ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed


Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12

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

Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: August 8 - August 12" to

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Did Donald Trump actually suggest assassinating Hillary Clinton or anti-gun judges whom she might hypothetically appoint if elected in his latest North Carolina Speech?

    Or is all of the criticism of his speech, coming not only from the left but even from strong pro-Trump backers such as Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) just a lot of hullabaloo, much ado about nothing?

    In order to answer that question, we have to start with whom Trump was referring to when he said, in reaction to the possibility that Hillary Clinton might get elected and appoint anti-gun Supreme Court justices, that "there is nothing you can do, folks...Although the Second amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

    Who are the "Second Amendment people" whom Trump meant? Based on common sense usage of that phrase, as well as the precedent of Republican Sharron Angle's use of her widely condemned phrase "Second amendment remedies" in a speech during her failed Senate campaign against Harry Reid, there could be only one possible meaning:

    "Second amendment people" means gun owners. What other possible interpretation of that phrase would make any sense?

    Trump was certainly not talking about constitutional scholars calmly debating the meaning of the Second amendment in learned law review articles when he used that phrase.

    The next question is what did Trump mean when he said "maybe there is" [something that] "Second amendment people" [could do]. I will look at that issue in my next post. But for a preview, and one well argued view of what he in all likelihood meant, go to:

    Where I do not necessarily agree with the above article is that Trump's comments seem to be more suggesting use of violence in general by gun owners, against the government as a whole or against our entire democratic system of government, rather than specifically against Hillary Clinton, Supreme Court Justices or any expressly targeted individual.

    But just by hinting that gun owners might be able to do something ,Trump was without endorsing the use o violence in general.

    People do not use guns for peaceful purposes.

    It is a fact, moreover, that many of Trump's supporters at his rallies are calling for Hillary no only to be locked up, but to be shot for "treason".

    I have not seen any reports about any efforts by Trump to discourage that kind of personally targeted, violent, murderous talk among his supporters, so I do not think it is unfair to Trump to understand his "Second amendment people" threats in that context as well.

    Furthermore, no reasonable person of any intelligence could seriously believe the absurd spin to the effect that Trump only meant that gun owners should unite and vote as a bloc on Second amendment issues, which the Trump campaign is trying to put on his comments in order to give them a harmless or benign interpretation.

    Aren't gun owners already voting as a unit on these issues? By any reasonable interpretation of his speech, Trump is suggesting that gun owners should "vote" with their guns, not their ballots.

    That is what made his North Carolina speech so dangerous, not necessarily for the safety of Hillary Clinton or any particular judges, which I believe is exaggerated, if not completely unfounded, but for America and America's democracy.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-10-2016 at 06:50 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For more about the disturbing history of violent comments and threats by Trump or Trump supporters, and at his rallies, against the lives and safety of both Hillary Clinton and President Obama see:

    POLITICO: Trump's long dalliance with violent rhetoric.

    This context and history makes it even more difficult, even unconscionable, to try to spin his North Carolina speech as merely suggesting that gun owners should unite for peaceful political action.

    As Donald Trump himself would no doubt say in a different context: "Give us a break!"

    And this gives rise to another interesting question. Suppose that the man making the speech, using the same exact words and making the same exact suggestion that gun owners might want to "do something", had been a Muslim imam instead of Donald Trump.

    Would not Trump have been the first to demand that the man be locked up and deported (if not a USC), that our borders should be closed to all Muslims immediately and that Muslim US citizens should be put under surveillance or "relocated" without further delay?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-10-2016 at 07:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Is Donald Trump sane?


    The Guardian, August 11:

    Trump reiterates he literally believes Obama is the 'founder of ISIS'

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-11-2016 at 10:46 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: