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. Former CIA Chief: Trump's Muslim Ban Undermines U.S. National Security. Roger Algase

    In an August 5 NY Times op-ed, Michael J. Morell, a former CIA Acting Director whose career at the agency spanned 33 years, who served under presidents of both parties and has voted for candidates of both parties according to his article, delivered a devastating critique of Donald Trump's qualifications to be in charge of America's national security. See:

    Regarding Trump's proposed plan to bar Muslims from entering the US, Morell writes:

    "...Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job [of president] but he may well pose a threat to our national security...

    Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist barrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.

    In fact, many Muslim-Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most respnsible for keeping America safe since the September 11 attacks."

    Morell also stated that Trump's connection with Vladimir Putin and support of Russian interests over American ones made Trump an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation" and that, among other things, his "lack for respect for the rule of law", suggest that "he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief".

    Some people are still obsessing over the alleged threat to American security that would result from President Obama's plan to admit a tiny trickle of 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States, even though nearly all of them are only fleeing from the brutal Putin-backed Assad dictatorship and the horrors of ISIS terror.

    Based on Morell's article, might there not be a much greater potential danger to our national security awaiting us at the ballot box this fall?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-05-2016 at 11:05 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. BALCA Overturns Denial After Using a ‘Totality of the Circumstances’ Test

    The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”) recently overturned a denial after considering whether the employer had established by the totality of the circumstances that recruitment conducted for a position sponsored through labor certification demonstrated that the position had been open to U.S. workers. The employer sponsored the position of “Preschool Teacher” for labor certification. In drafting the Form 9089, the employer stated that the minimum education requirement was a “foreign equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree.” The Certifying Officer (“CO”) denied the case on the basis that the position was not open to U.S. workers because “by definition, a foreign degree equivalency requirement makes it impossible for most U.S. workers to qualify for the job opportunity.” The employer appealed the denial and stated that the position’s actual education requirement was a Bachelor’s degree or foreign equivalent. In reviewing the case, BALCA noted that it most consider the content of the employer’s recruitment efforts, not the content of the Form 9089. In addition, it specified that a totality of the circumstances test would be applied to establish whether a position was open to U.S. workers. BALCA stated that the recruitment for the position noted that a domestic Bachelor’s degree would be acceptable and determined that no U.S. worker was rejected for possessing a domestic Bachelor’s degree only. Consequently, it determined that the position had been open to U.S. workers under a totality of the circumstances test and overturned the denial. This case provides information regarding the legal standard that will be used to determine whether a position sponsored through labor certification is open to U.S. workers. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views blog by Cadence Moore.

  3. Did Melania Trump Commit Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase

    Update: August 5, 2:07 pm:

    My hypothesis below, based on a POLITICO article which I discuss in detail reporting that Melania Trump might, allegedly, have worked as a model in the United States illegally with a visitor visa and then, admittedly based on conjecture rather than firm proof, might have have been forced to tell a series of lies in subsequent visa and immigration applications in order to avoid having them denied, all depends on the answer to one simple question:

    What kind of visa did Melania Trump use to come to the United States in 1995 when she worked as a model and posed for the photos which appeared in a recent edition of the New York Post? Was it an H-1B visa which would have allowed her to work, thereby leaving her with a clean immigration record of compliance with our laws at all times?

    Or was it a visitor visa
    which would not have allowed her to work and therefore might, conceivably, have been obtained by misrepresenting her intended activities in the United States?

    Hopefully, in order to clear up this question, Melania Trump will provide the naked truth about her visa history as soon as possible.

    Update, August 4, 12:40 pm:

    According to an August 4 Huffington Post story (available on their website), Melania Trump has denied ever having broken any US immigration laws, but she has still not said what kind of visa she was in the US with in 1995, when she allegedly worked in this country as a model, as evidenced by nude photos reportedly taken of her that year which have recently been published in the New York Post.

    My original post follows:

    Donald Trump has promised to enforce our immigration laws to the letter and to deport everyone who is in violation of these laws in any way, without exception. He has also proposed to eliminate H-1B work visas, either as a matter of law, or for all practical purposes by imposing a requirement that any employer wishing to sponsor someone for H-1B would have to hire American workers first. See the POLITICO report below.

    However, while Trump carries out these draconian enforcement proposals, would he also be sharing the White House with a First Lady who worked in the United States with the same H-1B visa that Trump now sees as such a dire threat to American workers, and who, according to the following August 4 POLITICO report, may have allegedly committed visa fraud by previously coming to the US with a B-1/B-2 visitor visa in order to work?


    POLITICO: Gaps in Melania Trump's immigration story raise questions

    According to this story, Melania Trump allegedly told reporters that, during the period 1995-1996 she was working in the US with a legal H-1B visa for models. However, she also allegedly stated that she returned to Europe every few months to renew the visa stamp.

    As POLITICO points out, an H-1B visa is normally valid for 3 years and can be renewed for at least 3 more years (sometimes longer, if the person has a pending green card case) without leaving the US.

    However, if the person only has a visitor visa, then she would normally have to leave the US every few months, either to get a new visa, or to enter the US with the same visa but with a new passport entry stamp.

    Therefore Melania's alleged statement is more consistent with her holding a B-1/B-2 visitor visa than an H-1B visa.

    And here is the problem: a B-1/B-2 visitor visa does not allow the holder to work in the United States. And if someone applies for or enters the US with a visitor visa while intending ro work in this country, then that action would constitute visa fraud,, something which could make the person inadmissible to the US and deportable if she is already here.

    I am sure that the Trump campaign will be eager to provide further details about Melania Trump's immigration history, along with more examples of Donald Trump's dedication to enforcing our immigration laws to their fullest extent, and without any exceptions, even if this, allegedly, includes applying them to a fellow occupant of the White House.

    And if Melania Trump did in fact commit visa fraud by allegedly misstating her intentions when applying for a visitor visa and using it to enter the US, perhaps on several occasions during the above time period, did she reveal this relevant and important fact when she later applied for and received her her H-1B visa, and, subsequently, green card and US citizenship?

    That is another interesting question which her husband's campaign will no doubt look forward to enlightening us on sooner rather than later.

    I also want to make clear that nothing in the above POLITICO story proves that Melania Trump in fact applied for, received or used a B-1/B-2 or any other visitor visa at any time. This is only an inference based on the circumstantial evidence of her own reported statements about her immigration history during the 1995-1006 period.

    No doubt, further information about this story will be coming from the Trump campaign in due course.

    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more that 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards.

    His practice is concentrated in H-1B specialty occupation and O-1 extraordinary ability work visas, J-1 training visas and green cards through labor certification and opposite sex or same sex marriage.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 08-07-2016 at 09:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Trump Hits New Low In Attacking Parents of Slain Muslim US Soldier. Roger Algase

    Update, August 1, 4:30 am:

    Here are some excerpts from the reply of Ghazala Khan, an immigrant from Pakistan and a Gold Star mother, to Donald Trump's insulting comment about her decision not to speak while standing next to her immigrant husband at the Democratic National Convention during his speech about the ultimate sacrifice of their son, Humayun Khan, who came to America with his parents when he was 2 yeas old:

    "Donald Trump has asked why I did not speak at the Democratic Convention. He said he would like to hear from me. Here is my answer to Donald Trump: Because without saying a thing, all the world, all America, felt my pain. I am a gold star mother. Whoever saw me felt me in their heart...

    I cannot walk into a room with pictures of Humayun...Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could? Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?

    Donald Trump said that maybe I wasn't allowed to say anything. That is not true. My husband asked me if I wanted to speak, but I told him I could not...

    When Donald Trump is talking about Islam, he is ignorant. If he studied the real Islam and Koran, all the ideas he gets from terrorists would change, because terrorism is a different religion."

    Ghazala Khan's full remarks were posted as an op-ed in the Washington Post on the morning of July 31. See:

    Update, July 31, 8:33 pm:

    Perhaps the best comment of all in response to Trump's insulting remarks directed at the grieving immigrant parents of a brave Muslim American soldier, who gave his life for our country while serving in Iraq, is the following tweet by Meghan McCain, daughter of Vietnam War hero and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain:

    "I would ask what kind of barbarian would attack the parents of a fallen soldier, but oh yeah it's the same person who attacks POW's."


    Update. July 31, 11:32 am:

    The 1st century Roman writer and philosopher, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (who also became a tutor and adviser to the emperor Nero - which ultimately cost Seneca his own life), wrote the following about the effects of anger in his famous essay De Ira ("On Anger"):

    dum alteri noceat sui negligens

    ("[Anger] hurts someone else while giving no thought to oneself.")

    The following news stories in The Hill about Donald Trump's latest attack on the immigrant parents of a Muslim US solder who gave his life for America could well be an example of how Trump has been so anxious to lash out against and demonize minority immigrants that he may be hurting himself most of all.

    The following is my original post:

    By now, America has grown used to Donald Trump's attempts to demonize Muslims from around the world as "terrorists" and "haters of America", and to bar most, if not all, of them from entering the United States based on their countries of origin, if not on their religion itself.

    But in a jaw-dropping extension of his verbal assaults against all members of one of the world's major religious groups, rather than just focusing on the relatively few who actually are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and are highly dangerous to the safety of the American people, Trump has now attacked the immigrant parents of a Muslim American soldier who gave his life for this country.

    In response to a moving speech at the Democratic convention by Khizr Khan, the immigrant father of US Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004, Trump questioned why the mother of the dead soldier, Ghazala Khan, stood silent next to her husband on stage during the speech.

    The obvious implication was that Mrs. Khan had remained silent because Muslims allegedly discriminate against women. If Trump genuinely cares about the status of women's rights in the Muslim world, there are many ways and places to have that discussion other than attacking the religion (or "culture" - a favorite buzzword used by bigots of all stripes and persuasions these days against groups they oppose) of the immigrant parents of a soldier who died fighting for America,

    Not surprisingly, Trump's comment, once again, has received wide condemnation from leaders inside and outside the party that he now leads, including a spokesperson for House Speaker Paul Ryan. Also not surprisingly, Ghazala Khan herself has now spoken out against Trump, saying that she had been silent because she was in pain, not because of her religion. For the full story, see:


    Trump also gave his rival Hillary Clinton, not widely regarded as a great speaker, an opportunity to sound not only humane
    but even eloquent. Here is her statement, as reported by The Hill above:

    "I was very moved to see Ghazala Khan stand bravely and with dignity support her son on Thursday night. And I was very moved to hear her speak last night, bravely and with dignity, about her son's life and the ultimate sacrifice he made for his country."

    Clinton added:

    "This is a time for all Americans to stand with the Khans, and with all the families whose children have died in service to our country. And it is a time to honor the sacrifice of Captain khan and all the fallen. Captain Khan and his family represent the best of America, and we salute them."

    Bravo, Hillary! Donald Trump, are you listening? Which one is speaking for the real spirit of America?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-01-2016 at 03:33 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Wss Roman Expulsion of the Jews a Preview For Trump's Mass Deportation? Roger Algase

    This post will continue my July 20 comments examining the expulsions of the Jews in ancient Rome as a possible historical precedent for Donald Trump's plan to expel to 12 million Latino, Asian and other non-European immigrants from the United States. The following discussion is based on an April, 1994 article by Leonard Victor Rutgers in Classical Antiquity Vol. 13, No.1 (p.56-74) entitled Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E.

    The author first discusses the expulsion of the Jews under the emperor Tiberius in 19 C.E., as follows:

    "Various authors relate how in 19 C.E. Jews as well as worshipers of Isis were expelled from Rome."

    (Of course, "Isis" in the above passage refers to the goddess Isis who was worshiped in Egypt and many parts of the Middle East in ancient times, not to the inhuman terrorist organization which has been carrying out savage killings and mass murders of other Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe, the Middle East and South Asia 2,000 years later!)

    Rutgers first examines the argument raised by some ancient historians that the Jews might have been expelled for religious reasons, just as Donald Trump originally proposed banning all of the world's Muslims from entering the US purely on religious grounds, regardless of whether there was any reason or not to suspect that any given individual might have terrorist connections. Rutgers writes:

    "Dio, [the ancient historian Dio Cassius] by contrast, is very explicit as to why he Jews were expelled from Rome: Jews were proselytizing on too large a scale. Although this explanation is straightforward, it is nevertheless not very plausible."

    Neither, one might comment, is the often heard 21st century accusation that Muslim immigrants want to "impose Sharia Law" on the United States very plausible.

    After examining various arguments by ancient historians that the Jews may have been trying to convert Roman citizens to Judaism in large numbers, or that there many Romans who might have been looking to Judaism for spiritual guidance, Rutgers writes:

    " is simply impossible to maintain that in early 1st century Rome conversions to Judaism were taking place on a large scale; nor, more important, can one tell whether Roman authorities thought such conversions were actually taking place."

    Rutgers then goes on to mention, and refute, another possible explanation for the motives that might have led to the expulsion of the Jews

    "Another explanation for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 19 C.E. favors political over religious concerns. The evidence for this thesis, however, is even more scanty than for a religious one. H. Solin, unsatisfied with Josephus' explanation of the event [as motivated by religious persecution] designated the Jews of Rome as a 'staendiges Ferment der Unruhe' [constant source of unrest], but he does not ofer any evidence of this. There is no such evidence in the ancient sources."

    Instead, Rutgers attributes the theory that the Jews might have been a source of social or political disturbances in 1st century Rome to mid-19th century German anti-semirism, as expressed in the following passage which Rutgers quotes from Law Professor Theodore Mommsen'sfamous 1850 work Roemische Geschichte [History of Rome]:

    "Auch in der alten Welt war das Judentum ein wirksames Ferment des Kosmopolitismus und der nationalen Dekomposition usw."

    Since the above quoted statement by Mommsen is, if anything, even more offensive than Donald Trump's bigoted characterization of the millions of Mexican immigrants he has pledged to deport as "criminals" and "rapists", I will leave it untranslated.

    (It is no credit to the history of the Nobel Prize that Mommsen received that award in 1902 for the above work containing this kind of virulent anti-semitism - which was also being promoted by the great operatic composer Richard Wagner around the same time as Mommsen wrote, and which was later to have such a great influence on Adolf Hitler.)

    Rutgers also very carefully and thoroughly demolishes an attempt by another modern commentator M.H. Williams, to use the great Roman writer, lawyer and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero as an authority for concluding that the Jews of Rome in the early 1st century A.D. were a potential source of disorder or a threat to public safety:

    "Cicero, it is true, depicts the Jews of Rome in his
    Pro Flacco as a disorderly lot, but his remarks are not trustworthy. In other defense speeches, Cicero discredits non-Jewish opponents using exactly the same kind of expressions he applies to the Jews on this occasion.

    The same writer continues:

    It is obvious, therefore, that Cicero's negative comments on the Jews of Rome are rhetorical devices too stereotypical to be of much evidential value. In addition, even if these comments are correct, they predate the events of 19 C.E. by some eighty years."

    Since the Jews were, in fact, not engaging in activities that were likely to offend the religious sensibilities of the non-Jewish Roman majority, and they were not a threat to public safety according to any reliable contemporary evidence, why were they expelled from Rome in 19 A.D.?

    Rutgers offers the following explanation:

    "Williams suggests, furthermore, that the real reason why the Roman Senate expelled the Jews in 19 C.E. was to suppress the unrest caused by a deficiency in Rome's corn supply that same year. This cannot be proven, as she herself suggests, but the suggestion certainly has its merits.

    He continues:

    "It was quite common for the Roman authorities to expel easily identifiable groups from Rome in times of political turmoil. Such expulsions were ordered not for religious reasons, but to maintain law and order.

    And then the above author asks, in conclusion:

    "Why, for example, were
    the Jews chosen to be expelled for reasons of law and order? What had the Jews done to interfere with the law? How would an expulsion of Jews (as opposed to any other group in the city populace) have aided the reestablishment of law and order? One simply cannot tell."

    In the case of the 12 million Mexican and other non-white immigrants whom Trump has promised to deport, his defenders point to the fact that they are in the United States without legal permission, and therefore conducting mass deportation would purportedly merely be a matter of upholding the immigration laws.

    But is this a sufficient answer? Are these millions of immigrants, even if in this country without authorization, really a threat to public safety, especially in view of a Judicial Watch study cited in one of my recent posts showing that "illegal immigrants" in the US have a lower crime rate than American citizens?

    How much respect for the law and for basic human rights would there be in sending Trump's police state "Deportation Task Force" which Senator Ted Cruz, himself no defender of illegal immigration, has condemned as "jackboots", to conduct midnight raids across America, tear millions of American citizen spouses and children away from their husbands, wives or parents; while locking millions of unauthorized immigrants, most of whom are hardworking, taxpaying and contributing members of society, up in concentration camp like "detention centers" pending expulsion from this country with minimal, if any, chances to assert their legal rights in court?

    Just as historians are unable to answer the question of what real benefit there was to Roman society in the 1st Century A.D. by expelling the Jews, other than the apparent political advantage to the governing class of making a targeted ethnic-religious minority immigrant group scapegoats for food shortages or other economic or social problems which may have existed at the time. it would be instructive to hear Donald Trump explain what real benefit there would be to America by expelling 12 million Mexican and other minority immigrants, a far greater number of people than the number of Jews expelled from ancient Rome, other than his own political advantage in exploiting long-standing prejudice and hatred.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-24-2016 at 06:26 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

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