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

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Over 100 Immigration Law Professors' Letter Supporting DACA Didn't Stop Trump From Ending It. Will Legal Immigration Be "Rescinded" Next? Roger Algase

    Update, September 6, 2:43 pm:

    As expected, Trump, in a statement made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announced on the morning of September 5 that the president is ending DACA in six months.

    It appears that as between the advice of over 100 experienced and knowledgeable law professors who support DACA as a legal exercise of prosecutortial discretion, and the advice of an attorney general who, as a Senator, had a long record of opposition to immigration from non-white parts of the world, Trump has chosen the latter - to the surprise of no one, given Trump's own numerous anti-immigrant speeches and actions, and his support from white supremacist leaders whom he refuses to disown.

    Also not surprisingly, Sessions, in making the announcement admitted that the Dreamers are not doing any harm to the United States, but he based the decision to cancel the program on the supposed need to limit immigration in general. In his words:

    "The nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means that all cannot be accepted."

    This may sound like simple and straightforward language, but it is in fact no different from what FAIR and other anti-immigrant groups who want to cut off or drastically reduce immigration from outside Europe have been saying for many years.

    Trump's decision today has ominous implications, not only for the DREAMERS who were brought to the US illegally as children though no fault of their own, but for everyone who wants to come to or stay in the US through our legal immigration system, especially if they come from parts of the world other than Europe, which was so heavily favored in the 1924 law that Sessions expressed such admiration for less than three years ago.

    Slate also reports on September 5 that Sessions praised the RAISE Act, which would make drastic cuts in legal immigration, especially from outside Europe, near the end of his speech announcing the termination of DACA. I have not yet seen a full copy of that speech.

    The Slate report, under the title: Sessions' DACA speech was full of nativist lies, can be accessed through Google. I do not have a direct link.

    For another news report on Sessions' statement, see:

    My earlier comment appears below.

    According to the latest DACA news reports, the president's anticipated September 5 announcement ending this program in six months is expected to emphasize the supposed difficulty of defending DACA in court, and its alleged illegality as an abuse of executive power.

    It is not hard to understand why the president's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, might be advising the president that DACA is bound to lose in court and that there would be no point in defending it, as POLITICO and other news outlets are also reporting. See:

    But the reported objections by the AG to this program are suspect. There is every reason that they are based on ideological reasons, not solid legal analysis. As I have mentioned many times in previous comments, but it is still important not to forget, Sessions, in a 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, supported the openly bigoted, Northern Europeans only 1924 immigration law which Adolf Hitler had also written about favorably in Mein Kampf nine decades earlier.

    See The Guardian: Hitler's debt to America

    It is hardly surprising that Sessions, or Trump's other leading immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, a former Sessions aide who has also been associated with white supremacist immigration views,

    would try to convince the president (who, based on his own record of statements and actions against Latin America, Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants as candidate and president, apparently does not need very much convincing) that DACA, which benefits mainly Latino and other non-white, non-European immigrants, has no legal basis and cannot be defended in court.

    But is this conclusion really valid as a matter of serious legal analysis? Not according to over 100 immigration law professors who wrote a letter to Trump on August 14 upholding the validity of DACA as a legitimate exercise in prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. Their letter states:

    "In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion...Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law."

    For an article containing a direct link to the full text of the law professors' letter, go to:

    Whose legal advice will the president listen to? Will he follow that of his attorney general who, as a Senator, praised a bigoted, whites only 1924 immigration law which, among many other things, every serious student of that period's history acknowledges added to the death toll in the Holocaust by barring all but a few o the Jewish refugees seeking safety from Nazi genocide from coming to America, or will the president listen to the opinion of more than 100 immigration law professors from every part of the United States?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 09-05-2017 at 01:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Federal court's pro-sanctuary cities decision can cripple enforcement. By Nolan Rappaport

    © Getty

    At the end of August, a federal district court in Texas ruled against that state, halting an immigration enforcement law shortly before it was to go into effect.

    The court issued a preliminary (temporary) injunction to halt the implementation of five allegedly unconstitutional provisions in Texas’ anti-sanctuary city law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), including one that would require law enforcement agencies in Texas to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any immigration detainer issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    This means that the court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs (in this case, the parties opposing the state of Texas) will succeed in establishing that those provisions are unconstitutional when a decision is rendered on the merits of the case.

    If the decision on ICE detainers is correct, which seems to be the case, it could cripple ICE’s ability to prevent removable criminal aliens from absconding when they are released from custody by state and local law enforcement agencies.

    Detainers ask the state or local law enforcement agency that is detaining a removable alien to (1) notify DHS as early as practicable before the suspected removable immigrant is scheduled to be released from criminal custody; and (2) maintain custody of the subject for up to 48 hours beyond the time he would otherwise have been released so that DHS can assume custody of him.

    The decision’s rationale.


    Published originally on The Hill.

    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 an 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 20 years.

    Updated 09-04-2017 at 02:44 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: