Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

I agree with both Nolan and the ACLU about the Republican DACA bill.

What is the real purpose of ending extended family immigration (a/k/a "chain migration") and the visa lottery?

Is it really to ensure more careful screening and higher educational/skills qualifications for immigrants, as Trump and other supporters of the RAISE Act claim, or is to stop brown or black people from "shithole countries" in Africa or the Caribbean from coming to the US legally, while turning back to the "Nordics" only immigration regime of 1924 which, among others, Adolf Hitler claimed to be inspired by when he praised that law in Mein Kampf?

Donald Trump answered that question on January 11, a day that, without exaggeration, it would be fair to say, using the famous words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, will "live in infamy" in America's immigration history and be remembered with revulsion, because of Trump's words, by fair minded Americans of every ethnicity, color, religion and ancestry.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Update, January 16:

Whenever I make comments in response to an article by one of my fellow bloggers, I try to be as accurate as possible. This is especially true when I am quoting reported statements by the president of the United States.

Below, I quote Donald Trump as saying that Haiti and the countries of Africa were "shithole" countries.

But according to a late report (January 15) in The Guardian, the president may not have used the word "shithole" at all. Instead, it appears that he may have said "shithouse".

If I misquoted the president in my original comments in response to Nolan's article by saying that Trump called Haiti and the countries of Africa "shithhole" countries, when the truth was that he called them "shithouse"
countries instead, I apologize to all ilw.com readers for my mistake.

My original comment appears below.

Just so it will be clear which statement by Trump I am referring to, these were his exact words on January 11, as reported by virtually every major news outlet in America, and attested to by Senator Dick Durbin, who was present, without contradiction from any of the other Senators who were present, including those who support Trump:

"What do we want Haitians here for? Why do we want all these people from Africa here? Why do we want all these people from shithole countries?...We should have people from places like Norway."

Even though Trump has denied using those exact words, and said that he used other "tough" words instead, no one else who was at the meeting has backed up Trump's denial.

These words, which have brought outraged reactions from across America and the world, will define Trump's presidency as long as it is remembered. I predict that our grandchildren's grandchildren, and their grandchildren, will be learning about these infamous words in their history books long after today's readers are no longer around to express their horror over the fact than an American president could have said them in the 21st Century.

This is not the place to go into the full history of Trump's comments insulting and degrading black people in general, including his spreading the "birther" fantasy about President Obama, among other things. But what is most disturbing is Trump's holding up Norway as an example of an ideal source country for immigration.

Nor are my comments in any way meant to diminish the great contribution that Norwegian and other Scandinavian immigrants have made and are making to American society.

But Trump's reference to Norway at the same time as expressing his hatred for black immigrants refers unmistakably to the "Nordics -only" racial policies of Adolf Hitler, as well as of America's own dark history of immigration laws based on the theory of "Nordic" racial superiority.

For more details on this ominous aspect of Trump's bigoted January 11 comment, see an article about the 1924 Immigration Act in Boston Review by Christopher Petrella of Bates College (Maine)

The Preservation of the White Race


http://bostonreview.net/forum/after-...ion-white-race

It is also true that on January 9, only two days earlier, Trump presented an entirely different face, one of openness, tolerance and acceptance toward non-white immigrants. But if those were his real feelings, how could he have then made the horrible, despicable comment quoted above only two days later?

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

My article is about the Republican DACA bill, which I argue is not as likely to be passed as the Trump DACA proposal. What does Roger talk about? A foolish comment that Trump made in what he thought was a private conversation.

The only thing I don't understand is why Roger keeps making irrelevant comments to my articles that he knows I find offensive. He is almost continuously spreading Trump hatred in his own articles. Why does he have to do it comments to my articles too?

Nolan Rappaport

The following has been revised as of January 14:

Nolan tries to dismiss Trump's hate-filled comment against black immigrants as merely a "foolish comment" made in a "private conversation.

It was in fact much more than that. It was a crude, but crystal clear statement of the negotiating position of the president of the United States of America on a key immigration issue - DACA- in a meeting with leading Senate negotiators. This was not a stray microphone or reporter picking up an offhand remark that someone might have blurted out to a friend on the golf course or in private - which would still have been reprehensible.

What the president was telling the Senators present by this remark was that he would not agree to any DACA legislation that does not reduce the number of dark skinned immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean and go back to the pre-1965 system of favoring white immigrants from northern Europe.

This also goes directly to the subject of Nolan's article, which is about Republican proposals on a DACA solution. These proposals, as has been widely reported, would include eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery, which has been a major source of legal immigration from Africa, and sharply reducing family immigration, which has enabled tens of millions of legal immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America to come to the US in the past half century.

Trump's comment was not just "foolish", it was bigoted and destructive - intended to make any solution to DACA that does not support Trump's racial immigration agenda impossible.
Nolan's contention that mentioning Trump's vile and racist comment has nothing to do with his article and does not belong in a discussion of the article is therefore entirely misplaced.

However, I do note that I have taken up a great deal of space talking about Trump's remark, and Nolan has said almost nothing about it, other than that it was "foolish"

Therefore, and also because I have in fact posted three ilw.com articles of my own on this topic which Nolan might not have have yet read, I have deleted the rest of my original comments in this space in order to give Nolan more opportunity to elaborate his views about why Trump's comment was foolish and share them with his readers:

Over to you, Nolan.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Roger is still doing it. His response to my complaint about using my articles as a platform for his Trump hatred is to launch into another Trump hatred tirade. I have to think that his Trump obsession has taken control of him, that he not only has lost the ability to think objectively, but he can no longer control his outbursts.

Nolan Rappaport

Obviously, Nolan is unable to answer my points. Otherwise, he would not resort to calling them "outbursts".
Nolan seems to have a double set of views. Any opinion that he supports is a "comment"; any opinion that does not is an "outburst."

What kind of legal discussion is that?

Trump has made a horrific, racist comment on an immigration issue which has caused shock and outrage in every corner of the world. It could take considerable time and space to list all of the dignitaries and public figures who have expressed horror at this comment, which is directly related to the subject matter of Trump's article, i.e. proposals to change our legal immigration in order to arrive at a DACA deal.

Nolan has not denied that Trump made this despicable comment, implying that America needs white immigrants but not black ones, nor has Nolan tried to defend it. Instead, he is trying to shrug it off as a just a "foolish comment," and he apparently doesn't want anyone else to talk about it either.

With the greatest respect for Nolan's distinguished reputation as an immigration law scholar and authority, that is not the way to have a meaningful or sensible discussion about an immigration policy issue which is central to the topic of Nolan's own article.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Certainly, no one could possibly suggest that I am the only person who objects to Trump's racist "shithole" comment. See, for just one example, POLIIICO (January 12):

Trump's 'shithole' comment denounced across the globe.

This article has a long list of Congressional and other US leaders who have denounced Trump's racial slur against dark- skinned immigrants.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...eaction-337926

For a sampling of international leaders and public figures who have also condemned Trump's January 11 "Shithole" comment in the strongest possible terms, see:

The Guardian (January 12):

'There's no other word but racist': Trump's global rebuke for 'shithole' remark

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...untries-remark

To give just one example of this international criticism, which reflects that coming from many quarters in the US as well, The Guardian quotes the UB Human Rights spokesman, Rupert Colville, as follows:

"There is no other word one can use but racist. You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as 'shitholes', whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome."

How can anyone reasonably dispute the accuracy of Mr. Colville's comment?

Obviously. Trump was saying, in the plainest and crudest language possible, that he would not agree to any DACA solution (the precise subject of Nolan's article) that does not reduce the number of African and Caribbean legal immigrants in the future.

The Hill also describes the reaction in the United States and abroad to Trump's comment as follows:

"Lawmakers, media figures and world leaders have all decried Trump's comments. The African Union, representing all 55 African countries, demanded Saturday that Trump apologize for his remarks."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...to-trump-hotel

The same story in The Hill also carries a photo a protest using a graphic image, in the form of the word "SHITHOLE" being projected onto the front of the Trump DC hotel.

While Trump's comment shames the entire American nation and all of its citizens, it is encouraging to know that we still live in a free country where this form of protest is allowed, despite many remarks by the president that he would like to see greater limits on free speech in America - a chilling reminder that racism and dictatorship almost always go hand in hand.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

In a further indication that Trump's racially charged comments about immigrants from various parts of the world are hurting his legal arguments in federal court in support of his various immigration initiatives, including terminating DACA, US District Judge William Alsup, who ordered the administration to begin accepting DACA applications again a few days ago, issued the following statement in a new ruling on January 12, as POLITICO reports

"These allegations raise a plausible inference that racial animus was a motivating factor in the decision to end DACA."

This indicates that Muslim Ban litigation is not the only instance in which federal judges are beginning to determine that various immigration initiatives by the Trump administration are motivated by racial or religious animosity.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-racism-daca-dreamers-judge-339512

In reality, there is a strong factual case to be made that ALL, or nearly all, of Trump's immigration actions as president are motivated by racial and religious "animus", and that Trump's latest outrage against African and Haitian immigrants is part of a pattern of hatred against non-white immigrants dating from his vicious attack against Mexican "criminals" and "rapists" and call for a worldwide Muslim ban as a presidenial candidate up to now - not just an isolated "foolish" comment, as Nolan contends above.-

In the same way, as I will show further in my own blog comment (along with the three ilw.com blog comments of my own which I have already written about Trump's racist 'shithole' remarks!), Trump's statement that America needs immigrants from Norway more than from Africa and Haiti is unlikely to help him in future litigation concerning his mass exclusion, mass deportation, agenda.

The title of Nolan's article suggests that Trump has a "winning plan" on DACA.

If he does, it must be something other than calling Latino immigrants "criminals' and 'rapists' , shouting that 'Islam hates us' and accusing black immigrants of coming from 'shithole' countries and preferring white-skinned immigrants from Scandinavia instead.

That is not a "winning plan" , and let us hope that the president comes to realize that one day, sooner rather than later.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

I say Roger, "can no longer control his outbursts," and he responds with three more outbursts.

Nolan Rappaport

Surely, a highly respected authority on immigration law with Nolan's vast knowledge and experience must be able to find a better way to rebut opinions he disagrees with than attempting to dismiss them as "outbursts".

My last "outburst" consisted of quoting from and commenting on a decision of a federal judge only days ago ruling that Trump's DACA termination was illegal, in part because of evidence that it was motivated by racial animus against minority immigrants, and comparing that with earlier court decisions invalidating Trump's Muslim ban orders.

Were those court decisions merely "outbursts" too?

There was once a time when quoting from and commenting on judicial decisions was called "legal discussion", not an "outburst".

The same applies to my comments on a number of points that Nolan has raised in his own article. This also used to be called "legal discussion" once upon a time.

Today, January 15, we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., one of the greatest Americans of all time, who, 55 years ago, in 1963, made an immortal speech containing the words "I Have a Dream", and whose legacy Donald Trump himself paid homage to in January 12 statement that upheld the equality of all people regardless of country of birth and directly contradicted his statement the day before that African and Haitian immigrants were inferior to immigrants from Norway.

As a young Harvard Law School graduate, I had the great honor and privilege of working for a distinguished lawyer and close friend and adviser to Dr. King, Clarence B. Jones, who was representing Dr. King in federal copyright litigation involving the "I Have a Dream" speech. I played a small but not totally insignificant role in helping prepare the paperwork for that litigation - including copyrighting the speech itself.

I can still remember that time, when Dr. King himself was denounced by his segregationist opponents as a "demagogue" and a "rabble-rouser" and was falsely accused of having Communist sympathies, before finally being assassinated because of his support of equal rights for black people.

As we honor Dr. King's legacy today, we should also be saddened by the fact that we now have a president who, only one day before honoring that legacy himself, stated, according to at least one highly respected US Senator who was present, that America doesn't want immigrants from "shithole" parts of the world where people have the same skin color as Dr. King.

I trust that Nolan, in keeping with his own distinguished reputation as a respected legal scholar and immigration law authority, will not try to dismiss my comments about my experience working on behalf of Dr. King, however small and brief, and how this experience relates to immigration issues today, as a mere "outburst."

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law