ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Arguably, with all the restrictions and limitations on Trump's Muslim ban orders that have been imposed by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, one might say that the ban has now shrunk to the size where one could drown it in a bathtub.

    But, beyond the almost theater of the absurd technicalities of whether a given applicant for a visa or admission to the US is a grandparent, in-law or step-relative to a US citizen, and therefore either banned from or allowed to enter the United States during the next three months, one can also argue that Trump has already accomplished the main purpose of his ban, which is to demonize and stir up hatred against all Muslims as potential terrorists and fifth columnists including US citizens and permanent residents, as part of his drive to seize absolute power in the United States, just as another democratically elected leader (also with a minority of the popular vote) did in 1933 by using the Jews as his scapegoats.

    Of course the details of Trump's ban are important to people from the six Muslim countries who are seeking entry to the US, and to refugees from all over the world, many of whom are also Muslims.

    So, no doubt, were the details of the Nuremberg laws important to Jews of Germany in 1936.

    But all Americans need to go beyond the details of the president's ban orders and the minutiae of the court decisions regarding them, in order to focus on their larger purpose.

    In this regard, even though no one could reasonably accuse Trump of supporting genocide, extermination, or anti-Semitism, there are lessons from the 1930's period in Germany that no American who cares about preserving our democracy can ignore.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-06-2017 at 10:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The details are important of course, but the larger message behind the Muslim ban (which is the only accurate description of Trump's order) is threefold:

    1) Muslims, and by extension all racial/religious minorities, are fair game for discrimination and demonization in Donald Trump's America;

    2) The highest Court in the US, unlike the more courageous lower courts, is reluctant to stand in the way of the president's grab for absolute power over immigrants first, and then Americans next; and,

    3) The Supreme Court, at least for the time being, is willing to tolerate or turn a blind eye toward openly fraudulent, deceptive and bad faith arguments made by the administration in court in order to misrepresent the personal animus by the president against followers of a religion which he disfavors and holds in contempt.

    Yes, the above are strong words. Can anyone say in good faith that they are not justified?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-27-2017 at 11:59 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Interesting article. I am glad to see someone looking at our refugee program from different perspectives. I will add another one. Almost always a good idea when it comes to evaluating immigration policies.

    "
    What is the United States accomplishing with its refugee program?" http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?5...olan-Rappaport

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 06-15-2017 at 05:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by JDzubow
    I appreciate that perspective - and your article. However, it does not address the main point of my piece above, which is that the US government lied to the Supreme Court about the threat posed by Japanese Americans. Had that information been know, perhaps the Court would have ruled differently. Maybe not, but we will never know. The problem is when one branch of government (executive) effectively subverts another, it damages our democratic system and - in the case of Japanese Americans during WWII and Muslim Americans today - threatens our liberty. Take care, Jason
    You are right. I was reacting to more to Roger's comments than to your article. I should have been more careful about what I said.

    But I do have concerns about your article. i worked for the Intelligence and Analysis Office of DHS for two years as a policy advisor, which gave me a good understanding of our classified information system. The information involved in the decision making process for the Japanese internment was highly classified information, particularly while the war was going on. And the classified status would have continued until someone with the authority to do it declassified it. If that never happened, it could still be classified. I don't know.

    This means that anyone revealing the information would have been subject to being prosecuted for a serious felony, and if it is still classified, that is still true.

    I do not know the rules on what the gov't had to release to the courts or the supreme court, but I am absolutely sure that they did not release any more than they had to.

    In other words, you have produced evidence that information indicating that the internment wasn't justified was withheld, but I don't know why it was withheld or whether it would have been significant if all of the information the interment decision was based on was revealed. It might have been withheld because it was classified....or because it would have revealed the sources of the classified information.

    The bottom line is that our gov't, particularly our president, has to make decisions based on classified information that can't be revealed. And this is particularly true during a war.

    The following material was taken from Obamas Executive Order 13526 on classified information.
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...f/E9-31418.pdf


    d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is pre-
    sumed to cause damage to the national security.


    Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

    (a) Information may be classified at one of
    the following three levels:


    (1) ‘‘Top Secret’’ shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclo-
    sure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave
    damage to the national security that the original classification authority
    is able to identify or describe.


    (2) ‘‘Secret’’ shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure
    of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the
    national security that the original classification authority is able to identify
    or describe.


    (3) ‘‘Confidential’’ shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclo-
    sure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national
    security that the original classification authority is able to identify or
    describe.

    Nolan Rappaport
  5. JDzubow's Avatar
    I appreciate that perspective - and your article. However, it does not address the main point of my piece above, which is that the US government lied to the Supreme Court about the threat posed by Japanese Americans. Had that information been know, perhaps the Court would have ruled differently. Maybe not, but we will never know. The problem is when one branch of government (executive) effectively subverts another, it damages our democratic system and - in the case of Japanese Americans during WWII and Muslim Americans today - threatens our liberty. Take care, Jason
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    As I was writing the above, the news has just broken that the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld the lower court's order blocking Trump's six country Muslim ban order.

    In the brief summary of that decision which I have seen so far, the Court held that while the president's power to ban immigrants is extensive, it is not absolute.

    In other words, Donald Trump is a president, not a king, when it comes to immigration policy.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Please read the entire decision, including the dissenting views, before you decide whether to accept Roger's conclusion.

    Roger's comments on Trump remind me of the joke about the Pope's hat.

    The Pope is on a yacht fishing with Trump when his hat blows off and falls into the ocean. The Pope orders one of his guards to jump in a fetch it. Trump stops the guard and says, "Let me do it.' Trump then hops off the yacht and walks across the water to pick up the hat and then walks it back to the yacht.

    The next day, the news media reports, "Trump can't swim!"

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 05-25-2017 at 04:47 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For a different perspective on the Japanese internment, see my article, "Why did the United States put more than 70,000 Japanese American citizens into internment camps during World War II?" (July 21, 2016),http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?6...camps-during-W

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As I was writing the above, the news has just broken that the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld the lower court's order blocking Trump's six country Muslim ban order.

    In the brief summary of that decision which I have seen so far, the Court held that while the president's power to ban immigrants is extensive, it is not absolute.

    In other words, Donald Trump is a president, not a king, when it comes to immigration policy.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The lies being put forward by the Trump administration in support of its Muslim ban not only bring back the reminders of the infamous Korematsu decision, but also of the equally infamous Supreme Court Chinese exclusion case, Chae Chan Ping (1889) and the bigoted racial exclusion laws which were the basis of America's immigration policy at that time, and to which we owe the Plenary Power doctrine which the DOJ is relying on as hoped for protection against having the courts look into closely into the administrations argument to support the president's latest version of his Muslim ban executive order.

    The DOJ's arguments before the 4th and 9th Circuits that the Muslim ban somehow is not really a Muslim ban run so far afoul of the good faith requirement for government actions barring immigrants set forth by the Supreme Court in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), that, as I have suggested in my own recent ilw.com comments, they could arguably amount to a fraud upon the court.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-25-2017 at 02:32 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. JDzubow's Avatar
    Thank you for the comment - I will look for the article. I don't have a problem with enforcing the law, but I do think it is helpful for people to know what is going on, and there are a lot of rumors these days. Also, the idea that non-criminal asylum seekers should be detained is worrying many people. As far as I can tell, that is not happening, and even if there is more expedited removal, it should not happen (unless the ICE agents violate the law). Take care, Jason
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Jason, I understand your concern, but I think you are judging Trump against Obama's enforcement policies. Under Obama, ICE officers needed special permission to arrest a deportable alien who was not in one of the priority categories. Although Trump has enforcement priorities too, ICE officers are allowed to arrest any deportable alien they choose to arrest. I suspect ICE officers who haven't made many arrests of priority aliens will be padding their figures by arresting aliens who are not priorities.

    Is that wrong? Only if you think the immigration laws shouldn't be enforced, and many people do feel that way. Trump, however, is not one of them, and neither will the officials in his administration...if they don't want to hear, "You're fired!"

    But the situation actually is much worse than this policy change indicates. If you look at Trump's executive orders, you will see that he is going to use the full statutory reach of expedited removal proceedings, which will make it possible for him to deport millions of noncriminal aliens without a hearing before an immigration judge.

    I explain in more detail in an article I just wrote that the Hill is supposed to publish tomorrow morning.

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. JDzubow's Avatar
    I think the point of my article is that the EOs do very little. The rhetoric surrounding the EOs is designed to frighten people. Given the level of fear, I do not think it is a fair comparison to speeding tickets. Plus, many people who are not breaking the law in any way--such as many asylum seekers--are being terrorized as well. Thank you for the comment, Jason
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If by "terrorist tactics" you mean making people here illegally fear deportation, I think you are absolutely correct. That is what Trump is trying to do. But isn't that the objective of all law enforcement measures? Police ticket a small percentage of the people who drive too fast on the highways hoping to make the rest of the drivers afraid to speed for fear of getting a ticket too.

    Obama did the opposite. He gave the world the impression that once an undocumented alien has crossed our border and reached the interior of the country, he is "home free." He doesn't have to fear deportation unless he is convicted of a serious crime. For a more complete explanation, see my article, "With Obama's immigration legacy, Trump inherits 'home free magnet' (December 28, 2016),
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...erits-our-home


    Nolan Rappaport
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Muslims are not the only people being terrorized by Trump's executive orders.

    I am getting more than my share of calls from legal immigrants who are neither Muslims nor from the parts of the world affected by Trump's orders, but who are still terrified to travel outside of the United States for fear of not being able to get back in.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  15. JDzubow's Avatar
    I will publish a post about that shortly...
  16. Adam104's Avatar
    what happen to those who are already in the state seeking asylum does this have any effect on them ?
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If immigrant-hating Jeff Sessions, who is being opposed for confirmation by over 1,100 law school professors in every state in the union that has a law school (only Alaska does not), becomes the next Attorney General, as appears likely, opponents of all immigration from outside Europe who would like to return to the whites-only immigration patterns that existed before 1965 (which Sessions also wants to do according to his January 2016 immigration proposal to the 114th Congress), may soon be dancing over the corpse of America's entire legal immigration system.

    See my January 3 post:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9619-...G-Roger-Algase

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-05-2017 at 06:40 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Are pro-immigrant, non-white nationalist personnel at these two agencies gonna get purged? I'm thinking especially of DOJ with Jeff Sessions in charge.

    Just asking.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  19. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Jason, I don't think you understand the objection Trump has made to Syrian refugees. The FBI, DHS, and others have said that they can't do background searches in Syria. That means the we have no way of confirming anything they say. So long as that is the case, Trump is not going to let them into the country.

    Nolan Rappaport
  20. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Let's get right to the point and stop beating around the bush. The idea that refugees in general, or those from any particular country or part of the world are athreat to America is nothing more than racist nonsense, unsupported by any real facts.

    Yes, there will always be some isolated incidents of crime, as there are in any population group. But America has absorbed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees over the past few decades and we are stronger for it, not in greater danger.

    What is the real threat to America, and to democracy and freedom around the world? If there is anyone who doesn't know the answer to this, then wait until January 20, 2017, when we will begin to experience the full force and effect of our Russian-hacked 2016 election.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ory-russia-drc

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Tell that to the families of people in Europe who have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks. According to PEW, most Europeans blame the refugee crisis for the terrorist attacks that have spread across Europe. The refugee crisis is being blamed for the terrorist attacks in Europe (August 2, 2016), [COLOR=rgb(0.000000%, 0.000000%, 100.000000%)]http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0802-Rappaport.pdf [/COLOR]




    The latest was today when a terrorist drove a large truck into a crowd of people in Germany. You can explain to them that the number of terrorists is a very, very, very small percentage of the total refugee population. That will make them feel better.

    Nolan Rappaport
Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
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: