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

Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
The Hill reports on February 23, that, once again, Donald Trump has repeated his implied threats to take action against almost 800,000 Dreamers (and we all know what kind of action that means) unless immigration supporters agree to abolish the non-discriminatory family immigration system which America has had for the past half century, since 1965.

According to many news reports, Trump's own mother, grandfather, and much more recently, parents-in-law, came to America through the same kind of "chain migration" which Trump now calls so "horrible" (in a December 29, 2017 tweet) and dangerous for America's security (in his recent SOTU speech) when people from non-European countries whose color is not as white as Trump's own family members use this method of legal immigration to come to America.

The United States rightly and justly welcomed Trump's forebears and is now welcoming his wife's European parents the same way. Why is Trump so eager to pull up the welcome mat for millions of non-European parents, siblings and adult children of US citizens who wish to continue to be able to come to America legally using the same method?

Why is making drastic cutbacks in non-white legal immigration so important to Trump that he is continuing to hold the Dreamers hostage to this racially motivated agenda - and, cynically, blame the opposition party when he begins to deport the Dreamers, as he undoubtedly will if the Democrats and other immigration advocates do not bow down to his imperial demand?

The Hill's
latest report is at:

http://thehill.com/latino/375279-tru...abandoned-daca
__________________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 30 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain H-1B and other work visas, as well as employment and family-based green cards. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com

Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Trump Doubles Down on Demand to Abolish 50 Year Old Policy of Non-Discriminatory Family Immigration as the Price for Saving Dreamers. Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 02-28-2018 at 02:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Apparently, Roger has forgotten what he learned when he read my latest Hill article. I am assuming he read it because he posted three comments to it. In any case, Roger is wrong when he refers to "chain migration" as the "non-discriminatory family immigration system which America has had for the past half century, since 1965. It was established to limit most immigration to white European immigrants.

    The following was take from that article. If you want to read the entire article, it can be found at
    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...ce-to-legalize

    The history of chain migration.

    The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act established a quota system based on national origins. It reserved about 70 percent of the visas for immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany.

    In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson supported a bill that would replace the national origins quota system with a preference system that would allocate 50 percent of the immigrant visas to applicants who have special occupational skills or education that would benefit America’s economic interests. The rest would be distributed to refugees and immigrants with close family ties to citizens or LPRs.

    The House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. Michael Feighan (D-Ohio), mobilized bipartisan resistance to Johnson’s immigration bill. Ultimately, however, he agreed to accept Johnson’s bill if he eliminated its emphasis on merit and skills and reserved most of the visas for immigrants with family ties to citizens and LPRs (chain migration).


    Pursuant to this agreement, nearly three-quarters of the total annual visas were allocated to the four chain migration categories, which at that time favored European applicants. Feighan expected this to maintain the nation’s white-European ethnic and racial makeup.

    The agreement cleared the way for passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.

    Feighan’s plan backfired. When he made his deal with Johnson in the 1960s, 75 percent of the immigrants were coming from Europe. Since then, however, economic conditions improved in Europe, so fewer Europeans wanted to come to America; and violence and poverty in other parts of the world increased immigration from outside of Europe. By 2010, 87.9 percent of the immigrants were coming from outside of Europe.

    And Roger does not want to maintain nondiscriminatory immigration in any case. He wants to maintain the current level of nonwhite immigration that chain migration produced when immigration patterns changed. In other words, the Democratic Judiciary Chairman who created chain migration wanted it because in 1965 it favored whites, and Roger wants to continue chain migration because it favors nonwhites now.

    What is my opinion? I don't think a preference system should be favoring aliens on the basis of the color of their skin. In fact, the INA statutory provisions on the allocation of visas prohibits doing it on the basis of race.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 06:58 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Also, I looked at the Hill article Roger cites and am puzzled by Roger's claim that it shows Trump intends to deport the DACA participants when DACA expires. The article quotes Trump as saying the following:

    "Senate Democrats and the House Democrats have totally abandoned DACA. They donít even talk to me about it, theyíve totally abandoned it," Trump said Friday during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.


    "We want to do something about DACA, get it solved after all these years. The Democrats have been totally unresponsive. They don't want to do anything about DACA. Itís very possible DACA wonít happen, itís not because of Republicans, itís because of Democrats.Ē

    This is consistent with the fact that during two years of the Obama administration when the dems had a strong majority in the House and a filibuster busting majority in the Senate, they did not pass a DREAM Act.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 04:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not his or her own facts. The history of "chain migration" since 1965 is undisputed. In essence, it is neutral and non-discriminatory. It has helped both white, European immigrants, such as Donald Trump's own mother, grandfather, and much more recently, his wife's parents, to immigrate to the US legally. In the past half century, it has also helped an estimated 30 to 40 million other close family members of US citizens to immigrate legally to the US, most of them overwhelmingly from outside the white countries of Europe.

    Those are the figures that I have, if Nolan has different figures, he is welcome to provide his. But we are talking about big numbers.

    It is also undisputed that extended family immigration (the correct term, since "chain migration" is a pejorative term that everyone in America knows refers mainly to brown-skinned immigrants) was inserted in the 1965 immigration law at the insistence of certain Congressional figures (in both parties) who mistakenly thought that it would favor European immigrants and help keep America's racial balance, which had been skewed toward white immigrants almost exclusively by 40 years of previous "national origins" white supremacist immigration policies which were so overtly racist that even Adolf Hitler claimed to have been inspired by them as he wrote in Mein Kampf, white.

    However, it has turned out that extended family immigration did not help to keep America white as its proponents had expected. Instead, according to the figures I have seen, 9 out of 10 immigrants who now come to the US legally through extended family immigration are non-white.

    Again, if my figures are off, Nolan can correct them. Maybe the real number is 8 out of 10 instead.

    But no one can argue that family immigration today is a major vehicle for non-white immigration.

    For an excellent summary of the effect of family immigration on America's demographics since 1965, see; Tom Gjelten:

    The Immigration Act of 1965, 50 Years Later

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...t-1965/408409/

    That does not mean that it is anti-white or discriminates against Europeans. That is nonsense. In fact the waiting periods for most family immigration categories are considerably less for European countries than for non-white countries such as Mexico, the Philippines and others.

    Now, Donald Trump wants to cancel or drastically limit extended family immigration because he doesn't like the countries (or the skin colors) of most of the people who use this form of legal immigration.

    In fact, he even has a word for these countries: "shithole countries".

    No amount of sophisticated arguments (which the ancient Greeks called by the term: "sophistry"} can change that reality.

    But don't just take Donald Trump's own word for the fact that the reason he wants to abolish "chain migration" is to stop people with brown skins from coming to the US legally.

    Look at the actual numbers showing how eliminating family immigration would be devastating to immigrants from non-white parts of the world. No serious immigration analyst can argue with a straight face that this is just a coincidence. See: Center for American Progress:

    The White House's Immigration Framework Would Eviscerate Immigration from Latin America, Africa and Asia (February 12 - sorry, i don't have a reliable link - interested readers can use Google.)

    And for a January 30 study by the Center for Global Development showing that under a House Bill which is similar to, though admittedly not identical to Trump's own Framework, but which Trump is also on record as supporting, legal immigration by black immigrants from around the world would be cut by 63.9 percent, and Hispanic immigration would be reduced by 58.2 per cent compared with "only" a 34.6 reduction in white immigration, see:

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

    No matter how much one might try to put a benign gloss on Trump's fierce opposition to the same "chain migration" that he owes his very existence to, let alone his presidency, and explain away the obvious racial motives which Trump cannot seem to stop himself from "Trumpeting" himself, the numbers speak for themselves. One cannot argue with them.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 09:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan also claims that Trump doesn't really have any idea of deporting Dreamers if their DACA protections expire. Of course not - the Dreamers are absolutely safe as long as Trump is in the White House, even if DACA disappears on March 5 (or whenever - this is up to the Supreme Court) - with nothing to replace it. But if the Dreamers are so safe with Big Brother Donald in the White House, why do the Democrats need to pay any attention to them at all?

    How can the Democrats be "abandoning" the Dreamers if they have nothing to worry about anyway?

    But not to worry, Trump's supporters say, Dear Leader Donald would never do anything mean or nasty like deporting the Dreamers. He "Loves" them, doesn't he?

    Sure, and Trump doesn't have plans to play any more golf, either, i suppose.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 07:35 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with Roger on immigration issues.

    His responses indicate that he just glances at what the other person is saying and then launches into a statement of how he sees the issue, with frequent tangents expressing his hatred for Trump.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 02-23-2018 at 09:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    When presented with irrefutable evidence, based not only on the immigration history, statistics and objective studies cited above, but on Trump's own admissions, if not actual boasts, that his immigration policies are motivated by racism against immigrants from what he himself calls "shithole countries" which are "not like Norway", Nolan retreats into claiming that I am motivated by "hatred" for Trump, instead of responding to the evidence of Trump's own hatred of brown-skinned immigrants and wish to stop them from coming to America through legal visas.

    I can only conclude that commenting on what Nolan sees as my personal motives in writing about Trump's immigration policies, which I will not dignify by responding to one way or the other since this is not pertinent to a discussion of law or policy on this or any other issue, is Nolan's way of conceding that he cannot answer the points I have raised on their merits.

    I will make one comment about this, however. My references to Trump as "Big Brother" and "Dear Leader" above were clearly not intended to be compliments.

    Instead, they were meant as references to the authoritarian way that Trump is trying to force his immigration agenda on the American people by blocking any attempt at an immigration compromise in Congress by America's elected Senators and Representatives in both parties unless it it includes the drastic cuts in non-white legal immigration which Trump is demanding - at gunpoint aimed directly at the Dreamers.

    These demands, as contained in his immigration "Framework", have aptly been referred to as a "White supremacist ransom note."

    https://thinkprogress.org/dreamers-r...-9a5607d3f869/

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 02-24-2018 at 09:37 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I will also make a further comment about Trump's insistence on making drastic cuts in non-white legal immigration as a condition for agreeing to legislative relief for the Dreamers. Nolan has, often, and wisely, written that any immigration legislation should take the political needs of both parties into account.

    (This is why it is hard to understand why Nolan is now so critical of the Democrats' in willingness to consider or enact what Nolan himself would have been the first to condemn as a "one-sided" immigration reform measure when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency less than a decade ago.)

    To return to the current Dreamers issue, Senators on both sides of the aisle recently introduced a compromise proposal which came within six votes of passing, and which would have provided relief from deportation for the Dreamers in return for funding for Trump's border Wall.

    Given the offense to Mexico as a nation. and to all non-white immigrants, that the Wall would stand for (not to mention its calling back dark memories of the Communist Berlin Wall and, even worse, the Nazi Warsaw Ghetto Wall), this was a major concession for the Democrats to make..

    Indeed, if my memory is correct, it followed the recommendation in one or more of Nolan's own recent articles - Nolan can correct me on this if i am mistaken.

    But Trump lobbied furiously against this compromise proposal and it was widely reported that his opposition was the chief reason that it failed to pass the Senate.

    So now, it turns out that even this major concession by the Democrats was not enough - Trump had raised his demands to insisting on gutting a half century of progress toward a non-discriminatory legal immigration system which gives every US citizen who has a parent, sibling or adult child an equal chance of sponsoring them for a green card, regardless of skin color or country of origin (except for waiting periods which favor white countries over certain non-European countries).

    And suppose that the Democrats and other supporters of the Dreamers give in on that demand too? What will be Trump's next demand?

    Taking birthright US citizenship away from millions of American -born black, Latino and Asian children because of their parents' immigration status, as he advocated during his presidential campaign?

    The more that immigration supporters try to accommodate Trump's authoritarian, white supremacist immigration agenda, the more we can be sure that he will keep on raising the ante.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 02-24-2018 at 10:52 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    When presented with irrefutable evidence, based not only on the immigration history, statistics and objective studies cited above, but on Trump's own admissions, if not actual boasts, that his immigration policies are motivated by racism against immigrants from what he himself calls "shithole countries" which are "not like Norway", Nolan retreats into claiming that I am motivated by "hatred" for Trump, instead of responding to the evidence of Trump's own hatred of brown-skinned immigrants and wish to stop them from coming to America through legal visas.

    I can only conclude that commenting on what Nolan sees as my personal motives in writing about Trump's immigration policies, which I will not dignify by responding to one way or the other since this is not pertinent to a discussion of law or policy on this or any other issue, is Nolan's way of conceding that he cannot answer the points I have raised on their merits.

    I will make one comment about this, however. My references to Trump as "Big Brother" and "Dear Leader" above were clearly not intended to be compliments.

    Instead, they were meant as references to the authoritarian way that Trump is trying to force his immigration agenda on the American people by blocking any attempt at an immigration compromise in Congress by America's elected Senators and Representatives in both parties unless it it includes the drastic cuts in non-white legal immigration which Trump is demanding - at gunpoint aimed directly at the Dreamers.

    These demands, as contained in his immigration "Framework", have aptly been referred to as a "White supremacist ransom note."

    https://thinkprogress.org/dreamers-r...-9a5607d3f869/

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    This is an excellent example of the problem I raised in my previous comment:

    It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with Roger on immigration issues.

    His responses indicate that he just glances at what the other person is saying and then launches into a statement of how he sees the issue, with frequent tangents expressing his hatred for Trump.

    Instead of responding to my criticism that he ignores what I say and launches into a statement of how he sees the issue, his response is that "When presented with irrefutable evidence, based not only on the immigration history, statistics and objective studies cited above, but on Trump's own admissions, if not actual boasts, that his immigration policies are motivated by racism...."

    Then in a new comment, he continues his attack on Trump.

    What's the point in having a discussion with someone who does this? It's a waste of time to tell him my position, and he doesn't need to pretend that he is having a discussion with me to rant about Trump. I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to have a meaningful discussion with him.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 02-24-2018 at 11:25 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In other words, Nolan is apparently unwilling or unable to respond to the specific facts, figures and quotations about Trump's immigration agenda that I have raised above, and which there is no need to repeat here.

    I also wish to emphasize that my comments about Trump do not imply any personal criticism of Nolan himself, who is deservedly recognized as one of America's leading, highly respected and distinguished immigration law experts, and who is certainly capable of making an effective and pertinent response to the points I have been making above about Trump's racially motivated immigration agenda and the authoritarian way that Trump is attempting to force immigration supporters to cave into it by making vaguely expressed, but still clear enough, threats against the Dreamers.

    As for what Nolan calls my "attack on Trump", I have never tried to hide the fact that I disagree with Trump's immigration policies, and that I believe, based in part on Trump's own words mentioned above, that they are meant to serve a white supremacist immigration agenda.

    If we start with the premise that Trump's statements, actions and policies on immigration are not a proper subject for disagreement or criticism, then, of course, a meaningful discussion of these issues becomes impossible.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-24-2018 at 01:30 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I may have been more negative than I wanted to be in my comments about Roger. We are friends and have had good discussions on other topics. I don't know why, but he changes when it comes to immigration policy and Trump. Actually, many people do.

    I am not emotionally involved the way they are. Probably because I reviewed cases for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. I knew nothing at all about immigration law or related issues when I started, and my work required objectivity. I had to support factual findings with transcript cites and legal conclusions with Board or federal precedents.

    That changed when I went to the Hill, but the change just brought out my instinct as a lawyer to advocate the positions of my client. When I left the Judiciary Committee, my objectivity returned.

    Nolan Rappaport
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I fully agree with Nolan, whom I have great personal respect for despite our disagreement on immigration policy, and I share his view that immigration discussions should be carried on on the basis of law and policy, not personalities. Unfortunately, even though I support this ideal, I find it very difficult at times to keep personal reactions out of the picture when talking about Trump. This is no doubt due in part to my own lack of proper attention to Nolan's admonitions in this regard.

    But at other times, Trump engages in activities or statements which make it simply impossible to separate intense personal revulsion at one or another of his statements or actions on immigration from the policy issues themselves.

    An example occurred at the CPAC meeting on February 23 when Trump (again - this was not the first time) compared refugees to poisonous snakes - a comparison which the Nazis used to make with Jews - by repeating the lyrics of a popular song about snakes, by a songwriter and social activist (who also happened to be a former Communist).

    A Republican activist and former McCain campaign official, Steve Schmidt, tweeted the following in reaction to Trump's use of this this snake song to describe refugees in general:

    "Trump's snake story is vicious, disgraceful, utterly racist and totally un-American. That this is how an American president speaks of immigration is a tragedy. This crowd of cheering extremists are the heirs of the Know-Nothings and nativists who have always pagued us."

    (See my comment below for the link.)

    The danger is not just that Trump keeps making vicious, horrible statements about various immigrant groups -statements which disgrace America and the American people, but that he uses these personal anti-immigrant hatreds as the basis for his policies - as in the case of refugees, whose admissions he has cut to the lowest level in decades, at a time when the need for refugee admissions is at one of the highest points in recent world history.

    Was Trump gleefully singing the "Snake" song to himself (which was not originally about refugees at all - Trump appropriated it for that purpose) - and grinning while he signed the order reducing refugee
    admissions to the historically low level of 45,000 per year?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-25-2018 at 12:31 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For the full story on the horrifying spectacle of US president who evidently revels in his own bigotry and demonizong against a group of non-white immigrants who have caused few if any problems in America and who go through more extensive screening and background checks than any other immigrant group, see:

    Washington Post, February 24:

    'The Snake': How Trump appropriated a radical black singer's lyrics for immigration fearmongering.

    (I do not have a link - please use Google.)

    And for more on the outraged reaction of Steve Schmidt, a Republican political operative who played a role in John McCain's presidential campaign, see:

    https://www.mediaite.com/online/stev...y-un-american/

    Contrary to what Nolan may think, I do not enjoy making personal comments about Donald Trump or any other political figure. But Donald Trump is the 14th president that America has had so far in my lifetime. With the possible exeption of Nixon, who, near the end of his presidency, railed against the Jews and called for a list of Jewish federal government employees, none of the previous 13 has shown anything even remotely resembling the personal bigotry and hatred against a particular group or groups of people that Trump has done, or let his personal animosities influence such important parts of his policies.

    There comes a point where it becomes impossible to separate Trump's character from his policies - at least with regard to immigration, which has been tied up with race throughout American history.

    And, again, with regard to Nolan's objections to my personal comments about Trump, reactions to a politician's statements about certain minority groups can vary widely depending on which group is attacked.

    Fortunately, Trump is not anti-Semitic, and I have in fact defended Trump against attempts to paint him as being anti-Jewish because of one or two misunderstood comments he made during the campaign.

    But suppose America one day had a president who said that Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union whom America took in were "Snakes", who denied the Holocaust as Trump is now denying Climate Change (which is destroying our entire planet - not just hurting immigrants), or who were to put Israel on a list of banned countries for immigrants to the US.

    There can be little doubt that Nolan's well justified outrage in that event would make my comments about Donald Trump up to now seem tame by comparison. We can be sure that Nolan's remarks would also include some less than flattering personal observations about such a president.

    Finally, there is an argument going around to the effect that Trump's comments about immigration, no matter how outrageous, don't matter, because they have nothing to do with his policies anyway - policy issues, according to this theory, are handled only by his aides and appointed officials.

    This is a view which is not only propounded by some of Trump's apologists, but also by some of his critics, as in a February 23 vox.com article:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/170447...ac-2018-speech

    With all due respect to commentators on both sides who may regard Trump as nothing more than a harmless idiot whose rantings on immigration are essentially meaningless, I have far more respect than that for Trump's intelligence and grasp of policy .

    There is abundant evidence that he knows very well what he is doing with regard to immigration policy and that he is strongly committed to making his vision of a white supremacist America into a reality.

    Roger Algase Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-25-2018 at 02:21 PM 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: