:

    POLITICO and other news media report on the evening of September 3 that Trump (to the surprise of no one who has been following his campaign and presidency from Day 1 just over two years ago) has decided to end the DACA program, with a six month grace period to give Congress to enact the program as legislation, something that it has refused to do in the past and is unlikely to do now.

    Even in the unlikely event that Congress, rather than allowing Trump to get away with this cynical attempt to make Congress appear responsible for Trump's refusal to defend DACA in court against a threatened challenge from a handful of anti-immigrant governors in his own party, actually passes its own DACA bill, would Trump be willing to sign it if it does not also contain funding for Trump's Wall of shame and hatred against Latin American and other non-white immigrants?

    My original comment appear below.

    As nearly 800,000 young DREAMERS - and the entire nation - wait for Donald Trump's expected September 5 decision that he will either cancel DACA outright or merely phase it out in stages (my prediction is that he will choose the latter - there is almost no chance that leave the program untouched, otherwise he would not be giving this issue so much publicity in the first place), the media focus continues to be on the superficial drama.

    How many Republican dominated states are still threatening to sue the president if he doesn't cancel DACA, now that Tennessee has changed its mind, bringing the number down from 10 to 9?

    How many other Republican leaders will join House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Flake (not one of Trump's favorites) in urging him to keep DACA so that Congress can take action on it?

    How will individual DACA recipients react to having their hopes and futures in America destroyed if Trump ends or phases out the program, despite his professed love for DREAMERS (even though he evidently loves Joe Arpiao even more)?

    All these stories may make good headlines, but as is the case with so many other media stories about immigration in the era of Donald Trump, they only scratch the surface. Few of these stories and comments deal with the real issues, which are what kind of people will be welcome to come to America under the current Administration - and even more fundamentally, who will be considered as Americans while Trump is in office (and perhaps for long after that)?

    The answer to these fundamental questions of immigration and citizenship policy is clear - for the most part, white people only will benefit. That this would be the ultimate goal of Donald Trump and the white supremacist, anti-immigrant movement which did so much to help put him in the White House was predicted and clearly explained almost 2 years ago, when Trump was still a new presidential candidate, in an October 1, 2015 article by Linda Chavez in Commentary Magazine entitled, simply: Donald Trump's America

    It is time to revisit this article, many of whose predictions are already turning into reality. I will discuss it in more detail in an upcoming comment.

    In the meantime, readers who are interested in learning more about the long history of prejudice and discrimination against minority immigrants in America, a history of which Donald Trump's agenda of mass deportation and drastic cutbacks in legal immigration aimed against non-white immigrants is only the latest example, are encouraged to read this article,

    They will learn a great deal about the background to Trump's anti-immigrant agenda, including but by no means limited to his latest reported plan of senseless cruelty toward nearly 800,000 young people who pose no danger whatsoever to America, and many of whom are students preparing for productive careers in this country, in planning to end a DACA program which over 100 immigration law professors, in an August 14 letter to him, have defended as a legal and constitutional exercise in prosecutorial discretion.

    See my next comment for a link, and for more information about the law professors' letter to the president supporting DACA.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-04-2017 at 09:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Report: Trump Will End DACA in 6 Months, to Delight of White Supremacists. If Congress Passes DACA Without Wall Funding, Will Trump Veto? Roger Algase

    Update, September 3, 10:10 pm

    POLITICO and other news outlets report on the evening of Sunday, September 3 that Trump has decided to end the DACA program with a six month grace period to allow Congress to pass its own version, something that Congress has refused to do in the past because of Republican opposition.

    Does the grace period mean that Trump would genuinely support Congressional action to enact DACA into law, or is it only a cynical ploy to try to hold Congress responsible for a decision to end DACA which Trump reportedly made after consulting further with his chief immigration adviser, AG Jeff Sessions?

    Sessions, as is well known, has long been bitterly opposed to most, if not all non-white immigration to the US. Less than 3 years ago, in his January 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, Sessions openly praised the same racist, "Nordics" only Johnson Reed immigration act of 1924 that Adolf Hitler also praised some nine decades ago in his infamous manifesto Mein Kampf.

    Richard Spencer, David Duke, and other white supremacists or neo-Nazis are going to be very happy with Trump's decision.

    For more on Sessions' reported role in Trump's decision, see the New York Times September 3 article:

    But suppose that Congress, against all expectations, does pass a DACA bill. Will Trump sign it into law, or would he threaten to veto it if the bill does not also contain funding for his Wall of shame, hatred and humiliation against Mexican, Latino and all other non-white immigrants?

    My earlier comments appear below.

    Update, September 1, 10:43 pm:

    A later POLITICO report on September 1 suggests that, rather than make a firm decision on DACA either way, Trump might hold off on a definite resolution pending possible Republican attempts to make a deal with the Democrats to give up their opposition to Trump's border Wall of Shame for America and Humiliation against Mexican, and by extension, all non-white immigrants, in return for a Republican agreement to preserve DACA.

    POLITICO quotes New York Rep. Joe Crowley, Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, as follows, with regard to such a deal:

    "I've said that I won't participate in blackmail and allow President Trump to hold these DACA recipients hostage."

    Would an agreement to accept one form of hate (i.e. Trump's border Wall) against minority immigrants in return for the president's agreement not to engage in another form of hate against minority immigrants, i.e. terminating DACA, really be the best way to protect all non-white immigrants against the president's white supremacist immigration agenda?

    Or would standing up against all forms of hatred and prejudice against non-white, non-European immigrants, whether in the form of ending DACA and dashing the hopes of 800,000 innocent young people for a future in America, the only country most of them have ever known on the one hand, or in the form of Trump's border Wall of contempt against the Latin American immigrants he so much despises be more effective and more in keeping with America's core spirit of equality and justice for all people regardless of race, color or religion?

    Update, September 1, 6:13 pm:

    The very latest report as of this writing, in The Guardian, is that Trump will announce his decision on DACA on Tuesday, September 5. Pressure on him from DACA supporters not to terminate the program is reported to be growing, including from Republican leaders. Either way, Trump's decision could be a major milestone in the record of his own administration, and in US immigration history in general. Its effect would almost certainly not be limited to the fate of the almost 800,000 young people directly involved, but would likely have major reverberations throughout the immigration system, including admission of legal immigrants as well as policies affecting unauthorized immigrants in general.

    Earlier reports also state that influential Republican leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch are calling on Trump not to end the DACA program, but to give Congress a chance to take action on it instead.

    On the other hand, Trump is also said to be listening to DACA opponents just as AG Jeff Sessions, who is reportedly warning Trump that if he tries to defend DACA, he may suffer a humiliating defeat in court. Based on the scholarly and well-researched law review article cited in my comment below, one has to ask whether Sessions' reported advice in this point is fair, objective or accurate, rather than dictated by his own long-standing anti-immigrant agenda.

    According to these reports, Trump may postpone a decision until this weekend, and is still insisting that he "loves" the DREAMERS and that they are "terrific" people. We may find out soon enough whether or not this means "tough love" (or whether Trump "loves" the Dreamers as much as he loves Sheriff Joe Arpaio).

    See the latest (as of this writing) POLITICO report at

    The Guardian's report is at:

    My earlier comment follows:

    Donald Trump is widely expected to announce the end of the DACA program today, Friday, September 1, in a move that would destroy the hopes, futures and careers of 800,000 young people, mostly from Latin America, who were brought to this country as children without any fault of their own and who have no real connection with any other country.

    No one seriously contends that these young people, many of whom are now students or entering professional careers (a few have even become lawyers) pose any danger to the United States. The only reason for destroying their careers and futures in the US (many of them would almost certainly be deported), is to advance the white nationalist goal of ending or drastically reducing non-white immigration to America and taking this country further back on the road toward the overtly racist "nordics"- only immigration act of 1924 which tried to (and succeeded in cutting off almost all immigration from outside northern Europe for the next four decades.

    Much of the media have tried to present Trump's much-publicized agonizing over whether to terminate DACA or not as some sort of epic struggle between his own "better instincts" and his "baser" need to accommodate his own white supremacist supporters or to bolster his image as being "tough on immigration". See, for example, the August 31 Immigration Daily editorial.

    Other commentators are focusing on the legal challenges which would arise in defending DACA in court, in view of the threatened lawsuit right after the Labor Day holiday weekend by 10 Republican state governors, and the fact that Trump's own attorney general, Jeff Sessions (who as a Senator, less than 3 years ago, openly defended the racist 1924 immigration act in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, - as I have frequently pointed out) has reportedly indicated that he would not favor defending DACA in the case of such a lawsuit. and there are unconfirmed suspicions that Sessions may be coordinating opposition.

    See Michael Tan, a Staff Attorney for the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project:

    However, with all due respect for the proponents of such views, it is appropriate to ask if the time has not now come to stop making excuses for Donald Trump and his agenda of hostility to immigrants of minority ethnic/religious backgrounds which has been apparent from the day that he first began his presidential campaign.

    This is not a post for political comment, but there cannot be any serious doubt that if Trump wanted to stand up to his white nationalist "base" supporters on this issue he could do so. Didn't he just fire Steve Bannon, his most prominent white nationalist sympathizing White House adviser? (Of course, Bannon was not the only one - Steve Miller is still working for Trump.)

    Trump has also not forgotten to do plenty of favors for his white supremacist supporters - Joe Arpiao has been pardoned, and Trump is threatening to shut down the government, if not (according to speculation) to destroy the entire world economy over the debt limit issue if Congress refuses to provide funding for his border Wall of contempt and humiliation against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants.

    Without going into full detail at this point on the legal issues involved, there is without question a legitimate argument that President Obama was making a valid exercise of administrative discretion when he promulgated the DACA program which Trump has, up to the present time, been continuing, in apparent opposition to the rest of his actions against minority immigrants, and to his great credit.

    It is by no means a forgone conclusion that the threatened lawsuit by the 10 Republican governors would succeed. Arguing that DACA would inevitably be struck down by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, in the event of a lawsuit before such a lawsuit has even been filed, belongs to the area of political debate, not serious legal discussion.

    For a comprehensive and well-researched legal analysis of DACA's validity as a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion (as opposed to the right wing media campaign to discredit DACA as an "amnesty" designed only as a "magnet" to "attract more illegal aliens" to the US) see the excellent discussion on this subject by a Temple University law student (now an attorney) Xiao Ming Hu, in the article:

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Prosecutorial Discretion: Legality, Policy and Foreign Comparison

    Temple International and Comparative Law Journal Vol. 28, No. 1 (2014), pages 27-52)

    Well, what about the fact that Trump's own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, the head of the DOJ, would almost certainly refuse to defend DACA in court? The answer is: who cares?

    Has it been that long since Trump fired another official in charge of the Justice Department, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, for refusing to defend his Muslim ban in court? If Trump were willing to stand up for DACA in court, what is there to stop him from firing Sessions (whom he recently threatened to fire anyway over the Russia investigation, when Sessions did the right thing by following the law in recusing himself, much to the president's openly expressed chagrin)?

    If DACA is terminated (or "grandfathered" out, as some commentators have suggested might be done instead), there will be only one person responsible to doing this: Donald J. Trump, the Chief Executive of the United States of America. And terminating DACA would only be the latest in a long series of his attacks on minority immigrants as candidate and president, beginning with the day that he began his campaign by demonizing Mexican immigrants, continuing with banning Muslim ones as president, and most recently, with his support for the RAISE act which would drastically cut down in non-European immigration; not to mention, of course, his continuing obsession with the Mexican border Wall of Shame.

    The only surprise would be if Trump somehow shows willingness to make the sympathy he has expressed for DREAMERs a continuing reality rather than just empty words, and can muster the courage and good will to take on the white supremacists with whom he made a Faustian bargain to win the White House with their support.

    Everyone who cares about basic human rights and racial justice in America must hope that DACA will somehow survive in the "Donald Trump Era". None of the reasons that many media commentators are putting forth for its anticipated demise makes any real sense; least of all the totally unjustified assumption that DACA has little or no chance of surviving a federal court challenge.
    Roger Algase is a New York lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world receive work visas and green cards.

    Roger practice includes both employment and family immigration, and is mainly concentrated in work visas through specialty occupations (H-1B) and extraordinary ability (O-1); and green cards through Labor Certification and through opposite sex or same sex marriage. Roger's email address is

    Updated 09-04-2017 at 09:13 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

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