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: December 7 - December 11

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

Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: December 7 - December 11" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am fully aware of the importance of the EB-5 program to America's economy and of the great benefits that it brings to Chinese and other qualified investors. I commend Immigration Daily's thorough and extensive coverage of this program.

    At the same time, America's entire immigration system and, beyond that, its democracy, are now in serious and immediate danger from the hatred and fear that has been generated by the reaction to recent attacks by Muslim extremists in Paris and in San Bernardino.

    Donald Trump has just called for a total ban on Muslims immigrants entering the United States. But why stop at Muslims, and why stop at immigrants?

    If America can ban all members of a targeted religious group from coming to the US as immigrants, what is to stop this country from locking up all members of this same group who are already in the US, including American citizens, just as happened with Japanese-Americans more than 70 years ago?

    And if we are going to seal our borders, why stop at just Muslims? Why not keep everybody out? There are potentially dangerous people out there of every race, religion and nationality. In the face of this unreasoning fear, panic and hysteria which could undermine our entire immigration system and our freedom, are not the latest EB-5 developments a little like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  2. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    I propose the establishment of Annual Trump Awards to recognize politicians who have made the craziest immigration proposals of the year. Any nominations?
  3. M. J.'s Avatar
    Dear Editor:

    Your editorial and letters comments of 12/8/15 http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?5512-December-8-First-and-Second reverts to the radical roots of your narrow interest organization with the typical, cheap Alinsky tactics of ridicule and name calling, right out of his book: "Rules For Radicals". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals The Buchanan erratum and correction is not the only error to be found here. While Roger Algase [Letters] makes some unintentional good suggestions on securing the borders and limiting immigration, his typical rhetoric errs in attributing such reasonable and prudent measures to "hatred and fear". He must be getting old, as he left out "bigots" which is usually included in his name-calling diatribes. These wrongful characterizations deliberately deny that the motivation of Trump supporters and a vast majority of Americans (as the polls show), comes from RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION, NOT FEAR OR HATRED. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/151207 Americans are weary of being the doormat, flophouse and job center for the world at the expense of their culture and interests. Algase's comments show only concern for the immigration system and migrants. This is the tail wagging the dog. It is the concerns and interests of American citizens that should be the primary consideration of these policies, not the migrants, their attorneys or ILW. Even God has been known to have banned immigration and ANY entry is a perquisite and the prerogative of Americans.
    http://www.afa.net/the-stand/immigration/2015/12/when-god-banned-immigration/

    When countries are young, selective immigration can be beneficial, but harmful for an over crowded, mature one. There are limits to our resources, budgets and other benefits that rightfully should be primarily reserved for Americans, not others.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty1101.htm Unrestrained, open immigration and lax policies with only token enforcement only brings benefits to special interests and plantation profiteers, but harm to most citizens who bear most of the burden of the social and actual costs. Trump wants to place the concerns of Americans FIRST and a whole lot of Americans agree with that while those who have been benefiting from this unfairly, don't.

    The Constitution of United States of America (1789) states:

    ""We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis added)

    Nowhere does it state that a primary goal of our Union was to become an unlimited migration destination for the world with the abused, if not subterfuge of compassion. You can't get to or maintain Liberty or Freedom with a phony compassion agenda.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron180.htm

    Teddy Roosevelt said it best:

    "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907

    Jim Roberts
    Updated 12-11-2015 at 02:44 PM by IDBlog
  4. Marko Milakovich's Avatar
    Marko Milakovich

    The Immigration Daily recently addressed some political issues by a Republican Presidential candidate who made some statements concerning immigration. Unfortunately, that precipitated more discussion about the candidate than meaningful consideration of the immigration issues. The outlook for reform in immigration is bleak, considering that the immigration issue has not been seriously addressed by any of the candidates, regardless of their Party, and is only tangentially mentioned. It is a distressful situation that the ?Party? battles evoke more time and attention, than substantive issues, like immigration reform. I can?t imagine any candidate not agreeing to the need for reform, yet it a contentious, Party issue. Strange how it can cause major dissension between the two major Parties, yet I believe that all would agree upon the need for reform. I am a combat U.S. veteran and very independent in my thinking and values and in the last election cycle I ran for Congress as a non-political, neophyte, citizen warrior ? I was not elected. One of my objectives was reform of USCIS. I was shunned by the ?Combat Veterans for Congress?, the NRA, and some in the news media because I was not a member of a major Party. What is more important? The Party, which a person belongs to or the candidate?s skill, knowledge, and experience appropriate for the elected position he/she is vying for? Obviously, history has proven the Party is more important than the individual?s qualifications. I am confounded by this as it is contrary to the basic values of our founding fathers. In the context of immigration, I find it distressing that, based on my observation, there has been no discussion in the political campaign, by any candidate of either Party, concerning USCIS, the U.S. government Agency responsible for implementing much of the immigration laws enacted by Congress. It is my opinion that they are an under-performing Agency, which is in serious need of reform. My fear is that regardless of which person or Party is elected, there will be no reform of this all-powerful Agency, which effects the lives and welfare of a multitude of immigrants.
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    You're right M.J. I may be getting old, and I should have included the word "bigots" in my comment above. Thank you for reminding me.

    If there is any other word that better describes Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from the United States, I would like to hear it. Certainly, "rational" would not be among them.

    Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has criticized Trump's proposal, saying that Israel respects all religions. In view of the fact that Trump is due to visit Israel and speak before the Knesset, a good way for Netanyahu to drive home his point would be to ban Trump from visiting Israel.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


  6. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015
    Summary: H.R.158 ? 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)
    For the entire bill, see https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text?resultIndex=1 Passed House amended (12/08/2015)

    (Sec. 2) This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include terrorism risk as a factor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall consider under the electronic system for travel authorization (ESTA) in determining an alien's eligibility to travel to the United States.

    DHS shall report to Congress:

    annually regarding the number of individuals, identified by their countries of citizenship or nationality, who were denied eligibility to travel or whose eligibility was revoked under ESTA, and the number of such individuals determined to be a U.S. security threat;
    periodically regarding foreign government compliance with information sharing agreements concerning passenger identity, passport theft or loss, whether a country's citizens or nationals travel patterns may pose a concern to U.S. security, and governmental capacity to collect such information; and
    on strengthening ESTA.
    The electronic travel authorization system is renamed the electronic system for travel authorization.

    DHS may suspend a country from the visa waiver program without prior notice if the country fails to comply with an agreement to share information regarding whether its citizens and nationals traveling to the United States pose a U.S. security threat. DHS must notify an affected country and Congress of any suspension.

    Also, see the article I wrote last year on the safety of the Visa Waiver Program, Is the Visa Waiver Programas secure as it is supposed to be? (Sep. 10, 2014), http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?3494-Article-Is-the-Visa-Waiver-Program-as-secure-as-it-is-supposed-to-be-By-Nolan-Rappaport
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: