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



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

If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry



© Getty

Senator Chuck Schumer (R-N.Y.) has dismissed the White House’s new Framework on Immigration Reform & Border security as a “wish list” for hard-liners. According to Schumer, Trump is using protection for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) participants as “a tool to tear apart our legal immigration system and adopt the wish list that anti-immigration hardliners have advocated for years.”

But Schumer’s own DACA proposal, which he put together as part of the Gang of Six, was just as unacceptable to Trump as Trump’s current proposal is to Schumer.

Schumer rejected Trump’s previous proposal, which was to establish a program for the 690,000 DACA participants that would continue their temporary legal status, and proposed a legalization program for a couple of million Dreamers. Moreover, he offered Trump just $1.591 billion for building a wall, which is only a small fraction of the amount he needs; and did not meaningfully address his chain migration concerns.

That was not the first time Schumer has advocated a position he knew would be rejected. Four years ago, he moved his immigration reform bill, S.744, through the Senate despite the fact that it was opposed by 70 percent of the Senate Republicans. It was dead on arrival in the Republican controlled House.

Trump may be right that the Democrats don’t want to make a deal.

They could have passed a DREAM Act during Barack Obama’s administration. From January 2009 to January 2011, they had a large majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, they had a supermajority in the Senate. They passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) without a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate.

Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...mp-not-schumer

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.





Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer. By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My comment on Nolan's article above has been updated as of February 2 at 9:10 am:

    Trump's "Framework" for a solution to the DACA problem, which he created himself by cancelling this program last September effective six months later, would take America back 100 years years or more to an era of nativist racial exclusion of immigrants based on openly white supremacist ideology.

    That is the real purpose of Trump's proposals to eliminate immigration by close relatives beyond the immediate nuclear family, pejoratively called "chain migration"; and his proposal to abolish the Diversity Visa lottery. As reported in a February 1 article by Slate writer Jamelle Bouie, the Center for Global Development has found that white immigrants would be favored over non-white ones by 2 to 1 according to Trump's proposals, reversing a trend that has been in place for the past half century.

    As Bouie explains in great detail, this would represent a move backward toward the openly racial exclusion agenda of the 1924 Johnson Reed immigration act which (as I have pointed out in previous comments), both Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and Adolf Hitler, nine decades earlier, have praised highly.

    For an incisive and comprehensive analysis of Trump's proposals in the light of America's immigration history which is far more pertinent and provides a much deeper understanding of the issues involved than Nolan's article does, see Bouie's article:

    The Fight for a White America

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...tion-plan.html

    My original comment appears below.

    Two of the immigration proposals that Trump is advocating as being, allegedly, in America's best interests would have a major effect on America's demographics. I refer to the proposal to eliminate "chain migration", i.e immigration by siblings or adult children of US citizens, and ending the Diversity visa lottery. Both of these programs have been used in large part by non-white immigrants from Latin America, Africa and Asia, and have done a great deal to promote racial and religious diversity in America over the past few decades.

    Abolishing these two programs would be a big step backward toward the Europeans only immigration system that we had before 1965.

    Trump has called "chain migration" "horrible" (in a December 29, 2017 tweet) even though he himself would not be here without family based immigration, as described on a January 29 Washington Post article by Philip Bump.

    Trump has also made patently untrue comments about both family immigration and the Diversity visa which are designed to arouse public opinion against these programs.

    After the Halloween 2017 New York City terror attack in which a radicalized lone wolf legal immigrant who came to the US on a family visa killed 8 people, Trump stated that the suspect had sponsored 23 relatives through "chain migration".

    Even the prominent immigration restrictionist Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports Trump's agenda for reducing legal immigration, said that this was impossible, as I have pointed out in earlier comments.

    Subsequently, the president not only repeated this utterly false comment (in slightly different form) in a New York Times interview with reporter Michael Schmidt, but in the same interview, he accused foreign governments of picking their "worst people" to immigrate to the US under the diversity visa lottery.

    This is equally impossible, as anyone who knows anything about the visa lottery knows perfectly well.

    Yes, there may in theory be some arguments in favor of making certain changes in family immigration and the diversity lottery, from an intellectual point of view. It might also be possible that if the RAISE Act were to be adopted, with its allegedly "Canadian style" point system, the percentage of Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American immigrants compared to European ones might become even higher than it is now, even though one has good reason, based in the way the RAISE Act is written, to doubt whether this is the actual intention of the RAISE Act's sponsors and supporters, including the president!

    According to statistics I have seen from Canada (I am trying to recover the source), the percentage of European immigrants in Canada is around 11 percent of the total, less than from Africa and far less than from Asia.

    But we don't hear these theoretical arguments coming very often from Donald Trump. Instead, we have been hearing a great deal of animosity and falsehoods directed against minority immigrants coming from the president, beginning with his attack on Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists" at the start of his presidential campaign and continuing up until now. No one can either deny that Trump has been making these attacks, or justify them.

    While this is not a reflection on Trump personally, it does reflect on the immigration policies he is so insistent on adopting.

    No wonder that Schumer and the Democrats are refusing to agree to any deal which would eliminate family immigration for the parents and siblings of US citizens and the diversity visa lottery.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 02-02-2018 at 08:13 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar


    Roger says, “However, two of the immigration proposals that he is advocating as being in America's best interests would have a major effect on America's demographics. I refer to the proposal to eliminate "chain migration", i.e immigration by siblings or adult children of US citizens, and ending the Diversity visa lottery. Both of these programs have been used in large part by non-white immigrants from Latin America, Africa and Asia, and have done a great deal to promote racial and religious diversity in America over the past few decades.”

    This sounds racist to me. Roger wants to discriminate against whites to maintain a large percentage of nonwhite immigrants. What have you got against whites, Roger?

    Roger says, “Abolishing these two programs would be a big step backward toward the Europeans only immigration system that we had before 1965.”

    No one is proposing a return to a Europeans-only immigration system. That’s a distortion of what is being discussed, which is substituting a merit-based immigration system for one based on extended family relationships and choice by lottery. Are you assuming that a merit-based system would favor whites over nonwhites? That sounds like a racist statement about nonwhites. You are implying that they are inferior to whites and would lose out under a merit-based system.

    I am not responding to Roger’s interpretation of things Trump has said.

    Roger says, “According to statistics I have seen from Canada (I am trying to recover the source), the percentage of European immigrants in Canada is around 11 percent of the total, less than from Africa and far less than from Asia.”

    It is a merit-based point system, which is as objective as you can possibly get. And race is not part of the computation. But Roger doesn’t want fairness. He wants fewer whites.

    Roger says, “But we don't hear these theoretical arguments coming very often from Donald Trump.”

    Of course we aren’t hearing Trump’s arguments. He didn’t write this article. I did.

    Roger says, “No wonder that Schumer and the Democrats are refusing to agree to any deal which would eliminate family immigration for the parents and siblings of US citizens and the diversity visa lottery.”

    Get your facts straight, Roger. Schumer’s own bill, S. 744, would have eliminated the Diversity Visa Program if it hadn’t been dead on arrival when it reached the House. And if we can get back to my article for a moment, note that I propose a merit-based system that would give a preference based on family ties when other factors are roughly equal.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan says that "no one is proposing a return to a Europeans-only immigration system."

    But the cutbacks in family immigration and elimination of the diversity visa lottery that Trump is trying to force on immigration supporters as what amounts to ransom for almost 2 million DREAMERS whom Trump is threatening to deport amounts to exactly that, as Nation immigration writer Julianne Hing explains in her perceptive January 26 article which I will discuss further in my own forthcoming blog comment. Her article is entitled:

    The 4 Most Shocking Proposals in the White House Immigration Plan.

    I do not have a link, but it is available through Google.

    Nolan says he will not respond to my "interpretation" of Trump's comments on immigration.

    What Nolan calls "interpretation" consisted mainly of my pointing out obviously false statements that Trump made to support his proposal to abolish extended family immigration and the visa lottery.

    The fact is that Trump stated that someone who committed a dastardly terror attack had either sponsored 23 relatives or been sponsored as one of 22 relatives through chain migration.

    If this was not an out and out falsehood by the president, then I invite Nolan to provide the names and dates of admission the 22 or 23 allegedly sponsored relatives of the NYC Halloween terror attacker.

    In the same way, the president stated that the visa lottery allows foreign governments to pick the "worst of the worst" immigrants.

    If this statement was not also a flat out falsehood, then I would look forward to hearing from Nolan which foreign governments picked which "worst of the worst" immigrants.

    I am not making "interpretations" of those presidentialstatements. I am simply pointing out that they did not contain a single grain of truth.

    Nolan also says that I am apposed to a "merit-based" point system because I "want fewer whites".

    With all due respect to Nolan, that is totally unfounded

    The reason why so many people are opposed to Trump's "merit-based" point system is not because they want "fewer whites" but because of opposition to a skewed "point system" proposal (in the RAISE Act) whose main "merit" for its sponsors and supporters is that it discriminates in favor of wealthy, highly educated, English-speaking immigrants, most of whom might be expected to come from Europe rather than places such as Africa, Latin America Southeast Asia or the Middle East, in a major reversal of the nondiscriminatory, race neutral (at least in principle) system that America has had for the past half century.

    I will expand further on this point in my forthcoming blog comment.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law










    Updated 01-30-2018 at 05:08 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, "Nolan also says that I am apposed to a "merit-based" point system because I "want fewer whites".

    With all due respect to Nolan, that is totally unfounded.

    The reason why so many people are opposed to Trump's "merit-based" point system is not because they want "fewer whites" but because of opposition to a system that discriminates in favor of wealthy, highly educated, English-speaking immigrants, most of whom might be expected to come from Europe rather than places such as Africa, Latin America Southeast Asia or the Middle East."

    More racist comments. The implication of Roger's concern is that nonwhites are poor, have little education, and don't speak English. And he doesn't think they can compare favorably to whites in a merit-based immigration system.

    Roger, notwithstanding your low opinion of them, they aren't inferior to white immigrants.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 01-30-2018 at 05:10 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger also says, "But the cutbacks in family immigration and elimination of the diversity visa lottery that Trump is trying to force on immigration supporters as what amounts to ransom for almost 2 million DREAMERS whom Trump is threatening to deport."

    When did Trump threaten to deport them? Did you read his proposal? He is offering legalization for 1.8 million Dreamers, not threatening to deport them.

    And why haven't you commented on the fact that the Democrats had two years during the Obama Administration when they could have passed a DREAM Act...or comprehensive immigration reform...without a single Republican vote? If they care so much about the Dreamers, why didn't they pass a DREAM Act when they could have done it with no difficulty at all?

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-30-2018 at 05:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is an egregious distortion of my comments to imply that I have a low opinion of non-European immigrants or that I think any group of immigrants is inferior.

    I have never said or implied that non-European immigrants are in any way inferior to European ones - only that in many parts of the world, people do not have the educational and economic advantages that would enable them to immigrate under the RAISE Act, which is not a neutral objective point system at all, but one heavily skewed in favor of wealthy, mainly white immigrants.

    Nolan cannot deny the fact that in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and other non-white parts of the world, there is on the average, much less access to higher education than in Europe, and English is much less widespread. The focus on attracting wealthy, highly educated, English speaking immigrants is not a bad idea in itself, but as a replacement for our current system its only purpose is obviously to reduce immigration from outside Europe.

    And, just in case it doesn't work out that way, the RAISE Act would also cut TOTAL immigration in half. In other words, if too many non-European immigrants qualify, they won't be able to immigrate to the US anyway!

    If Trump and his supporters are serious about admitting more highly skilled immigrants, there is a simple way to do that which would not penalize millions of nonwhite family and diversity based immigrants - increase the H-1B, EB-2 and EB-3 quotas.

    There is also an historical example of an immigration requirement which was neutral on its face but obviously intended to discriminate against a specific group of immigrants. In 1917 just over 100 years ago,, the US enacted a literacy requirement making immigrants who could not read or write in any language ineligible to come to the US.

    On the surface, this may have seemed like a reasonable requirement - someone who couldn't read or write might have more difficulty earning a living.

    But in fact, in
    Czarist Russia, Jews were widely barred from attending school, and illiteracy was high among the Jewish population. Educational opportunities were also limited in general to all but the very wealthy throughout all of Eastern Europe

    This, according to historical sources, is what gave rise to the literacy requirement in our immigration laws at that time.

    It was a way of keeping Jewish and other Eastern European immigrants out of the US- not because they were "inferior", but because of their lack of opportunity for a decent education.

    The RAISE Act brings back disturbing echoes of a bigoted era in our immigration history.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 01-31-2018 at 03:01 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also says that Trump hasn't threatened to deport the DREAMERS if the Democrats refuse his ultimatum of canceling extended family immigration and the diversity lottery in return for deportation relief and citizenship.

    If there is no DACA/DREAMERS deal, what does Nolan think that Trump is going to do with the DREAMERS. Let almost 2 million people remain in the US without legal status if there is no deal? When and where did the president ever say that?

    Instead of initiating a serious discussion of how to improve our immigration system and attract greater numbers of the most qualified qualified immigrants (including millions of highly educated immigrants from outside Europe who are now being kept out by artificially low H-1B, EB-2 and EB-3 quotas and other draconian restrictions against skilled immigrants) the reasonable way to do this would be to separate the whole area of legal immigration "reform" from the DREAMERS issue.

    Instead, Trump is instead pointing a gun at the heads of almost 2 million DREAMERS and threatening to pull the trigger if Congress doesn't make huge cuts in legal immigration which a distinguished immigration law scholar such as Nolan has to know as well as anyone else are primarily directed against immigrants from outside Europe.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-31-2018 at 03:02 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan also says that Trump hasn't threatened to deport the DREAMERS if the Democrats refuse his ultimatum of canceling extended family immigration and the diversity lottery in return for deportation relief and citizenship.

    If there is no DACA/DREAMERS deal, what does Nolan think that Trump is going to do with the DREAMERS. Let almost 2 million people remain in the US without legal status if there is no deal? When and where did the president ever say that?

    Date, place and quotation or link to that promise please, Nolan. Thank you.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I never said Trump has promised not to deport them. I just said there is no reason to expect them to be deported. When their status expires, they will become part of a 11 million plus population of illegal immigrants. If they do not get into trouble with the law, they will be no more likely to be deported than any other noncriminal alien.

    Even if Trump wanted to concentrate his enforcement efforts on noncriminal aliens, the immigration court backlog makes enforcement of any kind a losing proposition for the foreseeable future. See my article, Like it or hate it, Trump’s immigration enforcement is failing (December 14, 2017),
    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...ram-is-failing
    Nolan Rappaport
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    It is an egregious distortion of my comments to imply that I have a low opinion of non-European immigrants or that I think any group of immigrants is inferior.

    I have never said or implied that non-European immigrants are in any way inferior to European ones - only that in many parts of the world, people do not have the educational and economic advantages that would enable them to immigrate under the RAISE Act, which is not a neutral objective point system at all, but one heavily skewed in favor of wealthy, mainly white immigrants.

    Nolan cannot deny the fact that in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and other non-white parts of the world, there is on the average, much less access to higher education than in Europe, and English is much less widespread. The focus on attracting wealthy, highly educated, English speaking immigrants is not a bad idea in itself, but as a replacement for our current system its only purpose is obviously to reduce immigration from outside Europe.

    And, just in case it doesn't work out that way, the RAISE Act would also cut TOTAL immigration in half. In other words, if too many non-European immigrants qualify, they won't be able to immigrate to the US anyway!

    If Trump and his supporters are serious about admitting more highly skilled immigrants, there is a simple way to do that which would not penalize millions of nonwhite family and diversity based immigrants - increase the H-1B, EB-2 and EB-3 quotas.

    There is also an historical example of an immigration requirement which was neutral on its face but obviously intended to discriminate against a specific group of immigrants. In 1917 just over 100 years ago,, the US enacted a literacy requirement making immigrants who could not read or write in any language ineligible to come to the US.

    On the surface, this may have seemed like a reasonable requirement - someone who couldn't read or write might have more difficulty earning a living.

    But in fact, in
    Czarist Russia, Jews were widely barred from attending school, and illiteracy was high among the Jewish population. Educational opportunities were also limited in general to all but the very wealthy throughout all of Eastern Europe

    This, according to historical sources, is what gave rise to the literacy requirement in our immigration laws at that time.

    It was a way of keeping Jewish and other Eastern European immigrants out of the US- not because they were "inferior", but because of their lack of opportunity for a decent education.

    The RAISE Act brings back disturbing echoes of a bigoted era in our immigration history.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    I was being facetious when I said you think they are inferior. But I am serious about thinking you are a racist. You spend an incredible amount of time complaining about the fact that Trump's policies would increase the population of white immigrants. You still haven't told me why it is bad to have more white immigrants.

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Out of respect for Nolan's distinguished reputation and record of achievement as an authority on immigration law, I will give Nolan the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not trying to be serious in making the above comment.

    I have never said that I object to having more white immigrants. I support immigration from every part of the world and have been representing immigrants from Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America without regard to ancestry, religion or national origin for more than 30 years.

    I believe that admitting more immigrants from every part of the world and of every skin color, religion and ethnic affiliation is what really Makes America Great and accords with our most fundamental values as a nation.

    The only people who want to reduce the number of white immigrants are Donald Trump and the authors of the RAISE Act. They are so anxious to keep out non-European immigrants that they propose to make such drastic reductions in overall immigration that European immigrants are bound to be hurt too.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-30-2018 at 08:07 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan's suggestion that non-criminal immigrants could be, by and large, safe from deportation, either because of administration policy or de facto because of the immigration court backlog, also fails to coincide with the facts. Almost every day brings yet another story about a longstanding non-criminal immigrant, in some cases, someone regarded as a pillar of the community, who is torn away from his or her family sent back after long residence in the US. It is true that ICE isn't deporting everyone. But both DHS and the DOJ have stated over and again that no one who is in the country without legal status is safe from deportation.

    This will unquestionably apply to DREAMERS if there is no immigration deal on Trump's terms. Otherwise, why did he cancel DACA in the first place?

    While actual deportation of non-criminal immigrants may be down from the Obama years, due to the court logistics that Nolan mentions, arrests and incarceration of non-criminal immigrants are according to most reports, way up. For details see Fox News (which is not known for being critical of Trump and cannot easily be dismissed as being biased against him):

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-new-life.html

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 01-31-2018 at 10:51 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Out of respect for Nolan's distinguished reputation and record of achievement as an authority on immigration law, I will give Nolan the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not trying to be serious in making the above comment.

    I have never said that I object to having more white immigrants. I support immigration from every part of the world and have been representing immigrants from Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America without regard to ancestry, religion or national origin for more than 30 years.

    I believe that admitting more immigrants from every part of the world and of every skin color, religion and ethnic affiliation is what really Makes America Great and accords with our most fundamental values as a nation.

    The only people who want to reduce the number of white immigrants are Donald Trump and the authors of the RAISE Act. They are so anxious to keep out non-European immigrants that they propose to make such drastic reductions in overall immigration that European immigrants are bound to be hurt too.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    But your complaint is that Trump's policies would increase immigration from white locations like Europe. How is that not an objection to brining more white immigrants into the country?

    Nolan Rappaport
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan's suggestion that non-criminal immigrants could be, by and large, safe from deportation, either because of administration policy or de facto because of the immigration court backlog, also fails to coincide with the facts. Almost every day brings yet another story about a longstanding non-criminal immigrant, in some cases, someone regarded as a pillar of the community, who is torn away from his or her family sent back after long residence in the US. It is true that ICE isn't deporting everyone. But both DHS and the DOJ have stated over and again that no one who is in the country without legal status is safe from deportation.

    This will unquestionably apply to DREAMERS if there is no immigration deal on Trump's terms. Otherwise, why did he cancel DACA in the first place?

    While actual deportation of non-criminal immigrants may be down from the Obama years, due to the court logistics that Nolan mentions, arrests and incarceration of non-criminal immigrants are according to most reports, way up. For details see Fox News (which is not known for being critical of Trump and cannot easily be dismissed as being biased against him):

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-new-life.html

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    You should have taken some statistics courses in college. I did as part of my math major. If you had, you might have known that even a ten thousand time increase in the deportation of noncriminal aliens is only significant for establishing a likelihood of being deported if it represents a substantial percentage of the noncriminal aliens who could be deported.

    You also claim few aliens commit crimes, so let's suppose only 10% of the undocumented aliens are criminals. That leaves more than 10 million who are.

    You haven't provided any factual support for your claims, which doesn't surprise me, but I have heard that the number of noncriminal aliens being deported annually is around 25,000. According to ICE, 92% of all aliens arrested by ICE in FY 217 had criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, were an immigration fugitive, or were an illegal re-entrant, so the actual total of noncriminal alien deportations is much lower than 25,000.

    But for arguments sake, less stick with 25,000. That would put the odds on being deported as a noncriminal alien at one in 400. But we know the actual number of the undocumented population is much higher.

    Let's compare that risk with other undesirable things and see how it compares:

    According to the National Safety Counsel, people in the United States are more likely to die from the follow things than undocumented aliens are to being deported. See chart at --

    http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx


    I assume you will stop warning undocumented aliens about being deported and start warning Americans generally about their likelihood of being killed by one of the items on this list. Maybe you could encourage people to eat healthy food and exercise regularly too. The risk of dying from cancer or heart disease is one in seven.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-31-2018 at 03:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Again with due respect to Nolan's distinguished reputation and achievements as an immigration law authority, I fail to see how my comment that it is wrong to discriminate against immigrants of color, which would be the obvious effect of Trump's proposals to end two important immigration visa programs which have helped them up to now, can be taken as an attack against white immigrants.

    According to a study by the Washington based Center for Global Development, Trump's proposals, which are similar to those in a bill called Securing America's Future Act introduced by Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte, would make the largest cute in legal immigration since 1924. It would also reduce immigration by all ethnic groups, including white immigrants, below current levels.

    Based on this study, anyone who is concerned about protecting the rights of white immigrants, as I certainly am and Nolan also says he is, should be in favor of keeping the current visa system, rather than supporting Trump's proposed overall reductions which would hurt white immigrants too, even though they would hurt non-white immigrants even more. See:

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-trump...ical-estimates

    Moreover I have made clear in all my comments that immigrants from every part of the world should be welcome in the US without discrimination based on race, color or religion. That is what our law has provided for the past 50 years, and any attempt to change it, directly or indirectly, as Trump is now trying to do, should be opposed.

    Nolan says that I am opposed to increasing white immigration. There no basis for that statement. Trump's proposals would, very possibly, increase the percentage of white immigrants - which these proposals are clearly intended to do.

    But Trump's proposals would reduce the amount of white immigrants in absolute numbers. I strongly oppose these proposals, and anyone who is in favor of white immigrants and who believes, as I do that European immigrants are just as valuable and important for America as immigrants from any other part of the world are, should do the same.

    For this reason, i hope that Nolan will reconsider his suggestion that the Democrats should support Trump's proposed immigration "compromise" which in reality, is more like an ultimatum.

    I do, however give Nolan credit for being accurate in one of his comments about my views: he is absolutely correct when he says that I never took a course in statistics!

    But, perhaps to make up for that deficiency, I do read news reports. One report, again in Fox News which is hardly an anti-Trump organ, quotes Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has more authority to speak for the Trump administration than Nolan does as saying.

    "But we can't promise people who are here unlawfully that they aren't going to be deported."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...portation.html

    Now that Trump has cancelled DACA, DREAMERS who currently have DACA protection will lose it on March 5 and will be subject to deportation if Trump doesn't get Congressional approval for eliminating two important visa programs which have enabled tens of millions of immigrants to come to the US from all parts of the world in the past several decades, and replacing those programs with a system skewed heavily toward only one region - Europe.

    Nolan suggests that these DREAMERS should not worry about being deported. The nation's attorney general, who was appointed by and is directly responsible to Trump, says the opposite.

    Which opinion would it be safer for DREAMERS to rely on?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-01-2018 at 05:16 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In a late breaking development on February 1, Trump has issued what amounts to an obvious threat to deport DACA recipients by accusing the Democrats of "doing nothing" about that issue and pointedly referring to the March 5 deadline which he himself imposed five months ago.

    Any DACA recipient or advocate has be worried about the implied threat to deport the DREAMERS if Trump does not get his way on gutting the two visa programs which have helped non-white immigrants the most.

    Nolan's assurances that the DREAMERS will not be singled out and targeted as top priority for deportation in retaliation for the Democrats' refusal to accept Trump's deep cuts in legal immigration, which would badly hurt all immigrant groups, including white immigrants, but would hurt non-white immigrants most of all, ring hollow - very hollow. See:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...proaching.html

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 02-01-2018 at 08:56 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Again with due respect to Nolan's distinguished reputation and achievements as an immigration law authority, I fail to see how my comment that it is wrong to discriminate against immigrants of color, which would be the obvious effect of Trump's proposals to end two important immigration visa programs which have helped them up to now, can be taken as an attack against white immigrants.

    According to a study by the Washington based Center for Global Development, Trump's proposals, which are similar to those in a bill called Securing America's Future Act introduced by Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte, would make the largest cute in legal immigration since 1924. It would also reduce immigration by all ethnic groups, including white immigrants, below current levels.

    Based on this study, anyone who is concerned about protecting the rights of white immigrants, as I certainly am and Nolan also says he is, should be in favor of keeping the current visa system, rather than supporting Trump's proposed overall reductions which would hurt white immigrants too, even though they would hurt non-white immigrants even more. See:

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-trump...ical-estimates

    Moreover I have made clear in all my comments that immigrants from every part of the world should be welcome in the US without discrimination based on race, color or religion. That is what our law has provided for the past 50 years, and any attempt to change it, directly or indirectly, as Trump is now trying to do, should be opposed.

    Nolan says that I am opposed to increasing white immigration. There no basis for that statement. Trump's proposals would, very possibly, increase the percentage of white immigrants - which these proposals are clearly intended to do.

    But Trump's proposals would reduce the amount of white immigrants in absolute numbers. I strongly oppose these proposals, and anyone who is in favor of white immigrants and who believes, as I do that European immigrants are just as valuable and important for America as immigrants from any other part of the world are, should do the same.

    For this reason, i hope that Nolan will reconsider his suggestion that the Democrats should support Trump's proposed immigration "compromise" which in reality, is more like an ultimatum.

    I do, however give Nolan credit for being accurate in one of his comments about my views: he is absolutely correct when he says that I never took a course in statistics!

    But, perhaps to make up for that deficiency, I do read news reports. One report, again in Fox News which is hardly an anti-Trump organ, quotes Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has more authority to speak for the Trump administration than Nolan does as saying.

    "But we can't promise people who are here unlawfully that they aren't going to be deported."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...portation.html

    Now that Trump has cancelled DACA, DREAMERS who currently have DACA protection will lose it on March 5 and will be subject to deportation if Trump doesn't get Congressional approval for eliminating two important visa programs which have enabled tens of millions of immigrants to come to the US from all parts of the world in the past several decades, and replacing those programs with a system skewed heavily toward only one region - Europe.

    Nolan suggests that these DREAMERS should not worry about being deported. The nation's attorney general, who was appointed by and is directly responsible to Trump, says the opposite.

    Which opinion would it be safer for DREAMERS to rely on?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, how is Trump's framework proposal similar to Goodlatte's Securing America's Future Act? And how would giving legal status and a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers increase the population of white immigrants from Europe?


    And how is Sessions' statement, "But we can't promise people who are here unlawfully that they aren't going to be deported," a declaration of intent to deport the 690,000 DACA participants?

    They were deportable when they began their DACA participation, and the terms of the program made it clear that they would revert to their status of being deportable aliens when their status expires. That's what Obama told them.

    And maybe you can explain how Trump's intention to enforce the immigration laws that were passed by congress and signed by previous presidents is racist because it would reduce the nonwhite immigrant population, but your objections to his policies because they would increase the white immigrant population aren't?

    And why haven't you responded to the fact I pointed out that the Democrats could have passed a DREAM Act when they had a large majority in the House, a filibuster beating majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president in the White House: AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO IT.

    Keep complaining about Trump wanting to deport the Dreamers, Roger. Don't pay any attention to the fact that he has offered legalization and a path to citizenship for 1.8 million of them. And don't let up on your claim that he is a racist because he is trying to increase white immigration but you aren't for trying to prevent him from doing it.

    Nolan Rappaport


  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There are so many misinterpretations in Nolan's above comments that I will not even try to deal with them all. I will only make two points. To answer Nolan's first question about the resemblance between Trump's Framework and Goodlatte's proposed changes in legal immigration, I will admit that I have not yet read Goodlatte's bill, but my understanding is that it would also include eliminating the visa lottery and so-called "chain migration". If I am wrong about that, I am sure Nolan will correct me. See:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/36...migration-bill

    But it would not make much difference, because Trump also supports the RAISE Act, which would cut all legal immigration in half and negatively impact immigration from everywhere in the world, but especially from outside Europe.

    And for some reason, Nolan keeps arguing that Trump's proposals would increase white immigration and that I oppose that.

    But as I have shown above, Trump's proposals would actually reduce white immigration in terms of absolute numbers. However, they would reduce non-white immigration even more, so the percentage of white immigrants would increase.

    I am against that kind of racial engineering. I am not against increasing immigration in terms of absolute numbers by any group of people, no matter where they are from or what their skin color is.

    Reducing immigration in general, and non-white immigration in particular, is Donald Trump's agenda, not mine.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-01-2018 at 03:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It's difficult to discuss Trump's Framework for a DACA bill with Roger. He has rejected my attempts to base the discussion on the things the framework says, opting instead to discuss Trump's support for other, very different legislative proposals.

    Nolan Rappaport
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Can Nolan explain further why he thinks that the two legislative proposals I have mentioned above are so different from Trump's "Framework"? If the Senate RAISE Act and the House Goodlatte bill are inconsistent with Trump's "Framework" and its goal of drastically reducing immigration from non-white parts of the world (while also cutting immigration from Europe, but to a lesser extent) why has Trump endorsed these two Congressional proposals so enthusiastically as part of his "immigration reform" agenda?

    Here is the official White House January 11 statement of endorsement for the Goodlatte bill, as it appears in the Congressman's own website:

    "President Donald J. Trump is grateful to Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman McCaul, Congressman Labrador and Congressman McSally for introducing legislation that would accomplish the President's core priorities for the American people. The president looks forward to advancing legislation that secures the border, ends chain migration, cancels the visa lottery, and addresses the status of the DACA population in a responsible fashion."

    https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/doc...ocumentlD=1082

    And for the official presidential endorsement of the RAISE Act dated August 2, 2017, see the White House website:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...cks-raise-act/

    Is it not a fact that both of these Congressional proposals would, just like Trump's Framework, eliminate both the "non-nuclear" family immigration which Trump attacks as "chain migration" and the diversity visa lottery, both of which have been the pillars of immigration from Latin America, Asia and Africa for the past several decades and have between them enabled 30 or 40 million immigrants of color to come to the US legally?

    Certainly, Trump's "Framework", which could fairly be described more as a set of talking points rather than a fully developed legislative proposal, no doubt differs in some respects from the above two bills, which are also different from each other in a number of ways.

    But they all agree on the essential point for purposes of this discussion: elimination of the family based immigration system which every analyst on both sides of the debate agrees has accounted for the large growth in non-European immigration in the past half century.

    This tide of family - based immigration - which, in an earlier and whiter era of "chain migration", enabled Trump's own grandfather and mother to come America from Europe to join their siblings - is what Donald Trump and his supporters now want to turn back in order to make the face of America whiter as it used to be - before 1965 - and just as the legendary King Canute of England once ordered the waves to turn back from the seashore.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-07-2018 at 08:00 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    And of course Donald George Orwell Trump wants to help Dreamers more than the Democrats do. That is why he cancelled DACA - to help the Dreamers. Of course.

    And just to show how much he really wants to help the Dreamers, Trump's officials are making it crystal clear that, if DACA expires without a deal that would include agreement to Trump's impossible demand to take America more than 50 years back to the bigoted pre-1965 white supremacist immigration model by eliminating family reunification (and the 1995 diversity visa lottery), the Dreamers will definitely be at risk of deportation. Just ask AG Jeff Sessions and ICE Director Homan.

    They will be glad to show us just how much Trump really "Loves" the Dreamers.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
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: