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

The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) was established to facilitate international travel without jeopardizing United States security. But balancing national security interests against efforts to facilitate international travel through the VWP presents challenges. Moreover, motivation to err on the side of facilitating travel is compelling politically. The United States has a very large travel and tourism industry. In 2013, it accounted for 2.6% of U.S. gross domestic product and directly employed nearly 5.4 million Americans. International travelers spent approximately $215 billion in 2013 on passenger fares and travel-related goods and services, which makes tourism the United Statesí single-largest services sector export.

Aliens who are citizens of countries participating in the VWP can obtain authorization to visit the United States without a visa by registering for the program online using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization [ESTA] system. According to Homeland Security Department (DHS) Secretary Jeh Charles Johnson, efforts have been made to increase the security of the ESTA system. For instance, ESTA information is screened against the same counterterrorism and law enforcement databases that are used to screen travelers who have visas.

I do not doubt that DHS has been trying to make the VWP more secure, but the fact remains that once an applicant has completed an online application and received approval, he/she just needs a valid passport from one of the VWP countries to board a flight to the United States and seek admission. The only remaining barrier to entering the United States is the U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the port of entry who stamps passports after asking a few questions.

In contrast, aliens who are not citizens of a VWP country generally need a visa to enter the United States as visitors for business or pleasure, and this is a more involved process than the one for the VWP. First, the person seeking a visitorís visa must complete an online visa application, Form DS-160, which among other things requires the applicant to upload a photograph of himself/herself. If the applicant is between the ages of 14 and 79, an interview also is required. In addition to a passport, Form DS-160 confirmation, and an application fee payment receipt, additional documentation may be required to establish such things as the purpose of the trip, evidence of intent to depart the United States at the end of the trip, and evidence of ability to pay all costs of the trip. During the interview, a consular officer will determine whether the applicant is qualified to receive a visitorís visa, and, if so, which visa category is appropriate. Then the personís fingerprints are taken with digital fingerprint scans. This makes it possible to run checks against databases that use biometrics, such as the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and FBIís Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Other requirements may apply depending on the circumstances of the individual applicant and the requirements of the consulate office at which the interview is being conducted.

Secretary Jeh also mentioned the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which placed additional restrictions on eligibility for travel to the U.S. without a visa under the VWP. It was moved through the legislative process rapidly in reaction to the terrorist attacks in Europe which occurred in VWP countries. Its measures include excluding aliens from the VWP who have been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, (I) in Iraq or Syria; (II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism; or (III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the DHS Secretary. DHS has added three countries Ė Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.

The Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Prevention Act satisfied the political need to do something, but it is not going to prevent terrorists from using the VWP to come here without visas. ISIS and other terrorist organizations have or can recruit citizens of Visa Waiver countries who will not be excluded from the VWP under that Act. When the terrorists in VWP countries decide that it is time to attack the United States, they will have no difficulty using the VWP to come here. The door is still wide open.

Our government is not limited to choosing between the ineffective screening of the VWP and the more thorough screening of the application process for a nonimmigrant visitorís visa. Alternatives are available that would fall between those two in terms of security and convenience for the alien travelers, such as a modified version of the CBPís Global Entry program, which allows expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers upon arrival in the United States. At airports, the program members go to Global Entry kiosks and present their machine-readable passport or U.S. permanent resident card, place their fingerprints on a scanner for fingerprint verification, and complete a customs declaration. The kiosk issues a transaction receipt and directs the traveler to the baggage claim and the exit. While it is unlikely that all of the aliens currently using the VWP would be able to pass the more rigorous screening of such a program, many and perhaps most of them would. The result would be an initial screening that would include fingerprints, facial photographs, and perhaps other biometrics which would permit checks against databases that use biometric data. And subsequent entries could be authorized using an abbreviated form of the current ESTA system. This would result in a very substantial increase in the governmentís ability to identify terrorists seeking to travel to the United States without greatly inconveniencing alien travelers who are bona fide visitors.

Published originally on Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...=1475643112224

About The Autho
r
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as anExecutive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequentlyserved as the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, BorderSecurity, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee,he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twenty years. Healso has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing andCollaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been inprivate practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.


Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Program to come to the U.S. by Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    This comment is updated as of October 8, 2016. As this is written, the headlines are full of stories about the unspeakably vile, degrading and hostile comments that Donald Trump made about women 11 years ago, and are only now just coming to light. I cannot possibly repeat these comments here, except to mention that the typical reaction to them from other Republican leaders, not only Democrats, includes words such as "sickening", and "horrific" along with calls by some Republican senators and other office holders for Trump to withdraw from the presidential race entirely. See The Hill:

    Trump plunged into crisis as GOP recoils from vulgar remarks.

    http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...ls-from-vulgar

    Why am I mentioning Trump's horrendous, almost unimaginably hostile and antagonistic comments about women in response to an article recommending certain changes in the Visa Waiver program to make it more secure, a subject that at first glance would seem to be totally unrelated to Trump's reported boasting about his ability to "grope" women and far beyond that?

    This is because Trump has making the same kinds of vicious, inexcusable hate-filled attacks against Latino, Muslim and other minority immigrants for well over a year, ever since he launched his presidential campaign by labeling Mexican immigrants (both those who are here legally and those who are not - he did not make any distinction) as "criminals" and "rapists", while calling for a Berlin -type Wall to keep them out the US and pledging a "task force" to deport 12 million non-white immigrants - no one expects the task force to go after illegal Dutch or ​Swiss immigrants - and calling for a change in the US Constitution that would render their American-born children illegal and, most probably, stateless as well.

    For almost a year, since last December, Trump has also been making one vicious attack after another against Muslim immigrants and US citizens in general as actual or potential "terrorists" which I certainly do not need to mention in detail here.

    For the most part, leaders in Trump's own party and most of the media have given Trump a pass on these almost constant expressions of hate against minority immigrants. But the line from his abysmal remarks about women 11 years ago to his attacks on minority immigrants now is a straight and direct one.

    One only has to connect the dots.

    My original comment about Nolan Rappaport's analysis of alleged defects in the Visa Waiver program appears below.

    With all due respect to Nolan, one of America's outstanding legal scholars and immigration law experts, there is a possibly very thin line between taking necessary and reasonable steps to protect against terror attacks, including at least some, or possibly even all, of the steps which Nolan proposes in his above post, and fear-mongering for its own sake.

    If we want to have totally secure borders, then the only way to do that would be to cut off all immigration, something which I suggested in my post last month that the president has the power to do under INA Section 212(f) for almost any reason, not just national security grounds, a power which would give him (notice that I did not say "her") virtual one-man (I did not say "woman") police state control over our entire legal immigration system.

    Of course, even if immigration is cut off completely, there is always a chance that a radicalized American citizen might come back to this country from a trip overseas, or that a loyal, patriotic, American citizen might give birth to a child who could become radicalized 20 or 30 years later.

    The point is that we must of course do everything that is reasonably in our power to protect our people and our security.

    But if we scare ourselves to death with "nightmare scenarios" (to use Judge Richard Posner's term in his recent 7th Circuit majority opinion striking down Governor - and VP nominee - Mike Pence's attempt to bar Syrian refugees from his state, to be discussed in my own forthcoming Immigration Daily blog post), we will still not have absolute security, for that is impossible.

    Instead, we could have a very strong chance of winding up with a dictatorship in this country instead of our present democracy. For this reason, one would hope that we bill be seeing more discussion about how America can achieve the immigration reform that we so badly needs, rather than focusing only on doomsday terror attack scenarios.

    This discussion would include ways and means of providing legal status, if not citizenship in the near future, for the millions of non-criminal, non-terrorist, otherwise law-abiding immigrants who are in this country without legal status but who are contributing to our society and economy; and who, unlike what is currently being reported about one of our two major party presidential candidates, are actually paying the taxes that our country needs in order to function.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-08-2016 at 04:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    With all due respect to Nolan, one of America's outstanding legal scholars and immigration law experts, there is a possibly very thin line between taking necessary and reasonable steps to protect against terror attacks, including at least some, or possibly even all, of the steps which Nolan proposes in his above post, and fear-mongering for its own sake.

    If we want to have totally secure borders, then the only way to do that would be to cut off all immigration, something which I suggested in my post last month that the president has the power to do under INA Section 212(f) for almost any reason, not just national security grounds, a power which would give him (notice that I did not say "her") virtual one-man (I did not say "woman") police state control over our entire legal immigration system.

    Of course, even if immigration is cut off completely, there is always a chance that a radicalized American citizen might come back to this country from a trip overseas, or that a loyal, patriotic, American citizen might give birth to a child who could become radicalized 20 or 30 years later.

    The point is that we must do everything that is reasonably in our power to protect our people and our security, but if we scare ourselves to death with "nightmare scenarios" (to use Judge Richard Posner's term in his recent 7th Circuit majority opinion striking down Governor - and VP nominee - Mike Pence's attempt to bar Syrian refugees from his state - to be discussed in my own forthcoming Immigration Daily blog post - we will still not have absolute security, for this is impossible. Instead, we could have a very strong chance of winding up with a dictatorship in this country instead of our present democracy.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    You are misrepresenting what I said in my article. My point is that the current security measures for the Visa Waiver Program, even with the recent additions, will not prevent terrorists from Visa Waiver Program countries from using the program to come here without visas. They just have to use members who have not been to the countries that would bar their participation in the program, or recruit new members who can satisfy that requirement. Of course, they also would have to limit the selection to members who are not known to police or intelligence agencies by name.

    You don't want to make changes to improve the security of the VWP because it wouldn't be 100% effective. I guess you are opposed to all of America's criminal statutes too, Roger. None of them are 100% effective either. Or motor vehicle laws that prohibit speeding and drunk driving.

    You comment about fear mongering is absurd and has no basis in my article. I thought you were limiting your insulting accusations to Trump...and now Pence.

    I suggested an alternative that would be more secure than the current VWP but less burdensome that requiring alien visitors to go through the visa application process every time they want to come here. Funny, you didn't comment on that, despite the fact that it is the point of the article.

    As for Pence, he is not trying to keep Syrian refugees out of his state. The director of the FBI and the DHS secretary and I think the Director of National Intelligence have said that we cannot do background checks on Syrian refugees now because we don't have anyone there to get the information for us. I agree with him that we shouldn't accept Syrian refugees until that situation changes and we can do background checks on them. Do you think that is unreasonable?

    Have you read the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support? It excludes aliens from the VWP who have been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, in Syria. Is Congress being irrational, bigoted, and racist? The excluded aliens can apply for a visa, however, but they won't get it unless the consulate can determine whether they were involved in terrorist activities or terrorist training when they were in Syria, which isn't possible at the moment.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has disagreed with Governor Pence's negative approach to Syrian refugees, as i will discuss in detail in a forthcoming blog post. There is even a rumor, not verified as far as I know, that the Circuit Judge who agreed with Judge Posner's majority opinion striking down Governor Pence's proposed action against Syrian refugees was on Trump's own short list for the Supreme Court.

    I respectfully reserve the right to disagree with Nolan on certain legal (or political) issues without being accused of insulting this distinguished legal scholar - certainly not my intention.

    Donald Trump may have problems telling the difference between people who criticize him and those who insult him, and that is one of the many reasons why it would be so dangerous to elect him as president.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-05-2016 at 03:59 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. Alicecroft's Avatar
    I freaking wish they would allow the rest of the countries to be on the visa waiver program! I mean, why not?! All these other countries are on it! Why NOT the rest?! Some of those freaking countries that are on them, shouldn't even BE on it!! Because they suck & are horrible!!
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has disagreed with Governor Pence's negative approach to Syrian refugees, as i will discuss in detail in a forthcoming blog post.

    When you discuss this, you should include the provision in the visa waiver program improvement act to exclude aliens from the program if they have gone to Syria. Those aliens have to go through the visa application process if they want to visit the United States. As I explain in my article, that was an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. You need to understand why Congress did that before you go further with your criticism of Gov. Pence. If you don't, you will just be talking about your own views. You won't be analyzing the issue. Analysis requires understanding other ways of viewing the issue, not just your own.

    I respectfully reserve the right to disagree with Nolan on certain legal (or political) issues without being accused of insulting this distinguished legal scholar - certainly not my intention.

    I know you wouldn't intentionally insult me. I wouldn't intentionally insult your either. This is what you said:

    there is a possibly very thin line between taking necessary and reasonable steps to protect against terror attacks, including at least some, or possibly even all, of the steps which Nolan proposes in his above post, and fear-mongering for its own sake.


    Why would you say that my proposal for increasing the security of the VWP is close to fear mongering for its own sake? My proposal is to replace the VWP with an expanded version of an existing program that CBP is already using. I explain that this would be more secure that the VWP but less burdensome than having to go through the visa application process every time and alien traveler wants to visit the US. This is what you should have talked about. Not how close my approach is to fear mongering. In fact, I don't think my proposal is based on fear in any sense. I identify a weakness in the VWP and propose a fix that would''t be unduly burdensome. With visitors, the goal always is to balance the need for security against the need to keep the traffic flowing across the border as quickly as possible.

    Donald Trump may have problems telling the difference between people who criticize him and those who insult him, and that is one of the many reasons why it would be so dangerous to elect him as president.

    I guess it would be dangerous to elect me as president too. I don't think people are criticizing him. I think they are insulting him. There are exceptions, of course, but that's what seems to be happening most of the time.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-06-2016 at 12:01 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not criticizing Nolan's actual proposals, which, at least at first glance, seem to be quite reasonable. My criticism is directed to their context, as stated in Nolan's title that "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Progam..."

    With all due respect to Nolan, who is without question one of America's most o knowledgeable and highly regarded immigration policy analysts, I do not see how this kind of heading is helpful to conducting a serious policy debate.

    I do not claim to have anywhere near Nolan's comprehensive knowledge and expertise in immigration statistics. So I would ask Nolan if he could provide us with two pieces of information:

    First, how many tens of millions (or possibly hindreds of millions) of visitors have come to the United States within, say, the last decade, through the visa waiver program?

    Second, how many of this enormous number of visa waiver entrants have in fact committed terrorist acts in the US during this same period?

    I will look forward to seeing Nolan's figures relating to these two questions, as well as his explanation of how these figures correspond to his claim that the visa waiver program has left the US "wide open" for terrorists in terms of actual results.

    This does not mean that there is anything wrong with focusing on crime and terror in the context of immigration - two subjects about which Nolan has had many important and valuable things to say in this and his other numerous comments and articles.

    But is there not another side to immigration too?

    What about the huge contributions that immigrants of many diverse races, colors, religions, and countries of origin - even - yes i will say it - Syria, where Steve Jobs' biological father was from - have made to America and are making every day in countless ways as we speak?

    An immigration expert of Nolan's broad experience, not to mention his great accomplishments as an immigration advocate, also must know a great deal about the positive side of immigration - which has has already made our country the greatest country on earth, even without the assistance of Donald Trump.

    If Nolan would care to share some more of what is without doubt his wide and extensive knowledge about the positive side of immigration with us too, that would also be helpful and very welcome.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-06-2016 at 06:59 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar

    Roger says he is not criticizing my proposals, which he acknowledges seem to be quite reasonable. His criticism is directed to the title I used, "The door is wide open for terrorists to use the Visa Waiver Progam..." He does not see how this kind of heading is helpful to conducting a serious policy debate.

    In fact, the title is true. Any terrorist who (1) is a citizen of a Visa Waiver Country, (2) is not known by name to government agencies here or abroad, and (3) has not spent any time in Syria or 4 other specified countries, can sign up for the VWP online without having to appear for an interview or have his fingerprints taken, and then fly to the US where as a citizen from a Visa Waiver country, he will be admitted without an inspection...unless you consider a few questions an inspection.

    Roger, do you really think that is not an open door to the US?

    Roger also asks some questions.

    First, how many tens of millions (or possibly hindreds of millions) of visitors have come to the United States within, say, the last decade, through the visa waiver program?

    I don't know, but DHS acknowledged at a hearing in the last year or so that approximately 500,000 of the aliens who enter under the program each year never leave, which is another problem that would be reduced by implementing the proposal I have made. Let's put it this way, if Roger had a dollar for every alien who has entered under the VWP, he might be richer than his hero, Donald Trump.

    Second, how many of this enormous number of visa waiver entrants have in fact committed terrorist acts in the US during this same period?

    I have no idea and no way of finding out. The gov't doesn't release much information on terrorist attacks that are stopped in the planning stage, and I doubt that even successful attacks are reported more than occasionally. A report was released recently about terrorist attacks in New York City, which is where Roger lives.

    Since 1975, there have been 236 terror-related events within the 5 boroughs of New York City. These events include overt attacks (both executed and attempted), foiled plots, and activity found to be providing direct support to terrorist groups. Of these events, 189 were successful attacks (or activity directly related to a successful attack), 35 were attacks that did not succeed (bomb failed to detonate, device discovered and disarmed, etc.), and 12 were plots e ectively foiled by law enforcement. 19 of these attacks lead to fatalities.
    https://www.hsaj.org/articles/12153

    Presumably the total for the entire country would be considerable higher. In case you haven't heard, there have been a number of serious terrorist attacks in those countries recently.
    But my concern is with European countries that are in the VWP. CBS offers details on those attacks, the ones that were in the news anyway. http://www.cbsnews.com/europe-terror/

    Third, Roger asks, "But is there not another side to immigration too?"

    Absolutely, immigration has been a great asset to the United States in many way. But I challenge Roger to list the benefits from immigration that had to be achieved through ILLEGAL immigration. To my knowledge, the benefits all would be available through legal immigration, which I think is preferable in some very important ways. But I will leave that for a future article.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-06-2016 at 05:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I find a certain logical disconnect in Nolan's reply to my last comment. He writes:

    "I challenge Roger to list the benefits...to be achieved though ILLEGAL immigration."

    But neither the title nor the substance of Nolan's above blog post is concerned with illegal immigration. Unless I missed something, his ocmment is focused on a LEGAL immigration program, namely the Visa Waiver, which he claims to be "wide open for terrorists" in his title.

    Now that I have raised some questions about Nolan's criticism of the LEGAL Visa Waiver program, Nolan is asking me to list the benefits of illegal immigration, as if I were defending it, which I have not done in response to Nolan's above post and which was not even mentioned in that post.


    Let's stay on topic about Nol;an's post, which is entirely about a LEGAL immigration program that he sees some problems with, and which doesn't say a single word about illegal immigration that I have been able to find.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-06-2016 at 06:26 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, you are seeing what you want to see instead of seeing what I wrote, and you are right, what you see doesn't make sense. If you were trying to understand what I was saying, you would have gone back over my writing at that point and almost certainly have seen the words that you missed the first time you read that sentence, which reads as follow:

    Absolutely, immigration has been a great asset to the United States in many ways. But I challenge Roger to list the benefits from immigration that had to be achieved through ILLEGAL immigration. To my knowledge, the benefits all would be available through legal immigration...
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan suddenly wants to change the subject from the one he wrote about in the above blog comment, namely a LEGAL immigration program that he sees as somehow flawed, to Illegal immigration, which was not the subject of his original post, that is his right and privilege.

    He is the author of the above post, not myself, and if he wants to introduce a different topic in commenting on his own post, no one can object.

    But in that case, he also cannot object if I do a little bit of subject-changing on my own to a different, but still quite relevant, immigration-related topic that, like Illegal immigration, was also not mentioned in Nolan's above original post.

    This is the topic of whether there are historical parallels to some of the immigration proposals that have been made by any of the candidates for president in this election. There are four candidates for president next month, but i shall limit myself to mentioning the proposals of one of them, namely the Republican candidate.

    Admittedly, Nolan didn't talk about this candidate or any of his proposals in his above post, but he didn't talk about illegal immigration either, so if he now has the right to digress somewhat for his own original topic, why would I not have the same right?

    I refer to two of the Republican standard-bearer's best known immigration proposals, namely the one to build a wall to keep out Mexican illegal immigrants (OK, Nolan, you have now just introduced the subject illegal immigration, so I am responding), and also Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration (or, more recently, on immigration from certain Muslim countries).

    Nolan certainly cannot claim that I am straying from the subject of his original comment in this regard, since his comment is also focused in fears of terrorism.

    Therefore, I will lake the liberty of quoting from a column in the Miami Herald relating to two of this candidate's immigration proposals - the Wall with Mexico and the Muslim ban.

    The column is by Alan Berger, a Holocaust scholar, and it reads in part as follows.

    "Read up on how the Nazis spread rumors that the Jewish ghettos were epicenters of epidemics, breeding grounds for disease and the Jews must therefore be quarantined, kept out of society, for the safety of the German people.

    Then consider the call to ban Muslims from the United States. Listen to the chants- 'Build a wall! Build a wall!'

    Whether to keep a people out or keep them contained, a politically motivated call for quarantine or separation is unlikely to end well for a vulnerable population deemed dangerous for any reason."

    See:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/o...106263282.html

    The above does not mean that the writer is accusing any of one of this year's presidential candidates of advocating genocide or extermination of any group of people. Mr Berger makes clear in his column that he is not, and neither am i.

    But, as he points out, there are some disturbing parallels between certain statements made in the course of this year's presidential campaign and certain measures which were taken against a different minority group in 1930's Germany.

    Again, I respectfully request Nolan's indulgence for going slightly off the topic of his above original post, just as he did himself by introducing the topic of illegal immigration in his comments following the original post, which was not about that subject.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law



    Updated 10-06-2016 at 08:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If Nolan suddenly wants to change the subject from the one he wrote about in the above blog comment, namely a LEGAL immigration program that he sees as somehow flawed, to Illegal immigration, which was not the subject of his original post, that is his right and privilege.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    I didn't change the subject, you did when you saiid the following:

    But is there not another side to immigration too?
    What about the huge contributions that immigrants of many diverse races, colors, religions, and countries of origin - even - yes i will say it - Syria, where Steve Jobs' biological father was from - have made to America and are making every day in countless ways as we speak?

    But you are right that this has nothing to do with the subject of my article, so we should drop it.

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    You are right, Nolan, there was not very much about the positive aspects of legal immigration in your above blog post article. T-a-n-t -- p-i-s, as they say in French ("so much the worse") .

    Hopefully, you might care to write something one day about the positive aspects of legal immigration in the future. Any such comment would be welcome, and a refreshing contrast to your emphasis on immigration related crime and terror, which is only part of the immigration picture, and not even anywhere near as big a part of the picture as one of the four current presidential candidates would like us to believe.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-06-2016 at 10:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    You are right, Nolan, there was not very much about the positive aspects of legal immigration in your above blog post article. T-a-n-t -- p-i-s, as they say in French ("so much the worse") .

    What are you talking about? My article is about making the Visa Waiver Program more secure without being unduly burdensome. Why would I talk about the benefits of immigration?

    Hopefully, you might care to write something one day about the positive aspects of legal immigration in the future. Any such comment would be welcome, and a refreshing contrast to your emphasis on immigration related crime and terror, which is only part of the immigration picture, and not even anywhere near as big a part of the picture as one of the four current presidential candidates would like us to believe.

    Really, immigration related crime and terror are not a big part of the picture? They are a major part of the reason why so many people object to illegal immigration. If the criminals and terrorists weren't coming in among the people who just want a better life, illegal immigration issue would be much less important.

    When are you going to answer my question? What immigration benefits would we lose if our immigration laws were enforced and illegal immigration slowed down so much as to be insignificant? It's an important question. You and many other people justify legalization and other forms of relief for the undocumented by talking about the benefits of "immigration." Legalization can be justified, but not on the basis of how great "immigration" is. You don't need illegal immigration for legal immigration to be great.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-07-2016 at 12:20 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Correction: I was actually the first, not Nolan, to bring up the subject of illegal immigration in one of my comments above in response to Nolan's post, when I suggested having a discussion about legalization for non-criminal unauthorized immigrants who are contributing to society and paying taxes.

    Nolan challenges me to list any benefits from illegal immigration. Paying taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars each year, is certainly a benefit, though this does not mean that I am defending or supporting illegal immigration. I am not.

    But even Nolan cannot deny that paying taxes is a benefit to our country, and a big one. If only the Republican presidential candidate had done the same for the past 18 years. But he thinks he is "smarter" than illegal immigrants are, because they make this vital contribution to America and he, evidently, does not.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan challenges me to list any benefits from illegal immigration. Paying taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars each year, is certainly a benefit, though this does not mean that I am defending or supporting illegal immigration. I am not.

    But even Nolan cannot deny that paying taxes is a benefit to our country, and a big one. If only the Republican presidential candidate had done the same for the past 18 years. But he thinks he is "smarter" than illegal immigrants are, because they make this vital contribution to America and he, evidently, does not.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I don't know how many undocumented aliens are paying taxes. I don't think the ones engaged in drug trafficking or any other criminal enterprise are. Not a large percentage of the undocumented population? Probably not, but stronger interior enforcement and better border security would make the criminal portion of the undocumented population even smaller. And Roger doesn't mention the services that are provided to the undocumented population, such as public school for the children. But the cost of public services is not something I know much about beyond the simple fact that an increase in population raises the costs of such services.

    As for Trump's taxes, what is it that he is being criticized for? I haven't heard anyone say he took tax deductions that he wasn't entitled to? Roger, do you take all of the tax deductions you are entitled to....that you find out about anyway? Does Hillary? Or is he being criticized for having a big loss. Big losses are not good, but they happen in the business world. If that's the point of the criticism, why aren't the critics also commending him for coming back from that loss to being successful again? I thought it was a good thing to get up when you are knocked down and win again. Or does that just apply to boxers like Rocky?
    Updated 10-07-2016 at 09:15 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Donald Trump wants to have a good laugh at the American people by legally avoiding payment of taxes for 18 years while the millions of middle and working class Americans whom he is trying to appeal to are struggling to make ends meet and pay their taxes (along with additional millions of non-criminal, non-terrorist, non public benefits recipient both legal and unauthorized immigrants who are also gainfully employed and contributing to our society and economy by paying the taxes that Trump (or his accountant) are too "smart" to subject him to paying - that is Trump's right, just like any Russian or other foreign oligarch who takes power of the government to advance his own business interests rather than those of the people.

    But taxes are not the only reason why Trump is totally unqualified to be president. The Hill reports on October 6 that a group of 30 Republican former lawmakers have signed an open letter saying that the fascist (my word, not theirs- but they are in effect saying something similar more euphemistically, see below), is unfit for this high office. Their letter says:

    "Our party's nominee this year is a man who makes a mockery of the principles and values we have cherished and which we sought to represent in Congress."

    The letter also states:

    "In nominating Donald Trump, the Republican Party has asked the people of the United States to entrust their future to a man who insults women, mocks the handicapped, urges that dissent be met with violence, seeks to impose a religious test for entry into the United States, and applies a de facto ethnicity test to judges.

    He offends our allies and praises dictators. His public statements are peppered with lies. He belittles our heroes and insults the parents of men who have died serving our country. Every day brings a fresh revelation of electing him to lead our nation."

    See:

    http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...ition-to-trump

    True, merely insulting opponents or telling endless lies do not in and of themselves make someone a fascist. Indeed, one might argue that these are the essence of democracy!

    But when one adds to the fact of suggesting that dissent should be met with violence (see above), the fact that Trump also wants to limit free speech by "opening up" the libel laws; that he has advocated the use of torture (not just waterboarding, which is also of course torture) both as a means of interrogation and as a means of punishment, even though torture in all its forms is banned by our Constitution, by federal law (18 USC Section 2340 et seq.) and international law; and that he is "fine" with sending US citizens to Guantanamo, then we do have something which, if not full blown fascism, manages to come pretty close.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-07-2016 at 10:42 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    And for the latest Donald Trump outrageous immigration lie, see The Guardian, October 7:

    Trump: 'they're letting people pour into the country so they can go and vote'

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/l...0e4aaeaa8cf47#...

    Maybe the people who compare Trump's almost constant stream of lies about immigration and many other topics (see, for example Immigration Daily's own October 6 editorial on this topic - also, to be fair, including some alleged misstatements by Hillary Clinton) with the Big Lie strategy made infamous by fascist dictators are not so far off.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-07-2016 at 12:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    See my updated (as of October 8) comment above about the direct connection between the unspeakably vicious, horrific comments that Donald Trump was reportedly caught on tape making about women eleven years ago and the equally vile falsehoods that he has been promoting about Latino, Muslim and other minority immigrants for the past year and more as part of a presidential campaign that may now well, and deservedly so, be on life support.

    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: