ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase

Rate this Entry

Iran may soon be reaching the point of no return with its nuclear program. This aggressive fascist dictatorship, whose power depends on having slaughtered, imprisoned and tortured its opponents in the wake of its fraudulent June, 2009 election, is now in the hands of its Revolutionary Guard, whose respect for democracy and human rights is about the same as that which the Nazis showed in Germany. 

All indications are that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, no matter what the cost, and to use them - primarily against Israel, which Iran's leaders have called an illegitimate, "one-bomb" state  (a reference to the number of bombs it would take to destroy Israel). It is not only Israel that is in danger, however. Iran could use nuclear weapons to intimidate the entire Arab world or even Europe -goodbye Arab spring. But one does not have to be a supporter of Israel's far right regime (and this writer is certainly not) in order to worry that Iran intends to carry out a second Holocaust, this time a nuclear one.

According to reports in some of the world's most reliable newspapers, such as the Financial Times and the Guardian, Iran may be about to enter the "zone of immunity" in which its entire nuclear weapons program may be located so far underground that no Israeli or even American strike would be able to reach it. This may make a military strike, or strikes, against Iran essential before the US election this November in order to avet catastrophe.

What does any of this have to do with the future of immigration in America? Only this: let us adopt the laughable assumption that that Iran is going to the extreme lengths of defying the entire world and building its underground complex only to develop the capacity for "nuclear medicine research", and that it is not a nuclear threat. Even in this case, millions of American voters will take the Iranian nuclear threat seriously anyway.

As the Financial Times points out in a February 20 article by Edward Luce, just one billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, whose money kept Newt Gingrich's campaign afloat for far too long, is prepared to spend whatever it takes to sink Obama over the Iran issue. Adelson is a strong supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who appears eager to strike Iran before it is too late. I am not aware that Adelson is concerned about about immigrant rights in America one way or another.

Disaffected Obama supporters, or outright opponents, may include not only Jewish and fundamentalist "Christian Zionist" voters, but Americans from all faiths and ends of the political spectrum who see Iran, unlike Saddam Hussein, as a real, not manufactured, threat to world peace and who, on moral and humanitarian grounds, do not wish to see a second Holocaust take place or the world become a far more dangerous place.

Many of these voters are in favor of more liberal immigration policies, and an end to the politics of using Latino immigrants as scapegoats, while keeping minority and less affluent US citizens away from the polls through restrictive voter ID laws. But faced with a choice between re-electing a president who, while arguably the lesser of two evils on immigration, may be perceived as weak on Iran, and voting for a Republican who may take immigration back closer to the era of the Chinese exclusion laws, but who pledges that Iran will have no nuclear weapons, many pro-immigration voters may still vote for a president who takes the harder line on Iran.

If President Obama persists in relying on "sanctions" or "negotiations" which may be perceived by millions of voters as ineffective, will there be enough Iran apologists or nuclear threat deniers left to re-elect him without those crucial votes? If not, we may see an extreme Republican immigration hard-liner take over the White House next year, thanks to Iran.

The biggest threat to the future of American immigration may come, not from Arizona, not from Alabama, not even from Kansas, home of Kris Kobach, the author of racist anti-immigrant laws and avowed enemy of minority voting rights, but from Tehran.

Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Bloggings: The biggest threat to the future of immigration in America may come from - Iran. By Roger Algase" to

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. Mark T's Avatar
    Actually it is Israel that we should be concerned with.
    in the decades since the iranian people threw off the shah that the united states had put in place iran has attacked NO ONE. Israel, on the other hand, has initiated attacks against many countries around it. not only that, they have attacked united states ships with the intent of having other countries blamed for it, thus drawing the united states into another conflict.

    In all the diatribes against iran's nuclear program, you can also note that its nuclear program has been supported by many countries around the world. israel stole nuclear material from the united states for its nuclear weapons program in Dimona, and now is estimated to have around 100-200 nuclear weapons. in contrast, international inspections have found no evidence of any weapons activity in iran, and have said so.
    incidentally, we were also told by the previous administration that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this was false. fool me once ... well, actually many were not fooled then either.

    you can read about israel's nuclear weapons even on wikipedia for heavens sake. israel is recognized as the world's 6th-most powerful nuclear state, and yet it has not provided open inspections of its programs or signed international treaties, including the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    regarding "imprisoning and torturing" (which you will note is now the united states preferred policy), what else can you call the repeated use of illegal chemical weapons, cluster bombs, and illegal infrastructure destruction israel has used on the palestinian population that it has encircled with concrete walls and barbed wire?

    do I want to live in iran's theocracy? no, and I don't want a republican-christian fundamentalist theocracy here either. I also don't want a conflagration worse than iraq for the united states to be dragged into AGAIN, this time by one theocracy that wants to attack another.

    it looks like the only militarily aggressive nuclear-powered theocracy that we should be concerned about is that of israel.
  2. Roger Algase's Avatar
    Well, at least Mark T is not one of the people in my hyposthesis who might vote Republican solely because of a hard line on Iran. If the issue were not so serious, one might almost want to laugh at the idea of mentioning the fact that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapans as a reason for letting Iran get them.

    Why didn't Saddsm have nuclear weapons? Because Israel destroyed his nuclear facility in 1981. If Israel had not done so, world history over the past 30 years might have been quite different - if there had been any world history at all.

    This does not mean that I support Israel on other issues, especially regarding its denial of religious freedom to its own people and its policies toward the Palestinians. But I am not in favor of another Holocaust. It is not at all certain that the Iranian regime would agree with that statement.
  3. Roger Algase's Avatar
    A typo: I meant "hypothesis" in my last comment.
  4. Roger Algase's Avatar
    Another spelling typo in my previous comment: I meant "weapons".
  5. Mark T's Avatar
    true, israel did attack iraq for what israel *claimed* was a threat. Israel makes a lot of claims when it wishes to attack a neighboring country. here are some points from an article in wikipedia.

    - "In 2005, Wilson further commented in The Atlantic, note *unsuitable*:
    the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June of 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit.[32]"

    - "The attack was strongly criticized around the world and Israel was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly in two separate resolutions."

    Note that Israel *has not* signed signed the treaty below ...
    - "Iraq was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, placing its reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.[19]"

    ... and has even attempted to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid south africa

    it is an interesting mental exercise to consider filling in the blank:
    "This country _______ sells nuclear weapons to oppressive regimes."
    fill in the blank with iraq, iran, whoever.
    then fill it in with israel.
    how is your emotional reaction different? should it be?

    Of course we agree we do not wish another holocaust. these occur when people look the other way, and the perception of "danger" can be very seductive. German citizens (and the world, in the beginning) looked the other way, and had all the usual propaganda about pre-emptive strikes for their "national security".
    Starting to sound familiar?
    when we are called to openly initiate an attack another country we should be asking very stringent questions, and not be shy about the answers.

    by the way, thank you for an open forum
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: