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

Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
Update, March 27, 1:06 pm:

A reader's comment below illustrates how thin the line is between attacking an unpopular immigrant group, in this case by banning all Muslim immigrants, as Donald Trump advocates, and endangering the rights of American citizens, such as by patrolling Muslim-American communities, as Senator Ted Cruz is now proposing.


The comment, which appears right after the end of my post, claims that discrimination against Muslim Americans, not only immigrants, is constitutionally permitted under the notorious 1944 Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. U.S.

As I point out below in my reply to that comment, no less than the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, hardly known as a flaming liberal on civil rights or most other issues, has been quoted as saying that Korematsu, which held that the infamous Japanese "relocation" executive order during WW2 did not violate the Constitution, ranked along side the Dred Scott decision as among the worst blunders in Supreme Court history.

But as the reader below points out (and so does the New York Times, cited below in my response). Korematsu has never been overruled. Could this infamous stain on America's judicial history, as well as on the history of our entire nation, be used one day by a President Trump (or even a President Cruz), as grounds for sending Muslim American citizens to concentration camps, just as happened to Japanese Americans during the Second World War?

Could Korematsu also be used as a pretext for suspending the constitution entirely and turning America into a fascist dictatorship in the name of "national security" or "protecting against Islamist terrorism"?

As the detailed discussion of Korematsu which will appear in my upcoming posts will indicate, not only a majority of the US Supreme Court, but much of the American public, saw nothing wrong with sending tens of thousands of loyal American citizens off to concentration camps purely because of their ancestry. Could the same thing one day happen to Muslim Americans?

When someone who wants to ban all Muslims from coming to the US purely on the basis of religion, and who pillories Mexican immigrants as "criminals and rapists", has a serious chance of becoming president, and when his only serious rival for his party's nomination goes beyond this to recommend surveillance or similar measures against Muslim US citizens solely on the basis of their religious beliefs, it is not only the rights of immigrants that are under siege. The rights of all Americans are also in danger.

My original past appears below.

This will continue my March 18 comment on this issue. The two Republican presidential front runners, Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz, may not agree about the roles of each other's wives. But they are evidently in total agreement on the proposition that the best way to win the GOP nomination, and this fall's election, is to play up to public fears of terrorism and exploit hatred of Muslim immigrants, as well as their US citizen co-religionists.

When it comes to bashing Muslims, Trump, as usual, may shout the loudest and win the prize for stirring up the most frenzy at his rallies, while coming close to the line of actual incitement to violence, if not actually crossing it. But Cruz, using his formidable intellect, honed as a former editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerk to a Supreme Court Chief Justice, has put together an impressive list of Islamophobes and Muslim-haters as advisers.

Led by the notorious anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, whose Center for Security Policy has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist organization, and which, like Trump, is opposed to Muslim immigration, some of Cruz' advisers have a record of promoting hate against Muslim immigrants and US citizens alike.

The Guardian, in a March 25 article:Ted Cruz' campaign's's anti-Muslim propagandists called 'terrifying' reports:

"A pamphlet published last year by the Center for Security Policy encouraged 'ordinary Americans' to lobby their political representatives to put a stop to any more Muslim immigration. ''Speak up against the opening of more mosques in your neighborhoods; they are literally the beachheads for the expanding Muslim population as it marks its expanding territory..."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...mp-groups-warn

The Guardian also has the following to say about another Cruz adviser, Claire Lopez

"In 2013, at a public meeting in New Jersey, Lopez branded all Muslims as jihadists. 'When people in bona fide religions follow their doctrines they become better people - but it's Hindus, Christians and Jews. When Muslims follow their doctrines they become jihadists..."

Another member of the Cruz team, Lt. General Jerry Boykin, a former Bush administration official, stated as follows in 2012, according to The Guardian.

"...by the middle of the century the continent of Europe will be an Islamic continent, and they can't reverse it, they can't stop it. It is because they took Jesus out of their societies and it's been replaced by darkness."

Does any of the above sound just vaguely familiar? See:

America Is Run By Jews (February 2, 2008)

http://www.radicalpress.com/p=681

radicalpress.com appears to be based in Canada. This is purely a coincidence, of course. Senator Cruz (who, as Donald Trump keeps reminding us, was born in Canada) has no connection with this hate group whatsoever. But whether the target is Muslims or Jews, the poisonous appeal to bigotry is the same.

This is why Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is quoted in The Guardian as follows;

"These are dangerous times. I and my community are worried about the future - about what a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz administration would bring."

This is also why the Anti-Defamation League, a leading Jewish organization which has been fighting against anti-Semitism and all other forms of racial and religious bigotry for more than 100 years, and which recently spoke out against Trump's proposal to ban all Muslim immigration, has condemned Cruz for his profoundly un-American proposal to set up patrols in Muslim neighborhoods, and his "Choice of Two Anti-Muslim Bigots for His National Security Team." See:

http://www.adl.org/press-center/pres...hborhoods-html

The ADL statement said this about Cruz' proposal to patrol Muslim neighborhoods:

"It is an irrational approach that hearkens back to the fear and bigotry that led to a dark and tragic chapter in American history - the relocation of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans to internment camps during the Second World War simply because of their ethnicity."

The above reference is a grim reminder that curtailing the rights of immigrants out of fear and hatred, or banning immigrants from the US entirely solely because of race, as was done in the equally dark period of the Chinese and other Asian exclusion laws; or doing the same on the basis of religion, as the two leading Republican candidates or their advisers want to do now, inevitably leads to discrimination against and the loss of freedom for American citizens who belong to the targeted ethnic or religious minorities as well.

In addition, as many politicians and commentators in both parties (as well as independents) are now openly pointing out, basing any campaign for elective office, especially the highest office in the land, on appeals to prejudice against an immigrant or any other minority group, is an indelible stain on America's values, traditions and everything this country stands for. It is also an imminent threat to the freedoms that every American, and everyone else who is part of our diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, holds dear.
_______________________________________
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 from many different parts of the world and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work visas and green cards.

Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com




Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Scapegoating Muslim Immigrants Endangers the Rights of All Americans. Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 03-27-2016 at 06:49 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Marcel Lecomte's Avatar
    During times of war and under the grounds of National Security, the Executive Branch is granted extraordinary powers to govern by decree if necessary; therefore, constitutional rights can be suspended at any given time and without notice if the Sovereign deems imperative (State of Exception doctrine).

    During times of war and under the grounds of National Security, compulsory internment of certain US Citizens and Aliens living in Continental United States and overseas possessions into designated military areas is LEGAL.

    Executive Order 9066 is a historical precedence, and these types of actions carried out by the Executive Branch are non-reviewable by the courts.
    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=74
    Read also Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=323&invol=214
    President Gerald Ford rescinded Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1976.

    During times of war and under the grounds of National Security, US citizens, legal residents and unlawful present immigrants have no rights guaranteed.

    In legal terms the United States of America is currently in a State of War: Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF - Public Law 107-40)

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

    Mr. Algase, as a public-interest lawyer, you have a moral and ethical duty to educate your audiences about the legal facts proposed above.
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Marcel Lecomte's comment, I have been a member of the bar for more than half a century, and this is the first time I have ever seen or heard someone refer to Korematsu v. US and Japanese-American internment as anything other than one of the darkest stains on America's entire history.

    Which shameful, thoroughly discredited decision will the writer of the above comment next attempt to cite as authority? Dred Scott v. Sandford?

    It is worthy of note that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, not exactly a liberal firebrand, was quoted as saying that Korematsu ranked along Dred Scott as "among the Court's most shameful blunders."

    See:

    http://nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/tim...dict.html?_r=0

    I respectfully suggest that Mr. Lecomte look elsewhere than to Korematsu to find authority for his defense of the supposed power to suspend the entire Constitution and turn America into a fascist dictatorship (which there is every chance that Donald Trump might do on his first day in office, This is the real reason that there is so much fear among leaders in both parties of Trump's becoming president - it is not because he uses bad language or makes scurrilous attacks against Cruz' wife).

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-27-2016 at 10:40 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. Marcel Lecomte's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With regard to Marcel Lecomte's comment, I have been a member of the bar for more than half a century, and this is the first time I have ever seen or heard someone refer to Korematsu v. US and Japanese-American internment as anything other than one of the darkest stains on America's entire history.

    Which shameful, thoroughly discredited decision will the writer of the above comment next attempt to cite as authority? Dred Scott v. Sandford?

    It is worthy of note that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, not exactly a liberal firebrand, was quoted as saying that Korematsu ranked along Dred Scott as "among the Court's most shameful blunders."

    See:

    http://nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/time-for-supreme-court-to-overrule-korematsu-verdict.html?_r=0

    I respectfully suggest that Mr. Lecomte look elsewhere than to Korematsu to find authority for his defense of the supposed power to suspend the entire Constitution and turn America into a fascist dictatorship (which there is every chance that Donald Trump might do on his first day in office, This is the real reason that there is so much fear among leaders in both parties of Trump's becoming president - it is not because he uses bad language or makes scurrilous attacks against Cruz' wife).

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Mr. Algase, it is strongly recommended to you get better informed about the legal doctrine called "State of Exception," a doctrine systematically used in the American legal system during times of war. Moreover, this is a matter of Jurisprudence and seems that you cannot comprehend the legal facts proposed in the previous post that may help to visualize the repercussions of EO 9066 and Korematsu v. United States (the Supreme Court held that the wartime internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was constitutional).

    Furthermore, Roosevelt's controversial Executive Order not only affected Japanese Americans since it also included German and Italian Americans who sympathized with Hitler's Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista respectively.

    Ask yourself: why Executive Order 9066 was rescinded 34 years later by Ford's Presidential Proclamation 4417?
    https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/760111p.htm

    It is a legal fact that during times of war and under the grounds of National Security, US citizens and aliens have no constitutional rights guaranteed. In regards to immigration, the State of Exception applies equally to immigration activists and its detractors - the Sovereign can deem these people as persons of interest and forcibly be sent to internment camps for indefinite periods.

    Suggested reading:
    State of Exception by Giorgio Agamben - University of Chicago Press
    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/009254.html
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Mr. Lecomte,

    Might i gently remind you that this is a serious site for serious discussion only. You cannot possibly be unaware that in 1988, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, a law apologizing to the Japanese-American community for the wartime "relocation" and providing compensation for those affected.

    And you are still defending this wartime atrocity? Is it your hope that, 25 years from now, Congress will have to pass a law apologizing to the Muslim-American community for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump? If it does, it would not be by any means impassible that the president signing the law might himself (or herself) be a Muslim.

    This is America, Sir. We are not talking about the German PEGIDA, French Front National or some other European proto-fascist party, no matter how much Mr. Trump might wish to import such an authoritarian ideology to America.

    My concern, and that of a growing number of Americans, including even far right conservatives such as Glenn Beck, is that if Trump is elected, it is not only Muslims who will need an apology. All of America will need one, because all of us will stand to risk losing our freedom.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-27-2016 at 06:50 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. Marcel Lecomte's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Mr. Lecomte,

    Might i gently remind you that this is a serious site for serious discussion only. You cannot possibly be unaware that in 1988, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, a law apologizing to the Japanese-American community for the wartime "relocation" and providing compensation for those affected.

    And you are still defending this wartime atrocity? Is it your hope that, 25 years from now, Congress will have to pass a law apologizing to the Muslim-American community for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump? If it does, it would not be by any means impassible that the president signing the law might himself (or herself) be a Muslim.

    This is America, Sir. We are not talking about the German PEGIDA, French Front National or some other European proto-fascist party, no matter how much Mr. Trump might wish to import such an authoritarian ideology to America.

    My concern, and that of a growing number of Americans, including even far right conservatives such as Glenn Beck, is that if Trump is elected, it is not only Muslims who will need an apology. All of America will need one, because all of us will stand to risk losing our freedom.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    With all due respect Mr. Algase, but your own statements tend to disprove the seriousness of this blog:
    - You are apparently dodging basic premise in regards to the constitutionality of EO 9066
    - Public Law 100-383 does NOT nullify the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066
    - In fact, Public Law 100-383, Section 1 (6), states the following:
    (6) discourage the occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil liberties in the future; and
    IT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPULSORILY SEND US CITIZENS AND ALIENS TO MILITARY DESIGNATED AREAS DURING TIMES OF WAR ON GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
    - Being serious in regards to sources:
    An entirely separate and important philosophical question is whether occasional presidential excesses and judicial restraint in wartime are desirable or undesirable. In one sense, this question is very largely academic. There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt, or that future justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently from their predecessors.
    All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties In Wartime (1998) - Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
    Supreme Court Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist
    - Again, this is a matter of Jurisprudence and seems that you try to disqualify the legal facts initially proposed without citing the proper legal arguments.

    If ILW Blog pretends to project an unbiased and serious thematic, then it would be in the best interest of its credibility stop mentioning reality show entertainers like Glenn Beck as a source of reference, and avoid fallacies of argument (and false dichotomies too), as the ones seen in your latest response.

    Respectfully,
    Marcel Lecomte
  6. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Hey Roger. Me thinks it is good time for you to move to Syria. Looks like you are getting pretty unpopular here
    . Just a suggestion, no hard feelings


    QUOTE=ImmigrationLawBlogs;bt43464]Mr. Lecomte,

    Might i gently remind you that this is a serious site for serious discussion only. You cannot possibly be unaware that in 1988, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, a law apologizing to the Japanese-American community for the wartime "relocation" and providing compensation for those affected.

    And you are still defending this wartime atrocity? Is it your hope that, 25 years from now, Congress will have to pass a law apologizing to the Muslim-American community for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump? If it does, it would not be by any means impassible that the president signing the law might himself (or herself) be a Muslim.

    This is America, Sir. We are not talking about the German PEGIDA, French Front National or some other European proto-fascist party, no matter how much Mr. Trump might wish to import such an authoritarian ideology to America.

    My concern, and that of a growing number of Americans, including even far right conservatives such as Glenn Beck, is that if Trump is elected, it is not only Muslims who will need an apology. All of America will need one, because all of us will stand to risk losing our freedom.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    [/QUOTE]
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Unregistered222, thank you for your hospitable offer. Please let me know which part of Syria you happen to live in so I can look for a place nearby and continue our friendly discussions in person.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-28-2016 at 03:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Palmira. Just been liberated from ISIS today. All Syrian fake "refugees" should be sent back immediately to help rebuild their great country instead of mooching of already strained US taxpayers
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Unregistered222, thank you for your hospitable offer. Please let me know which part of Syria you happen to live in so I can look for a place nearby and continue our friendly discussions in person.

    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: