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

Did Melania Trump Commit Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
Update: August 5, 2:07 pm:

My hypothesis below, based on a POLITICO article which I discuss in detail reporting that Melania Trump might, allegedly, have worked as a model in the United States illegally with a visitor visa and then, admittedly based on conjecture rather than firm proof, might have have been forced to tell a series of lies in subsequent visa and immigration applications in order to avoid having them denied, all depends on the answer to one simple question:

What kind of visa did Melania Trump use to come to the United States in 1995 when she worked as a model and posed for the photos which appeared in a recent edition of the New York Post? Was it an H-1B visa which would have allowed her to work, thereby leaving her with a clean immigration record of compliance with our laws at all times?

Or was it a visitor visa
which would not have allowed her to work and therefore might, conceivably, have been obtained by misrepresenting her intended activities in the United States?

Hopefully, in order to clear up this question, Melania Trump will provide the naked truth about her visa history as soon as possible.


Update, August 4, 12:40 pm:


According to an August 4 Huffington Post story (available on their website), Melania Trump has denied ever having broken any US immigration laws, but she has still not said what kind of visa she was in the US with in 1995, when she allegedly worked in this country as a model, as evidenced by nude photos reportedly taken of her that year which have recently been published in the New York Post.

My original post follows:

Donald Trump has promised to enforce our immigration laws to the letter and to deport everyone who is in violation of these laws in any way, without exception. He has also proposed to eliminate H-1B work visas, either as a matter of law, or for all practical purposes by imposing a requirement that any employer wishing to sponsor someone for H-1B would have to hire American workers first. See the POLITICO report below.

However, while Trump carries out these draconian enforcement proposals, would he also be sharing the White House with a First Lady who worked in the United States with the same H-1B visa that Trump now sees as such a dire threat to American workers, and who, according to the following August 4 POLITICO report, may have allegedly committed visa fraud by previously coming to the US with a B-1/B-2 visitor visa in order to work?

See

POLITICO: Gaps in Melania Trump's immigration story raise questions

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-donald-226648

According to this story, Melania Trump allegedly told reporters that, during the period 1995-1996 she was working in the US with a legal H-1B visa for models. However, she also allegedly stated that she returned to Europe every few months to renew the visa stamp.

As POLITICO points out, an H-1B visa is normally valid for 3 years and can be renewed for at least 3 more years (sometimes longer, if the person has a pending green card case) without leaving the US.

However, if the person only has a visitor visa, then she would normally have to leave the US every few months, either to get a new visa, or to enter the US with the same visa but with a new passport entry stamp.

Therefore Melania's alleged statement is more consistent with her holding a B-1/B-2 visitor visa than an H-1B visa.

And here is the problem: a B-1/B-2 visitor visa does not allow the holder to work in the United States. And if someone applies for or enters the US with a visitor visa while intending ro work in this country, then that action would constitute visa fraud,, something which could make the person inadmissible to the US and deportable if she is already here.

I am sure that the Trump campaign will be eager to provide further details about Melania Trump's immigration history, along with more examples of Donald Trump's dedication to enforcing our immigration laws to their fullest extent, and without any exceptions, even if this, allegedly, includes applying them to a fellow occupant of the White House.

And if Melania Trump did in fact commit visa fraud by allegedly misstating her intentions when applying for a visitor visa and using it to enter the US, perhaps on several occasions during the above time period, did she reveal this relevant and important fact when she later applied for and received her her H-1B visa, and, subsequently, green card and US citizenship?

That is another interesting question which her husband's campaign will no doubt look forward to enlightening us on sooner rather than later.

I also want to make clear that nothing in the above POLITICO story proves that Melania Trump in fact applied for, received or used a B-1/B-2 or any other visitor visa at any time. This is only an inference based on the circumstantial evidence of her own reported statements about her immigration history during the 1995-1006 period.

No doubt, further information about this story will be coming from the Trump campaign in due course.
______________________________________

Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more that 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards.

His practice is concentrated in H-1B specialty occupation and O-1 extraordinary ability work visas, J-1 training visas and green cards through labor certification and opposite sex or same sex marriage.

Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com


Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Did Melania Trump Commit  Fraud By Using A Visitor Visa To Work in US? Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 08-07-2016 at 09:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Warrente's Avatar
    It will be extremely entertaining to see Melania's immigration records...if she indeed committed fraud (meaning working without proper authorization while staying in the US as a B1/B2 visa holder), then her US citizenship could be revoked by immigration authorities and start removal proceedings...payroll checks are an excellent evidence.

    Maybe Donald Trump will be forced to petition her in order to avoid deportation, and surely ILW can provide counseling to the Trumps if needed.
  2. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Roger's point seems to be that the Donald is a hypocrite. Perhaps he is, but what about Roger. He is complaining about a model violating nonimmigrant visa laws, but I don't think he has ever complained about any other immigration violation and I doubt that he would be complaining about this one either if the offender weren't Donald's wife. For instance, a substantial percentage of the 11 million undocumented aliens in the country entered without inspection, which is a misdemeanor if only one illegal entry was made but a felony if more than one was made. And sham marriage is a felony too punishable by up to 5 years in prison. See below. I don't recall Roger complaining about those offenses.

    Sec. 275. [8 U.S.C. 1325]

    (a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    ........
    (c) An individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
  3. newacct's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrente
    if she indeed committed fraud (meaning working without proper authorization while staying in the US as a B1/B2 visa holder), then her US citizenship could be revoked by immigration authorities and start removal proceedings
    No. What does working without authorization have to do with her naturalization?
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    newacct wants to know what working without authorization has to do with naturalization. In Melania Trump's case, it might have everything to do with naturalization, depending on the facts - which we don't know for sure, since Melania as of this writing has not seen fit to share her full immigration history with the rest of the world.

    But this is the hypothesis. First, Melania applies for and receives a visitor visa, by representing to the US consular officer that she does not intend to work on the uS.

    Next, having received the visa, she uses it to enter the Unites States, which expressly or by implication means making the same representation to the INS inspecting officer at the port of entry (remember, we are talking about 1995 - there wax no DHS or CBP in those days).

    Next, upon entry to the US, or very soon after, Melania starts working as a model, thereby showing that (according to this hypothetical reconstruction of the facts) she lied about her intended activities in the US to both the US consular officer and the inspecting officer at the port of entry.

    That would be classic visa fraud - not once but twice. Then, again in our hypothesis, which is a highly reasonable one based on what we know about Melania's immigration history, she goes back to Europe after having worked in the US illegally and fraudulently on the visitors' visa, and applies for an H-1B visa based on an approved H-1B petition by a US modeling agency.

    If the visa application questions were the same then as they are now, they would have included the following two questions:

    1) Have you ever violated the terms of a US visa? and

    2) Gave you ever sought to obtain a visa or to enter the United States through fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact?


    Let us assume that she answered "no" to both questions in order not to risk having the H-1B visa denied. There we have it - visa frauds number 3 and 4.

    Next, she enters the US using the fraudulently obtained H-1B visa. Visa fraud number 5. Are we beginning to get the picture?

    OK, now everything goes well with her H-1B employment in the US. Everything is legal; no further problems. That is, until she applies for her green card. Then, in the green card application, we have more questions: First, "have you ever committed a crime that you have not been charged with or convicted of?"

    Of course, Melania answers "no", thereby committing her 6th act of visa fraud, because, of course the first five fraudulent answers (in our hypothesis) were also federal crimes. So is this 6th act of visa fraud.

    But wait - there is more! The same green card application also repeats the above two questions about whether she has ever tried to procure a visa through fraud and whether she has ever sought to enter the US though fraud.

    Again, in our hypothesis, she answers "no" to both questions, thereby committing visa frauds and federal crimes numbers 7 and 8!

    Of course she has to answer no to all the above questions - otherwise no green card - so our hypothesis is certainly a reasonable one.

    Finally, she later on applies for US citizenship. But her citizenship application (again in our hypothesis) is based on a fraudulently obtained green card, so the citizenship application itself is nothing more than one huge lie from beginning to end.

    There could not be the slightest doubt that, based on this set of facts, Melania's citizenship could be subject to revocation and she could also be sentenced to jail.

    Having said the above, I emphasize that the above fact pattern is purely hypothetical and has not been proven.

    But, based on Melania's own statements referred to in my main comment, it is a fact pattern which could well be true and cannot be ruled out unless she chooses to provide us with more information about her immigration history.

    Obviously Melania Trump must know whether she ever applied for or entered the US with a visitor's visa. If she did, then the entire fact pattern above becomes not only a reasonable one, but arguably the most reasonable assumption of all.

    That is why Melania Trump, whose husband is running for president on a platform of enforcing the immigration laws of this country to the hilt, without the slightest compassion and with no exceptions whatsoever, against 12 million people currently in this country who are not lucky enough to be married to someone who has a chance of being put in charge of our government, would not do herself, or the American people, any service by holding back on revealing the full details of her visa history.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


























    Updated 08-04-2016 at 10:10 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Roger says, "That is why Melania Trump, whose husband is running for president on a platform of enforcing the immigration laws of this country to the hilt, without the slightest compassion and with no exceptions whatsoever, against 12 million people currently in this country who are not lucky enough to be married to someone who has a chance of being put in charge of our government, would not do herself, or the American people, any service by holding back on revealing the full details of her visa history."

    First, Trump was just stating a campaign talking point when he said he would deport the 11 million undocumented aliens. Do you remember when a candidate who was elected subsequently said about taxes, "Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES." And what did he do when he became the president?

    Roger do you believe everything every politician says when he is campaigning or just the things you can use against a politician you don't like?

    Second, it isn't possible to deport 11 million aliens. If Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) Program hadn't been stopped by court action, Trump would have been able to deport 5 million of them. For details, see my article, "President Obama?s use of executive discretion could have unintended consequences if Donald Trump becomes our next president,"(March 7, 2016), http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0307-Rappaport.pdf But it was stopped, and it isn't likely that any president would deport the children who applied for the previous program without the smoke screen of going after a five million alien group consisting mainly of adults.

    Absent that stroke of enforcement luck, Trump will have no chance of deporting millions of undocumented aliens.

    Third, Trump is pulling back on that campaign promise already and we are just getting into the general election. He is talking now about humane deportations.

    No way around it, Roger, you are being a hypocrite, as I explained in my two previous comments. The only reason for focussing on Trump's wife's offense is because you don't like Trump. And I suspect that if he has been reading your weekly tirades against him, he doesn't like you much either.























    [/SIZE]
    [/SIZE][/QUOTE]
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Here is another take on the possible significance of the gap in Melania Trump's visa history by Josh Vorhees, writing in Slate on August 4. Sorry, I don't have a link - please go to www.slate.com)

    "This story, though, isn't really about Melania. If she did violate the law, knowingly or not, to get her start in this country, she's no different than the millions of other hard-working and well meaning immigrants who have done the same thing. That her husband has built his campaign on railing against these immigrants - by spewing hate and spreading lies about foreigners flooding across our borders to do us physical and economic harm - that's the story. It's not that Melania did anything so wrong. It's that her husband has spent the past year assailing people whose actions are probably a lot like his wife's."


    If my hypothetical reconstruction of Melania's Trump's possible immigration history - and I emphasize that it is just a hypothesis which cannot be proven true or false until we know more about her visa history - which so far she is not telling us - then Vorhees is, arguably being a little too easy on her.

    But as Vorhees points out, this story is not really about Melania - it is about a presidential candidate who demonizes millions of Latino immigrants as "rapists" and "criminals" and more than a billion Muslims around the world as "terrorists" solely because of their religion, while saying nothing about his own wife who, there could be reason to believe, might have less than a spotless immigration record herself.

    The moral of this story, therefore, could very well be that someone who lives in a glass house shouldn't build walls or promise to carry out the mass expulsion of millions of immigrants who might not be all that much different from his own wife in terms of immigration law compliance- or lack of it - even if the house he would like to live in happens to be the White House.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-04-2016 at 11:16 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. newacct's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    newacct wants to know what working without authorization has to do with naturalization. In Melania Trump's case, it might have everything to do with naturalization, depending on the facts - which we don't know for sure, since Melania as of this writing has not seen fit to share her full immigration history with the rest of the world.

    But this is the hypothesis. First, Melania applies for and receives a visitor visa, by representing to the US consular officer that she does not intend to work on the uS.

    Next, having received the visa, she uses it to enter the Unites States, which expressly or by implication means making the same representation to the INS inspecting officer at the port of entry (remember, we are talking about 1995 - there wax no DHS or CBP in those days).

    Next, upon entry to the US, or very soon after, Melania starts working as a model, thereby showing that (according to this hypothetical reconstruction of the facts) she lied about her intended activities in the US to both the US consular officer and the inspecting officer at the port of entry.

    That would be classic visa fraud - not once but twice. Then, again in our hypothesis, which is a highly reasonable one based on what we know about Melania's immigration history, she goes back to Europe after having worked in the US illegally and fraudulently on the visitors' visa, and applies for an H-1B visa based on an approved H-1B petition by a US modeling agency.

    If the visa application questions were the same then as they are now, they would have included the following two questions:

    1) Have you ever violated the terms of a US visa? and

    2) Gave you ever sought to obtain a visa or to enter the United States through fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact?


    Let us assume that she answered "no" to both questions in order not to risk having the H-1B visa denied. There we have it - visa frauds number 3 and 4.

    Next, she enters the US using the fraudulently obtained H-1B visa. Visa fraud number 5. Are we beginning to get the picture?

    OK, now everything goes well with her H-1B employment in the US. Everything is legal; no further problems. That is, until she applies for her green card. Then, in the green card application, we have more questions: First, "have you ever committed a crime that you have not been charged with or convicted of?"

    Of course, Melania answers "no", thereby committing her 6th act of visa fraud, because, of course the first five fraudulent answers (in our hypothesis) were also federal crimes. So is this 6th act of visa fraud.

    But wait - there is more! The same green card application also repeats the above two questions about whether she has ever tried to procure a visa through fraud and whether she has ever sought to enter the US though fraud.

    Again, in our hypothesis, she answers "no" to both questions, thereby committing visa frauds and federal crimes numbers 7 and 8!

    Of course she has to answer no to all the above questions - otherwise no green card - so our hypothesis is certainly a reasonable one.

    Finally, she later on applies for US citizenship. But her citizenship application (again in our hypothesis) is based on a fraudulently obtained green card, so the citizenship application itself is nothing more than one huge lie from beginning to end.

    There could not be the slightest doubt that, based on this set of facts, Melania's citizenship could be subject to revocation and she could also be sentenced to jail.

    Having said the above, I emphasize that the above fact pattern is purely hypothetical and has not been proven.

    But, based on Melania's own statements referred to in my main comment, it is a fact pattern which could well be true and cannot be ruled out unless she chooses to provide us with more information about her immigration history.

    Obviously Melania Trump must know whether she ever applied for or entered the US with a visitor's visa. If she did, then the entire fact pattern above becomes not only a reasonable one, but arguably the most reasonable assumption of all.

    That is why Melania Trump, whose husband is running for president on a platform of enforcing the immigration laws of this country to the hilt, without the slightest compassion and with no exceptions whatsoever, against 12 million people currently in this country who are not lucky enough to be married to someone who has a chance of being put in charge of our government, would not do herself, or the American people, any service by holding back on revealing the full details of her visa history.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


























    What you're basically saying is it is possible to deliberately imagine a series of worst-case events that would have made her naturalization fraudulent. Well, of course. I am sure that if you take any immigrant who naturalized, it is possible to imagine a series of worst-case events that would have made their naturalization fraudulent too. But fraudulent naturalization does not follow from the premise of Warrente's statement (that she worked without authorization on visitor status) or from what we know so far. You hypothesize that she lied here and there but she could have told the truth everywhere and still have gotten what she got.
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The above statement that "she could have told the truth everywhere and still gotten what she got" would be accurate only if Melania had been truthful right from the start, i.e. come to the United States originally (in 1995) with a visa that allowed her to work (such as H-1B).

    If that was the case, then she did nothing wrong and there would have been no motive to lie at any subsequent time.

    This whole story would be totally meaningless and no one would be writing about it. Melania would have a fine, unblemished, law-abiding immigration history that would be a model (no pun intended) for all other immigrants to follow, just as she claims.

    The only problem with this is that Melania's own statements, as reported in the POLITICO article, indicate that she may have come to the United States originally with a visitor visa (B-1/B-2), not a work visa.

    If she had had a work visa (H-1B), she would not have had to go back to Europe every few months to get a new stamp (passport or entry), as she said she did. And if she had a visitor visa, as opposed to an H-1B, she was not allowed to work, so there would have been good reason to suspect visa fraud, i.e. lying about her intentions in order to get the visa and use it to enter the US.

    If there was indeed such fraud on Melania Trump's part, it would have been all but impossible for her to tell the truth about that in any subsequent visa, green card or naturalization application, because that application would have been denied
    .

    No one who admits to having committed visa fraud is eligible to receive a visa or to enter the US, let alone receive a green card or become a US citizen, except in very limited circumstances which could not possibly have applied to Melania Trump (such as being married to a US citizen who could file a fraud waiver petition on her behalf.)

    She was not married to Donald Trump or any other US citizen at the time that the above events took place, except for her naturalization as a US citizen in 2006.

    Therefore, if she did in fact lie about her intention to work in the US when she applied for her initial visa and used it to enter the US, the other lies that I have hypothesized would have had to have followed from the first one just as night follows day, or all her subsequent visa or immigration applications would have been denied as a matter of law.

    This should be apparent to anyone who knows anything about immigration law. newacct does not, judging from the content of his/her post, appear to be among that class of people.

    This is why it is so important for Melania Trump to clear up the questions about her own immigration history which her own reported statements have raised. True, it is 20 years (or more) since she first came to the US. People's memories, even about their own immigration history, can be faulty over such a long period of time.

    Possibly Melania came to the US with a work visa initially, in which case she did nothing wrong, and her memory of going back to Europe frequently to get new stamps is simply confused.

    But because of her marriage to a man who has made demonizing and vilifying immigrants, especially those who, unlike Melania, do not happen be of European ancestry, the centerpiece of his campaign for the highest office in this land; and whose hatred and venom against immigrants in general and against his American citizen political opponents have not even spared the Gold Star immigrant parents of a brave American soldier who gave his life for this country, Melania Trump is, for better or worse, in the public spotlight and she owes the American people a full explanation of her immigration history.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-05-2016 at 04:13 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Granted, there may be some people who are making an issue of Melania's immigration history because they do not like Donald Trump or think that he is fit to be the president of the United States. Yes, there are such people and the list is growing day by day, including many leading Republican figures, according to news reports too numerous to mention.

    But what's not to like about Donald Trump? Even though this is an immigration blog, I will mention one other reason that includes immigration but also goes beyond it - national security.

    A few months ago, according to a March 3 AP report, 70 conservative national security experts, including a former Republican Homeland Security Secretary former Reagan and Bush administration officials, released an open letter stating that Donald Trump was unfit to be commander in chief, dishonest, dangerous and uninformed. See:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservat...on.html?ref=gs

    Here is a quote from that report:

    "They [the conservative national security experts] called Trump 'fundamentally dishonest' and said that his support for the expanded use of torture against suspected terrorists is inexcusable. They also cited Trump's 'hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric', his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his advocacy for waging trade wars, which they say would lead to disaster in a globally connected world."

    Yes, there are issues in this election that are more important than Melania Trump's immigration history - such as the above ones raised by patriotic Republican public servants who have devoted their lives and careers to protecting America's national security.

    Nor, one could argue, might it be entirely fair to hold Melania Trump, who is not a candidate for any public office, to the same standard as Caesar's wife, who as Julius Caesar himself was reported to have said 2,000 years ago, must be entirely above criticism.

    But, as I have mentioned in my previous comment above, Donald Trump has made immigration, and immigration enforcement, a central part of his campaign, while doing everything in his power to scapegoat millions of immigrants as alleged criminals, terrorists and dangers to our economy and national security.

    Is it asking too much to raise questions, based on her own reported statements, about whether Melania Trump has always been honest and free from misconduct in her own immigration history?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-05-2016 at 06:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Further on the the subject of Trump's potentially damaging effect on national security, the August 5, New York Times is running an oped by former CIA Acting Director Michael J. Morell with a devastating assessment of Donald Trump's fitness to be in charge of America's national security.

    Morell says that Trump would be a "poor, even dangerous" commander in chief, that his support for the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin has led Trump to "take policy positions consistent with Russian, not American interests," and that his call to bar Muslims from entering the US "plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative."

    See:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/op...nton.html?_r=1

    This raises an interesting question:

    Who poses a greater potential threat to America's national security - the tiny trickle of 10,000 Syrian refugees from their country's Putin backed tyrant and from ISIS terror whom President Obama proposes to admit to the US, or other Muslim immigrants such as the Gold Star parents of the an American Muslim hero who gave his life for his country, and whose grieving mother and father Trump has so mercilessly attacked; or Donald J. Trump himself?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-05-2016 at 09:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Roger says, "But as Vorhees points out, this story is not really about Melania - it is about a presidential candidate who demonizes millions of Latino immigrants as "rapists" and "criminals" and more than a billion Muslims around the world as "terrorists" solely because of their religion, while saying nothing about his own wife who, there could be reason to believe, might have less than a spotless immigration record herself. "

    Roger, please provide a quote from a reliable source to prove that Trump actually said what you are accusing him of saying.

    The only thing I heard Trump saying was that a lot of criminals and rapists come into the US illegally with the Mexicans.....presumably the Mexicans who enter without inspection. I think he is right, but from what I have been able to learn from following this issue over the years, the bad ones are a small percentage. The vast majority come her for a better life. But the number is small only as a proportion of the total. In absolute terms, it is a very substantial number.
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan says that the only thing he has heard Trump say is that a lot of criminals and rapists are coming into the US illegally with the Mexicans.

    In that case, Trump must have missed out on hearing Trump's presidential announcement speech of June 16, 2015, as quoted in the Washington Post on July 8, 2015 (see cite below):

    "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume are good people."

    Where in the above quote does Trump say anything about Mexicans who come in illegally? If we give these plain English words (and no one can accuse Trump of talking over the heads of average Americans - he is famous for using simple and direct language, whether truthful or not) he is talking about all Mexicans, not just illegal ones.

    Even if there were any ambiguity in the above statement, which has by now become so famous that one has to hope Trump, if elected president will not order it to be engraved in the Statue of Liberty replacing the immortal words of Emma Lazarus which are now there, Trump let the cat out of the bag earlier this year when he accused US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel of being biased against him because of the Judge's "Mexican Heritage" not "illegal immigrant heritage" (the latter of which, of course, Judge Curiel does not have).

    Spinning Trump's statements about minority immigrants (and US citizens) to try to whitewash or remove the bigotry inherent in at least some, if not all, of those statements is not an easy task.

    I have to express some admiration to Nolan for attempting such a daunting feat against such great odds.

    The above quote appears in a July 8, 2015 Washington Post Article called:

    Donald Trump's false comments connecting immigrants and crime

    by MIchelle Ye Hee Lee

    (I am not able at the moment to reproduce the link, due to my own technology limitations, but the article can easily be found by going to Google and typing in the above title.)

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 08-06-2016 at 04:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan says that the only thing he has heard Trump say is that a lot of criminals and rapists are coming into the US illegally with the Mexicans. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume are good people."
    [/I]Roger Algase Attorney at Law
    Yes, he said those things. If you want to read the rest of the article, it's available at http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/

    It wasn't a good speech. Frankly, I can see why no one expected him to go anywhere. But give the man a break, Roger. He was just starting his career as a politician, and it should be clear that he wasn't articulate. He still isn't. But based on being a Judiciary counsel for seven years, it's my guess that very few politicians write their own speeches. Certainly you don't think Obama or any other president does. Their speeches are written by staffs of subject matter experts and screened by levels of supervisors before they reach the president. It would be a legitimate criticism to point out that Trump should have hired professional speech writers for such an important occasion.

    It's not clear what he actually means. He says "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best." What does that mean? Did he that the Mexican government took applications from people wanting to go to the US and selected the worst applicants? Trump's claim makes no sense. It's true that they are bringing crime, drugs, and rapists. That isn't offensive until an amount is attached to it. Is he saying that most of the Mexicans are drug smugglers, criminals, or rapists? Maybe, but you can't be sure from the language he uses. He does add, "And some, I assume, are good people." That indicates that he thinks some relatively small number of them are good people. But is he really putting all Mexicans who come into the US into those categories? Drug smugglers, criminals, rapists, and good people. Maybe, but I would like to hear what he has said since then, which Roger has left out.

    For instance, Roger doesn't mention Trump's Republican Nomination Acceptance Speech. I looked it up and did a term search of the lengthy, carefully written document with 282 footnotes. The word Mexican only appears in three places, all of which are footnotes. Maybe Roger would like to review it himself. It's available at https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-republican-nomination-acceptance-speech
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan might not be sure what Trump's presidential announcement speech a year ago speech meant, but David Duke and millions of, arguably, less educated white working class voters who, in all likelihood voted for Trump because of their own anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant prejudices, also know what these words meant, or could reasonably have been interpreted as meaning.

    Nolan argues that Trump's acceptance speech, which admittedly may have had less inflammatory language about Mexicans specifically, is a more reliable of Trump's racial views than his announcement speech last year.

    But without the bigoted language of his announcement speech, which arguably attracted many white voters who had similar views about Mexicans, Trump might never have won the nomination or reached the point where he could make the acceptance speech at all!

    The acceptance speech itself, which I have written about previously on this site, is anything but a model of racial or religious tolerance or harmony.

    It continues the same theme of America under siege by non-white immigrants and Muslims that was first set forth in his announcement speech.

    The fact that Trump has 242 footnotes in his acceptance speech is commendable, but that doesn't change the dark, fear filled tone of the speech.

    And if one looks at the footnotes, it will be apparent that at least some of them (though by no means all) are references to his own previous speeches or to biased right-wing pro-Trump sites such as breitbart.com

    Nolan has the right to explain and interpret Trump's speeches any way he wants. But he has no justification for any claim that I have no basis in Trump's own words for my own conclusions about his views (if that is indeed what Nolan is claiming).

    My interpretation of Trump's comments is just as reasonable as Nolan's. With all due respect to Nolan, who has a distinguished record as an immigration scholar, writer and advocate, and whose knowledge of the ways of Congress is second to none, I submit, in all humility, that, based on Trump's actual words, my own understanding of their meaning makes more sense than Nolan's attempt to find excuses for accusations that Trump has made against Mexican (and other) immigrants, specifically and by implication, that are simply inexcusable and beyond justification.

    Reger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-06-2016 at 07:45 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For my discussion of Donald Trump's fear-filled, immigrant-baiting acceptance speech, with extensive quotations from the speech, see my ilw.com post of July 24.

    When Nolan writes: "Maybe Roger would like to review [the acceptance speech] himself", he obviously overlooked the fact that I have already done exactly that.

    Nolan may disagree with my analysis of the acceptance speech. But that does not give him any justification for suggesting that I have never discussed it or commented on ii.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-06-2016 at 08:20 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. froster's Avatar
    That is very bad thing what was done by Donald Trump insulting parents of great solider who give his life for the country while he was on duty. Don`t forget that he is American citizen and worked as American solider in American Army as i have read many superior papers articles about it. RIP to that solider who has lost life for the people of America.
  17. MKolken's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Nolan Rappaport
    Roger's point seems to be that the Donald is a hypocrite. Perhaps he is, but what about Roger. He is complaining about a model violating nonimmigrant visa laws, but I don't think he has ever complained about any other immigration violation and I doubt that he would be complaining about this one either if the offender weren't Donald's wife.
    Agree completely.
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: