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

Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
Update: February 25, 3:00 pm

Huffington Post reports on February 25 that David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and leading "white nationalist" advocate, is encouraging his radio show listeners to go out and work for Donald Trump.

Duke also told his listeners that voting for either one of Senators Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, whom Duke regards as "people of color" would be "treason to your heritage".


Update: February 25, 7:13 am:

The Washington Post, in a February 24 editorial: "GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump" compares his mass deportation proposal to actions of two of the worst dictators in modern history, Pol Pot and Stalin:

"[Trump] wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and murder pf innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin's victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement and a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed."

The above adds one more voice to the growing chorus of leaders in both parties who see Trump's immigration policies as part of a wider agenda that is totally incompatible with American democracy.

On the
same date, WP columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. writes about Trump:

"On the one hand, his call to deport 11 million immigrants who are here illegally, his support for a ban on entry of Muslims into the United States...his endorsement of even rougher treatment of terrorism suspects - all speak to an authoritarian side of Trump's appeal that clearly resonates with many on the Republican right."

(I do not have the links - readers can go to the WP's own website.)

Mr. Trump seemingly endless threats of violence and retaliation against his critics and opponents have now brought America's discussion about the basic rights of both immigrants and US citizens to the point where one has to ask: How long after his inauguration as president will the offices of pro-immigrant and pro-democracy newspapers such as the WP remain open and their editors free from the threat of being jailed and tortured?

Update - February 24, 6:44 pm:

According to a February 24 POLITICO article, Donald Trump's story about how an area of the Philippines that was said to have been wracked by Islamist terror over a hundred years ago was allegedly pacified when 50 terrorists were supposedly rounded up and shot with bullets dipped in pigs' blood.

POLITICO reports that none of the eight historians that its reporters checked with thought there was much likelihood that this vile and obscene story was actually true. But why should a little detail like the truth stop Donald Trump from stirring up poison and hate against Muslim, Latino and other immigrants who are less than popular with the white Republican base?

Wasn't the BIG LIE also one of the essential elements that allowed fascism to take hold in Europe? The POLITICO report is at:

My original comment appears below.

This is a continuation of my January 23 comment concerning the issue of whether Donald Trump's wide ranging attacks on Latino and Muslim immigrants could have implications that go beyond the boundaries of immigration policy per se and have broader implications for the future of America's democracy.

Trump's victories in three of the four Republican presidential primaries/caucuses that have now taken place (aided by the fragmented opposition to him in his own party and its inability or unwillingness to unite behind a credible opponent) have greatly increased the urgency and importance of this question.

Trump, certainly, is far from the only politician in America who is advocating increased restrictions on immigration and greater emphasis on immigration enforcement. Every single Republican presidential candidate in this year's election, including those who have already bowed out as well the three who are left standing (since neither Dr. Carson nor Governor Kasich can any longer be considered serious candidates, if indeed they ever were) has the same emphasis.

This has been the emphasis of almost the entire Republican party, including both its more extreme wing and its (now almost vanished) "moderate" wing for at least the past 20 years, This began no later than in 1996, when Republican leaders in Congress rammed IIRIRA down the throats of the American people without discussion or debate by procedures that have little in common with what most people mean by democracy, and made an offer to sign the bill to a Democratic President (who happens to be married to this year's leading Democratic presidential candidate) which he couldn't refuse if he wanted to have any hope of being reelected.

Nor has the Obama administration been exactly inattentive to the enforcement side of immigration, as shown by its having deported the unprecedented number of more than 2 million people since the President took office, as well as its cruel and inhuman current detention policies and midnight deportation raids against mainly Central American woman and children seeking to to avoid a high risk of being killed by gang violence in their own countries.

But while Trump's two remaining presidential rivals. Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, have now endorsed enforcement policies almost as draconian as Trump's, including the mass expulsion of 12 million unauthorized immigrants, few if any concerns have been raised about their commitment to preserving democracy and respecting Constitutional procedures regarding immigration and the rule of law in general.

With Trump, the situation is different, and so much so that even Cruz, who supports Trump's goal of mass deportation, has accused Trump of wanting to use "Jackboots", i.e. Nazi style storm troopers, to carry this out. Even on the right wing, writers in publications such as the National Review, which was fiercely opposed to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, have begun to use the "f" word, "fascism" in their discussions about Trump, including his immigration policies.

For this reason, it is now almost impossible to avoid using this word in any in depth analysis of Trump's immigration proposals, if only for the purpose of comparison. This does not mean that I have any intention of applying this word to Trump, and indeed, most of the scholarly discussions of his immigration and other policy proposals conclude that this word does not apply to him either.

But many people who have studied the history and ideology of fascism believe that there are important similarities, and that Trump's immigration proposals, taken in the context of his entire presidential campaign, could be the first step in leading America down that road.

By far one of the most serious and thoughtful discussions that I have seen so far of Trump's immigration proposals in the context of America's history of right wing extremism is contained in a January 14 Huffington Post article by David Neiwert, Managing Editor of This article is by a writer who maintains that Trump is not a fascist.

But many of the resemblances between Trump's statements, actions and proposals on the one hand, and fascist ideology on the other, deserve attention, and they may contain a warning to everyone who cares about our democracy.

Neiwert's article is entitled:

Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But he Is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path.

Neiwert writes:

"Taking a careful look at Trump's campaign, the fascist traits immediately emerge:

1) Eliminationist rhetoric is the backbone of Trump's appeal. His opening salvo in the campaign, the one that skyrocketed him to the forefront in the race, poll-wise, and proved wildly popular with Republican voters - was his vow (and subsequent proposed program) to deport all 12 million of the United States' undocumented immigrants (using, of course, the deprecatory term 'illegal alien') and to erect a gigantic wall on the nation's southern border. Significantly, the language he used to justify such plans - labeling those immigrants 'criminals', 'killers' and 'rapists', contending that they bring crime and disease, is classic rhetoric designed to demonize an entire class of people by reducing them to objects fit only for elimination."

Neiwert continues:

"Trump's appeal in this regard is ultimately about forming a 'purer' community, and it has been relentless and expansive: When an audience member asked him at a town-hall-style appearance how how was going to 'get rid of all the Muslims' he responded that 'we're going to be looking a a lot of different things.' He also now claims that if elected, he will send back all the refugees from Syria who have arrived in the United States: 'If I win, they're going back,' he told one of his approval-roaring campaign crowds."

To be continued in Part 3.
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards, especially through labor certification, extraordinary ability and marriage (now including both opposite sex and same sex marriage).

Roger's email address is

Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Can Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda Lead to Authoritarian Rule? Part 2. Roger Algase" to

Updated 02-25-2016 at 02:09 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Have you been reading any news Roger lately? You see, Emperor Putin has already stopped the war in Syria and brought peace to this suffering land. His minion Assad agreed to peace, as well as Obama.

    So, there is no war anymore over there. In light of this, all Syrian "refugees" should be immediately rounded up and sent back over there. That way they can help rebuilding their own country, instead of doing nothing and ******* blood out of already overburdened US taxpayers.

    Anyways, looks like people agree with our future Mr. President Trump on this! Go president Trump go!
  2. reda21's Avatar
    Deleted as spam
    Updated 02-25-2016 at 05:28 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. reda21's Avatar
    Deleted as spam.
    Updated 02-25-2016 at 05:28 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. نقل اثاث بالدمام's Avatar
    Deleted as spam
    Updated 02-25-2016 at 05:28 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: