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



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

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

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. Will President Trump Disappoint White Nationalist Supporters on Immigration Policy? Part 1. Roger Algase

    Update, November 16, 9:34 am:

    White nationalist leader and former Harvard Summer School Asian language teacher Jared Taylor, whose detailed and painstaking analysis of presidential election popular vote loser Donald Trump's announced immigration policies from a white supremacist perspective is introduced below, and will be continued in more detail in Part 2 of this series, is reportedly very happy with Trump's appointment of Alt-Right Breitbart News Editor Stephen Bannon as Trump's chief strategist and senior adviser. The website quotes Taylor as follows:

    "I hope that Stephen Bannon will help encourage President Trump to keep the promises the Candidate Trump made...the single greatest threat facing whites is mass immigration of non-whites into white homelands."

    The same site also quotes Taylor as saying about Trump:

    "To me, and in general to 'racial dissidents such as myself, it's his positions on immigration and naturalization and citizenship and taking a very hard look at whose coming into the country that are of interest to me..."

    According to the same report, Taylor stated that he hopes Bannon will help set a White House agenda of not only deporting undocumented people en masse, but ending birthright citizenship and cutting even legal immigration "way back." See:, in the same story, also reports that Bannon's appointment has been hailed by the American Nazi Party and the KKK.

    In a November 13 article (before Bannon's appointment was announced), the prestigious and internationally respected German magazine Der Spiegel wrote the following about Trump's comments about immigrants and minorities during the campaign:

    "Trump had no ideas, but he sensed that the [white] left-behinds yearn for strength. After Barack Obama's victories, the pundits said that no US election could be won without the Latino vote. But Trump gave the Latinos a big [unprintable words omitted], insinuating that the left-behinds are superior. His words were as crude as those spoken in Germany 80 years ago."

    Update: November 15, 11:38 am

    In an extremely dangerous and disturbing development for the future of immigration in America, Trump has appointed Brietbart News Editor Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist and adviser. The Hill describes Bannon's views as follows:

    "The website [Breitbart News] supports nationalist movements wherever they arise...

    Bannon admires right wing nationalists and hard line illegal immigration opponents in Europe and elsewhere...

    'He definitely recognizes populist nationalists around the world.'...

    The new Breitbart Paris website will campaign aggressively to help Le Pen get elected as the next president of France...

    Critics have called out Breitbart's intense focus on crimes committed by blacks and people in the country illegally."


    The fact that Trump has appointed someone with these views speaks volumes about what his own views may be on race relations in America, including immigration. Could America, in just four (or eight) years undo a half century of progress we have made as a nation toward racial justice and equality, both on immigration and on civil rights in general?

    Could we be moving as a nation toward an Apartheid America?

    My original post follows:

    The following is a revised and expanded version, as of November 14 at 10:25 am, of my comments which were originally posted on the evening of November 13:

    These comments are not concerned with whether anti-immigrant white nationalist organizations or leaders played any role in turning out enough white votes to give President-Elect Donald Trump his margin of victory in the electoral college (since he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by some 2 million votes).

    Nor are they concerned with questions such as whether or not Trump may see himself as being under an obligation to reward these groups for helping him to win the election by adopting their anti-immigrant policies. I will leave those questions to the political pundits, who write on sites other than this one.

    These comments will only examine the similarities and differences, if any, between Donald Trump's stated immigration policies and the immigration agenda of the white nationalist movement as announced by one of its own leaders.

    I will also examine whether these leaders might or might not have reasons to be disappointed with Trump's actual immigration plans as announced after the election.

    As an example of white nationalist policy objectives regarding immigration, I will refer to one avowedly white nationalist (though, according to Wikipedia, he calles himself a "white advocate" instead - see below) Trump supporter and who has articulated white nationalist immigration policy objectives with some precision and detail.

    The figure I am referring to is Jared Taylor, editor of a now defunct magazine called American Renaissance. Taylor, according to his Wikipedia biography, is a confirmed believer in the inherent superiority of whites compared to black people (while also believing, again according to Wikipedia, that white people are less intelligent than East Asians). See:

    Taylor was born in Japan to American missionary parents and grew up in Japan. In the United States, he has worked as a news editor at the Washington Post, (hardly a white nationalist outlet) and also taught Japanese to summer school students at Harvard University, not exactly known as a hotbed or center of white nationalist ideology.

    Somewhere along the line, as described in the above Wikipedia extract, Taylor became a believer in white racial "uniqueness" if not actual superiority. His views about how immigration policy should have the goal of serving or promoting what he sees as the interests of the white race are set forth in his August 20, 2015 article in American Renaissance entitled: Is Trump Our Last Chance?

    Taylor begins:

    "Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.

    Donald Trump's new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait and switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says that we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration 'pause' until every American who wants a job gets one."

    Then, in an explicit description of how he believes that immigration policy should serve what he sees as white interests, he states:

    "But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops with every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and is likely to be 72 per cent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance - perhaps their last best chance - to elect a president who would help them rather than hurt them."

    And, further down in his article, Taylor has this to say:

    "Actually looking at the pros and cons of immigrants could open the door to looking at the pros and cons of different groups of people. White, high I.Q. English-speaking people obviously assimilate best, and someone in a Trump administration might actually say so."

    And he concludes:

    "There will never be another campaign like this one. If Mr. Trump loses, this could be the last chance whites have to vote for a president who could actually do something useful for them and their country."

    What are the specific immigration policies that Jared Taylor seems to believe would be appropriate to serve what he sees as white interests?

    As his article makes clear, they are virtually identical to Trump's own stated immigration policies as they were formulated at that time, almost 18 months ago, at the beginning of his campaign, and were not substantially changed (except for the addition of the now apparently abandoned worldwide Muslim ban) right up through the election itself.

    I will go through Taylor's list and discuss his comments about Trump's specific proposals to see how, in Taylor's view, each one supports his white nationalist agenda, in Part 2 of these comments.

    In Part 2, I will also examine Trump's post election announcements concerning his possible modifications in these plans to see if Taylor and his fellow white nationalists might have reasons to be disappointed in any of Trump's latest immigration policy proposals, such as, for example, his plan to round up and deport "only" up to 3 million "criminal illegal aliens".

    In contrast, I will also look at some of Trump's other recent immigration policy proposals, such as "extreme vetting" of all visa applicants, to see if they might be a white nationalist's dream come true (and a nightmare for immigrants and all Americans who support our democratic principles of equal opportunity for all without regard to race, color or religion).
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work permits and green cards.

    Roger knows a few basic sentences of Japanese, but is not proficient in that language, never having studied under Jared Taylor. Roger's email address is

    Updated 11-16-2016 at 08:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Court Upholds OCAHO’s Penalty Finding

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Buffalo TRansaportation.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	8.4 KB 
ID:	1139

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Buffalo Transportation, Inc. v. USA upheld the penalties assessed by the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO). Previously, OCAHO found Buffalo Transportation, Inc. (BTI) violated the Immigration Control and Reform Act by committing 135 substantive violations and assessed a civil penalty of $75,600.

    In its appeal, BTI contended 54 of the 135 violations were technical, rather than substantive, violations. For these 54 violations to be dismissed, BTI would have to be successful in their appeal and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have to not give BTI 10 days to correct the technical errors.

    The issue before the Court was whether OCAHO correctly determined that the 54 Form I-9s presented to ICE were not prepared within three days of the employees’ hiring date. Under the applicable regulation, an employer must prepare an I-9 form within three days of hire and failure to do so is considered a substantive violation.

    In determining this issue, the Court applied deference to OCAHO’s interpretations of the relevant regulations regarding the timing of when I-9 forms must be prepared. After applying the appropriate deference, the Court stated OCAHO correctly determined there was no evidence that any of the I-9 forms were timely prepared; rather, the 54 Form I-9s were prepared after ICE delivered its Notice of Inspection to BTI.

    BTI also asserted it should have been given a warning notice rather than a penalty. However, the Court noted it is within the discretion of ICE to do so and in this case, ICE declined to use their discretion to issue a warning notice. Thus, the Court could not order ICE to issue a warning notice.

    Additionally, BTI argued it kept copies of the employees’ documents reflecting work authorization which shows substantial compliance. The Court noted the regulations clearly do not allow retention of these documents to relieve the employer from completing section 2 of the I-9 forms.

    Finally, BTI argued the amount of the penalties was arbitrary. The Court noted OCAHO considered the statutory factors and ability to pay and reduced the penalties accordingly. The Court concluded OCAHO made an “allowable judgement” in determining the penalties and it would not and could not substitute its judgement.

    This decision is consistent with most other court of appeals’ decision which uphold OCAHO’s findings and the assessment of the penalties.
  3. Protecting Free Speech for Americans is Crucial to Protecting Immigrants' Constitutional Rights. Roger Algase

    Update: December 9 at 9:34 am:

    Donald Trump is now reported as attacking Time Magazine for calling him "Person of the Year", instead of "Man of the Year". I have a better suggestion: How about:

    "Anti-Immigrant Demagogue of the Year"

    What else got him elected (as our first popular vote loser president in 16 years)?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Update, 6:39 pm November 11:

    According to the latest report, Trump has now completely changed his initial tweet in order to show respect for the protesters, rather than to threaten them.

    The new tweet is very reassuring for those who are hoping that America will still be a country where dissent is tolerated. It goes beyond that: it is generous, inclusive and shows that if Trump continues along this conciliatory line toward dissenters, especially with regard to immigrants and minorities, he might actually turn out to be a great president.

    This is the text of Trump's revised tweet:

    Donald J. Trump

    Love the fact that small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

    I was not aware of the revised tweet when I wrote my original comment and I am revising the comment accordingly. See below.

    The following is a revised version of my original comment.

    On November 10, Trump posted the following comment on Twitter in response to nationwide protests which broke out after his election.

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonald Trump

    Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

    When the president-elect of the United States, who attacked and threatened libel suits and other retaliation against opposition media during the presidential campaign, began his transition to power by seeming attacking the media for "inciting" protesters exercising their constitutional right to free speech, it created a cause for concern about his commitment to upholding constitutional guarantees in general as president, including his willingness to respect the constitutional rights of immigrants, including such rights as due process in deportation hearings, as recently re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Reyes Mata v. Lynch 576 US _(2015)? For a detailed discussion of this case, See, Alissa Wickham:

    Supreme Court Bolsters Due Process Rights for Immigrants (June 15, 2015)

    It also raised a legitimate concern whether the First Amendment right to freedom of speech might be in danger right at the beginning of Trump's transition to the presidency and about what might happen, not only to the due process rights of immigrants facing deportation, but to the rights of US citizen immigration advocates who speak out in favor of immigrant rights.

    It was also cause for concern that Trump blamed the media for "inciting" what were, by all accounts, entirely spontaneous protests. What else might Trumps blame the media for "inciting" as president?

    And what kind of retaliation can the media or anyone else who speaks out against Trump on immigration and immigrant rights in the future expect from a president who threatens to lock up millions of immigrants until they are deported and who has said the he is just fine with sending American citizens to Guantanamo?

    See: New York Times, August 12, 2016:

    Donald Trump 'Fine' With Prosecuting U. S. Citizens at Guantanamo

    Nor was it exactly reassuring that Trumo is on record as openly supporting violating the Eight Amendment to the constitution, and the federal criminal laws of this country (8 USC Section 2340) by "bringing back" torture "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding".

    Fortunately Trump evidently thought better of the above tweet and has replaced it with a new one which clearly showed respect for the rights of the protesters. See my update above.

    This is a very reassuring sign and shows that, despite his frequently alarming campaign antics, he might, just very possibly, turn out to be a great president - especially if he can maintain this tolerant and inclusive attitude to America's minorities and immigrants, who are also part of our society.
    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 diverse parts of the world and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work visas and green cards.

    Roger believes that any attack on the rights of immigrants to justice and fundamental fairness under our laws, or bigotry against immigrants based on race, color or religion, is an attack on the rights and freedoms of all Americans.

    His email address is

    Updated 12-09-2016 at 08:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. President Elect Donald Trump will not be able to deport millions of people. By Nolan Rappaport

    11/10/2016 11:28 pm ET

    Pew Research Center (PEW) claims that the United States has 11 million undocumented aliens, but my examination of PEW’s methodology has persuaded me that its estimates of the undocumented population are unreliable. I believe that the actually number is much larger. In any case, I am sure it is at least that large.

    Will President Elect Donald Trump be able to deport 11 million undocumented aliens?

    Every alien accused of being deportable has a statutory right to a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration courts always have had big backlogs, and the backlogs have continued to grow. The immigration court completed 181,575 cases in FY 2015, which is impressive for a court that only has 273 judges. Nevertheless, the number of cases awaiting resolution before immigration judges as of the end of October 2016, was 521,676. To put this in perspective, this was an average of 1,910 cases for each of the 273 immigration judges. The average wait time for a hearing as of the end of October was 675 days, which is a couple of months short of two years.

    If we add 11 million cases to the immigration court backlog, the new count would be 11,521,676. Even if no additional aliens enter the United States unlawfully, the average for each of the 273 immigration judges would increase to 42,204 cases, and the average wait time would increase to 14,915 days, which would be approximately 41 years. The number of immigration judges could be increased, but the increase would be limited by the availability of lawyers who are qualified to become immigration judges and willing to do so. Let’s suppose that the immigration court is tripled in size to 819 judges. The average wait time for a hearing would be reduced to 4,972 days, which would be approximately 13.6 years, still much too long.

    Right to Appeal a Deportation Order

    Aliens who have been found deportable by an immigration judge can delay the finality of their deportation orders by appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and they cannot be deported while their appeals are pending. The Board, however, is not a statutory body. It was created by federal regulations, which specify its jurisdiction and powers, and the president can promulgate new regulations to eliminate the Board. But the Board is needed to reverse the mistakes that immigration judges make and to maintain consistency in the way the law is interpreted and applied. The Board received 284,667 cases in FY 2015 and completed 262,293, which is an impressive number for a Board that only has 17 members. Nevertheless, this left a pending case load of 16,945 cases. The Board’s work could be done more efficiently by replacing it with an immigration court made up of federal judges with limited jurisdiction, but that would just reduce the delay from appeals, not eliminate it, and it would take a while to establish and staff such a court.

    President Elect Donald Trump has two alternatives.

    When the impossibility of deporting 11 million undocumented aliens becomes apparent to President Elect Trump, he can press ahead anyway and fail miserably. Or, he can persuade the republican controlled congress to establish a legalization program that would reduce that number to a manageable level and foster better relations between the republicans and the immigrant community. This is the IRCA wipe-the-slate-clean and-start-over deal which was the basis for the last comprehensive immigration reform bill. The legalization program’s eligibility requirements could be drafted to exclude aliens who do not believe in our Constitution, who support bigotry and hatred, or who are undesirable in any other way he wants to specify; and make legalization available to qualified undocumented aliens who would be expected to flourish in our country and to embrace a tolerant American society. And extreme vetting could be required. Which alternative do you think he will choose?

    Start the legalization program with DACA participants.

    My suggestion is to start the program with children in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program. In addition to the availability of information about them in our public school system and elsewhere in the United States, they are the most sympathetic group. They are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. They did not choose to come here in violation of our laws. They were brought here by their parents. They would be the most Americanized of all of the groups of undocumented aliens. And, a bill for such a legalization program already exists that could be modified to satisfy President Elect Trump’s eligibility criterion, the Dream Act, which has had broad bipartisan support.

    Published initially on 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 11-13-2016 at 09:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Nowrasteh on Trump Immigration Plans

    by , 11-10-2016 at 09:14 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Trump’s victory in the Presidential election is a tremendous political upset. The biggest issue raised by Trump was immigration—and he didn’t waiver from his restrictionist position. Although the polling data doesn’t show support for Trump’s position and the election was not a blowout, depending on whether he wins the popular vote (unclear at this time) he and other restrictionist Republicans will take this as a mandate to follow through on his immigration promises.

    Trump’s stump speeches were superficial but his immigration position paper was detailed and specific. Simply, it calls for a 20 percent to 60 percent cut in green cards and a huge increase in immigration enforcement. Here are the details from his immigration position paper fleshed out:

    1. Border wall. The completion of a border wall or at least 1000 miles of it (there are about 700 miles of walls and barriers currently). This wall could be virtual but he sold it as a physical barrier. His border wall is meant to address illegal border crossings that began subsiding a decade ago and are now near their post-1970 historical low point. There is a perception of chaos on the border that doesn’t reflect reality, but perception is all that matters in politics. The best way to further reduce unlawful immigration would be to create a low-skilled guest worker visa program or expand the existing ones, but Trump’s position paper precludes such a policy option.

    2. Nationwide E-Verify. Mandated nationwide E-Verify for all new hires in the United States as a means to exclude illegal immigrants from employment. E-Verify is an electronic eligibility for employment verification that checks a new hire’s identity information against government databases to approve or deny them employment. My colleague Jim Harper and I published a policy paper last year detailing all of the problems this system poses from economic, privacy, civil liberties, and effectiveness standpoints. E-Verify will add to the more than 13.48 man-hours spent by employers annually dealing with the I-9 form, unintentionally deny and delay many American workers legal employment due to inaccuracies, boost the black market in identity documents, and cost billions in taxpayer and economic costs to implement. E-Verfiy is also unenforced and ineffective at dimming the wage magnet in states where it is already mandated. E-Verify will fail to live up to its expectations and will be followed by calls for a national biometric identity card to seal gaps in the system.

    3. End birthright citizenship. This would most likely require a constitutional amendment although Judge Richard Posner, noted legal scholar, thinks it can be changed by statute. Birthright citizenship is a lot older than the Fourteenth Amendment and has aided in the assimilation of generations of immigrants, in contrast to the experiences of assimilation in European nations without birthright citizenship. If implemented, jus sanguinis (citizenship through blood relations) would replace jus soli as the most important citizenship law of the land—an embrace of Carthaginian over Roman values.

    4. End DACA. President Obama’s executive action for unlawful immigrants brought here as children gave temporary work permits and relief from potential deportation (not a path to citizenship) to about 665,000 people. The continuation of this program depends on the actions of the President. Although this is not spelled out in his immigration position paper, it’s likely that Trump will decline to continue the program by stopping the periodic renewals required by law, thus opening up this population to deportation. Trump’s administration will also now have access to the identities of all the beneficiaries of DACA who had to submit their personal information to benefit, a source of information that could be used to more efficiently deport them. This has the potential to be a heart-wrenching humanitarian disaster for the DACA beneficiaries, their families, and those of us who count some of them as friends.

    5. Mandatory detention. Detain all illegal immigrants apprehended while entering the United States. This policy is already partially implemented but could be greatly expanded. It would require new detention facilities similar to those used to detain Unauthorized Alien Children from Central America at serious economic and humanitarian cost.

    6. Immigration moderation. Trump’s paper calls for a “pause” on the issuance of new green cards to workers abroad so that “employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.” There were 151,596 employment-based green cards issued in 2014. 86 percent of them went to workers already in the United States on other visas. The other 14 percent went to workers abroad. The government also issued 645,560 family-based green cards in 2014, all of which allow recipients to work in the United States. 61 percent of these family-based green cards went to immigrants who were not in the country on another visa. Depending on how you dice it, this provision could cut between about 140,000 and 540,000 green cards annually.

    7. Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. This policy proposal will reduce the number of legal skilled temporary migrant workers. Just over 124,000 H-1Bs were approved in 2014 for initial employment in the United States, with 85,000 of them for employment in firms and the rest in non-profit research institutions. These workers have an average salary of $75,000 so they do not compete with low-skilled America workers. If the minimum salary for H-1B visas was bumped up to $100,000 then the number of H-1Bs hired by private firms would decrease while they’d also shrink for research institutions. The 75th percentile for wage compensation for H-1B workers is $81,000. Even including all of the petitions for high wage workers that are rejected each year, this reform would significantly shrink the number of H-1B visas issued at an enormous economic cost. The H-1B system is also the feeder to the employment-based green card so any change here could disrupt future flows there even if no other changes are made.

    8. Requirement to hire American workers first. This policy would increase the regulatory cost for American firms hiring skilled foreign workers in specialty occupations. Congress considered this policy for the H-1B visa in 1990 and rejected it because the regulatory costs would be so high. If Trump is the anti-regulation candidate he claims to be then he’ll reject this provision.

    9. Refugee program for American children. This policy would raise the standards for refugees and asylum seekers to cut down on supposed abuse and fraud. Assuming the worst case scenario, Trump’s policy proposal would decrease humanitarian immigration by 70 percent if trumped up fraud statistics are to be believed. That policy, if in place in 2016, would have cut the number of refugees by about 60,000 under the worst case scenario.

    The taxpayer cost of enforcing America’s immigration laws to the point where all illegal immigrants are removed and future flows stopped would be $419 to $619 billion over 20 years, according to estimates by the American Action Forum. These estimates do not include negative economic effects and lost tax revenue from a subsequently smaller economy. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that an attrition through enforcement policy would increase projected deficits by about $800 billion over the next 20 years. Those estimates don’t include the cost to the economy and government finances of slashing legal immigration.


    Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, and elsewhere. His academic publications have appeared in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, the Fletcher Security Review, and Public Choice. Alex has appeared on Fox News, Bloomberg, and numerous television and radio stations across the United States. He is the coauthor, with Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, of the booklet Open Immigration: Yea and Nay (Encounter Broadsides, 2014).

    He is a native of Southern California and received a BA in economics from George Mason University and a Master of Science in economic history from the London School of Economics.

    Updated 11-10-2016 at 09:23 AM by MKolken

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: