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

Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
As Pope Francis addresses Congress today, September 24, with his expected message of support for immigration reform and return to our traditional values as a nation that was built on immigration, immigration opponents continue to show why his call for tolerance and compassion toward immigrants is so badly needed in America now.

While the focus of anti-immigrant rhetoric during the past few months has been on Donald Trump, who is relatively new to the immigrant-bashing business after having sponsored almost 1,000 low wage Mexican immigrants for visas to work for his own companies, long-time immigration opponents are still at work thinking of every possible way they can to vilify immigrants in general and turn public opinion against them.

Few people have been at this game longer than New York Post columnist Michelle Malkin. As the child of immigrants from the Philippines herself, she is obviously in a good position to know how much "harm" immigration is doing for America, and how "vital" it is to stop more people like her own mother and father from coming to live in America.

And as the American citizen daughter of immigrant parents herself, Malkin is especially qualified to expound on the "dangers" of allowing legal immigrants to become American citizens, or at least to do so more quickly and efficiently, and with less red tape.

However, on reading her latest diatribe about why she believes that DHS should slow down naturalization procedures, rather than make them more accessible to qualified legal immigrants, it turns out that the main threat to America presented by new citizens is that, in her view, they might vote Democratic instead of Republican.

This is clear from the title of her latest pontificating on this subject (no pun intended): Homeland Security finally gets cracking - to register Hillary voters (September 23).

It is also obvious from her three concluding paragraphs:

"The dysfunctional DHS can't control our borders. It has failed to prevent massive fraud in our asylum, student visa, visitor visa, tech worker visa and immigrant investor green card programs. And the department is overwhelmed with paperwork from 10 million applicants for Obama's executive amnesty waivers.

But when it comes to signing up new potential Democratic voters in droves, the feckless feds run a NASCAR-ready well oiled machine."

But, just in case anyone missed it, Malkin makes clear that her biggest reason for opposing immigration is purely political, namely that too many immigrants might vote for the wrong party:

"Suicidal Republicans who continue to hand over the open-borders keys to their hit and run opponents reap what they sow." (Italics added.)

In other words, immigrants may come here illegally. They might, allegedly, come here with legal visas that are fraudulently obtained (though Malkin doesn't give a single actual example of fraud in any of the legal immigration programs she is attacking). Immigration applications may cause backlogs in government agencies.

(However, where Malkin got her figure of 10 million "executive amnesty" applications from is a mystery. At the time that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the only program for relief from deportation she refers to was implemented, the administration estimated that, at the most, slightly over 1 million young people (DREAMER's) were eligible to apply at most. If Malkin is referring to some other "executive amnesty" program, she does not tell us what it is. The "10 million" figure appears to be delusional - but then again, respect for the truth has never been one of Malkin's strong points.)

But even if Malkin's highly exaggerated and totally unsubstantiated charges of immigration fraud and " executive amnesty" application backlogs were true, those are not the worst accusations that she makes against immigrants. Clearly, the worst thing that immigrants can possibly do, in Malkin's view, is to exercise their right according to law to become American citizens and then vote against her Republican party.

Pope Francis is being accused by some immigration opponents of meddling in US politics by bringing a religious message of tolerance, compassion and humanity toward immigrants. Never mind that many of these same people have no problem with supporting a Kentucky county clerk's bigoted attempts to use claimed religious belief as an excuse for openly defying the law (and several court orders) by refusing to issue marriage licences to same sex couples.

But the attempts of Michelle Malkin and others like her to stir up hatred and animosity against immigrants, in this case on the grounds that they might vote for the Democrats, shows how relevant the Pope's support for immigration really is and how badly his message is needed in a society that has become so badly divided and polarized along political and racial lines.

To read Malkin's comments in full, see:

http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/homelan...illary-voters/

_________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 30 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas, green cards and US citizenship (regardless of which party they intend to vote for).

Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com






Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Malkin: Don't Naturalize Immigrants Unless They Vote Republican. By Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 09-24-2015 at 05:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Putting up the smoke screens again. Where exactly does she make this statement in this publication you mention? Why should anyone even read what you write if you just keep pushing your agenda. "We are immigration lawyers-we make money of permanent residents applying for naturalization-more applications more $$$$ for us - bring them in".
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    You might actually want to try reading the extracts from from her article in the New York Post that I have quoted. They should not be very hard to understand, since I assume that English is your native language.

    You could also try reading the title of her NY Post article. I have many reservations about Michelle Malkin, but hiding her meaning, or using obscure, difficult-to-understand language are not among her shortcomings.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  3. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    "...immigration opponents continue to show why his call for tolerance and compassion toward immigrants is so badly needed in America now."

    That may be true, but Roger tends to overlook the need for security measures. Tolerance and compassion should be limited to people who come here for a better life. The ones who come here to harm us need to be identified and kept out of the country.

    "it turns out that the main threat to America presented by new citizens is that, in [Malkin's] view, they might vote Democratic instead of Republican."

    Come on Roger, you aren't that naive. Do you really think there would be a push from the White House for as many naturalizations as possible before the upcoming presidential election if the new citizens were expected to vote republican? Roger, if you are not going to let up on your criticisms of the republicans, find some legitimate faults to talk about. Both parties have plenty of them.

    "But even if Malkin's highly exaggerated and totally unsubstantiated charges of immigration fraud "

    She is imagining that immigration fraud is a problem?
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    First, the Republicans to everything possible to alienate the Latino and other immigrant communities with enforcement heavy immigration proposals and an agenda of demonizing non-European immigrants as criminals, fraudsters, welfare dependent, job-stealers and terrorists.

    Then they argue that granting qualified immigrants the naturalization privileges they are entitled to by law is bad for America because most immigrants will allegedly vote for the Democrats.

    Instead of trying to deny or delay the legal rights of these qualified immigrants to become US citizens, why don't the Republicans try advocating policies that will enable them to compete with the Democrats for the votes of these new or potentially new citizens?

    Isn't that the way that democracy is supposed to work?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  5. Lynn A. Bloxham's Avatar
    I have long argued through articles I have written and on presentations I have made to groups of both pro and anti immigration, on both Malkin and Ann Coulter's attitude toward immigration. The have the same underlying fallacy.That is that they want to group people collectively and assume one bad apple is indicative of all. the only time i was on the same program (many years ago) as Malkin I asked her this: Since her parents were immigrants but she wanted no one else allowed in or at the least a stream lined process, is not that similar to a cancer patient who had to have chemo, denying people a new simple cancer cure? she could not see my point. Ah well

    .As the years have passed and the immigration issue has continued to cause havoc for so any people I realize now that the problems with the anti- immigrationists run much deeper. Further scrutiny of both Malkin and Coulter's canned points gleamed from groups such as CIS reveal a far worse agenda than I realized at that earlier time. They honestly cannot say they are only against illegal immigrants but want legal immigrants. No they do not. A strange attitude especially for Malkin, but there it is.
  6. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Nolan Rappaport
    "...immigration opponents continue to show why his call for tolerance and compassion toward immigrants is so badly needed in America now."

    That may be true, but Roger tends to overlook the need for security measures. Tolerance and compassion should be limited to people who come here for a better life. The ones who come here to harm us need to be identified and kept out of the country.

    "it turns out that the main threat to America presented by new citizens is that, in [Malkin's] view, they might vote Democratic instead of Republican."

    Come on Roger, you aren't that naive. Do you really think there would be a push from the White House for as many naturalizations as possible before the upcoming presidential election if the new citizens were expected to vote republican? Roger, if you are not going to let up on your criticisms of the republicans, find some legitimate faults to talk about. Both parties have plenty of them.

    "But even if Malkin's highly exaggerated and totally unsubstantiated charges of immigration fraud "

    She is imagining that immigration fraud is a problem?
    This is pretty much the rational viewpoint on the problem. I could not say better.
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard Lynn Bloxham's comment, one simple explanation for both Michelle Malkin's and Ann Coulter's obsession with spreading hate against all immigrants, legal and illegal, might be that it helps gain readers for columns or to sell books.

    But in the case of these two writers, their anti-immigrant fixations seem to run so deep and to be so pervasive that one has to suspect some kind of psychological motive.

    While I am not aware of any anti-semitic writings or statements on Malkin's part, it is hard to see any other motive behind Coulter's recent reference to "F---ing Jews", unless words have no meaning at all any longer or are looked at through the lens of George Orwell. As in the case of Patrick Buchanan's attacks on all Latinos, including Puerto Rican US citizens, while defending Nazi war criminals at the same time, it is hard to keep prejudice within the boundaries of just one or two ethnic groups.

    Ironically, I remember reading one of Malkin's columns a number of years ago in which she described a visit to one of the Southern states and was (justifiably) outraged when she ran into prejudice directed against her because she is of Asian ancestry. One might ask: what did she expect? Did she think that just because she had also joined the ranks of the haters and bigots, she had earned an exemption from being the target of racial prejudice herself?

    It doesn't work that way. Once the genie of hatred and prejudice is let out of the bottle, it is hard to put it back in.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law,
    Updated 09-25-2015 at 01:03 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: