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

Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry

Getty

Democratic demands for passage of a DREAM Act threatened to prevent passage of a funding bill needed to prevent a partial shutdown of the government. But the Republicans were able to pass a stopgap spending bill on December 21, 2017, which postponed the showdown on this issue until January.

The DREAM Act would provide conditional permanent resident status for aliens whose parents brought them to the United States illegally when they were children.

President Obama established a program of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to give them temporary lawful status.

Trump terminated DACA on September 5, 2017, subject to a 6-month grace period. The Democrats and some Republicans are trying to get a DREAM Act passed before the grace period expires.

But they have been trying unsuccessfully to get a DREAM Act passed for 16 years, and their attempt to pass the DREAM Act of 2017, is likely to be unsuccessful too.

The Senate version was introduced on July 20, 2017, and an identical House version was introduced on July 26, 2017. Congress has not held a hearing or a markup on either bill.

If enacted, it would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant conditional lawful permanent resident status to undocumented aliens who:


  1. Have been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding this bill's enactment;
  2. Were younger than 18 years of age when they entered the United States;
  3. Are not inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds;
  4. Have not participated in persecution; and
  5. Have not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and
  6. Have fulfilled educational requirements.



And DHS would be required to grant conditional permanent resident status to aliens who have had DACA status.

It exempts grants of conditional permanent resident status from all numerical limitations.

Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...s-just-a-dream

About 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 "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "Without a Trump-Democrat trade, the DREAM Act is just a dream.  By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If I understand Nolan's proposal correctly, he is suggesting that Donald Trump should agree to legalizing existing DACA registrants, in return for funding for an additional 47 miles of border wall. That would certainly be a reasonable deal, and few people pf good will would argue with that.

    The only problem is that based on the president's latest statements, the chances of his agreeing to such a deal are only slightly less than those of his giving up the White House in order to move to Mexico and assume the presidency of that country tomorrow.

    In a recent tweet, quoted in full in my own ilw.com blog on this topic, Trump expressly put the Democrats on notice that he will not agree to any DACA deal unless it includes, not only funding for the border wall, but also abolishing what he pejoratively called "horrible Chain Migration" i.e. a large segment of the family immigration which has allowed tens of millions of overwhelmingly peaceful, law abiding and productive immigrants, most of them non-white, to come to the US legally in the past fifty years.

    In that same tweet, Trump also demanded that the Democrats agree to abolish the "ridiculous" Diversity visa, which has allowed over a million also overwhelmingly peaceful, law abiding and productive, immigrants, also mostly non-white, to immigrate to the US legally in the past two decades.

    Then, in a reported impromptu but barely incoherent December 29 interview with a New York times reporter, which I quoted in relevant part, word for word, in a January 1 update to my December 30, 2017 tweet, Trump said that he is going to "get rid" of "Chain Migration" and the Diversity visa lottery.

    He also made the delusional statement that an immigrant under a family visa (one person out of 30 or 40 million people with such visas) who killed 8 people in a recent New York terror attack had sponsored "22" relatives himself.

    As I pointed out in my comment, even Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Trump supporter who has long advocated for greatly reduce levels of immigration, has said that that this last statement by the president was impossible.

    It is fine for Nolan to make any immigration proposals he chooses to. But it would be more useful and helpful if Nolan would pay some attention to the actual statements of record regarding the issues involved by a president whose increasingly incoherent and venomous attacks against non-white, non-European immigrants are causing more and more commentators to question Trump's mental stability.

    For more insight on what the president is actually demanding in return for any agreement to a legislative solution for DACA, as expressed in his own words, see my two comments:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10309

    (December 29, 2017)

    and

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10310

    (December 30, 2017, updated January 1)

    How much longer can we ignore or try to explain away Trump's own words (to the extent that they are intelligible) of animosity and contempt for immigrants from non-white parts of the world, based on half-truths in some cases, and in many other instances, outright falsehoods bordering on delusion?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-11-2018 at 02:18 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, "It is fine for Nolan to make any immigration proposals he chooses to. But it would be more useful and helpful if Nolan would pay some attention to the actual statements of record regarding the issues involved by a president..."

    He should take his own advice and read my articles more carefully if he is going to comment on them. He says, "
    If I understand Nolan's proposal correctly, he is suggesting that Donald Trump should agree to legalizing existing DACA registrants, in return for funding for an additional 47 miles of border wall."

    That's not what I said. I said a statute establishing a temporary DACA program for current DACA participants in return for funding to finish the 700 miles of mandatory fencing required by the Fence Act of 2008.

    He asks how much longer can we ignore...... I have a different question. How much longer are we going to have to put up with Roger's steady stream of abusive Trump comments?

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My "abusive" comments about Trump are based on his own words, which I quoted verbatim in my linked comments so no one can claim I am making them up, and which utterly demolish any implication, if there is one, in Nolan's articles that we are dealing with a rational president who is interested in any kind of DACA deal that would not involve cutting off most, if not all, immigration to the US from non-white areas of the world.

    That (along with the growing, no longer avoidable, questions about president's mental health), is the real issue in Trump's comments about DACA, which Nolan evidently does not wish to talk about, not how many miles of border fence might or might not get funded in some hypothetical DACA deal which has no chance of going though, if Trump's own reported statements on this topic are taken at face value, as I believe they should be.

    If quoting and commenting on the president's own quoted word- for-word statements is "abusive" then, and only then, Nolan is correct in describing my comments about Trump.

    I also note that, very wisely, Nolan does not try to defend or excuse the president's statements which I have referred to, because they cannot be excused or defended.

    Very possibly, Trump's statements can be analyzed and interpreted, but that would have to be done by members of a different profession from the one that Nolan and I both belong to.

    And any "abusive" comment that I might be making about the president pales by comparison with his abuse directed against millions of non-white immigrants.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-02-2018 at 02:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    My "abusive" comments about Trump are based on his own words, which I quoted verbatim in my linked comments so no one can claim I am making them up, and which utterly demolish any implication, if there is one, in Nolan's articles that we are dealing with a rational president who is interested in any kind of DACA deal that would not involve cutting off most, if not all, immigration to the US from non-white areas of the world.

    That (along with the growing, no longer avoidable, questions about president's mental health), is the real issue in Trump's comments about DACA, which Nolan evidently does not wish to talk about, not how many miles of border fence might or might not get funded in some hypothetical DACA deal which has no chance of going though, if Trump's own reported statements on this topic are taken at face value, as I believe they should be.

    If quoting and commenting on the president's own quoted word- for-word statements is "abusive" then, and only then, Nolan is correct in describing my comments about Trump.

    I also note that, very wisely, Nolan does not try to defend or excuse the president's statements which I have referred to, because they cannot be excused or defended.

    Very possibly, Trump's statements can be analyzed and interpreted, but that would have to be done by members of a different profession from the one that Nolan and I both belong to.

    And any "abusive" comment that I might be making about the president pales by comparison with his abuse directed against millions of non-white immigrants.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Your comments are irrational distortions.

    Nolan Rappaport
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My comments are based on the president's own words, which readers are welcome to read themselves, exactly as reported, by following the two links which I have provided above.

    Readers can then decide for themselves what the significance of Trump's statements is, and which kind of professionals are best equipped to interpret them - those with legal training, or those with medical training.

    In that connection, readers may find the following link to a November 30, 2017 NY Times article helpful:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/psychiatrists-trump.html

    See also:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0cc46c52e6a5f

    I note also that Nolan, to his own credit as a highly respected immigration law expert, does not try to defend or excuse the two statements by Trump which I have fairly and accurately quoted, exactly as reported, in the above links to my two most recent ilw.com blog comments.

    These two statements by the president about family immigration and the Diversity visa are so patently false and full of malice toward non-white immigrants that they are simply indefensible.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-02-2018 at 08:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, eliminating chain migration and the diversity visa program are not new ideas. The Jordon Commission, which had strong support from Bill Clinton, recommended limiting family visas to the nuclear families of LPRs and citizens. And the Gang of Eight's immigration reform bill had a provision to end the diversity visa program. Do your racial inferences from the fact that Trump is advocating those measures apply to the Jordon Commission and the Gang of Eight too?

    Nolan Rappaport
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Neither the Jordan commission two decades ago, nor the Senate Democrats who agreed to throw Diversity immigrants under the bus as a part of a political compromise in exchange for enough Republican support to enable CIR to pass the Senate in 2013 ever used the kind of abusive and viciously hostile language toward mainly non-white family or Diversity immigrants that Trump is using in tweets and other statements which, along with other crazy statements such as his repeated threats to blow up North Korea (see Republican columnist Jennifer Rubin writing in the January 3 Washington Post) are raising increasing doubts about his mental stability.

    I am not aware of anything in the Jordan Commission report or the legislative history of the 2013 CIR bill alleging that Mexican immigrants were "criminals", "rapists" and "drug dealers", or proposing that all Muslim immigrants in the world should be banned from the United States.

    If there is anything in the Jordan Commission report labeling the 10 or 20 million mainly non-white legal immigrants who had come to the US through family visas since 1965 "horrible" or implying that they were all terrorists, as Trump has done, I would ask Nolan to show me the relevant section of that report.

    Without question, Nolan has a valid point that Trump is by no means the first politician in the Republican party (aided and abetted, from time to time, by some opportunistic Democrats as well, to be sure) who has tried to profit from prejudice against non-white immigrants.

    Openly racist politicians, as well as writers and opinion-makers such as the UK immigrant Peter Brimelow, late Harvard professor Samuel Huntington and 2000 presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan (who not only wrote invective against Hispanic immigrants, but also tried to defend accused Nazi war criminals just as the notorious concentration camp guard John Demjanjuk) contributed to the climate of anti-immigrant hate which led to passage of the Republican IIRIRA law in 1996.

    No, Trump is not the first, and I have never said that he was. But he is taking hatred against non-white immigrants to a new level, just as Adolf Hitler took anti-Semitism which had been rampant in Germany long before Hitler was born (read some of Richard Wagner's essays for example - vile anti-Semitic filth from the composer of some of the most beautiful music ever written - which at one time led to performances of his operas being banned in Israel) and brought that to a horrible new level.

    (Again, the Hitler-Trump comparison, as I have often emphasized, must be used with very great caution - they share a fundamental authoritarianism, but Trump is in no way anti-Jewish. And while Trump has made many statements and taken actions indicating support for mass deportation and exclusion of people whom he does not see fit to come to or be in America because of race, religion or nationality, he has never said or done anything that even remotely suggests support for mass murder or genocide.)

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-04-2018 at 07:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am updating my above comments, as of January 28, which were posted at the beginning of January to comment further on Trump's evident insistence on abolishing extended family immigration, which he calls by the hostile and derogatory term "chain migration", as the condition of agreeing to any deal to resolve the DACA issues which he himself created by terminating that program and threatening to deport almost 2 million young people who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

    The Democrats have responded to a surprisingly fair and realistic offer by Trump to grant deportation relief and eventual citizenship to the DREAMERS by showing flexibility on Trump's demands for a border Wall.

    But now, in his latest immigration "Framework", Trump has upped the ante and also demanded not only cancelling the Diversity Visa lottery, but also the family reunification system which has been at the heart of America's immigration system for the past 50 years.

    The only possible reason for wanting to abolish these two legal immigration programs is because, as Trump said himself on January 11, they let in too many immigrants (in his view) from "shithole" countries where people have darker skins than immigrants from "countries like Norway".

    If Trump persists in these totally unreasonable demands, he will only be giving more ammunition to the growing number of people in America and throughout the world who are calling his immigration policies "racist", and doing so with a great deal of justification.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-28-2018 at 01:54 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: