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

Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
Update, June 10, 11:01 am:

Here is another example (and perhaps a very likely one) of how the lack of respect for the judicial branch of government that Donald Trump has shown in his racial attacks on Judge Curiel could lead to Trump's disregarding or trying to nullify a court order if he becomes president:

Suppose that after becoming president, Trump issues an executive order suspending issuance of any further H-1B visas and labor certification green cards (both of which he has pledged to abolish). Suppose, going further, his order also directs USCIS to revoke and cancel all such visas and green cards issued, say, during President Obama's second term in office, i.e. during the last four years.

Let us suppose that the Supreme Court strikes down this order as an unjustified refusal to carry out an act of Congress (the same argument which is being made against President Obama in the Texas v. US DAPA/DACA litigation) and as a violation of the affected lawfully admitted immigrants' 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection of the law; and that the Court directs the Trump administration to continue issuing these visas and green cards, and to reinstate the ones that were illegally revoked.

Is there anyone in America who seriously thinks that President Trump would obey such a Supreme Court order, thereby avoiding the kind of Constitutional crisis which could well become the order of the day under his administration?

This question answers itself.

My original post follows:

Donald Trump has come under intense and unprecedented criticism for a major party presidential candidate, both inside and outside his own party, for his racial attacks on immigrants and other minorities, and, most recently, for claiming that the presiding judge in the pending civil lawsuits against Trump University. Indiana-born U.S. District Judge Gonazalo Curiel, is unfit to serve in this case, solely because he is a "Mexican" who, by reason of his ethnicity alone, is a "hater" of Donald Trump because of Trump's proposal to build a Wall with Mexico.

Because Trump claimed that the mere fact that Judge Curiel's ancestry is Mexican, without considering any other factor, automatically makes him biased, it is easy to understand why even many of Trump's own supporters in Congress are denouncing this comment as "racist".

However, Trump has also tried to justify his attack on Judge Curiel, whose record as a federal prosecutor includes helping to break up a feared and dangerous Mexican drug cartel, by drawing attention to one of the Judge's actions, namely membership in a bar association which has the goal of promoting the interests of Latino lawyers and judges.

This organization is the California La Raza Lawyers Association (which, contrary to Trump's initial claim, is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza). It is instructive to look at the goals of this bar association, of which Judge Curiel is a member through its local chapter, to see if there is anything in its stated purpose that would interfere with Judge Curiel's ability to rule fairly in the Trump University case or any other lawsuit,

Here are the goals of this bar association as listed on its own website (Italics are added below.)

" I. POLICIES

A. Goals

The principal goal of the California La Raza Lawyers Association (the "Association" is endorsing candidates for judgeships to ensure the election or appointment of qualified judges to local, state, and federal courts. Consistent with that goal, the Association also seeks to increase the number of Latinos appointed to judgeships. The Association endorses candidates who have demonstrated a commitment to equal treatment of all litigants and who have demonstrated involvement, support and responsiveness to Latino issues, needs and concerns."

See:

http://larazalawyers.net/id4.html

From the above, it is easy to understand why Donald Trump has such a problem with Judge Curiel. Based on his statements and actions throughout his entire presidential campaign against people who oppose or disagree with him, it would appear that the last thing Trump wants is a judge who is committed to equal treatment of all litigants and who is willing to make rulings based on the merits of a case as he sees them without granting Trump any special favors - i.e, a judge whom Trump cannot control.

It is not only Trump's racist attacks on Judge Curiel, which are merely extensions of Trump's previous attacks against Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists", that make Trump so dangerous. The greatest danger of all that Trump poses to America's democracy is that even the judiciary, whose independence is at the foundation od America's constitutional system, is subject to his venom and invective if it does not bow down to his will.

It is is easy to understand why Donald Trump would be so violently opposed to a judge who is a member of a bar association that believes in equal treatment of all litigants.

If Trump were to become president, would he be willing to respect and abide by an adverse court decision on any issue that matters to him? Suppose, for example, that he tried to enforce his ban on Muslim immigrants through decree, or even though an act of Congress (a branch of the government which we should not expect him to pay much attention to), and the Supreme Court overturns the ban on the grounds that banning foreign citizens from entry purely on the basis of religious affiliation violates the First Amendment rights of their US citizen co-religionists.

See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 1972, in which Justice the majority opinion left this argument open as a possibility, though it was not successful in that case because of quite different facts. See also Justice Scalia's opinion in Kerry v Din (2014) and the following article in The Guardian: (May 10) by Moustafa Bayoumi:

As an American Muslim, Donald Trump doesn't scare me. He inspires me to vote: The Republican nominee's campaign traffics in threats, including Islamophobia. But the US is a diverse society now -and mobilizing to oppose radical haters

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...can-nominee-us

Is there anyone who seriously thinks that a President Trump would abide by or follow such a decision, rather than vilifying the Justices voting against him as "under Muslim influence" and "hating America" and announcing that he will "nullify" the decision?

Or suppose Trump appointed a Supreme Court Justice whom he expected to follow Trump's own orders faithfully, and the Senate voted him down (since it is unlikely that Trump would appoint a woman to the High Court, given his record of statements about women).

Is it beyond imagination that Trump would retaliate in any way he could against the Senators who opposed him, including possibly even having them investigated, arrested and prosecuted on Trumped up charges (no-pun intended), as in some of the dictatorships that Trump has expressed admiration for, or which his top campaign adviser, Paul Manafort, has an odious record of working on behalf of and trying to defend?

These are only some of the possibilities for what American "democracy" could be like under Donald Trump, with his assault on the judiciary in the person of Judge Gonzalo Curiel as only the beginning.
__________________________________________
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 educated immigrants from diverse parts of the world and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work visas and green card.

Roger believes that America's diversity is essential to our democracy and that promoting hatred or discrimination against any group of immigrants because of race or religion puts the freedom of all Americans at risk. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com


Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Does Membership in La Raza Lawyers Association Disqualify Judge Curiel? Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 06-11-2016 at 01:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Roger asserts, "Is there anyone in America who seriously thinks that President Trump would obey ... a Supreme Court order, thereby avoiding the kind of Constitutional crisis which could well become the order of the day under his administration?"

    Roger, how about providing some reasons this time instead of just making unsubstantiated accusations? Just state three objective reasons for thinking that President Trump would defy a Supreme Court order. Can you do it?

    I will go further and ask you to "give us three" objective reasons for every accusation you make about Trump from now on.
  2. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Roger also says, "... Trump claimed that the mere fact that Judge Curiel's ancestry is Mexican, without considering any other factor, automatically makes him biased,..."

    That's not true. Trump started with an accusation that the judge made a series of unsupportable, adverse rulings in Trump's case. Then Trump concluded that the explanation was bias due to Mexican heritage and anger towards Trump's intention to build "the Wall."

    If I were challenging Trump, I wouldn't call him names or make a series of unsubstantiated accusations about what a bad person he is. I would respond the way I just responded to Roger. I would say, "Trump, give us three reasons for thinking that the judge's rulings were improper." If he couldn't, I would say, "You and Roger should get together in a bar somewhere, drink lots of beer, and yell obscenities at each other. But please, leave us out of it."
  3. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Bravo Sir! Well said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nolan Rappaport
    Roger also says, "... Trump claimed that the mere fact that Judge Curiel's ancestry is Mexican, without considering any other factor, automatically makes him biased,..."

    That's not true. Trump started with an accusation that the judge made a series of unsupportable, adverse rulings in Trump's case. Then Trump concluded that the explanation was bias due to Mexican heritage and anger towards Trump's intention to build "the Wall."

    If I were challenging Trump, I wouldn't call him names or make a series of unsubstantiated accusations about what a bad person he is. I would respond the way I just responded to Roger. I would say, "Trump, give us three reasons for thinking that the judge's rulings were improper." If he couldn't, I would say, "You and Roger should get together in a bar somewhere, drink lots of beer, and yell obscenities at each other. But please, leave us out of it."
  4. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered222
    Bravo Sir! Well said.
    Thanks for your comment.
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I would be glad to get together with Donald Trump in a bar as long as he doesn't make me pay for his drinks.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  6. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I would be glad to get together with Donald Trump in a bar as long as he doesn't make me pay for his drinks.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I think he can afford to pay for the drinks.
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: