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. "Are you anti- or pro-Trump?" Could "extreme vetting" of immigrants destroy free speech rights for Americans as well? Roger Algase

    Only one or two days into the new Trump administration, there are already some very disturbing indications that the new president's campaign promise to conduct "extreme vetting" of immigrants seeking to enter the US on the basis of their overall ideology and adherence to "American values" not just security concerns, may already be moving America in the direction of thought control and one-man rule over American citizens as well.

    The Guardian reports that on January 19 (the day before Trump's inauguration) as a reported 3 million Americans were getting ready to exercise the free speech rights on which this country was founded and which are the essence of America, by taking part in women's marches demonstrating against our new president in US cities coast to coast on January 21, a group of 8 foreign citizens, six Canadians and two French nationals, was prevented from entering the US from Canada by the US Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) at a crossing near Champlain, New York, for refusing to support Donald Trump.

    The following is from The Guardian's story:

    "The group was up front with border agents, Dyck [one of the group members] said. 'We said we were going to the women's march on Saturday and they said: "Well, you're going to have to pull over."'

    What followed was a two-hour ordeal. Their cars were searched and their mobile phones examined. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their photo taken.

    Border agents first told the two French citizens that they had been denied entry to the US and informed them that any future visit to the US would now require a visa.

    'Then, for the rest of us, they said, "You're headed home today,' Dyck said. The group was then warned that if they tried to cross the border again during the weekend, they would be arrested."

    No, the above news story is not about people seeking to enter Vladimir Putin's Russia or Kim Jong Un's North Korea. It is about people coming to the United States of America in order to engage in free speech that is protected by the US constitution.

    But these eight foreign citizens were not the only ones turned away at that same crossing that day. The Guardian continues with a report about two foreign citizens, one from the UK and one from Canada who were seeking US entry to join the demonstrations:

    "After being questioned, fingerprinted and photographed Kroese [the UK citizen] and his Canadian companion were refused entry because they were planning to attend what the border agent called a 'potentially violent rally'. he said. The pair was advised not to travel to the United States for a few months, and Kroese was told he would now need a visa to enter the US."

    And this is not all. The same story relates the experience of Joseph Decunha, another Canadian who tried to enter the US to join the women's march against the new president, along with two American friends:

    "The group was brought in for secondary questioning, where the border agent asked about their political views. Decunha told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: 'The first thing he asked us point blank is, "Are you anti- or pro-Trump?"'

    The two Americans were allowed to enter, but the Canadian was turned back.


    Will this be the new test for foreign citizens seeking to enter the United States from now on?

    Yes, of course, America is a sovereign nation. If Congress wants to pass a law (or the president wants to issue an INA 212(f) decree, as he has the right to do) saying that only foreign citizens who hold their right arms straight up, click their heels and pledge undying personal loyalty to our new president can be allowed into the United States, there is nothing in our laws or constitution that would give a non-US citizen the right to challenge this.

    The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated this point in a long line of cases beginning with the Chinese exclusion law cases in the late 19th Century, as reaffirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), about which I have written previously in some detail.

    But if the United States adopts rules for foreign citizens coming into this country which are more consistent with an authoritarian society than the democratic standards which the founders of this country intended for America, how long will we, the American people, be able to maintain our own free speech rights?

    A chilling answer to this can be found in the charges filed against demonstrators who were actually arrested during the women's march. (not to be confused with the Alt-Right!) reports about the unusually severe felony charges, carrying up to 10 years in prison, that were filed against demonstrators who were arrested, and the abuses they received at the hands of the police.

    It is easy to make excuses for Trump. Yes, foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right of their own to come to the United States. Yes, violence of any kind at rallies, whether for or against Trump (and there have been both kinds) is impermissible.

    But the signs that repressing the freedom of speech (or religion) of foreign citizens who want to come to America go hand in hand with doing the same to the rights of American citizens are unmistakable.

    If we turn the other way in the face of abuses against the basic human rights of immigrants or foreign visitors, we should not be surprised if the freedoms we take for granted as Americans soon begin to disappear as well.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 01-23-2017 at 01:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Immigration Detention Destroys Essence of Human Beings, According to Leading 20th Century Philosopher's Concept. Roger Algase

    Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976) is considered by many scholars to have been the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, and one of the greatest of all time. Paradoxically, two other world famous 20th century philosophers, both of whom were Jewish, Emmanuel Levinas (1906 - 1995) and Hanna Arendt (1906 - 1975) were greatly inspired by his thought, and, intellectually speaking, might even be considered among his followers. For more on this issue, see:

    This was despite the fact that Heidegger never apologized for having been a member of the Nazi party during the entire period that Hitler was in power.

    Heidegger never specifically discussed issues of immigrant detention, but a scholar at the University of Southern Florida, Craig French, has shown how Heidegger's philosophy, when applied to immigrant detention, demonstrates that that incarceration of asylum seekers and other immigrants as a deterrent to unauthorized immigration has an even more profoundly destructive effect on the human personality than most people might realize. See:

    To lose one's home in the world: The injustice of immigrant detention.

    11 Journal of International Political Theory (2015)

    This issue is especially relevant in view of the large network of private, for profit, immigration prisons that has already been created under the Obama administration, and the threat by the new president, Donald Trump, to expand this network in order to incarcerate up to 2 or 3 million "criminal aliens" pending (or in lieu of) deportation.

    Expanding immigration detention in the US would also be consistent with Vladimir Putin's growing network of immigration "concentration camps" in Russia, as reported by The Guardian in August, 2013:

    French begins his discussion of Heidegger's ideas, as applied to immigration detention, as follows:

    "...I reconstruct an interpretation of aspects of the thought of Martin Heidegger, one that helps us articulate the nature of the injustice perpetrated by the detention and deportation system. The Heideggerian apparatus give us theoretical purchase on the existential depression and anxiety suffered by detainees."

    French continues:

    "This harm is not easily articulated by familiar liberal approaches to the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, which tend to concentrate on the violation of formal rights while neglecting the psychological and existential aspects of detention."

    Further on in his article, turning to the specifics of Heidegger's thought as applied to immigrant detention, after a discussion of Heidegger's basic concept of dasein ("being there", or "being/dwelling in the world") French explains:

    "...not only is the immigrant detainee transferred from politics to the police, in this transformation of the space of being at the hands of state power, the detainee is made homeless, existentially speaking. This is because the conditions of the detainee's detention make it impossible for him to dwell in the way that Heidegger indicates is centrally important to the human experience. Caught between worlds...confined...detainees are prevented from being able to project a stable sense of themselves into the future or to be with others...The detainee is, in other words, evicted from the house of being, which leads to his or her consumption by what Heidegger called anxiety.

    I refer anyone who may be interested in more details of the theories of a thinker whom many scholars regard as the greatest of all 20th Century philosophers, despite his wartime Nazi sympathies, as these theories can be applied to the injustices perpetrated against incarcerated immigrants, to the above article by Craig French.

    Hopefully, in deciding whether to expand immigrant detention or not, President Trump will be guided by the carefully thought out views of this National Socialist German philosopher, rather than the more superficial thinking of Trump's present-day American white nationalist supporters or advisers, who may share some of the racial ideology of the party that Heidegger once belonged to, but who have not shown any evidence of sharing in or understanding the profundity of his thought, at least when upholding and protecting the fundamental humanity of immigrants are concerned.
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtains work visas and green cards.

    Roger's practice is focused primarily on H-1B specialty worker, O-1 extraordinary ability and J-1 training visas; and green cards through labor certification and opposite or same sex marriage. His email address is

    Updated 01-22-2017 at 09:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. To control immigration, Trump needs to think outside the wall. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    If President-elect Donald Trump implements his first and most important campaign promise, a border wall may indeed reduce illegal crossings. But the new administration should know it takes more than a wall to secure the border.

    High walls make illegal border crossings more difficult but not impossible. Recently, more than 400 immigrants climbed over the 19-foot-high barbed-wire fence on the border between Morocco and the enclave of Ceuta, Spain. They make this illegal crossing to seek work or asylum in Europe.

    Illegal crossers climb over high fences on U.S. borders too. A video clip taken by a television film crew shows two suspected drug smugglers climbing over the border fence between Mexico and Nogales, Ariz., with large packs on their backs.

    Read more at --

    Originally published 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 the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twenty years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

    Updated 01-19-2017 at 11:36 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Which will win out, the H-1B restrictionist agenda, or Trump's new promise to prioritize skilled immigration? Roger Algase

    This post has been updated on January 18 as of 9:30 am in order to reflect a late breaking POLITICO story.

    POLITICO reports on the morning of January 18 that President-elect Trump, in a TV interview, has promised a more compassionate approach to immigration than mentioned during his campaign, including a merit-based system that gives priority to skilled workers. In Trump's words:

    "We're going to have great people and people of great talent coming into our country...And we're going to have a lot of heart, believe me."

    Trump specifically mentioned Silicon Valley companies who are moving to Canada because "they can't get the people they need...because we don't allow them into this country".

    If the new president follows through on this plan, that would radically conflict with proposals that two of his closest immigration advisors, Senator Jeff Sessions and Breitbart News chief Stephen Bannon, have made to limit or drastically reduce H-1B, or even legal immigration in general, in order to accomplish a major demographic change back to the pre-1965 past, disguised as protecting American workers.

    My original post appears below.

    Proposals to restrict H-1B visas, perhaps even to the vanishing point, are not new. Neither are they limited to only one of our two parties.

    As long ago as 2005, a Democratic Congressman, Bill Pascrell (NJ), introduced legislation (HR 4378), which, if it had become law, would have made drastic changes in the H-1B program in order to prevent it from, in Rep. Pascrell's words: "tearing down the labor standards" of American workers.

    Among the bill's provisions were the following:

    1) H-1B employers would have had to recruit American workers first.

    2) Placing H-1B workers at the site of a third party employer ("outsourcing") would have been prohibited.

    3) The annual limit for visas would have been fixed at 65,000 (eliminating the extra 20,000 visas for US master degree holders).

    4) The maximum number of years in H-1B status would have been reduced from 6 to 4.

    To be continued in a future post.

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

    Roger's practice is concentrated in H-1B specialty worker and O-1 extraordinary ability work visas, J-1 training visas, and green cards though labor certification and opposite or same sex marriage.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 01-18-2017 at 01:38 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Sanctuary cities have a new, cheaper way to help undocumented by Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel established in December a million dollar Legal Protection Fund for undocumented immigrants living in Chicago. It will help them get the legal assistance they are going to need when President-Elect Donald Trump begins his enforcement program. The money will make it possible for the Chicago-based office of the National Immigration Justice Center to represent 3,000 more undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings.

    This appears to be a growing trend.

    Point No. 4 in President-Elect Trumpís 10-Point Plan to Put America First calls for an end to sanctuary cities, which presumably will be done by threatening to withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate with his administrationís enforcement program.

    Mayor Emanuelís Legal Protect Fund may be a more effective way to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation and it should avoid that threat.

    Read more at --

    Published initially in 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 the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twenty years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

    Updated 01-17-2017 at 08:40 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: