Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
The following statement by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is from a Huffington Post article which appeared almost a year ago, on November 20, 2015:
"Acutely aware of the consequences to Jews who were unable to flee Nazism, te United States Holocaust Memorial Museum looks with concern upon the current refugee crisis. While recognizing that security concerns must be fully addressed, we should not turn our backs on the thousands of legitimate refugees.
The Museum calls on public figures and citizens to avoid condemning today's refugees as a group. It is important to remember that many are fleeing because they have been targeted by the Assad regime and ISIS for persecution and in some cases elimination on the basis of their identity."
Is the above statement any less accurate now than it was a year ago?
The same article also quotes the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, a Jewish advocacy group, as saying:
"We cannot and should not blame [refugee] for the actions of an evil terrorist organization...The Jewish community has an important perspective on this debate."
The same article also quotes Georgette Bennett, the president of the Tannenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding and the daughter of Holocaust survivors, as saying that the opposition by US politicians to receiving Syrian refugees reminds her of the time when the St. Louis, a ship containing hundreds of Jewish refugees, was turned away by the United States and sent back to Europe, where many of the passengers subsequently died in Nazi concentration camps.
Today's politicians who are also looking for pretexts to turn away Syrian refugees, often with excuses which one historian, Peter Shulman, mentioned in my recent previous blog on this topic, calls "Eerily Similar" to the excuses used to turn away Jewish refugees in the 1930's, might need to do a little brushing up on their 20th century history.
There are many other Jewish organizations who, evidently, have a much better grasp of what is still recent American refugee history than do many of our elected leaders and candidates.
The Times of Israel reported on November 18, 2015 that there were 11 Jewish groups among the 81 organizations which sent a letter to Congress stating that:
"To turn our back on refugees would be to betray our nation's core values...It would serve as a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the United States makes judgments about people based on the country they come from and their religion."
Among the signatories to the letter were the Union for Reform Judaism, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the National Council for Jewish Women, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, all well known Jewish organizations.
Salon.com also reported on December 3, 2015 that over 1,000 American rabbis delivered a letter to Congress urging the admission of Syrian refugees. the letter said in part:
"In 1939, the United States refused to let the S.S. St. Louis dock in our country, sending over 900 Jewish refugees back to Europe, where many died in concentration camps...That moment was a stain on the history of our country - a tragic decision made in a political climate of deep fear, suspicion and antisemitism..
In 1939, our country could not tell the difference between an actual enemy and the victims of an enemy...let us not make the same mistake."
(Because of a technical system problem, I am not able to provide the links to the above articles at the moment. They will be provided as soon as possible.)
There was a time, of course, when our immigration laws did in fact overtly exclude people based on their country of origin and/or their religion.
I am not only referring to the infamous Chinese exclusion laws, which, as I and others have shown, still influence our immigration laws today, but also to statutes such as the Johnson-Reed immigration Act of 1924. As we all know, the "National Origin" immigration quotas in this law were expressly designed to keep out immigrants from the Middle East and Southern and Eastern Europe, including the countries where most of the world's Jews lived.
Is America heading toward a return to the dark ages of our immigration history by keeping out Arab immigrants because of their race and Muslim immigrants because of their religion, under the mantle of national security - an argument which was also used to keep out Jewish refugees in the 1930's, based on nightmare speculation not all that different from the type of arguments that are now being made against the victims of the Syrian tyrants, torturers and terrorists whom the refugees are risking (and in many cases, giving up) their lives to escape from?
If America is heading backwards in that direction, there are many Jewish organizations that know what racial and religious discrimination is all about, and which are saying:
Attorney at Law
Updated 10-25-2016 at 03:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 65.3 million people around the world have been forced from their homes as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations. This includes approximately 21.3 million refugees, more than half of whom are under the age of 18. On average, 24 people worldwide were displaced from their homes every minute of every day during 2015 – nearly 34,000 people per day. The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic accounted for more than half of the new refugees in 2015. There also were increases in refugees from Afghanistan, Burundi, and South Sudan.
The United States is not doing as much as it can to deal with this crisis. Under INA Section 207, the maximum annual number of refugee admissions is set by the President, and although section 207 requires a congressional consultation, it does not require congressional approval.
Sec. 207. [8 U.S.C. 1157] (a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in fiscal year 1980, 1981, or 1982, may not exceed .... (2) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest. ....
(b) If the President determines, after appropriate consultation, that (1) an unforeseen emergency refugee situation exists, (2) the admission of certain refugees in response to the emergency refugee situation is justified by grave humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest, and (3) the admission to the United States of these refugees cannot be accomplished under subsection (a), the President may fix a number of refugees to be admitted to the United States during the succeeding period (not to exceed twelve months) in response to the emergency refugee situation and such admissions shall be allocated among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States in accordance with a determination made by the President after the appropriate consultation provided under this subsection .
For FY2016, the Obama Administration initially proposed a refugee ceiling of 75,000 and held consultations with Congress on that proposal. This included an allocation of 33,000 for the Near East/South Asia, the region that includes Syria. The Administration subsequently announced that it had decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in FY2016, which set the FY2016 refugee ceiling at 85,000. When asked if that increase was sufficient, Hillary Clinton said, “Now, look, we’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II. And I think the United States has to do more. And I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000...” But even 65,000 would be a small percentage of the total number of Syrian refugees, so it is difficult to predict how high she would want to go. As President of the United States, she would have unlimited authority to increase the ceiling on Syrian refugees. It is not clear, however, that a large increase would be in our best interests or in the best interests of the refugees.
Although we could provide refuge to the entire population of Syrian refugees, our refugee program is not limited to providing refugees with a safe haven. According to Anna Crosslin, who has been honored as a White House Champion of Change for World Refugees, providing refugees with a safe haven in America is just the first step. We also must help them to thrive in the United States, not just to survive here, and self-sufficiency is an essential part of this. According to the following chart, which was prepared by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, 91.4% of the Middle Eastern refugees accepted by the U.S. between 2008 and 2013, received food stamps and almost 68.3% received cash welfare.
OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESSAnother problem is that the information needed to perform reliable background investigations on Syrian refugees is not available. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Syria. Consequently, we do not have access to on-the-ground intelligence in Syria. This has been confirmed by government officials who would know of such sources. For instance, an FBI Assistant Director has said, “The concern in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information... All of the data sets, the police, the intel services that normally you would go and seek that information [from], don’t exist.” A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official has stated that the government does not have access to any database in Syria that can be used to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records. And National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen has explained that, “the intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be... youcan only review [data] against what you have.”
The Administration has responded to these concerns by establishing a more elaborate screening process which takes between 18 and 24 months to complete. Frankly, I do not know how additional time helps if the sources being checked do not have the needed information. Moreover, the Administration has cut the processing time back to three months to meet President Obama’s goal of bringing 10,000 Syrian refugees here this year.
Published originally in Huffington Post.
About The Author
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive BranchImmigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the immigration counsel forthe Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to workingon the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twentyyears. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing andCollaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice asan immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.
Updated 10-24-2016 at 04:49 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
The following comment has been revised and expanded as of October 22, 11:24 am:
In the light of concerns expressed by a number of lawmakers, officials and commentators over the possibility that Syrian refugees seeking admission to the US might be infiltrated to or sympathetic to ISIS terrorists, concerns which one of America's most respected federal appeals court judges, Richard Posner has quite recently dismissed as "nightmare speculation" (see Exodus Immigration v Pence, 7th Circuit, October 3, 2016), it is instructive to examine some of the objections which were made to the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930's - objections which, in many cases, tragically, led to thousands of refugees who had been denied entry to America dying in Nazi concentration camps.
One of the best known of these victims was Anne Frank, the author of the famous diary which stands as a worldwide symbol of resistance to every form of persecution and repression. As recently related in an article about Anne Frank's step sister, Eva Schloss, who survived the Holocaust and is still alive today, their father. Otto Frank, made vigorous and extensive efforts to obtain a US visa for himself and his family, only to be turned down, along with many thousands of other Jewish refugees, some of whom, as Eva Schloss suggests about Anne Frank herself, might otherwise still be alive today.
Why were so many Jewish refugees from Hitler denied visas to the United States, or, like the doomed passengers on the famous ship St. Louis, sent back to Hitler's gas chambers and death camps?
One of the reasons was the unfounded, but widely suspected possibility of subversion. Case Western Reserve University Historian Peter Shulman describes this as follows in his FORTUNE November, 2015, article:
How America's Response to Syrian and Jewish Refugees is Eerily Similar
"Behind these numbers lay a toxic fear of Jewish subversion. For decades, Jews had been linked to various strains of un-American threats: socialism, communism, and anarchism, of course, but also, paradoxically, a kind of hyper-capitalism. Many believed that the real threat to the United States lay not from abroad, but within. During Franklin Roosevelt's administration, Jews held so many influential positions that New Deal opponents spoke of the 'Jew Deal'."
An exhaustive, detailed scholarly study of the mechanics of America's visa refusal and the forces behind the policy reasons that led to the denial of refuge in America to so many of Hitler's Jewish victims was published in CUNY Academic Works in 2011 by Barbara L. Bailin. See:
The Influence of Anti-Semitism on United States Immigration Policy With respect to German Jews During 1933-1939
I strongly recommend this outstanding research paper to any reader who has a serious interest in the subject of American immigration policy toward Jewish refugees in the period leading up to the Holocaust Nazi extermination, and who is not adverse to examining whether there is a comparison between that period and the situation facing Syrian refugees seeking to enter the United States today, as some highly qualified and reputable authorities are suggesting there is. See: New York Times:
Comparing Jewish Refugees of the 1930's With Syrians Today
Anne Frank Today Is a Syrian Girl
My next post will discuss the section of Ms. Bailin's study dealing with the widespread claim, which many Americans and their representatives evidently believed, that:
"German-Jewish Immigrants Were 'Infected With' Bolshevism and Held Radical Political Beliefs"
As will be shown in my next, forthcoming, comment, Bailin's article, among its many other unique and valuable insights into this topic, also describes in detail the approximately two dozen questions that Jewish refugees had to answer on their US visa applications. It also describes the difficulties of obtaining required affidavits of support in order to overcome the ultra-restrictive interpretation of the Public Charge provision of the law that US officials who were ideologically opposed to Jewish immigration, and in some cases, overtly anti-semitic, used in order to deny the great majority of Jewish refugee visa applications.
Her impressive study also describes documents which the refugees were often required to obtain from their Nazi persecutors in order to file their usually unsuccessful US visa applications.
But, some people might ask, what does any of this have to do with Syrian refugees today? Nicholas Kristoff, himself the child of a WW2 refugee, answers as follows in the second of the two New York Times articles cited above, the one dealing specifically with Anne Frank. He writes:
"Some readers are objecting: But Jews weren't a threat the way Syrian refugees are! (Original italics) In the 1930's and '40's, though, a world war was underway and Jews were widely seen as potential Communists or even Nazis. There were widespread fears that Germany would infiltrate the US with spies and saboteurs under the cover that they were Jewish refugees.
''When the safety of the country is imperiled, it seems fully justifiable to resolve any possible doubts in favor of the country, rather than in favor of the aliens,' the State Department instructed in 1941. The New York Times in 1938 quoted the granddaughter of President Ulysses S. Grant warning about 'so-called Jewish refugees and hinting that they were Communists 'coming to our country to join the ranks of those who hate our institutions and want to overthrow them.'...
The Times published a front page article about the risks of Jews becoming Nazi spies, and the Washington Post published an editorial thanking the State Department for keeping out Nazis posing as refugees...
A State Department official, Breckenridge Long, systematically tightened rules on Jewish refugees. In this climate, Otto Frank was unable to get visas for his family members, who were victims in part of American paranoia, demagogy and indifference."
Is there really such a difference between American attitudes toward Jewish refugees then and Syrian refugees now, especially since there have been few, if any, major crimes by the hundreds of thousands of refugees America has taken in for the past 40 years? See:
Many of the arguments we are hearing today against admitting Syrian refugees are, in the above words of historian Peter Shulman, "eerily similar" to those used in the 1930's against admitting Jewish ones.
Yes, the Syrian government has been on America's list of state sponsors of terrorism for many years, since long before there was such a thing as ISIS, which the current government is not connected with and which is fighting against that government.
Does this mean that Syrian refugees who are fleeing from the current brutal, Russian-backed Syrian government and/or its enemy, ISIS, are likely to be "definitely ISIS-aligned" as one of the two candidates warned at the October 19 presidential debate?
Was Nazi Germany a "state sponsor" of peace and harmony among nations in the 1930's and 1940's?
We also hear arguments, such as those coming from Republican members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, that our screening process for Syrian refugees is ineffective, because we allegedly cannot obtain information about them from inside Syria itself.
Even if this were true, despite that fact that military dictatorships often have very extensive records about their citizens, just as the Gestapo was never short of information about the Jews; and American officials must surely have access to Syrian government databases (if not, there are no doubt plenty of alleged Russian DNC hackers we should be able to hire to do that job for us), does this mean that our intensive process of personal interviews and biometric screening taking up to two years is worthless, that it produces no reliable information about the refugees (most of whom are women and children) at all?
The idea that the Syrian war criminals who have been bombing Aleppo into extinction (as the Nazis tried to do with Leningrad) and who have been accused of using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against their own people do not keep records or databases on their citizens would be laughable if the actions of the murderers and torturers in that government were not so horrible.
The US State Department says the following about the Syrian government's ability to obtain information and keep records about individuals in that country:
"Security personnel frequently place foreign visitors under surveillance. Hotel rooms, internet connections, and fax machines may be monitored. Taking photographs of anything that could be perceived as being of military or security interest may result in questioning, detention or confiscation of the images. Additionally, U.S. citizens should be aware that conversations on the topics of politics, religion and other social issues could lead to arrest."
Is information about refugees from inside Syria really entirely unavailable? True, Syrian government officials may not be all that cooperative about sharing their information with US government refugee screening agencies, so we might have to rely on Wikileaks instead.
But how cooperative would the Gestapo have been about sharing their information about Jewish refugees with US authorities in the 1930's, if America had been willing to accept them?
Are the above and other similar arguments for refusing to accept Syrian refugees anything more than the "nightmare speculation" that Judge Posner refers to above?
To the contrary, these arguments show signs of being a replay of the xenophobia and paranoia of the 1930's that denied refuge to many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Jews seeking refuge from Hitler's concentration and death camps, just as Anne Frank's family tried to do, only with Islamophobia instead of anti-semitism as the main motivating force today.
When it comes to attitudes toward Syrian refugees, there is good reason to believe that what we are seeing is DEJA VU from the 1930's all over again.
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 focused on work authorization through specialty occupation (H-1B) or extraordinary ability (O-1) employment; and on J-1 trainee visas as well as green cards through Labor Certification (PERM) and opposite sex or same sex marriage. His email address is email@example.com
Updated 10-22-2016 at 04:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
This is the second installment of my comments examining the comparison between America's refusal to date to accept more than a tiny number (10,000) of the millions of Syrian refugees who have fled the war criminals and torturers in the Russian-backed Assad dictatorship, and the ISIS jihadist murderers, both of which are racking their country with war, persecution and terror against that country's population on the one hand, and America's refusal to admit more than a small number of Jewish refugees from Hitler in the 1930's.
Admittedly there are those who object to making such a comparison, or even find it offensive. Legal scholar, immigration law expert and former Congressional immigration staffer Nolan Rappaport, for example, writes the following, in response to Part 1 of my comments in the October 17 issue of Immigration Daily:
"Hitler was trying to exterminate the entire Jewish race, and he succeeded in murdering 8 million of them. How is that similar in any way to the plight of the Syrian refugees?"
A simple and obvious answer would be the one given by Eva Schloss, the step-sister of Anne Frank, who was recently quoted in the Huffington Post (a publication that Mr. Rappaport also happens to be a contributor to - though that does not imply he agrees with their views) as follows:
"The fact is that six million people were not able to find refuge and were murdered....And that is what is happening to these people [Syrian refugees today]. They have to leave because their lives were threatened"
Mr. Rappaport undoubtedly knows a great deal about the Holocaust, and his views on this topic should be taken seriously and with great respect. But is he in a position to know as much about the Holocaust as someone who actually lived through it, such as Anne Frank's own step-sister?
Huffington Post describes the vain attempt of Anne Frank's and Eva Schloss' common father, Otto Frank (whom Eva Schloss' mother married after the war, when Otto Frank had returned from the Nazi concentration camps in which Anne Frank had died) to gain refuge for his family in the United States:
"Otto Frank, Anne's father and Eva's step father, spent months filling out the colossal amount of paperwork necessary to be granted asylum in America. He required affidavits of support from family already stateside. He wrote friends in positions of power. In the end, fueled by fears of "Nazi spies" being among the refugees. a fear very similar to today's claims of ISIS infiltrators among Syrian refugees, the US would deny his and thousands of others."
Huffington Post, in the same article, also asked Eva Schloss:
"Would your step sister Anne Frank be alive today if the US hadn't denied sanctuary?"
Schloss' answer was;
"Of course!...No doubt about it!
Eva Schloss, of course, is not the only Jewish person who is concerned about the Holocaust and who believes that it is not "offensive" to make comparisons to between Jewish refugees seeking entry to the US in the 1930's and Syrian refugees trying to do the same today. A June 25, 2015 article in the Forward, one of America's oldest and most respected Jewish newspapers, states:
"For Jewish activists pushing the government to shift gears [by admitting more Syrian refugees], that feeble number [less than 1,000 as of the date of the article] and the accompanying bottleneck in resettlement of Syrian refugees are troubling reminders of their community's own experience during World War II."
Mr. Rappaport also points to the fact that Syria has been on America's list of state sponsors of terror for almost forty years, since 1979 (even though Hezbollah, which Syria's support for was one of the main reasons for putting Syria on the list in the first place, is no longer on the US list of terrorist organizations itself.}
But even if Syria was a state sponsor of terrorism then, or even if Syria is still so now (since ISIS, of course, was not in existence forty years ago and it it is NOT a state organization or an organization supported by the current Syrian regime, as far as anyne knows), how does this distinguish the situation of Syrian refugees today from that of Jewish refugees seeking entry to America in the 1930's?
Was Nazi Germany a sponsor of world peace and cooperation among nations then?
In Part 3 of this series, I will examine the common elements of popular prejudice against Jews in general and Jewish refugees in particular, fueled in part by one of America's wealthiest and best known business tycoons, Henry Ford; and the prejudice against Muslims in general, and Syrian refugees in particular, which is being promoted by another well known wealthy businessman today, among others.
I will also show how these popular attitudes have led, then and now, to legal restrictions against refugee admissions affecting both groups, as explained by Holocaust scholar Peter A. Shulman of Case Western Reserve University, writing in FORTUNE.
How America's Response to Syrian and Jewish Refugees is Eerily Similar
To be continued in Part 3.
Attorney at Law
Updated 10-19-2016 at 01:56 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Senator Charles Schumer said that his Schumer-McCain immigration reform bill passed the Senate by a vote of 68-32. According to Schumer, in the next congress, the mainstream conservatives in the Senate and House, who are a majority, will say to the 50 congressmen on the hard right who seem to tie things in a knot, to go take a hike. Schumer, Clinton, and Ryan have all said that they will support immigration reform and some kind of international tax reform if it is tied to a large infrastructure program.
The Senate has passed two major immigration reform bills, but both were opposed by a majority of the Senate Republicans. On May 25, 2006, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611, with a vote of 62 yeas and 36 nays. Only 23 Republican senators voted for it; the other 32 Republicans and four Democrats voted against it. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, S. 744, with 68 yeas and 32 nays. This time, only 14 of the Republicans voted for it; the other 32 voted against it. As could have been expected, both bills were dead on arrival when they reached the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
I am only aware of one successful immigration reform bill that had such one-sided political support, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which was an extremely harsh Republican bill. Ironically, IIRIRA was signed into law as part of a larger bill by Hillary’s husband, Bill. Bill’s formalstatement at the signing ceremony explicitly acknowledged that he was in favor of strengthening the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration. The pertinent part of his statement reads as follows:
This bill, ... includes landmark immigration reform legislation that builds on our progress of the last three years. It strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system—without punishing those living in the United States legally.
The obstacle to comprehensive immigration reform today is that the Democrats and the Republicans have very different attitudes towards legalization. The Democrats believe that the 11 or so million undocumented aliens in the United States should have lawful status because they deserve it and it is the right thing to do. The Republicans, however, believe that the undocumented aliens are in the United States in violation of our laws and should be deported.
But there is a way around that deadlock, the wipe-the-slate-clean deal that was the basis for the passage of the last comprehensive immigration reform bill thirty years ago, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Faced with the realization that the 2.7 million undocumented aliens in the United States at that time were never going to be deported, which is just as true about the 11 million undocumented aliens we have now, the Republicans agreed to legalize the undocumented aliens who were already in the United States in return for an enforcement program and a secure border that would prevent a new group of undocumented aliens from taking their place. The Democrats got their legalization program but the promised enforcement program was never implemented and the border was never secured. By the beginning of 1997, the 2.7 million legalized aliens had been replaced entirely by a new group of undocumented aliens.
I believe that the Republicans would agree to the same deal now if they were assured that this time, they would get border security and interior enforcement before a legalization program is implemented. The problem is that the Republicans would never trust Hillary Clinton to implement interior enforcement and without interior enforcement, border security is impossible. Knowledge that an undocumented alien will not be deported once he has reached the interior of the country is a powerful magnet that will draw undocumented aliens here from all over the world. This would be particularly true of aliens who can come here under the Visa Waiver Program.
At a Democratic Presidential Debate on March 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton said that if she is elected, she would not deport any undocumented alien children and she would only deport undocumented adult aliens who have criminal records. As president, she would enforce the immigration laws humanely by focusing resources on detaining and deporting immigrants who pose a violent threat to public safety. And she is still making these promises.
Ironically, immigration reform would be possible if Donald Trump is elected. If he tries to carry out his promise to deport the 11 million undocumented aliens, which already has been whittled down to deporting the criminals “and then we’ll see,” he will come to the same realization that previous Republican leaders have faced. It can’t be done. The Donald, however, is a proud man and he sees himself as a great deal maker. I would expect him to view bringing the two parties together on a comprehensive immigration reform bill as a great challenge. Being an experienced businessman, as opposed to being a politician, I would expect him to look for a compromise that would meet the essential needs of both parties instead of trying to achieve an outcome that would advance the agenda of his party. And he could be counted on to implement enforcement provisions and secure the border. My prediction is that the outcome would be a second Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA of 2017.
Published originally in Huffington Post
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 10-19-2016 at 04:55 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs