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: April 25 - April 29

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

Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: April 25 - April 29" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Donald Trump becomes president, will America have government by Storm Troopers?

    See:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ecurity-213647

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  2. Simone's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If Donald Trump becomes president, will America have government by Storm Troopers?

    See:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-vigilante-security-213647

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Mr. Algase,
    Stop ridiculing yourself by quoting articles taken from mainstream media - which by the way do not carry any legal validity whatsoever. Since you are trained in immigration law, you should instead analyze the legality of those hypothetical policies.

    Critical thinking is not difficult to practice Sir.
  3. John E. Shorkey's Avatar
    Natural born citizen comment

    Dear Editor:

    For those who are interested, here is the birther lawsuit seeking to declare that Ted Cruz is not a ?Natural Born Citizen? of the United States. Look for Schwartz v Cruz, CIVIL ACTION 4:16-cv-00106, US district Court, Southern District Texas. If you have PACER, you can find the filing documents and responses, as well as briefs and motions, both scholarly, and otherwise. I?ve gotten a headache reading the tortured legal reasoning and history. There?s nothing in any of the materials, or in the media, addressing the simpler approach I would like to present.

    To me, there are three ways to become a US citizen.
    1. NATURAL BORN: A person born on US soil, including US military bases, diplomatic posts, and territories is a natural born US citizen by all definitions and case law. Nobody disputes this.
    2. ACQUIRED: A person born abroad, of one or two US citizen parents, who can prove they satisfy the requirements of US Code Section 1401(for most years, that they were physically present in the US for at least 5 years, half of which was after the age of 14.) There is burden of proof here, which, if not satisfied by the filing of a US State Dept. form DS-2029, and a DS-11, US Passport application (with a filing fee), and an examination of required evidence submitted by the applicant, and a ruling by a State Dept. officer that the burden of proof has been met, will leave the child without US Citizenship, i.e., not a ?natural born citizen.? If the requirements and paperwork are met, the person will be found by US State Dept. officer to have acquired US Citizenship retroactive to birth.
    3. NATURALIZED: Naturalization ? not at issue. Nobody claims that a naturalized US citizen is a ?natural born citizen.?

    Ted Cruz is option 2. His mother had to comply with the bureaucratic process in order to transmit her citizenship retroactively to the baby Ted. Had she not done so, or not met the burden of proof, baby Ted would not be a US Citizen today. He could have filed a form N-600, proving the same things his mother had to prove, and could have been declared a US citizen retroactively to his birth, after paying a fee, also. This, too, could be considered ?acquired? US Citizenship. There is nothing ?natural? about filing papers, meeting an evidentiary requirement, and waiting for a decision.

    A real ?natural born? citizen doesn?t have to do anything beyond just being born on the soil. Complying with option 2 above is undeniably a different process, and requires steps to be taken, which, if not done, does not confer US citizenship.

    So, is a foreign-born son of a US citizen, a ?natural born? US citizen, even if the US Citizen parent fails to register him? Is there a difference between a ?natural born, on US soil, US Citizen,? and a foreign-born person who, through the process carried out by someone else (US citizen parent) has ?acquired US citizenship?? I say there is a huge difference, and that Ted Cruz is NOT a ?natural born citizen? of the United States of America.

    There is some scholarly research needed here if one is to defend option 2 as being ?natural born,? or if one wishes to submit a brief in the above case, which I have not done. Also left unexamined is the question of whether it mattered to the founding fathers. I submit that if it had, they would not have had to later create legislation to allow people to acquire US citizenship at birth. They would have defined ?natural born? a little better, or amended the Constitution at that point, but they didn?t. Instead, they crafted a bureaucratic process by which such a decision could be denied, as well as approved. Also left un-argued is whether it matters to the loyalty, or the competence or ability of the subject to do the job of President. I doubt it, but, that?s not the issue.

    John E. Shorkey, Attorney at Law
    Chula Vista, CA
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Simone seems reluctant to deal with the serious factual issue that I have raised in my brief letter above. This is typical of so many Americans who are unwilling to face the dark reality of what a Donald Trump presidency might well mean for America and our democracy.

    There are still many people who try to laugh Donald Trump off as nothing more than a "clown", "buffoon" or "entertainer". I will admit that some of his comments are so absurd as to be amusing at times. One might call him a "funny fascist".

    I deal with legal analysis of immigration issues in greater detail in my Immigration Daily "blogging" posts, rather than in the Letters section.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-26-2016 at 04:00 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to John E. Sharkey's discussion of who is a "Natural Born" Citizen of the US, since the Constitution doesn't define that term, the most reasonable conclusion is that the founding fathers intended to leave that term up to Congress to define from time to time, as it has in fact done.

    Donald Trump should follow the latest Congressional definition, which leaves no doubt that Sen. Cruz is a US citizen from birth, and move on to some other issue if he wants to attack him.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 04-26-2016 at 04:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With Donald Trump's sweep in the Northeast Republican primaries on April 26, America is coming ever closer to electing a fascist anti-immigrant bigot who shows every sign of planning to rule by intimidation, violence and torture as president of the United States.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  7. jl.dgaly@gmail.com's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With Donald Trump's sweep in the Northeast Republican primaries on April 26, America is coming ever closer to electing a fascist anti-immigrant bigot who shows every sign of planning to rule by intimidation, violence and torture as president of the United States.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Mr,Algase,
    No one would have said it better
    The United States would probably go to a social downfall with Trump becoming president and all moral convictions and ethics to the drain
  8. Julian Ortuondo's Avatar
    Funny that Hitler was not a ?Natural Born Citizen? of Germany... Who cared?



    Dear Editor:

    For those who are interested, here is the birther lawsuit seeking to declare that Ted Cruz is not a ?Natural Born Citizen? of the United States. Look for Schwartz v Cruz, CIVIL ACTION 4:16-cv-00106, US district Court, Southern District Texas. If you have PACER, you can find the filing documents and responses, as well as briefs and motions, both scholarly, and otherwise. I?ve gotten a headache reading the tortured legal reasoning and history. There?s nothing in any of the materials, or in the media, addressing the simpler approach I would like to present.

    To me, there are three ways to become a US citizen.
    1. NATURAL BORN: A person born on US soil, including US military bases, diplomatic posts, and territories is a natural born US citizen by all definitions and case law. Nobody disputes this.
    2. ACQUIRED: A person born abroad, of one or two US citizen parents, who can prove they satisfy the requirements of US Code Section 1401(for most years, that they were physically present in the US for at least 5 years, half of which was after the age of 14.) There is burden of proof here, which, if not satisfied by the filing of a US State Dept. form DS-2029, and a DS-11, US Passport application (with a filing fee), and an examination of required evidence submitted by the applicant, and a ruling by a State Dept. officer that the burden of proof has been met, will leave the child without US Citizenship, i.e., not a ?natural born citizen.? If the requirements and paperwork are met, the person will be found by US State Dept. officer to have acquired US Citizenship retroactive to birth.
    3. NATURALIZED: Naturalization ? not at issue. Nobody claims that a naturalized US citizen is a ?natural born citizen.?

    Ted Cruz is option 2. His mother had to comply with the bureaucratic process in order to transmit her citizenship retroactively to the baby Ted. Had she not done so, or not met the burden of proof, baby Ted would not be a US Citizen today. He could have filed a form N-600, proving the same things his mother had to prove, and could have been declared a US citizen retroactively to his birth, after paying a fee, also. This, too, could be considered ?acquired? US Citizenship. There is nothing ?natural? about filing papers, meeting an evidentiary requirement, and waiting for a decision.

    A real ?natural born? citizen doesn?t have to do anything beyond just being born on the soil. Complying with option 2 above is undeniably a different process, and requires steps to be taken, which, if not done, does not confer US citizenship.

    So, is a foreign-born son of a US citizen, a ?natural born? US citizen, even if the US Citizen parent fails to register him? Is there a difference between a ?natural born, on US soil, US Citizen,? and a foreign-born person who, through the process carried out by someone else (US citizen parent) has ?acquired US citizenship?? I say there is a huge difference, and that Ted Cruz is NOT a ?natural born citizen? of the United States of America.

    There is some scholarly research needed here if one is to defend option 2 as being ?natural born,? or if one wishes to submit a brief in the above case, which I have not done. Also left unexamined is the question of whether it mattered to the founding fathers. I submit that if it had, they would not have had to later create legislation to allow people to acquire US citizenship at birth. They would have defined ?natural born? a little better, or amended the Constitution at that point, but they didn?t. Instead, they crafted a bureaucratic process by which such a decision could be denied, as well as approved. Also left un-argued is whether it matters to the loyalty, or the competence or ability of the subject to do the job of President. I doubt it, but, that?s not the issue.

    John E. Shorkey, Attorney at Law
    Chula Vista, CA[/QUOTE]
  9. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Human Rights Watch has called for the repeal of two 1996 immigration laws that have subjected hundreds of thousands of people to arbitrary detention, fast-track deportations, and family separation, AEDPA and IIRIRA. https://www.hrw.org/print/289179

    I wrote a bill for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee that would fix the problems created by IIRIRA. She has introduced a more recent version of it since then which looks quite similar to the one I wrote for her. H.R.52 - Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2015. Take a look at it. I think you will like a lot of its provisions. If so, offer your support to Congresswoman Jackson Lee in getting it passed.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/52/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22jackson+lee+immigration+bills%22%2C%22Save+America+Comprehensive+Immigration+Act%22%2C%22jackson+lee+immigration+bills%22%2C%22Save+America+Comprehensive+Immigration+Act%22%5D%7D

    Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
    2252 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, DC 20515
    phone: (202) 225-3816
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan Rappaport, a distinguished legal scholar, and authority on immigration law, deserves to be commended and supported for his role in calling attention to and trying to ameliorate some of the harsh provisions of IIRIRA, which was enacted during a period of anti-immigrant "backlash" in 1996, five years before the 9/11 attacks, when the threat of Islamist terrorism was not yet a big issue in America, but there was no shortage of other attempts to scapegoat immigrants for political reasons.

    Thank you, Nolan!

    For an excellent article by Doug Brugge of Tufts University on the anti-immigrant movement during the 1990's and how it affected legislation during that period, see

    http://www,politicalresearch.org/200....CiEldA0A.dpbs

    For another excellent study of the anti-immigrant movement, focusing on its role in the larger phenomenon of right-wing populism, which in turn contains the seeds of fascism, see David Neiwert:

    Donald Trump May Not Be a Fascist, But He is Leading Us Merrily Down That Path

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_8973768.html

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law




    Updated 04-28-2016 at 09:36 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. chweroqui's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With Donald Trump's sweep in the Northeast Republican primaries on April 26, America is coming ever closer to electing a fascist anti-immigrant bigot who shows every sign of planning to rule by intimidation, violence and torture as president of the United States.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Though the question is now moot, you said that congress had formulated a definitive definition of "natural born." I'd like to know what that is, if you would. None of the authorities I have seen consider the question settled, and Congress has not defined the term in a statutory sense. So, I'd appreciate it if you would share your source. Thanks,
    John E. Shorkey, Esq.
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: