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

Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs.

Rate this Entry
In a tweet he issued on Saturday, President Trump said:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Republicans want to fix DACA far more than the Democrats do. The Dems had all three branches of government back in 2008-2011, and they decided not to do anything about DACA. They only want to use it as a campaign issue. Vote Republican!


The details are off, but the basic message is true. As I said in my article, "If Dreamers get a deal, it will be because of Trump, not Schumer," http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...mp-not-schumer

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. [Note. A supermajority means they had enough votes to end a Republican filibuster.]


I hope Trump and I are wrong. If we are right, the Democrats will just make a show of trying to make a deal to help the DACA participants but refuse to accept any Republican offer, so they claim when the next elections come up that they did their best but the Republicans refused to be reasonable.

Nolan Rappaport

Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to Facebook Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to Twitter Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to Google Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to StumbleUpon Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to Reddit Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to Digg Submit "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERs." to del.icio.us

Updated 02-11-2018 at 11:59 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's immigration tweets and other comments do not exactly have a stellar record for accuracy. Think about the NYC Halloween day attacker who Trump claimed had sponsored "23 relatives" for green cards, through "chain migration" - something that even the noted immigration restrictionist, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, who supports most of Trump's immigration agenda, said was impossible.

    It is true that the Democrats failed to present an immigration bill at a time when they controlled Congress and the White House almost a decade ago - though whether they had 60 votes in the Senate is open to question.

    Neither Trump nor Nolan mentions that the Democrats, with some bipartisan support, did manage push a CIR bill through the Senate, which passed it in 2013, only to have the bill killed in the Republican-controlled House. So let's leave rewriting immigration legislative history up to George Orwell - he could have done a better job.

    But arguing that immigrants in general, or DACA recipients in particular, have less support or more to fear from Democrats than from Republicans now, in the era of Trump's stepped up arrests and deportations of non-criminal immigrants, his Muslim ban orders, and his support for drastic reductions in legal immigration affecting mainly non-white areas of the world; not to mention his unconscionable use of almost 800,000 Dreamers as hostages to his anti-immigrant agenda; and his statements demonizing non-European immigrants as "criminals", "terrorists", "gang members", "drug dealers" and "job stealers" who, he implies, "do not love America" - statements which have been too numerous to list here, is simply absurd.

    It may be a flashy talking point to grab 15 minutes worth of headlines.

    It is not a serious argument.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 02-12-2018 at 11:23 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Trump's immigration tweets and other comments do not exactly have a stellar record for accuracy. Think about the NYC Halloween day attacker who Trump claimed had sponsored "23 relatives" for green cards, through "chain migration" - something that even the noted immigration restrictionist, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration studies, who supports most of Trump's immigration agenda, said was impossible.

    It is true that the Democrats failed to present an immigration bill at a time when they controlled Congress and the White House almost a decade ago - though whether they had 60 votes in the Senate is open to question.

    Neither Trump nor Nolan mentions that the Democrats, with some bipartisan support, did manage push a CIR bill through the Senate, which passed it in 2013, only to have the bill killed in the Republican-controlled House. So let's leave rewriting immigration legislative history up to George Orwell - he could do a better job.

    But arguing that immigrants in general, or DACA recipients in particular, have less support or more to fear from Democrats than from Republicans now, in the era of Trump's stepped up arrests and deportations of non-criminal immigrants, his Muslim ban orders, and his support for drastic reductions in legal immigration affecting mainly non-white areas of the world; not to mention his unconscionable use of almost 800,000 Dreamers as hostages to his anti-immigrant agenda; and his statements demonizing non-European immigrants as "criminals", "terrorists", "gang members" and "job stealers" too numerous to list here, is simply absurd.

    It may be a flashy talking point to grab 15 minutes worth of headlines.

    It is not a serious argument.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law



    Roger says, "Trump's immigration tweets and other comments do not exactly have a stellar record for accuracy."

    Apparently, he didn't read the entire blog. After quoting Trump's tweet, I say, "The details are off, but the basic message is true." Then I quote a more accurate statement from an article I wrote a few weeks ago. Or maybe Roger is saying my articles don't have a steller record for accuracy either. If that is what he is saying, I would like some examples.

    Roger says, "It is true that the Democrats failed to present an immigration bill at a time when they controlled Congress and the White House almost a decade ago - though whether they had 60 votes in the Senate is open to question."

    Yes, Roger, they had 60 votes. You have ignored my point that the Democrats passed Obamacare during that period without a single Republican vote, which required 60 votes in the Senate. But they really wanted Obamacare.

    Second, the period ended in 2011, which was not almost a decade ago. The supermajority ended in 2010 with Scott Brown's special election, but that was not almost a decade ago either. It would be more effective if Roger could show that the congressmen who are claiming now that they want to help the Dreamers were not congressmen during that period. I await Roger's facts on that point, if it is true, which I doubt.


    Roger says, "Neither Trump nor Nolan mentions that the Democrats, with some bipartisan support, did manage push a CIR bill through the Senate, which passed it in 2013, only to have the bill killed in the Republican-controlled House. So let's leave rewriting immigration legislative history up to George Orwell - he could do a better job."

    The period in question ended in 2011, so a bill passed two years is not relevant.

    But I am glad that Roger brought that bill up. It cruelly exploited the plight of vulnerable undocumented aliens for personal political gain. The Gang of Eight moved S.744 through the Senate without a serious effort to make it acceptable to the Republicans. It was opposed by 70 percent of the Senate Republicans. The Gang of Eight knew with absolute certainty that it would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House.


    Roger says, "But arguing that immigrants in general, or DACA recipients in particular, have less support or more to fear from Democrats than from Republicans now, in the era of Trump's stepped up arrests and deportations of non-criminal immigrants, his Muslim ban orders, and his support for drastic reductions in legal immigration affecting mainly non-white areas of the world; not to mention his unconscionable use of almost 800,000 Dreamers as hostages to his anti-immigrant agenda; and his statements demonizing non-European immigrants as "criminals", "terrorists", "gang members" and "job stealers" too numerous to list here, is simply absurd."

    I won't dignify these distortions with a rebuttal.

    Roger says, "It may be a flashy talking point to grab 15 minutes worth of headlines.

    It is not a serious argument."

    Roger doesn't seem to be capable of understanding how wrong that statement is.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nothing in Nolan's response answers my main point, which is that seizing on a Democratic failure to bring up an immigration bill 7-10 years ago (which Nolan would have no doubt criticized as partisan and one-sided if there had been such a bill, just as he does above with the 2013 bill which the Democrats did pass in the Senate with some slight Republican help), is totally irrelevant in the era of Donald Trump, who is pushing the most anti-immigrant agenda that any president has supported since the openly racist "Nordics" only, (i.e, "Countries like Norway" - to quote Trump's infamous January 11 remark) immigration act of 1924.

    Nothing I have said above is meant to reflect on the accuracy or validity of other articles or comments that Nolan may have written on various immigration topics. That is an entirely separate issue which I make no comment about here one way or other.

    I am not making any statement or suggestion about Nolan's own track record for accuracy, other than to say that Nolan's comments, however much one might disagree with his conclusions, almost always have at least a germ of truth and bear some relation to reality.

    I am only talking about Donald Trump's record for making truthful comments about immigrants and immigration - which is not a very impressive one, to say the least - as Trump's utterly delusional comment about the 23 non-existent relatives whom the recent NYC attacker allegedly "sponsored" for immigration in Trump's above mentioned statement shows.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney Law
    Updated 02-12-2018 at 01:39 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, “Nothing in Nolan's response answers my main point, which is that seizing on a Democratic failure to bring up an immigration bill 7-10 years ago (which Nolan would have no doubt criticized as partisan and one-sided if there had been such a bill, just as he does above with the 2013 bill which the Democrats did pass in the Senate with some slight Republican help), is totally irrelevant in the era of Donald Trump,”

    That’s right. I am not going to discuss his views on the Trump era.

    But he still doesn’t understand the significance of the fact that the Democrats had two years to pass a DREAM Act and didn’t do it. I am saying it indicates that the Democrats don’t care about the Dreamers, that they just use their plight to gain a political advantage. If that is the case, they are going to do the same thing now in the Senate debate over a DACA fix, and they will continue to exploit the plight of the Dreamers until they regain the majority, at which point they will lose interest in it again.

    But apparently that wouldn’t bother Roger.

    He also has misunderstood my complaint about the 2013 bill. The point isn’t that it is one sided. The point is that they introduced a one-sided bill, and bragged about the wonderful things the bill would do but refused to make the changes that were necessary to make it acceptable to the Republicans in the Senate or the House --- KNOWING THE WHOLE TIME THAT THE BILL WAS GOING TO BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL IN THE HOUSE WITHOUT SUCH CHANGES.

    Incidentally, that bill was introduced by Sen. Schumer, the same guy who is offering DACA fixes to Trump knowing that they will be unacceptable to him and then complaining that Trump is being unreasonable.

    But that should make Roger happy. It would be horrific if a Republican-controlled congress passed a legalization program for 1.8 million Dreamers and Trump signed it.
    Updated 02-12-2018 at 05:13 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is of course entitled to his own interpretation of recent immigration legislative history, and if he wants to blame the Democrats when Trump starts deporting Dreamers out of spite because the Democrats won't go along with the massive cuts that Trump and his Republican supporters want to make in legal immigration from what Trump calls "shithole", countries where people's skins are not as white as the citizens of the countries that Trump would prefer to have America's immigrants come from, which he calls "Countries like Norway", that is Nolan's privilege.

    I will not argue with him further. Everyone has the right to his or her own views of immigration or any other issue.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 02-13-2018 at 01:35 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, “Nolan is of course entitled to his own interpretation of recent immigration legislative history, and if he wants to blame the Democrats when Trump starts deporting Dreamers.”

    This is pure fantasy. Trump has not indicated that he is going to deport the Dreamers. In fact, he can’t. The immigration court backlog crisis that Obama left him has forced him into following pretty much the same deportation policies that Obama followed. The difference is that he is allowing ICE to arrest noncriminal aliens too, but they are doing it on a sporadic, random basis.

    Also, when Trump ended DACA, he postponed the implementation of his termination for six months to give congress a chance to help them legislatively….and he tweeted that if congress failed to act, he would take another look at the situation.

    Roger claims the DACA deportations might be “out of spite because the Democrats won't go along with the massive cuts that Trump and his Republican supporters want to make in legal immigration”

    Trump’s four-point proposal for a DACA fix bill does not include any cuts in legal immigration. He would terminate the Diversity Visa Program, but the 50,000 diversity visas would be returned to the general pool of visas, which is where they came from originally.

    He also would end chain migration, but that does not reduce legal immigration either. The visas being used for non-nuclear family members would automatically revert back to the pool for the remaining family-based categories.

    And the end to chain visas would apply prospectively. It wouldn’t apply to the four million aliens with approved visa petitions who are waiting now for visa numbers to become available.

    So, Roger, where are the cuts you are talking about?

    Roger says, “I will not argue with him further. Everyone has the right to his or her own views of immigration or any other issue.”

    That’s true, but to be worth considering, the views have to be based on accurate, undistorted information.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 12:46 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with Nolan on that last point, namely that comments on any particular immigration proposal should be based on accurate information.

    Nolan says that the visas eliminated by ending "chain migration" would "revert back to the pool for the remaining family-based categories".

    What pool? Are not all the other remaining family-based categories considered to be "immediate relatives" of US citizens and therefore not subject to any annual limitations?

    And, is it not accurate that, after 13 years, an absolute reduction in total annual immigrant numbers would kick in? This is at least according to reports I have seen.

    To be sure, the latest administration proposals do not seem to be quite as harmful to overall immigration as Trump's original ones outlined earlier this year.

    It is definitely a good sign for immigrant supporters that howls of anguish are starting to come from the restrictionsts, such as the above-mentioned Mark Krikorian, that overall immigration levels are not being cut as much as he would like.

    A few more screams of rage against Trump by immigrant restrictionists for "selling out" his base and granting "amnesty" to too many people might be enough to make me a Trump supporter one day.

    I have not seen enough flexibility in Trump's very latest immigration proposal to get me there just yet.

    And while these latest proposals (as I understand them) certainly appear to be a step in the right direction, would it not be fair to conclude that they were offered as an attempt to accommodate the same Democrats whom Trump is now trying to label as the "anti-immigrant" party, based on their admittedly having dropped the ball on immigration reform 7-10 years ago, when no one could have imagined that Donald Trump would one day be president of the United States?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 02:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Let us also take a closer look at why Nolan, who can justly be called one of America's leading immigration law authorities, and whose comments always deserve to be taken seriously, is now criticizing the Democrats for failing to introduce of pass immigration reform legislation in 2008-2011, when they held the White House and had a super-majority in Congress.

    Since Nolan would have a hard time claiming that the Republicans had even the slightest interest in immigration reform (a/k/a "amnesty") at that time, any bill that the Democrats might have introduced and passed would have been open to criticism from Republicans as "partisan", "one-sided" and "divisive".

    Nolan himself has often written about the need to take the "political objectives of both parties" into account in any immigration reform legislation, and he has (with a good deal of justification) complained that Congress has been unable to pass a truly bipartisan immigration bill in more than 30 years.

    Why is Nolan now criticizing the Democrats for not doing something 7-10 years ago which Nolan has often condemned himself - namely passing "one-sided" legislation which the other party would have been sure to oppose?

    Here is what Nolan had to say in 2013 about an immigration reform bill that a Democratic Senator, Edward Kennedy, introduced together with a Republican Senator, John McCain, as long ago as 2005!

    "Who first said that the
    the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again with different results?...I am sure that some Republican Congressmen had the same thought when Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) and colleagues introduced the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, which was supposed to permit the creation of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in return for increased enforcement measures."

    See Nolan Rappaport,, February 8, 2013

    What is IRCA and What Does It Have to Do With Comprehensive Immigration Reform

    (Sorry, I don't have a reliable link- access is available through Google.)

    Does Nolan seriously think that any immigration reform bill that the Democrats might have introduced or passed in 2008-2011 would have been any different from the 2005 measure that Nolan himself panned as "insanity" only five years ago?

    And, further to show that Nolan is opposed to any immigration bill that he thinks is one-sided or partisan (especially if it is introduced by the Democrats) Nolan blasts the bill that passed the Senate in 2013, mainly with Democratic support (and only a smattering of Republicans) as "one-sided" in his comments only a few paragraphs above!

    If Nolan didn't like Democratic sponsored immigration reform proposals in 2005 and in 2013 (since McCain has always been a maverick Republican on immigration - often siding with the Democrats - as he did again in the 2013 "Gang of 8"), does Nolan really expect readers to believe that he would have supported a similar Democratic bill in 2008-2011?

    If a mainly Democratic immigration bill was "one-sided" in 2013 in Nolan's view, would this have been any different if the Democrats had introduced and passed their own bill, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years earlier in the face of almost certain unanimous Republican opposition?

    It would conflict with virtually every scholarly, well-researched and carefully considered comment on immigration that Nolan has written up to now to think that he would have supported any immigration bill that the Democrats might have introduced or passed without Republican support.

    Yet now, Nolan is condemning the Democrats for failing to introduce or pass the same kind of "one-sided" legislation that he has criticized so often, and so consistently, up to now (and, as I have indicated above, not without justification).

    Surely, Nolan does not really think that there would have been a single Republican vote in either chamber in favor of any CIR bill that the Democrats might have introduced in 2008 - 2011.

    How many Republicans voted for CIR in 2013? A few courageous Republican Senators of good will did, but not very many. And the Republican leadership did not even allow the Senate-passed bill to be introduced or debated, much less voted on, in the House.

    Now, Donald Trump is trying to use this recent history of almost rock-solid Republican opposition to immigration reform - which the Republicans have condemned as "amnesty", loudly and consistently in unison - as if they were an ancient Greek chorus - as evidence that, somehow, the Democrats are really the anti-immigrant party.

    Nothing in my above comments implies any lack of respect for Nolan and his well-deserved reputation as a distinguished immigration law expert. Nor am I criticizing Nolan's worthy goal of producing an immigration reform bill that truly attempts to accommodate the needs of both parties.

    I am
    only pointing out what, at least on the surface, might appear to be a certain lack of consistency in Nolan's criticizing the Democrats now for not doing something which, based on many of his previous comments, he would surely have opposed them for having done if they had in fact passed an immigration reform bill 7-10 years ago by riding roughshod over what would almost certainly been fierce and vocal Republican opposition.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 10:04 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I didn't criticize Schumer's 2013 bill because it was one sided. I criticized it because it gave false hope to vulnerable aliens who lived in fear of being deported. The Dems passed it in the Senate over opposition from 70% of the senate republicans and then they fed the media statements about how it would pass in the house if the republicans put it on the floor for a vote.....knowing that a bill opposed by the Republicans wasn't going to be allowed to skip the legislative process to go directly to the floor for a vote.

    In other words, the Dems had no rational basis for expecting that bill to be enacted.

    If they had made the changes necessary to gain Republican support, it would have passed and been signed into law.

    The main Republican objection to Schumer's 2013 bill was that it would have legalized millions of undocumented aliens but it did not have enforcement measures to prevent a new group of undocumented aliens from taking their place in ten or so years, which is what happened with IRCA.

    And now, Schumer is doing the same thing in his negotiations with Trump. His proposals would legalize millions of undocumented aliens, but he is offering the same kind of inadequate border security measures that he offered in his 2013 bill knowing that Trump is insisting on a physical wall. Why a physical wall? Because walls are very difficult for children to cross, which makes a wall an ideal choice for preventing aliens from coming here illegally as children, i.e., the DACA situation.

    This time, however, it isn't just about preventing a new group from taking the place of the ones being legalized. Trump also wants to end the Diversity Visa Program and Chain migration. But Schumer's 2013 bill would have terminated the Diversity Visa Program. That's not a deal killer for the Dems. That leaves chain migration as the deal killer. But have the Dems tried offering him the wall and ending the Diversity Visa program if he will postpone chain migration for another time? I mean the wall he is demanding, not surveillance devices and a few barriers.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 10:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with Nolan that what Trump and his supporters call "chain migration" and what is more accurately known as family immigration beyond the immediate nuclear family, is the biggest sticking point - not the Wall - or even the diversity visa lottery.

    Unfortunately, Trump's recent tweets and other statements on this issue indicate that he is so committed to gutting family immigration as we have known it for the past 50 years, that he even suggest that "we don't have a country" unless this "horrible" (see his 12/129/2017 tweet) form of legal immigration is abolished.

    If Trump can be persuaded to back down on this demand, then a deal that all sides could live with might be possible.

    As for the Wall, the symbolism is simply dreadful, for anyone who knows anything about the Berlin Wall or the Nazi's Warsaw Ghetto Wall - not to mention the anti-immigrant Wall that is being built today by politicians in Hungary, one of whom wants to register the entire Jewish population of that country - the same population which the Nazis exterminated in almost in toto in WW2.

    But if Trump is so anxious to humiliate Mexican and other Latin American immigrants that he cannot get along without a physical Wall - OK, let him build it. One day soon, a future president, who may not necessarily be a Democrat, will tear it down anyway.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is unfortunate that so much of what people think of Trump's immigration policies comes from his middle of the night tweets. I don't think they are a reliable way to figure out what he is willing to do in formal negotiations. They probably just represent passing thoughts expressed in the few sentence form of a tweet.

    I think that Trump would be willing to compromise on chain migration if he got the wall he wants.

    As for Roger's view of the wall being symbolism for Nazi Germany and the other evil things, I think it would be insane to block the construction of a wall that would improve border security because people who share Roger's bizarre associations find the prospect offensive.

    And it would be almost as bad to block it because it might offend Mexico and Central America. They are the source of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and the rest of the things we need a wall to protect ourselves against. We wouldn't need a wall if Mexico secured its own border to prevent illegal crossings from Mexico in the United States.

    And, frankly, I don't believe that Mexico is "offended" by the prospect of a wall to secure the US border against illegal crossings. I think they are objecting because they don't want to cut off the flow of undocumented aliens into the US because the Mexican economy benefits greatly from the money they send home to Mexico while they are working in the US. And the Central American countries also receive large amounts of money from their undocumented workers in the US.

    See my article, " In 2012, foreign workers in the United States sent remittances to their home countries totaling more than $123,273,000,000,"
    http://discuss.ilw.com/showthread.ph...olan-Rappaport.

    I'm sure that number has risen considerably since then.


    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-13-2018 at 02:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan writes above:

    "It is unfortunate that so much of what people think about Trump's immigration policies comes from his middle of the night tweets."

    But for better or for worse, many people do rely on Trump's immigration tweets as providing insights into his thinking on this issue. One such example is a commentator by the name of Nolan Rappaport, who has written an entire article on about one of Trump's tweets and why Nolan thinks that the tweet is accurate. This article is dated quite recently, February 11, actually, and its title is:

    "Trump tweet claims that the Democrats don't really want to help the DREAMERS"

    Nolan's entire article, not just the title, contains a lengthy defense of why Nolan believes that this particular tweet, which he quotes verbatim at the beginning of his article, was essentially correct.

    Anyone who wants to read this article will not have a very hard time finding it. It appears immediately above.

    If it is OK for Nolan to quote and discuss one of Trump's tweets as a basis for his policies when Nolan agrees with the tweet and thinks that it reflects on Trump favorably - to the point of writing an entire article about it, why is it wrong for another commentator, such as myself, to discuss a different Trump tweet as also providing an insight in to Trump's immigration policies and explain why he disagrees with that tweet?

    Are Trump's tweets to be taken seriously as policy statements only when Nolan thinks that they make Trump look good, but then disregarded as of no significance when someone else objects to a different tweet, such Trump's delusional one about the NYC Halloween attacker and his "23" phantom "chain migration relatives" - which I mention above and even Nolan does not try to defend?

    How can there be any kind of serious discussion about Trump's immigration policies with that kind of a ground rule?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-14-2018 at 09:36 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also says that he thinks that Trump would be willing to compromise on "chain migration" if he gets his wall.

    In this respect, Nolan was not a very good prophet. Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators presented a compromise bill that would have given Trump at least some funding for the Wall, but did not contain the drastic reductions in family-based legal immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America that Trump is demanding.

    A February 17 Washington Post article describes in detail how Trump and his administration lobbied furiously against that bill and ensured that it would fail in the Senate.

    See:

    Trump administration assault on bipartisan immigration plan assured its demise.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-18-2018 at 10:30 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: