Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
Revised Special Bulletin! - August 31, 10:15 am:
According to a Mother Jones story, at least four models have alleged that Donald Trump's company, Trump Model Management, brought them to the US to work illegally on tourist visas.
The same story alleges that Trump's company instructed at least one of the models to lie about her intended activities in the US at the time of immigration inspection, and that the company grossly exploited and took advantage of its models while they were in the US.
Some of the allegations against Trump's company mentioned in the story could constitute federal felonies, if proven (which they have not been).
If these allegations turn out to be accurate, what would that say about Trump's own credibility and qualifications to be America's Immigration Enforcer in Chief (or Hypocrite-in-Chief)?
What would they say about his character and fitness to be President of the United States?
The full Mother Jones story is at:
My original post follows:
The great debate over mass deportation and other immigration policy issues is continuing, with Donald Trump leading the hard line faction against another presidential candidate who is pushing for a "softening" on deportation and who also happens to be named Donald Trump.
We may find out more about who will win this debate when one of the Donald Trumps (or maybe both of them) gives what has been heralded as a major speech on immigration in Arizona on August 31. See:
As the above article shows, Trump is in a hard position - he needs to reach out to Latinos and other minority voters, but he cannot afford to antagonize his influential major boosters such as columnist Ann Coulter or Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who will denounce him as an "open-borders" or "amnesty" sell out if he favors sparing even one Latino or other non-white "illegal" immigrant in America from deportation.
For whatever it is worth, here is my prediction. Trump will talk about America's wonderful immigration heritage, about how immigration has made this country great, about all the benefits that America is continuing to receive from immigration, and about how much he "loves" immigrants.
Half way through his speech, Coulter, Sessions and many others in his hard line base may throw fits and have to be carried out from wherever they may be watching.
But then, I predict, Trump will say that our immigration system is "broken", that it is "flooded" with "illegals", "criminals" and "terrorists", and that the only way to "fix" it is to kick out 11 million unauthorized immigrants and close our doors to most, if not all legal immigration, until "we" (i.e. Trump himself) figures out "what the h--- is going on."
That, he will conclude, is the only way we can finally have an immigration system that will work, and make America "truly" great again.
If my prediction is correct, Trump's pitch will be not unlike what some conservatives are now saying about Social Security - that it is going bankrupt, and the only way to "save" it is to privatize it or to cut benefits to the vanishing point.
In other words, Trump might offer America a vision of a wonderful, really fantastic, immigration system, an amazing one such as America has never had before and that only Donald Trump can create for us.
The only downside is that it might be one that is almost without immigrants.
Anyway, this is one observer's prediction about Trump's immigration speech. If I am right, you read it here first. If not, well there are always plenty of other things to read.
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 email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 08-31-2016 at 12:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Recently, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA’) considered whether a search results page could serve as alternative documentation to dated copies of the posting on the employer’s website. In Matter of Spring Branch Independent School District, the employer sponsored the position of “Elementary (Pre-K-5th grade) – Bilingual (Spanish) Teacher.” The case was audited and the employer submitted a copy from its human resources job search page showing the position’s title, the salary, the position’s classification as professional, and that the role would have a probationary contract. No other information regarding the role was provided on this page. The Department of Labor (“DOL”) denied the case on the basis that the employer failed to provide copies of the website posting that included the language of the advertisement. In reviewing the case, BALCA noted that an employer may provide alternative documentation of its website positing beyond dated copies of the website listing. However, it also found the content of these advertisements must be provided so that the DOL can determine “whether the advertisement is for the occupation listed on the ETA Form 9089 and whether the advertisement was placed in good faith and the job was clearly open to U.S. applicants.” Consequently, the denial was upheld. While employers can use alternative documentation to prove that a position was listed on the employer’s website, the Hammond Law Group suggests that dated copies of the website posting that include the language of the advertisement be included in the recruitment report and in any response to an audit. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views Blog by Cadence Moore. http://www.hammondlawgroup.com/blog/
On August 8, 50 the New York Times reported that prominent Republican former national security officials, beginning with Michael Hayden, former director of both the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, and reading like a Who's Who of experts with long records of devotion to protecting the American people from harm, issued a letter stating that Donald Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president and that he would "be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well-being."
The NY Times article, with a direct link to the full letter of these distinguished public servants, can be found at:
Among the accusations that the fifty experts, all of whom stated that they would not vote for Trump this fall, made against him was the following, according to the text of the letter itself:
"He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."
If the above allegations have any merit, it would truly be frightening to install someone who meets that description in the White House, with all of the power of the US government, but without a belief in any of the restraints on this power enshrined in the Constitution.
But the letter gave no explanation or basis for the above experts' statement. Does that mean that it should be disregarded entirely as merely a collection of biased accusations by disgruntled people with failed policies who, in Trump's words as quoted in the same article deserve "the blame for making the world such a dangerous place."?
Or, to the contrary, is the statement that Trump appears to "lack belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws and U.S. institutions" based on statements and actions by Trump that are a matter of public record and are already well known to, or should be, by anyone who has been following this election campaign?
To answer this question, it is instructive to turn to a recent POLITICO Magazine article entitled: Trump vs. the Constitution: A Guide
This article, dated August 4, just a few days earlier than the fifty former national security officials' above letter, lays out in great detail, statement by statement, amendment by amendment, the ways in which Trump's proposals are totally opposed to the US Constitution and the democratic values that it stands for.
It is defies reason to suppose that these 50 distinguished Republican former national security officials were unaware of the these statements by Trump, or did not intend to refer to them when they issued their letter.
In this and forthcoming posts, I will discuss Trump's anti-Constitutional statements, as described in chilling detail in the above POLITICO article, further.
I will show why it is not only reasonable to assume that the above fifty experts, who devoted their careers to protecting America's security, must have had these statements (though not necessarily the actual POLITICO article itself) in mind when they issued their letter, but that it would make no sense to think that they were not referring to at least some of these statements by Donald Trump, with all of their mind-boggling implications for the future of our democracy if he is elected president.
I will begin with Trump's views on freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I will pass over Trump's by now notorious proposal to ban Muslims from around the world from entering the US solely on the basis of religion (more recently modified to target "terrorist" countries only, by which Trump obviously means Muslim ones). This proposal, arguably, violates both the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause and freedom of religion clause with regard to US citizens who wish to sponsor or invite Muslim immigrants (see the US Supreme Court opinions on Kleindienst v. Mandel, 1972)
POLITICO begins with Trump's threat to shut down mosques in the US itself. It quotes Trump as saying, shortly after the Paris attacks last November, with regard of American mosques:
"Nobody wants to say this, and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. We're going to have no choice. Some really bad things are happening."
One might also mention Trump's equally well known proposals to register Muslim-American citizens or conduct surveillance of them.
With regard to closing mosques, POLITICO comments:
"At its core, Trump's proposal would target a religious institution for sanction becasue of its members' adherence to certain beliefs. It's a textbook example of the kind of action expressly prohibited by the First Amendment - which protects religious liberty and and bans laws that would prohibit the 'free exercise' o religion. This is known as the Free Exercise Clause."
It goes without saying that upholding freedom of religion has been a major part of America's immigration history, at least from the time of the 19th century Know-Nothings who attacked Irish-Catholic immigrants for their alleged first loyalty to the Pope, if not even earlier.
Anti-Catholic prejudice in America was not fully laid to rest until John F. Kennedy, our first Catholic president, as elected in 1960.
In the early part of the 20th century, Jewish immigrants encountered widespread hostility and prejudice based on charges, inflamed in large part by another wealth and famous business mogul Henry Ford, that Jews belonged to an "international Zionist conspiracy" to take over America, and that they also has "Bolshevik" leanings.
In the 1930's, America's doors were almost entirely closed to Jewish refugees from Hitler's concentration camps, based on prejudices not all that different from the ones that are being used to bar all but the comparatively tiny (compared to other Western countries such as Germany) number of 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees from America today.
Some of Trump's supporters may argue that, in order to protect America from the threat of terrorist attack, it may be necessary to turn a blind eye to the US Constitution, at least where the rights of Muslim US citizens are concerned.
But that is not what these fifty national security experts are saying. They are saying in effect, that America's real national security depends on upholding the Constitution, not in undermining it. Can anyone who seriously cares about this country's national security disregard their expert, professional opinion, based on so many combined years, if not centuries, of devotion to protecting the safety of the American people?
I will turn to next topic, namely the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and the serious problems which Donald Trump has with that guarantee, in Part 2 of this series.
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 from various parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards, so they can contribute their talents and education to America's society and economy, and benefit from the freedoms guaranteed to everyone in America by the US Constitution.
Roger's email address is email@example.com
Updated 08-29-2016 at 09:20 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
The following post has been revised and expanded as of August 28 at 10:02 am.
Huffington Post quotes Donald Trump as saying the following on August 27 about criminal immigrants at a speech in Des Moines, Iowa:
"We are going to get rid of the [illegal immigrant] criminals, and it's going to happen within one hour after I take office...We will move justly, but we will move fast. Believe me.
Granted, this may not necessarily represent a reversal of his alleged "softening" on deporting non-criminal immigrants, as described in my two previous Immigration Daily posts.
But it is certainly in keeping with Trump's attempts to demonize Latino, Muslim and other minority immigrants as criminals and threats to America's security which have been his trademark from Day 1 of his presidential campaign over a year ago, when he first launched his attack on Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists".
But, even if one takes Trump's latest comment at face value, which would not be a great deal different from the Obama/Hillary Clinton policy of prioritizing violent or dangerous criminals for deportation, there is still a very disturbing element in Trump's remark which should cause great concern for anyone who cares about the survival of America's democracy.
This is his promise that deportations (of criminal immigrants) will happen "within one hour" of his taking office. Has anyone told Donald Trump that, unlike the practices of authoritarian leaders whom Trump has has some kind things to say about, such as Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un, here in America we have a quaint concept known as due process of law?
In his above statement, Trump said that "We will move justly."
What kind of justice is involved in deporting someone in one hour (unless, arguably, the person is already subject to a final deportation order)?
In America, even criminal immigrants have the right to a trial to determine if they really are criminals, and to a removal hearing in front of an immigration judge before they can be deported.
These proceedings are not completed "within an hour" in a democratic country. To the country, this is typical of dictatorships ruled by "strong men" of the image that Trump is trying so hard to project.
Trump's latest statement, therefore, is only ostensibly about which type of immigrants he would like to prioritize for deportation - an issue, which as pointed out above, Trump does not seem to differ on very much from President Obama or Hillary Clinton.
But underneath, it shows a deeply troubling contempt for, or at least lack of interest in, the legal procedures and rule of law on which America's democracy depends.
When this kind of statement is taken in the larger context of Trump's well documented record of supporting torture, restrictions on freedom of the press, violence against his political opponents by his supporters and by "Second Amendment people", retaliation against anyone who criticizes him, and a ban on members of an entire world religion from entering the United States, as well as registering US citizens belonging to that same religion, all as summarized by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post on August 26, see:
The Singular danger of Trump
then, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to avoid using the world "fascism" to describe Donald Trump's agenda and basic attitude toward government.
Milbank also writes:
"[Trump] claims an American-born federal judge can't be impartial toward him because of his Mexican heritage (he says the same thing about Muslim judges)...
Trump brought racism and paranoia into the mainstream with his 'America First' campaign and his leadership of the movement challenging Obama's American birth. He hesitated to disavow David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan...Trump has mocked Asian accents and the disabled. He has said 'half' of the 11 million illegal immigrants are criminals."
And as Milbank concludes in his above article:
"So how do we talk to children about Trump? We tell them what Holocaust survivors have told me: that what Trump is doing reminds them of 1930's Germany, and that grownups are not going to let that happen here."
And if it does happen here, as the American people will decide one way or the other on November 8, how much longer will Washington Post writers or any other critics of Donald Trump be able ro continue speaking out against him without fear of being sent to Guantanamo, which Trump says is a "fine" place for US citizens, not only foreign ones, to be tried?
Isn't that what fascism is all about? Under a Trump presidency, could Guantanamo become America's Dachau or Buchenwald for political opponents of the regime, not just, as at present, a holding (if not also torture) site for suspected foreign terrorists?
And would Guantanamo be America's only concentration camp for Donald Trump's critics and political opponents if he takes over the government next January?
Roger Algase is an 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 from various parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards. Roger's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 08-29-2016 at 10:13 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Donald Trump's tentative steps in the direction of "softening" his stand on mass deportation, as quoted and discussed in my August 26 Immigration Daily comment, have provoked a reaction ranging from anxiety to outrage from some of his most prominent hard line anti-immigrant supporters.
They may have every right to feel that they are being thrown under the bus (if not a whole fleet of buses, in keeping with his grand scale) by Trump's apparent adventure into the world of humanity and reality in the area of immigration policy. Their reaction is best summed up in the following headline posted bt Right Wing Watch:
Anti-Immigrant Right Racts to Trump's "Softening" With Anger & denial
As described in detail in the article, some of Trump's more "moderate" or "rational" anti-immigrant supporters, such as Dan Stein, head of FAIR (Federation for Immigration Reform) and Mark Krikorian of Center for Immigration Studies, are taking the line that there has been no real change in Trump's positions on immigration enforcement.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R- Alabama), one of the most vocal and influential anti-immigrant hard-liners in Congress, is also trying to put a "positive" spin on Trump's evident deviation from right wing "kick 'em all out" orthodoxy on unauthorized immigration.
However, Sarah Palin, one of Trump's early supporters, was a little more nervous about the prospect of being thrown under the bus, according to The Hill:
However, another Trump supporter, Ann Coulter, a bitter opponent of Latino, Muslim and other "third world" immigration, was not so willing to be thrown under the bus by Trump, according to the above cited Right Wing Watch article.
Neither was Rush Limbaugh. See:
Coulter, according to the above Right Wing Watch report, went from originally trying to put a positive gloss on Trump's possible change of heart on deportation to eventually using the most hated and insulting word about Trump's latest comments that any anti-immigrant advocate can conjure up - "amnesty"!
Donald, please be careful, you might be getting into some real trouble with your hard line anti-immigrant and white supremacist supporters.
Who will be next to hurl anti-immigrant invective against Trump from under the bus: Et tu, David Duke of the KKK?
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 from various parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards. Roger's email address is email@example.com
Updated 08-27-2016 at 05:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs