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



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

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Supreme Ct. Muslim Ban Decision Could Allow Trump to Ban All Non-White Immigration Through "National Security" Executive Fiat. Roger Algase

    This post is updated as of 7:22 pm on June 30.

    Two recent developments, one, directly related to immigration, and the other dealing with foreign trade, show that the decision by a right wing 5-4 Supreme Court majority to uphold Donald Trump's Muslim Ban executive order is likely to have an effect far beyond the immediate objective of reducing immigration to the US by people who belong to a religion which America's current president doesn't happen to hold in very high esteem - just as other leading US politicians in the not at all distant past looked unfavorably on immigration by people belonging to Jewish communities of the world.

    The first is the report on the site vox.com that the Trump administration is planning a massive overhaul of the asylum regulations which would in effect make it impossible for Central Americans to receive asylum, and thereby make a major reduction in immigration by brown people from that part of the world.

    Just one example of the draconian new proposed regulations now reportedly in preparation would be to make anyone who is convicted of the misdemeanor of entering the US at any place other than an authorized port of entry permanently ineligible to receive asylum, no matter how strong the case for asylum might otherwise be.

    This might at first glance not seem to be so unreasonable. What is the point of having a system of legal entry points at all, if people can come in anywhere along the border that they choose, make an asylum claim, and then stay in this country during the entire time that the claim is wending its way through our legal system? If that is not the very definition of "open borders". what is?

    The only problem with this line of thinking is that the Trump administration has now closed the legal points of entry to asylum seekers and is telling them that the entry points are filled up to capacity and are not accepting any more people.

    This leaves no way that someone from Central America can enter the US to file an asylum case, despite a 2008 US law that allows them to do exactly that.

    And this is just one of many drastic changes in the asylum laws that the Trump administration is now planning to bring about by executive fiat, without going through Congress, to stop brown people from entering the United States with legal permission. For the full story, see:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...igration-trump

    No one should think for a moment that this latest attempt to cut off immigration from outside Europe is limited to asylum law. Trump's furious attacks on the current laws allowing extended family immigration, including his own mother, grandfather and, much more recently, wife's parents, as well as the diversity visa, because many of the beneficiaries of these provisions have darker skin color than his own relatives did, as well as his administration's assault on the Asian-professional friendly H-1B visa, show that the ultimate goal is ending most or all non-white immigration, not just this or that legal immigration category on one pretext or another.

    And how is this goal of returning America's immigration system back to the white supremacist one that America had before 1965 to be accomplished? This is what makes the Supreme Court's Muslim ban decision so dangerous.

    Obnoxious as it was, even the openly racist, antisemitic "national origins" immigration act of 1924 which Adolf Hitler claimed to be inspired by writing in Mein Kampf, and which Trump's AG Jeff Sessions (even though he is of course not in the least anti-Jewish - nor is Trump) also praised as a Senator in his immigration "Handbook" only 3 years ago, in January 2015, was passed by America's elected representatives in Congress through democratic procedures.

    But now, under the Supreme Court's Muslim ban decision, the door is now open for Donald Trump to go back to that bigoted, "Nordics-only" law, or something similar, and abolish the race-neutral immigration system that America has had, at least in principle, for the past half century, merely by declaring a "national security emergency" caused by an "infestation" of vermin and "invasion" by "animals" (to quote from Trump's own recent statements) who are not from "Countries like Norway" ( as per his January 11 statement at a White House meeting).

    Is this unthinkable, even from Donald Trump? Not at all.

    The New York Times reports that Trump is considering declaring a national emergency to stop certain Chinese investments in the US merely as part of his trade war.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/b...echnology.html

    If Trump can do this by executive fiat to stop investment from coming into the US using national security as a pretext, what can stop him from doing the same to stop people who have the "wrong" skin color or religion from coming to America in the same way?

    The Supreme Court has now given Trump a green light to do exactly that. Is there any reason to think that a president whose unspeakably cruel and inhuman "zero tolerance" family separation policy, even though it has officially been rescinded (and is being replaced by an almost equally brutal and sadistic "indefinite" family detention policy) is now being protested by thousands of outraged immigrants and Americans alike in, according to the latest reports, more than 700 cities and towns across America.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-supreme-court

    For an earlier report, see:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ion/742676002/

    will hesitate to accept the High Court's open invitation to run America's entire immigration system as an absolute dictator, accountable to no one but himself, rather than a constitutionally constrained chief executive of a democratic country, in order to carry out his white supremacist agenda?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com




    Updated 07-01-2018 at 08:15 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Ex-Clinton aide: 84 percent of Americans support turning undocumented immigrants over to authorities.


    Prominent Democratic pollster Mark Penn said on Thursday that a vast majority of Americans don’t really support so-called sanctuary cities that shield immigrants in the country illegally from deportation.


    Penn, who served as chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, revealed that 84 percent of Americans favor turning undocumented immigrants over to federal agents.

    “I asked them, ‘Do you think notifying ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] would in fact increase crime because it would inhibit people from reporting crimes or does it decrease crimes because it takes criminals off the street,’ and they overwhelming said ‘decrease,’ ” Penn told Hill.TV's “Rising.”


    Penn said the response was strikingly “out of sync” with what the public might think about sanctuary cities. The broad term refers to cities that don’t fully cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to turning over people in the country illegally to immigration enforcement.


    “When someone’s arrested, they expect someone will notify federal immigration authorities just as they would expect someone who violates state tax law will find out that they notified the IRS,” the pollster said.

    Read more at http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/394...er-authorities


    Published originally on The Hill.



    Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 06-29-2018 at 09:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. DHS Agents' Intimidation of ICE Whistleblower Who Quit to Protest Sessions' Lie Brings Trump's "Deportation Force" Closer to Gestapo. Roger Algase

    America is getting used to the growing use of fear, lies, and violence against immigrants on the part of Donald Trump's DHS "Deportation Force", most recently against 2,300 terrorized young children, many of whom may never see their parents again.

    With every passing day, comparisons between Trump's immigration "enforcement" apparatus and Hitler's Geheime Staatspolizei ("Secret State Police", more commonly known as the Gestapo) are, very arguably, becoming more relevant, if not already part of America's "New Normal".

    But the latest attempt by DHS agents to intimidate a former ICE agent turned whistleblower during a media interview at his home are disturbing indications that the basic rights and freedoms of American citizens, not only immigrants, are also in danger, as the Trump administration, which could more accurately be called "Regime", moves closer toward full blown fascism.

    CBS News reports the following on June 28 concerning an attempt by two DHS agents to intimidate an ICE whistleblower who resigned in protest against attempts by the agency to force him to lie about an Oakland, California deportation raid.

    https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...cbs-interview/

    "In his first television interview, former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesperson James Schwab has opened up about why he abruptly resigned in March. But his interview with CBS News' Jamie Yuccas on Wednesday was unexpectedly interrupted by agents identifying themselves as agents from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office."

    The interrupted interview related to Schwab's stated reason for resigning from ICE, namely his refusal to put out a statement which he know to be completely false by Attorney General Jeff Sessions relating to an ICE raid about which the mayor of Oakland allegedly warned that city's immigrant community in advance.

    At first, Schwab said, he was instructed to release a "spin statement" about the raid which was able to live with: CBS reports:

    "He [Schwab] helped craft a statement to the media saying 'Some of them [unauthorized immigrants] were able to elude us thanks to the mayor's irresponsible decision.' He was comfortable with that statement, he said, because it included the words 'some of'."

    But then, according to the report, Schwab was asked to lie:

    "A week later, Attorney General Jeff Sessions language was noticeably different. He said 'ICE failed to make 800 arrests' because of the mayor's statement. Sessions' words didn't sit well with Schwab.

    'Completely false...that made me extremely uncomfortable,' Schwab said."

    When instructed to disseminate this lie, Schwab resigned. CBS quotes him as follows:

    "I could not fathom staying at an organization that was OK with lying to the American public...In 17 years in the military, at the Department of Defense as a civilian, at NASA, and now, at Homeland Security, I have never been asked to lie."

    This background ultimately led to the surprise visit by two DHS agents at Schwab's home three months later during his interview about these events, as CBS News also reports:

    "During the interview at his home, some three months after he quit, Yuccas and Schwab were interrupted by a surprise visit from men who said they were agents from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office. He was 'completely shocked' to see them.

    Schwab said his conversation with the agents had to do with Oakland's mayor."

    After denying that he had ever had any contact with the mayor whatsoever about the raid, Schwab told CBS News that the visit from the DHS agents was "absolutely" an intimidation technique:

    "'Why, three months later, are we doing this?' Schwab said. 'This is intimidation. And this is why people won't come out and speak against the government."


    The CBS report concludes by saying that, according to Schwab, employees in other federal agencies who have reached out to him are also feeling too intimidated by the government to speak out about their own concerns.

    To be sure, unlike Nazi Germany, Schwab is not in danger of being sent to American versions of places like Dachau and Buchenwald for speaking out against Trump's Deportation Regime - yet. But, according to an increasing number of news reports, some of the conditions in which detained immigrants, including toddler-age children - are being held are starting to approach that description.

    This raises the question of what the significance of Trump's mass deportation agenda is for the American people. Is the point only that expulsions of brown-skinned unauthorized immigrants are not moving along as fast as some immigration commentators and analysts might think they should be?

    Or is there a deeper question at stake, namely whether, and for how much longer, America's democracy and the basic freedoms of American citizens such as this ICE whistle blower and anyone else who may oppose Trump's Gestapo-like Deportation "Task Force" or any other policy of this Regime can be expected to endure?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 06-29-2018 at 08:02 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Shifting Public Views on Legal Immigration into the United States

    by , 06-28-2018 at 01:11 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via Pew Research Center:





    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Media contact: Olivia O'Hea, 202-419-4372, oohea@pewresearch.org


    Shifting Public Views on Legal Immigration into the U.S.
    Many unaware that most immigrants in the U.S. are here legally

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 28, 2018) – While there has been considerable attention on illegal immigration into the U.S. recently, opinions about legal immigration have undergone a long-term change. Support for increasing the level of legal immigration has risen, while the share saying legal immigration should decrease has fallen, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.

    The survey finds that 38% say legal immigration into the United States should be kept at its present level, while 32% say it should be increased and 24% say it should be decreased.

    Since 2001, the share of Americans who favor increased legal immigration into the U.S. has risen 22 percentage points (from 10% to 32%), while the share who support a decrease has declined 29 points (from 53% to 24%).

    The shift is mostly driven by changing views among Democrats. The share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who say legal immigration into the U.S. should be increased has doubled since 2006, from 20% to 40%.

    Republicans’ views also have changed, though more modestly. The share of Republicans and Republican leaners who say legal immigration should be decreased has fallen 10 percentage points since 2006, from 43% to 33%.

    Still, about twice as many Republicans (33%) as Democrats (16%) support cutting legal immigration into the U.S.

    The new survey, which was largely conducted before the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border involving immigrant children being separated from their parents, finds deep and persistent partisan divisions in a number of attitudes toward immigrants, as well as widespread misperceptions among the public overall about the share of the immigrant population in the U.S. that is in this country illegally:

    Fewer than half of Americans know that most immigrants in the U.S. are here legally. Just 45% of Americans say that most immigrants living in the U.S. are here legally; 35% say most immigrants are in the country illegally, while 6% volunteer that about half are here legally and half illegally and 13% say they don’t know. In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, lawful immigrants accounted for about three-quarters of the foreign-born population in the United States.

    Most feel sympathy toward unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Nearly-seven-in-ten (69%) are very or somewhat sympathetic toward immigrants who are in the United States illegally. That view has changed little since 2014, when a surge of unaccompanied children from Central America attempted to enter the U.S. at the border. An overwhelming share of Democrats (86%) say they are sympathetic toward immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, compared with about half of Republicans (48%).

    Fewer say granting legal status to unauthorized immigrants is a “reward.” Just 27% of Americans say that giving people who are in the U.S. illegally a way to gain legal status is like rewarding them for doing something wrong. More than twice as many (67%) say they don’t think of it this way. Since 2015, the share saying that providing legal status for those in the U.S. illegally is akin to a “reward” for doing something wrong has declined 9 percentage points.

    Most Americans do not think undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit serious crimes.Large majorities of Americans say that undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. are not more likely than U.S. citizens to commit serious crimes (65% say this) and that undocumented immigrants mostly fill jobs citizens don’t want (71% say this). These opinions, which also are divided along partisan lines, are virtually unchanged since 2016.

    Most people who encounter immigrants who do not speak English well aren’t bothered by this. Most Americans say they often (47%) or sometimes (27%) come into contact with immigrants who speak little or no English. Among those who say this, just 26% say it bothers them, while 73% say it does not. The share saying they are bothered by immigrants speaking little or no English has declined by 12 percentage points since 2006 (from 38% to 26%) and 19 points since 1993 (from 45%).

    The survey was conducted June 5-12 among 2,002 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points for results based on the full sample.

    Read the report:http://www.people-press.org/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s


    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Olivia O'Hea at oohea@pewresearch.org or 202-419-4372.

    Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. Subscribe to our daily and weekly email newsletters or follow us on our Fact Tank blog.
  5. Failed GOP "Compromise" Immigration Bill Was Attack on Legal Immigration and Throwback To Racist 1924 Law Praised by Hitler and Sessions. Roger Algase

    Observers should not be fooled by all the media reports criticizing the Republican leadership (and Donald Trump) for allegedly being inept or ineffective in being unable to pass a so-called "compromise" immigration bill sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) which was voted down in the House on June 27.

    Instead of focusing in the Republicans' and Trump's supposed inability to get immigration legislation passed, it is more important to look at what was actually in the bill. Certainly, there was some relief for Dreamers, one of the two main groups of immigrants (separated children being the other, of course) whom Trump has been holding hostage to his attempts to dismantle legal immigration by people from countries which are not white "like Norway."

    There was also a provision prohibiting family separations - which Trump has already cancelled in an executive order after finally giving in to an outraged American public - including his own wife and every living former First Lady.

    But the "compromise" bill would not only have allowed fascist style indefinite family detention, but it also included the white supremacist wish list of abolishing the visa lottery, which has helped legal immigrants to America from all over the world, including what Trump calls the "shithole" countries of Africa, and ending immigration beyond the nuclear family.

    And of course, the failed bill would have included funding for Trump's border wall of hatred and humiliation directed not only against Mexican and Central American immigrants, but against all brown immigrant,s whom the president is now comparing to animals and vermin in speech after speech and tweet after tweet.

    The obvious purpose of both the diversity visa and family immigration abolition provisions is to make America whiter by moving our legal immigration system back toward the openly racist, "Nordics - only" national origins immigration act of 1924.

    In the light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' role in overseeing the brutal Trump-Miller-Sessions "zero tolerance" policy which tore more than 2,000 screaming young children away from parents who committed the major "crime" of entering the US while having the wrong skin color, (as well as the misdemeanor of entering at other than a - deliberately closed - official border crossing point), it can no longer be looked at as a coincidence that Sessions, as a US Senator, praised this same bigoted US 1924 law in his 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans that Adolf Hitler praised nine decades earlier in Mein Kampf.

    This Republican "failure", which of course was actually a huge success for everyone who believes that America should stay open to qualified immigrants from all over the world regardless of race or religion, is not just part of a phenomenon that began with Donald Trump.

    For most of this new century, if not before (including the 1996 IIRIRA - an entirely lopsided Republican bill which revisionists are now trying to blame on President Bill Clinton, who signed it with a Republican gun pointed at his head in the form of a rider to a "must pass" omnibus appropriations bill just before the presidential election) and at least since the Sensenbrenner bill introduced in 2005, the Republicans have been making one attempt after another to pass draconian anti-immigrant legislation attempting to cut off or reduce legal, not only unauthorized, immigration from non -white parts of the world.

    The only difference is that they now have their man in the White House. For more details on the failed Republican "compromise" immigration bill, see:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/27/175098...tion-bill-fail

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com

    Updated 06-28-2018 at 02:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Page 1 of 16 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: