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.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry
][/COLOR]

Late last month, Congressman Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), introduced the American Hope Act, H.R. 3591, with 116 co-sponsors, all Democrats.



The bill would provide conditional permanent resident status for undocumented aliens who were brought to the U.S. before their 18th birthday, which would permit them to live and work here legally for three years and put them on a path to Legal Permanent Resident status and citizenship.

Such bills are referred to as “DREAM Acts,” an acronym for “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.”

It might be more accurate, however, to call this bill “The False Hope Act.”


Bills to provide lawful status for undocumented aliens who were brought here as children have been pending in Congress since 2001, and we are yet to see one enacted legislatively, rather than by executive action. And this one was introduced by Democrats in a Republican-controlled Congress. Moreover, it is out of step with President Donald Trump’s policies on legal immigration.
[/COLOR]

What about DACA?


Read more at http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-to-immigrants


First published 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.

Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "Democrats peddling 'false hope' act to immigrants.  By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Updated 08-07-2017 at 02:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update, September 2:

    The biggest "false hope" of all for the DREAMERS may turn out to be, not the Democrats sincere efforts to pass a law giving them legal status in the US which Mr. Rappaport cavalierly dismisses in his above article, but which even leading Republicans such as House Speaker Paul Ryan are now taking seriously according to the latest news reports, but the hope that Trump will continue to show any further sympathy and compassion for the plight of the DREAMERS against the wishes of his own racist voter base.

    See my September 1 Immigration Daily blog post:

    Will Trump End DACA as Part of His White Supremacist Agenda, Or Will He Hold Dreamers Hostage to His Wall of Shame?

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10102

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated
    comment as of August 26:

    Trump's unpardonable pardon of the racist Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who boasted about tormenting Latino immigrants in what he himself called "concentration camp" conditions, is a clear message of hate and contempt by the president to immigrants and American citizens of color alike, which has been condemned by Congressional leaders in both parties and numerous civil rights organizations, not only pro-immigrant groups.

    As sheriff, Arpaio not only tormented immigrants, but he hounded and persecuted political opponents and anyone who disagreed with him. His tenure as sheriff was a blueprint for dictatorship, and Trump's pardon shows that this is also Trump's own preferred method of governing.

    Trump's Arpaio pardon is just one more indication that democracy itself is under assault under the white supremacist Trump presidency as never before in America in modern times. See my ilw.com comment:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10091

    If anyone is "peddling false hope" to immigrants, it is not the Democrats who are trying to gain Congressional approval for DACA, which Trump is now threatening to abolish, but Trump's supporters, who keep insisting against all the evidence that Trump does not present an existential danger to the basic legal and human rights of immigrants in the United States of America, as well as to the democracy and principles of racial/religious equality which draw them to this country in the first place

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    My original reply to Mr. Rappaport's article follows:

    Nolan may attack proposed legislation to give a statutory basis to DACA, which originated as only a presidential decree under Obama, (Congress having refused to pass any such bill during his administration) and is now being continued in effect solely at the "pleasure" of Donald Trump, as a "false hope".

    But there is another bill that has been introduced in Congress, with Trump's enthusiastic support, which offers a "hope" that is not only false, but deceptive to the point of being meretricious. which the dictionary defines as attractive on the surface but of no value underneath. (based on the Latin word for "prostitute" - meretrix).

    This false (and meretricious) "hope" is known as the RAISE Act which, using the deceptive argument that it would favor more "qualified" immigrants - i.e. those with more education and skills - the same immigrants whom Trump has been attacking as a danger to US workers in his speeches against the H-1B program and in his "Buy American, Hire American" executive order - would make drastic reductions in less skilled employment immigration categories and in family based immigration (as well as eliminating the Africa-friendly Diversity Visa entirely and cutting refugee admissions, all of which which involve immigrants from outside Europe, in half.

    As I have been pointing out in my own ilw.com comments on the RAISE Act (published in Immigration Daily during the first week of August and due to appear this coming week as well, the RAISE Act is nothing more than a strategy to cut off or drastically reduce immigration from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, and go back to the dark and prejudiced days of Eurocentric immigrant admissions policies that were in force for four decades, between 1924 and 1964, before the great Civil Rights era immigration reform law of 1965 opened up the equal opportunity to immigrate to America to people from all over the world without regard to race, color or religion.

    The idea that gutting these 1965 reforms and going back toward the direction and spirit of the whites only "national origins" immigration system of 1924, which gave tens of thousands of visas each year to people from the "Nordic" countries of northern Europe, while cutting almost all countries of the rest of the world (except the "Western Hemisphere", which was not affected by that law) down to 100 (one hundred) visas per year! would "improve" our immigration system, make America a better country, or be consistent with our founding principle that all people are created equal, is the biggest immigration False Hope of all.

    It would be more accurate to call the RAISE Act the RACE Act, or the RUSE Act, instead.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-02-2017 at 12:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan may attack proposed legislation to give a statutory basis to DACA, which originated as only a presidential decree under Obama, (Congress having refused to pass any such bill during his administration) and is now being continued in effect solely at the "pleasure" of Donald Trump, as a "false hope".

    But there is another bill that has been introduced in Congress, with Trump's enthusiastic support, which offers a "hope" that is not only false, but deceptive to the point of being meretricious. which the dictionary defines as attractive on the surface but of no value underneath. (based on the Latin word for "prostitute" - meretrix).

    This false (and meretricious) "hope" is known as the RAISE Act which, using the deceptive argument that it would favor more "qualified" immigrants - i.e. those with more education and skills - the same immigrants whom Trump has been attacking as a danger to US workers in his speeches against the H-1B program and in his "Buy American, Hire American" executive order - would make drastic reductions in less skilled employment immigration categories and in family based immigration (as well as eliminating the Africa-friendly Diversity Visa entirely and cutting refugee admissions, all of which which involve immigrants from outside Europe, in half.

    As I have been pointing out in my own ilw.com comments on the RAISE Act (published in Immigration Daily during the first week of August and due to appear this coming week as well, the RAISE Act is nothing more than a strategy to cut off or drastically reduce immigration from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, and go back to the dark and prejudiced days of Eurocentric immigrant admissions policies that were in force for four decades, between 1924 and 1964, before the great Civil Rights era immigration reform law of 1965 opened up the equal opportunity to immigrate to America to people from all over the world without regard to race, color or religion.

    The idea that gutting these 1965 reforms and going back toward the direction and spirit of the whites only "national origins" immigration system of 1924, which gave tens of thousands of visas each year to people from the "Nordic" countries of northern Europe, while cutting almost all countries of the rest of the world (except the "Western Hemisphere", which was not affected by that law) down to 100 (one hundred) visas per year! would "improve" our immigration system, make America a better country, or be consistent with our founding principle that all people are created equal, is the biggest immigration False Hope of all.

    It would be more accurate to call the RAISE Act the RACE Act, or the RUSE Act, instead.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, What does this comment have to do with my article?

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is about time for Nolan to get used to and accept the fact that comments which he might happen to disagree with can be just as pertinent to his articles as comments which he might agree with.

    Nolan's article is about an immigration bill introduced in Congress which he maintains would create "False Hopes." This bill seeks to protect DREAMers, who are predominantly from Latin America as opposed to Europe.

    In response, I have mentioned another immigration bill, one which is potentially far more significant in its effect and could result in a far more drastic change in the immigration system we have had for the past half century, and which offers different, and much more dangerous and destructive kinds of False Hopes. This is the so-called RAISE Act, which should be more accurately called the RACE Act.

    This act, if it ever becomes law, will almost certainly involve drastic reductions in legal immigration from every part of the world outside of Europe.

    Even though these are two different bills, they both ultimately deal with the same issue - what kind of immigrants should be welcome in America, and from which parts of the world.

    This issue is at the heart of almost all discussions about immigration policy, especially now that we have a president who has indicated so clearly that he favors one part of the world only - the white, European part (as in his recent Warsaw speech and in his appointment of an Attorney General and other top White House advisers who have made so secret about their preference for an openly bigoted 1924 immigration law which cut off most immigration from outside northern Europe for four decades - and very arguably added to the death toll among European Jews during the Holocaust) as a source of immigrants to America.

    Nolan may not enjoy discussing this fundamental immigration issue. But that does not give him the right to try to stifle comment about it in answer to his own views on immigration legislation.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-06-2017 at 10:25 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, my article is not about "what kind of immigrants should be welcome in America, and from which parts of the world." It's about the fact that DREAM Acts are introduced every congress and have been since 2001, and the congressmen who do this know, or certainly should know, that they are giving false hope to hundreds of thousands of young people who were brought here illegally when they were children.

    Do you have any compassion for the immigrants you keep talking about?
    If you care about them, why aren't you criticizing the congressmen who introduce these bills. It is cruel for them to raise the hopes of these immigrants and their families when they know that a DREAM Act is not going to be enacted, and they have been doing it for more than 15 years now.

    Nolan Rappaport


    Updated 08-06-2017 at 10:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I certainly agree with Nolan that bills to help DREAMers have virtually no chance of passing in the current, or any other Republican- controlled Congress.

    Does that mean that the bill's Democratic sponsors are wasting their time or engaging in a cynical publicity stunt at the expense of the young people involved and their families, as Nolan seems to imply, if I am reading his comments correctly?

    Not at all, as I explain in my additional comment below.

    First, however, my comments above, even though they are about a different pending immigration bill, the so-called RAISE act, are directly pertinent to the reasons why Nolan's statement about a bill to provide relief for DREAMERSers is true.

    Unless I am overlooking something in Nolan's article, I don't see much discussion of that issue on his part.

    So why is there "No Hope" for a pro-DREAMer law to pass in the current Republican- controlled Congress?

    Simple answer: The Republican party (by and large - there are some welcome exceptions) has never accepted the basic principle of the 1965 civil rights immigration reform law which ended 40 years of "Nordics"-only immigration dictated by the infamous 1924 "National Origins" immigration act (which Hitler wrote favorably about in Mein Kampf, and which Trump's AG and top immigration adviser,Jeff Sessions, also praised in his 2015 immigration "Handbook" some 90 years later).

    DREAMers are not from Europe. They are, with few if any exceptions, from Latin America.

    Therefore, they have virtually no hope of relief from a Congress dominated by a party that is still fixated on preserving, or returning to, the spirit of an immigration system enacted almost a century ago which barred most immigrants from outside Europe entirely (as well as barring millions of potential immigrants from within Europe itself if they happened to be Jewish, Catholic - or Eastern European).

    POLITICO has an excellent and comprehensive discussion of this issue in its article, published almost exactly a year ago, on August 20, 2016:

    The 1965 Law That Gave the Republican Party Its Race Problem

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ump-gop-214179

    If Nolan is seriously interested in the question of why DREAMers have little or no chance of receiving any help from the Republican Congress, instead of just bashing the Democrats for trying to help them anyway, this article is the place to begin.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 08-07-2017 at 08:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I will add one more thought. I cannot possibly compare to Nolan as a political strategist, and I would never presume to dispute his expertise in that area. But it is an indisputable fact, that at times in our recent history, bills that had no chance of passing but were fought for again and again by their supporters eventually became law anyway.

    This was true of the great 1960's civil rights laws, including the 1965 immigration law mentioned above, which had been blocked over and over again by racist Southern Democrats who believed in the inherent inferiority of all non-white people, and whose racist views were eventually taken over by the Republicans as part of President Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy".

    But somehow, in the mid-1960's one remarkable former Southern segregationist politician from Texas, President Lyndon Johnson, changed his views, and what had been previously impossible became possible.

    I am familiar with that era from my own personal knowledge even though I cannot claim to have played any significant role in that period.

    But as a young Harvard Law School graduate, not yet admitted to the bar, I did have the honor of helping (in a small, behind the scenes, supporting role, working as a law assistant to one of the lead attorneys) in preparing a lawsuit on behalf of a young African-American clergyman and civil rights fighter by the name of Martin Luther King Jr., involving a certain speech which he gave in Washington in 1963 and which is still remembered for its now world-famous words: "I Have a Dream."

    That is the tradition of the equality of all people that today's DREAMers are seeking to uphold, and which the Democrats who are supporting and drawing attention to their cause of racial justice by introducing legislation to help them can look back on with pride, long after all the sniping by commentators such as Nolan has been consigned to history's dustbin.

    The battle of the young men and women known as DREAMers to maintain legal protection against deportation, a battle in which the president has supported them in up to now but could change his mind on in an instant, is far more than just a fight over immigration status; it is fight for the dignity. equality and respect for human rights, and for justice for ALL Americans, whether their heritage is Latino, Asian, African-American, Muslim, o
    r whatever, together with and on the same basis as the white majority.

    That is what Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech was about 54 years ago.

    That is what the efforts of the DREAMers- and the Congressional Democrats who are supporting their cause with proposed legislation even though it may most likely be doomed to fail - are about today.

    This is the 1965 immigration reform law's message of justice and equality for minority immigrants and Americans alike which the Congressional Democrats who have been so persistent and faithful to America's true values and ideals of a color-blind society by introducing legislation to support the DREAMers again and again. without giving up or losing hope understand, but which most of the Republican majority, and the Republican president who is leading an assault both against minority immigrants in many different ways and against the voting rights of minority Americans, have yet to understand or accept.

    These courageous young people and the Democrats who support them deserve our nation's admiration and respect, not narrow-minded and cynical comments to the effect that they are on a mission of "false hope".

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-07-2017 at 08:19 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I will add one more thought. I cannot possibly compare to Nolan as a political strategist, and I would never presume to dispute his expertise in that area. But it is an indisputable fact, that at times in our recent history, bills that had no chance of passing but were fought for again and again by their supporters eventually became law anyway.

    This was true of the great 1960's civil rights laws, including the 1965 immigration law mentioned above, which had been blocked over and over again by racist Southern Democrats who believed in the inherent inferiority of all non-white people, and whose racist views were eventually taken over by the Republicans as part of President Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy".

    But somehow, in the mid-1960's one remarkable former Southern segregationist politician from Texas, President Lyndon Johnson, changed his views, and what had been previously impossible became possible.

    I am familiar with that era from my own personal knowledge even though I cannot claim to have played any significant role in that period.

    But as a young Harvard Law School graduate, not yet admitted to the bar, I did have the honor of helping (in a small, behind the scenes, supporting role, working as a law assistant to one of the lead attorneys) in preparing a lawsuit on behalf of a young African-American clergyman and civil rights fighter by the name of Martin Luther King Jr., involving a certain speech which he gave in Washington in 1963 and which is still remembered for its now world-famous words: "I Have a Dream."

    That is the tradition of the equality of all people that today's DREAMers are seeking to uphold, and which the Democrats who are supporting and drawing attention to their cause of racial justice by introducing legislation to help them can look back on with pride, long after all the sniping by commentators such as Nolan has been consigned to history's dustbin.

    The battle of the young men and women known as DREAMers to maintain legal protection against deportation, a battle in which the president has supported them in up to now but could change his mind on in an instant, is far more than just a fight over immigration status; it is fight for the dignity. equality and respect for human rights, and for justice for ALL Americans, whether their heritage is Latino, Asian, African-American, Muslim, o
    r whatever, together with and on the same basis as the white majority.

    That is what Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech was about 54 years ago.

    That is what the efforts of the DREAMers- and the Congressional Democrats who are supporting their cause with proposed legislation even though it may most likely be doomed to fail - are about today.

    This is the 1965 immigration reform law's message of justice and equality for minority immigrants and Americans alike which the Congressional Democrats who have been so persistent and faithful to America's true values and ideals of a color-blind society by introducing legislation to support the DREAMers again and again. without giving up or losing hope understand, but which most of the Republican majority, and the Republican president who is leading an assault both against minority immigrants in many different ways and against the voting rights of minority Americans, have yet to understand or accept.

    These courageous young people and the Democrats who support them deserve our nation's admiration and respect, not narrow-minded and cynical comments to the effect that they are on a mission of "false hope".

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    And now Roger is giving them false hope too.

    Roger also seems to have missed the fact that I suggested a different path for DREAM Act legislation that I think might be successful. Probably because Roger is not willing to entertain the possibility that the two parties can work together on legislation that would meet the essential political needs of both. Working together on compromise apparently is not something he thinks is worth considering. The only political system he would welcome would be a dictatorship with a dictator who shares his views on immigration policy. Democracies require cooperation and compromise.

    In fact, though, that is the way the last legalization program was established with IRCA in 1986. The parties found a way to work together. For more information, see my article, " What is IRCA, and What Does It Have To Do with Comprehensive Immigration Reform?" at https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnews...edirected=true

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Having the two parties work together on immigration is a worthy goal and one which would be to everyone's benefit if it could be achieved. I am entirely lacking in Nolan's expertise as a political analyst and I cannot speak with any kind of authority and experience on this point.

    However, one has the impression that today, the two parties are divided along racial lines, arguably to a greater extent than at any time I can remember; and I am old enough to have at least vague memories of the Franklin Roosevelt era shortly before that president's death.

    As long as the two parties are racially polarized, with one party relying on a base of white supremacist voters (I am not saying that everyone in that party believes in white supremacy), and the other party at least purporting to support minority Americans (how effectively it is doing so is a different question), true collaboration between the parties on a traditionally racially charged issue such as immigration will not be easy to achieve.

    It will require more flexibility and good will on both sides than appear to be in evidence now.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Having the two parties work together on immigration is a worthy goal and one which would be to everyone's benefit if it could be achieved. I am entirely lacking in Nolan's expertise as a political analyst and I cannot speak with any kind of authority and experience on this point.

    However, one has the impression that today, the two parties are divided along racial lines, arguably to a greater extent than at any time I can remember; and I am old enough to have at least vague memories of the Franklin Roosevelt era shortly before that president's death.

    As long as the two parties are racially polarized, with one party relying on a base of white supremacist voters (I am not saying that everyone in that party believes in white supremacy), and the other party at least purporting to support minority Americans (how effectively it is doing so is a different question), true collaboration between the parties on a traditionally racially charged issue such as immigration will not be easy to achieve.

    It will require more flexibility and good will on both sides than appear to be in evidence now.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    No, Roger, you and your fellow haters are keeping the parties apart. Would you be receptive to working with people who call you a racist and claim that white supremacists are your base? And that leaves out the comparisons you have made with Hitler and claims about turning the country into another Nazi Germany. It would take a lot of time to go through your almost daily blogs to make a list of all of the horrible things you have said about Trump and other Republicans who have advocated the enforcement of our immigration laws. Yes, it goes back way before Trump became a politician.

    How can you say such things about Trump and the other Republicans and then claim that they don't want to cooperate? I have an experiment for you to try. The next time you want to persuade your wife to do something that she doesn't want to do, start by calling her the three most hateful things you can think of. Let me know if it works better with her than it does with Trump and the other Republicans.

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is showing the perfect way never to have agreement on immigration - make personal attacks on people who disagree with his opinions and call them "haters".

    Let me give two examples. On occasions too numerous to mention Nolan as accused me of "hatred" for the president, Donald Trump. mainly because I disagree with his immigration policies, not only on enforcement, as Nolan mentions, but on legal immigration as well.

    It is true that I do not often support Trump's immigration policies, which I believe are based on the same kind of white supremacist, Eurocentric world view that was so evident in his recent Warsaw address and in his all too frequent vicious attacks on minority immigrants which are as matter of public record and even Nolan cannot explain away.

    But I invite Nolan to turn to the list of most popular bloggings of the month for July in the August 7 Immigration Daily. He will find an article of mine supporting and praising Trump as "Truly Presidential" for having intervened to allow the brave young women on the Afghan robotics team to come to the US for their competition.

    "Hatred" Nolan? Your readers deserve better than that.

    Second example. Nolan accuses me of comparing people whom I disagree with on immigration to Hitler.

    Since I have always been careful to distinguish Trump from Hitler, even while pointing out certain authoritarian tendencies that I see Trump as having in common with Hitler and other dictators, Nolan may be referring to my frequent mention of the fact that former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, less than 2 years ago, in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, praised the infamous 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act.

    Every responsible historian agrees that this law had as its main purpose barring Jews, Catholics, Asians, and most other immigrants of the world except for the "Nordic" countries of Europe from immigrating to the United States.

    Sessions' support for this law is a matter of record - Nolan can read the "Handbook" for himself whenever he wants. I have provided the link in some of my discussions of it.

    It is also an indisputable historical fact that some 90 years earlier, Adolf Hitler praised the same law in his notorious manifesto, Mein Kampf. I have also provided a link previously, or Nolan can look it up himself.

    Their stated reasons were different; Hitler openly praised the racist world view behind that law; whereas Sessions attempted to present it (falsely, and deceptively, in my view) as merely a measure aimed at protecting US workers from foreign competition.

    But I have never compared Sessions with Hitler, merely because they both supported the same law almost a century apart.

    With regard to the Republican party and to Trump himself, the fact that both received enthusiastic support from a segment of the electorate who openly believe in what as been politely called "white nationalism" was attested to in countless news reports during the campaign and after the election.

    It is also a matter of record, which cannot be whitewashed or explained way, that there is a long and well documented history of Republicans having appealed to white racial prejudices to gain votes, at least going back to the time of Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy" in the 1970's.

    That does not mean that every Republican official holds such views today or that even a majority do. I have never said so

    Are we supposed to consign these obvious facts to an Orwellian memory hole? Does Nolan have a list of facts which it acceptable to use in discussions with him and other facts which are equally true, but verboten when commenting on his articles?

    I would respectfully encourage Nolan to refrain from personal attacks against other commentators who might disagree with his views or point out perceived flaws in them.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-07-2017 at 06:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan is showing the perfect way never to have agreement on immigration - make personal attacks on people who disagree with his opinions and call them "haters".

    Let me give two examples. On occasions too numerous to mention Nolan as accused me of "hatred" for the president, Donald Trump. mainly because I disagree with his immigration policies, not only on enforcement, as Nolan mentions, but on legal immigration as well.

    It is true that I do not often support Trump's immigration policies, which I believe are based on the same kind of white supremacist, Eurocentric world view that was so evident in his recent Warsaw address and in his all too frequent vicious attacks on minority immigrants which are as matter of public record and even Nolan cannot explain away.

    But I invite Nolan to turn to the list of most popular bloggings of the month for July in the August 7 Immigration Daily. He will find an article of mine supporting and praising Trump as "Truly Presidential" for having intervened to allow the brave young women on the Afghan robotics team to come to the US for their competition.

    "Hatred" Nolan? Your readers deserve better than that.

    Second example. Nolan accuses me of comparing people whom I disagree with on immigration to Hitler.

    Since I have always been careful to distinguish Trump from Hitler, even while pointing out certain authoritarian tendencies that I see Trump as having in common with Hitler and other dictators, Nolan may be referring to my frequent mention of the fact that former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, less than 2 years ago, in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, praised the infamous 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act.

    Every responsible historian agrees that this law had as its main purpose barring Jews, Catholics, Asians, and most other immigrants of the world except for the "Nordic" countries of Europe from immigrating to the United States.

    Sessions' support for this law is a matter of record - Nolan can read the "Handbook" for himself whenever he wants. I have provided the link in some of my discussions of it.

    It is also an indisputable historical fact that some 90 years earlier, Adolf Hitler praised the same law in his notorious manifesto, Mein Kampf. I have also provided a link previously, or Nolan can look it up himself.

    Their stated reasons were different; Hitler openly praised the racist world view behind that law; whereas Sessions attempted to present it (falsely, and deceptively, in my view) as merely a measure aimed at protecting US workers from foreign competition.

    But I have never compared Sessions with Hitler, merely because they both supported the same law almost a century apart.

    With regard to the Republican party and to Trump himself, the fact that both received enthusiastic support from a segment of the electorate who openly believe in what as been politely called "white nationalism" was attested to in countless news reports during the campaign and after the election.

    It is also a matter of record, which cannot be whitewashed or explained way, that there is a long and well documented history of Republicans having appealed to white racial prejudices to gain votes, at least going back to the time of Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy" in the 1970's.

    That does not mean that every Republican official holds such views today or that even a majority do. I have never said so

    Are we supposed to consign these obvious facts to an Orwellian memory hole? Does Nolan have a list of facts which it acceptable to use in discussions with him and other facts which are equally true, but verboten when commenting on his articles?

    I would respectfully encourage Nolan to refrain from personal attacks against other commentators who might disagree with his views or point out perceived flaws in them.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Describing your attitude towards Trump as "hatred" is not a personal attack. It's an objective description of the way you describe Trump and his immigration policies, and his associates, e.g., Sessions. And you were doing the same thing to Republican congressmen before Trump became a politician. It's sad that you can't see it.

    But you do occasionally give the man credit for doing something right.

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have rarely, if ever, made a negative (or other) comment about Trump, Sessions, or anyone else involved in discussion of immigration policy without specific references to things the person has actually said or done.

    Moreover, when I attribute a statement or action to any such person I try as often as I can to provide a specific link or reference.

    To give just one example, here is a link to the 2015 immigration "Handbook" in which then Senator Jeff Session expressed effusive praise for the infamous 1924 "national origins" immigration law which Sessions claimed helped the job security of American workers, but which he, as an expert on immigration, without question knew was enacted for the purpose of barring all but a very few Jews, Catholics, Asians and most other non-"Nordic" people of the world from immigrating to the US, in accordance with the openly expressed prejudices and racial theories which influenced so many US politicians at that time. :

    http://www.aila.org/infonet/senator-...ation-handbook

    Is it an expression of "hate" against someone to quote or provide links to the person's own words in discussing that person's views on one issue or another?

    If Nolan can find a specific example of a case where I have attributed a statement or action to Trump or one of his supporters or officials, or any other politician or figure, which wasn't true, Nolan is welcome to point that out so I can correct it.

    To call truthful and accurate references to a politician's or other public figure's own statements and actions "hatred" is nothing but an attempt to intimidate people from expressing legitimate views for purpose of discussion.

    I will not dignify Nolan's personal attacks against me with any further response. This is a forum for discussion of legal and policy issues, not for casting personal aspersions on other commentators who may disagree with one's views.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-08-2017 at 07:50 AM 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: