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

IDBlog

Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08

Rate this Entry
Please email your letters to editor@ilw.com or post them directly as a comment below.

Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: May 04 - May 08" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to ID's May 5 editorial, it is good news that sanity and recognition of reality are gaining more traction within the Republican party, and that more of their legislators are recognizing the demographic changes which make pandering to anti-immigrant bigotry in order to try to gain white votes bad politics as well as immoral and unconscionable policy.

    The fantasy, held to by a dwindling number of GOP leaders, that 11 million brown, mainly Spanish speaking people can be deported is a delusion which has never had any relation to reality. By showing willingness to accept some of these immigrants into our society, at least into our military, some courageous Republican Representatives are entering the real world of 21st century America, with all of its ethnic diversity.

    They should be commended. The Steve Kings, Ted Cruz's and Jeff Sessions' of the GOP are on the way out and will soon no longer be able to claim to speak for the majority of Republicans, or any sizable number of them at all. They wil be recognized for what they really are - the Todd Aikens, if not the George Wallaces, of immigration.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  2. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    The republican effort to take away the right of a child born in the US to citizenship sounds exceptionally harsh [the technical term for this right is "jus soli"]. But although it is the predominant rule in the Americas, it is rare elsewhere. No European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli. A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents. Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is not automatic for the children of certain immigrants. Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness will grant nationality to otherwise stateless persons who were born on their territory, or on a ship or plane flagged by that country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
  3. DOLORES GIORGIO's Avatar
    DREAMERS

    I AGREE THAT DREAMERS THAT GREW UP IN THE US, HAVE ATTENDED SCHOOL, AND/OR ARE IN THE WORKFORCE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND SERVE OUR GREAT COUNTRY. WHAT A GREAT WAY TO SHOW THEIR LOVE FOR THE USA.
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Nolan's comment, since when is the practice in America to set our own policies by taking a headcount among other nations of the world, many of whom, such as Saudi Arabia to give just one example, have legal systems which no civilized country would want to follow?

    Even if citizenship policy can be separated out from the draconian, if not barbaric policies that many countries of the world have other issues (such as treatment of gays, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, for starters), what is the purpose of adopting citizenship by blood (ius sanguinis) as a policy rather than ius soli (citizenship by place of birth)?

    The only purpose is to preserve the power of the dominant ethnic group in the country concerned. If there is some other reason for this doctrine, I would be glad to hear Nolan explain it.

    It this the kind of principle we want for America? Perhaps it is no accident that the great majority of other countries in our own part of the world agree with us. We don't need to start asking about how Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Burma and North Korea (which is also mentioned on the CIS list) handle their citizenship issues. We would, I respectfully suggest, not even want to know.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-08-2015 at 07:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. Alvarez's Avatar
    Chinese immigration:

    The reality is this, Chinese o Asians in general come to this country to gain political power. government should not allow this. we are seeing already, cities taken over by Asians. their political agenda is control, manipulation etc. the only ethnicity to gain political power in this country are: Caucasians, Native Indians, blacks and Latinos.
  6. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With regard to Nolan's comment, since when is the practice in America to set our own policies by taking a headcount among other nations of the world, many of whom, such as Saudi Arabia to give just one example, have legal systems which no civilized country would want to follow?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    The decision on whether to give citizenship to the children of aliens who are born in your country is a matter of sovereign discretion. The US has made its choice and set it in stone with an amendment to the Constitution. Frankly, I don't know what the republicans think they can accomplish by complaining about that decision. Nor do I understand why people bother to object to what they are doing. Neither side is at all likely to accomplish anything. The republicans aren't going to be able to amend the Constitution to prevent the children of undocumented aliens from being citizens by birth in the US, and Roger and his like-minded associates aren't going to convince the republicans that their position on this issue is wrong. In any case, all I meant to say with my previous comment is that I think finding out why some countries have that practice and others don't would shed some light on whether the practice "should" be continued.
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Did Alvarez really write the above comment in 2015? It reads as if it was written in the 1880's or 1890's era of the Chinese exclusion laws.

    The writer does not seem to realize that the Supreme Court's rejection of anti-Asian hate 117 years ago in the Wong decision is the basis for protecting millions of US-born Latino and other children of all backgrounds from the effects of hate against other minorities today.

    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: