ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. Right Wing Attacks on Trump for Failure to Insist on Border Wall Funding Confirm Wall as Symbol of Anti-Immigrant Racism. Roger Algase

    Update, March 26 as of 4:00 pm:

    For a report on more radical right wing invective against Donald Trump, who is arguably the most extreme right wing president America has had since Calvin Coolidge, mainly focusing on the border wall issue, see:

    My original comment follows:

    Ann Coulter, Fox News commentators and other leading figures on America's far right blasted Donald Trump over the weekend for signing an omnibus spending bill that contains virtually no funding for his long promised Mexican border wall. Coulter, with her characteristic lack of restraint, called the Congressional Republicans "swine" for supporting the spending bill, and tweeted that Trump should be impeached.

    Fox News Hosts Laura Ingraham and Dean Hannity also joined a host of other familiar right wing figures in condemning Trump for, among other things, failing to insist on wall funding as a condition for signing the bill.

    So far as appears in news stories about the wall, experts agree that the wall is useless and unnecessary as a security measure, especially with illegal Mexican border crossings reportedly now at record lows.

    Indeed, even among commentators who believe that reducing illegal immigration is of prime urgency, there is a respected school of thought which argues that internal enforcement is more effective than increased border measures in general.

    Therefore, what can account for the fury of familiar right wing names such as Counter, Ingraham and Hannity, not to mention Drudge and Limbaugh, who are normally among Trump's strongest supporters on immigration policy?
    Does the lack of funding for the border wall mean that America is about to receive a big new influx of "dangerous" illegal immigrants compared to present levels?

    No one is making any such argument seriously. To the contrary, the right wing rage against Trump's inability to date to persuade Congress to agree to provide more funding for his wall (and not through lack of trying on his part) shows the importance of a wall as a symbol of hatred and rejection of Latino and other non-white immigrants in general.

    This is hardly any secret to people like Coulter, who has written an entire book, Adios America, arguing that admitting Latino and other immigrants of color, could in effect, lead to the destruction of America. There is certainly no lack of other comments on the far right by public figures, such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who, in effect, argue that preserving America depends on preserving what they see as the fundamentally white, European character of American society - a doctrine which is also vociferously maintained by openly white nationalist figures such as the ones who lead the notorious rally in Charlottesville which Trump was so reluctant to condemn.

    And despite all of the talk about the wall as an alleged means for combating illegal immigration, it is clearly meant by its proponents to be symbol of rejection of legal immigration as well.

    Indeed there is a strong argument that in the Trump era, the entire focus of the anti-immigrant movement has shifted away from stopping illegal immigration to stopping or reducing non-white immigration in general, legal and illegal.

    See also Dara Lind's perceptive article in

    Building a border wall is a symbol of this shift, and that is why Trump's failure to obtain Congressional for funding this wall is creating so much fury among his right wing supporters.
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 30 years, Roger's practice has been concentrated in skilled and professional immigration, including H-1B, Labor certification and other employment and family-based work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is

    Updated 03-26-2018 at 03:01 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Trump Threatened Spending Veto, Putting Harming Immigrants Ahead of Respecting Democracy and Keeping Government Open. Roger Algase

    Update, March 23, 2:18 pm:

    The latest news report is that Trump has thought better of his original threat to veto the omnibus spending bill and has, albeit grudgingly and reluctantly, signed the bill. This is yet another sign that standing up to presidential intimidation and threats on immigration is a good policy to follow.

    My earlier comment appears below.

    In yet another indication that taking vindictive measures to hurt and humiliate Latino and other mainly non-white immigrants is more important to him and his agenda than following the spirit of democracy and avoiding a federal government shutdown, Trump has threatened, as of this writing on the morning of Friday March 23, to veto a bipartisan compromise spending bill passed by both Houses of Congress on Thursday, because the bill doesn't include as much money as he wants for hurting and humiliating mainly Latino and other non-white immigrants.

    Specifically, Trump is reportedly angry because the bill doesn't include more funding for the Mexican border that would be a 30 foot high symbol for his frequently expressed hatred and contempt for Mexican and other immigrants of color, including but not limited to Muslims and immigrants from African and Caribbean "shithole" countries, to use his own phrase.

    Trump is reportedly also upset because the spending bill doesn't include more money to hire ICE agents to arrest immigrants or build more prions to lock them up in.

    By vetoing the spending bill, Trump would also make a mockery of what he claims to be his own priorities for the American people - defense spending, infrastructure and many other non-immigration programs in the compromise bill which would help, or even in some cases, be essential for, millions of Americans, including millions of his own voters who put him in office.

    But for America's 45th president, the welfare of the American people, and their will, as expressed through a bipartisan bill passed by their own democratically elected representatives, apparently means little or nothing. It is true that Trump also mentioned the bill's failure to include DACA protections as one of his objections, but considering that he is the one who caused the DACA problem himself by cancelling President Obama's initiative, this argument is less than totally convincing.

    Promoting Trump's agenda of anti-immigrant hatred comes first, it seems, Ueber Alles (as they used to say in Germany during WW2).

    For more details, see:

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 03-23-2018 at 01:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. 179 Deaths in ICE custody from 2003 to 2018

    by , 03-23-2018 at 08:16 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    There have been 179 deaths in ICE custody from October 1, 2003 to February 19, 2018.

    Via Capital and Main:

    Capital & Mainís new project, Deadly Detention, is intended to give names and faces to undocumented immigrants who have died in federal detention, and to explain how they met such sad fates in the country most had come to in search of better lives. It is a counterweight to ICEís secrecy and comes as the Trump administration expands an already sprawling detention system to accommodate the growing number of immigrants caught up in its deportation surge.

    Click here to view their interactive map.
  4. Democrats Were Right to Refuse Deal Over Trump's Demagogic Wall Symbol of Anti-Immigrant Hatred, White Supremacy and Dictatorship. Roger Algase

    Update: 5:45 pm, March 22:

    Dara Lind writes a perceptive article in on March 22 pointing that it may not only be the Democrats who are "reining" Trump in on his vindictive anti-immigrant agenda, with his demands for not only his border wall of humiliation and contempt for Mexican and other non-white immigrants, but for hiring more ICE arresting agents and building more prison space for immigrants; but that the Republicans may be getting tired of Trump's anti-immigrant agenda too, or at least tired of enabling it through a spending bill.

    My original comment appears below.

    In some previous comments, I have been critical of the Democrats for not fighting harder to include protection for Dreamers in the latest budget deal which has been reportedly agreed to by Congressional leaders in both parties, even if this meant agreeing to funding for Donald Trump's border wall. The final version of the spending bill, according to the latest report, includes little if any money for the wall.

    It also includes no protection for the Dreamers. This has been presented as a big defeat for Trump, who had, again according to news reports, had at one point threatened to veto the funding bill unless it contained more wall money, and was also reportedly offering the Democrats a DACA deal in exchange - apparently without his previous condition of requiring draconian reductions in non-white family immigration and elimination of the Africa-friendly diversity visa lottery.

    Why do I now believe that the Democrats did the right thing in refusing any such deal? To answer that question, here are a couple of hypothetical questions:

    1) Suppose that a US president (not Trump - he is not in the least anti-Jewish) were to offer full protection for Dreamers, including US citizenship, in return for tearing down the Statue of Liberty and building a huge swastika in its place.

    2) Or instead, suppose that a different president, again, not Trump, were to offer protection for the Dreamers in return for agreement to a law cancelling Martin Luther King's birthday as a federal holiday and declaring that day as "Dred Scott Day" instead, in honor of the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision declaring that people of color were legally inferior to white people and could never become US citizens.

    What Senator or Representative in either party, or immigrant advocate of any variety, in his or her right mind would ever agree to either of the above hypothetical proposals, no matter how much one might genuinely care about the Dreamers and their future?

    But the motivation behind Trump's border wall is essentially the same as the motivation would be behind the above two hypothetical proposals. No analyst or expert that I am aware with has claimed that Trump's wall is necessary for any genuine security purpose. At bottom, it is nothing more or less than a symbol of anti-immigrant hate and white supremacist demagogy.

    Trump has made this clear in numerous statements about the wall. Moreover, the wall is also a symbol of dictatorship. From the moment that he first called for wall construction in June 2015 in a speech attacking Mexican immigrants in general, legal as well as illegal, as "criminals", "rapists" and drug dealers, to his March 13 speech last week at the Mexican border implying that drug cartels are all that Mexico has to offer to the US (in addition, of course, to the MS-13 gang), Trump's wall proposal has become a symbol of hatred and contempt against not only the people of Mexico, but against all Latin-American and other non-white immigrants.

    During his campaign, Trump admitted as much himself, when he attacked Judge Curiel, an American-born jurist of Mexican parentage (who had previously distinguished himself by fighting against Mexican cartels) as allegedly biased against Trump because Trump wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border.

    Regarding Trump's March 13 trip to look at border wall "prototypes", the Sierra club issued a statement accusing Trump of "pushing an agenda...rooted in injustice and racism."

    But this is not the only objection to Trump's border wall.

    From the time that the epic poem Gilgamesh praised the walls of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Uruk more than 4,000 years ago; and including Virgil's praise of the altae moenia Romae ("high walls of Rome") in his tribute to Rome's first imperial autocrat, Augustus, 2,000 years ago; up to the wall that Hungary's autocrat, Victor Orban, has recently been constructing to keep African and Middle Eastern refugees out of his country, boundary walls have almost always been the symbol of authoritarian rule, not democracy.

    One invariably thinks of the Communist Berlin Wall and the Nazi Warsaw Ghetto Wall of extermination in our own very recent time.

    Is this the right image to define what America means in the 21st Century? The Democrats were right to say no to Donald Trump about the wall.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 03-25-2018 at 11:53 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. NLRB Ė Employers Canít Threaten Deportation in Response to Employees Going to Court

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    The Division of Advice for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reviewed the actions of EZ Industrial Solutions, LLC in relation to their employeesí participation in the ďDay Without ImmigrantsĒ national protest on February 16, 2017 and EZís response - threatening to suspend employees on February 15, 2017, thereafter discharging eighteen employees on February 17 in retaliation for their support of the ďDay Without ImmigrantsĒ national protest, and threatening to report discharged employees to ďimmigration services.Ē The Division of Advice concluded both actions were in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In this article, I will focus on the threat related to immigration.

    After EZ fired employees for engaging in the national protest and filed a charge with the NLRB, its Assistant Manager had breakfast with one of the discharged employees. The Assistant Manager inquired about the employeesí charge, the identification of the lawyer helping them, and where they went for help. The employee did not respond. The Assistant Manager then advised the employee that the owners of EZ had good lawyers and that ďthey wanted the employees to go to court so they could throw them out by immigration.Ē The employee responded that the owners were bad for wanting to hurt the employees in that way.

    The Division of Advice concluded the Assistant Managerís threat regarding the employeesí immigration status in response to their charge filed with the NLRB violated Section 8(a)(4) of the NLRA. ďPreserving and protecting access to the Board is a fundamental goal of the Act, as reflected in Section 8(a)(4).Ē The Assistant Managerís explicit warning that the employees were placing their immigration status in jeopardy if they took EZ to court violated Section 8(a)(4) because such a blatant threat about deportation would dramatically affect the employeesí willingness to continue to seek protection under the NLRA.

    After the Division of Adviceís decision, EZ agreed to settle the matter with the NLRB. This is the second recent NLRB case where labor law and immigration law have interacted. Thus, when determining immigration compliance issues, itís helpful to seek the input of your labor and employment attorney.
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: