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

"Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It keeping Syrian refugees out now? Part 1. Roger Algase.

Rate this Entry
Update, October 20, 12.02 am:


In his October 15 blog comment:

What do we know about Syrian refugees?

Nolan Rappaport argues, in effect, that we do not know very much, because, in his view, the screening process, which can take up to two years, is somehow defective because of alleged lack of hard information from within Syria (surprise, surprise, who knew?)

In my comment below, I contend that the fact that screening information may be imperfect or incomplete is not a good reason for assuming that Syrian refugees may be terrorists, any more than fears that Jewish refugees from Hitler might turn out to be "Nazi spies" was a good reason for refusing them admission to the US in the 1930's.

Both are prime examples of what Judge Richard Posner of the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals aptly called "nightmare speculation" in a case involving Syrian refugees decided only about two weeks ago, on October 3 (see below).

But there is one person who has taken it on himself to inform us that, as far as he is concerned, the idea that there is something we don't know about Syrian refugees is bunk and that he knows everything that we need to know:

Here is what Donald Trump had to say at the third and final presidential debate on October 19:

"She [Hillary Clinton] is taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who probably, in many cases, who are definitely, in many cases, ISIS aligned, and now we have them in our country, and wait until you see - a great Trojan horse."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...s_of_luck.html

If Nolan's argument that we don't know very much about Syrian refugees because of alleged lack of complete information is correct, than Trump has to be lying (and not exactly for the first time in this campaign where immigration is concerned).

Perhaps Nolan might wish to explain to Donald Trump that we don't have information about Syrian refugees so may be Trump should stop spewing out falsehoods about their allagdly being "definitely...ISIS aligned."


The following post has been revised as of October 17 at 8:47 am:

"The Governor of Indiana believes, though without evidence, that some of these persons [Syrian refugees seeking to be resettled in the US] were sent to Syria by ISIS to engage in terrorism and now wish to infiltrate the US to commit terrorist acts. No evidence of this belief has been presented, however; it is nightmare speculation."

The above quote is from the decision of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, writing for the unanimous three judge panel upholding a lower court's granting of the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction against the attempt of Governor and Republican VP candidate Mike Pence to stop lawfully admitted Syrian refugees from being resettled in Indiana in Exodus Immigration v. Pence, October 3, 2016).

Judge Posner's phrase "nightmare speculation also comes to mind in reading the October 13 Immigration Daily blog by Nolan Rappaport, a highly respected immigration law expert and former Congressional staff member specializing in immigration entitled: What do we know about Syrian refugees?

The gist of the above comment appears to be that, because of presumed inability to obtain background information about Syrian refugees from inside Syria itself, the current US screening process for these refugees outside Syria, which is now normally taking up to two years, is virtually useless.

But how often is reliable or complete information about refugees available from the country of alleged persecution itself?

Suppose that the Russian-backed war criminals in Assad's brutal Syrian dictatorship who are now bombing hospitals in Aleppo and allegedly using chemical weapons against their own people were willing to share their databases with US officials about any given refugee claimant. How much would we learn?

In the same way, if the ISIS jihadists who control large parts of Syria were willing to take enough time off from beheading their victims, drowning them or burning them alive, in order to share their information about individual refugee claimants with US security officials, would this information be of any value?

Background information about individual refugees can be, and often has to be obtained in other ways, such as through the extensive interviews and numerous other security checks described by USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez in his written testimony about Syrian refugee screening before the House Committee on Homeland Security dated February 3, 2016. See:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/03/...earing-titled-

The above argument against taking in Syrian refugees is also contradicted by the fact that the United States has, on various occasions, taken in refugees from other parts of the world that were considered dangerous or threatening to our interests with, arguably,considrably less screening than Syrian refugees must undergo now, and where information from inside the country of origin was also scanty or unavailable.

In the late 1970's and early 1980's, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese "boat people" were admitted to the US despite the fact that perfect screening to make sure that they were not sympathetic to communist North Vietnam, which had just defeated America in a war in which 50,000 of our soldiers died, was virtually impossible.

In the words of one reporter speaking many years afterward, in a presentation dealing with the history of Camp Pendleton in Kansas, where many of these refugees were housed before being permanently resettled in the United States:

"i'm wondering, you know, when we were speaking with the former commander and air boss...they told us that there were security concerns in the airlift because they just really didn't know whether or not the Vietnamese people who were part of the airlift were all sort of sympathetic to the United States. They thought that perhaps, you know, now was the time that somebody was going to turn and support the North Vietnamese."

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/apr/29...0-vietnamese-/

But these concerns did not stop America from taking in more than 700,000 Vietnamese refugees, who became the foundation of one of this country's most successful immigrant groups.

The above, naturally, gives rise to the question why America was able to accept hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees with in all likelihood far less intensive security screening only 30-40 years ago than Syrian refugees are required to undergo today.

Or as Mother Jones asked slightly over a year ago, before the bombing of hospitals in Aleppo and numerous other atrocities which have been carried out since then by the brutal Russian-backed Assad dictatorship and the inhuman ISIS terrorists, in an article dated (whether or not by coincidence) September 11, 2015:

America Once Accepted 800,000 War Refugees. Is it Time to Do That Again?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...europe-vietnam

The only realistic way to answer that question is to recognize that important as security concerns are in the admission of refugees, as Mr. Rappaport rightly points out, they are, unfortunately, not the only factors involved in this kind of decision making.

Just as growing Islamophobia, which is making Muslim US citizens and lawful residents feel lees safe than ever before, as I have discussed in a blog comment that is also due to appear in today's (October 17) issue of Immigration Daily, is a major factor in the opposition to Syrian refugees today, anti-semitism was the main, if not the only real reason, for turning away Jewish refugees from our shores 80 years ago.

Their history, and the similarities with the situation affecting Syrian refugees today, will be discussed in Part 2 of this series.

One of the arguments that was used for keeping Jewish refugees from Hitler out of America in the 1930's was the unfounded suspicion that they might turn out to be "slave spies", i;e; forced by the Nazis into committing espionage after arrival in the US.

Similarly, the fact ,also mentioned in Mr. Rappaport's above comment, that a previous Syrian government was put on the US State Department's terrorism sponsor list in 1979, almost 40 years ago (for supporting Hezbollah, which was removed from America's terrorist organization watch list last year), cannot be taken by itself as a reason for assuming that Syrian refugees might be sympathetic to terrorism today..

Is this anythng more than the kind of nightmare speculation that Judge Posner condemns above?

See,

http://www.newsweek.com/iran-and-hez...r-talks-314073

To be continued in Part 2.
_________________________________
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 immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

Roger's practice is concentrated in H-1B specialty worker and O-1 extraordinary ability work authorization, J-1 trainee visas and green cards through labor certification and through opposite sex or same sex marriage. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com


Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to Facebook Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to Twitter Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to Google Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to StumbleUpon Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to Reddit Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to Digg Submit ""Nightmare Speculation" barred Jewish refugees in 1930's, Is It  keeping Syrian refugees out now?  Part 1.  Roger Algase." to del.icio.us

Updated 11-11-2016 at 02:09 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Unregistered222's Avatar
    There is very simple solution to this problem

    Every government officer who is approving these fake Syrian "refugees" to come into this country needs to have all his personal property put into an independent escrow. If those fake "refugees" commit a terrorist act and kill lots of people (like Boston marathon bombers fake "refugees" did), then this government officer property is used to compensate the victims of terrorist attack Whoever approved their visa applications needs to be charged as a terrorist sponsor and put in prison for a very long time. Very simple.


    Anyways, it is moot point.

    I'm off campaigning for Trump 2016.
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Judge Posner's phrase "nightmarespeculation also comes to mind in reading the October 13 Immigration Daily blog by Nolan Rappaport, a highly respected immigration law expert and former Congressional staff member specializing in immigration entitled: What do we know about Syrian refugees? The gist of [this] comment appears to be that, because of presumed inability to obtain background information about Syrian refugees from inside Syria itself, the current US screening process for these refugees outside Syria, which is now normally taking up to two years, is virtually useless.

    Roger is leaving a few things out when he refers to my article. It's not just a "presumed inability to obtain background information from within Syria. That conclusion was reached by the House Homeland Security Committee on the basis of testimony from agency heads who were in a position to know whether information is available from within Syria, officials appointed by President Obama. This is what I said in that regard:


    "According to a report that the House Homeland Security Committee released in November 2015, Islamist terrorists from Syria are determined to infiltrate refugee flows, and the United States lacks the information needed to screen Syrian refugees for possible terrorism connections. FBI Director James Comey told the Committee, “We can query our databases until the cows come home, but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person...You can only query what you have collected.” An FBI Assistant Director added that, “the concern in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in places on the ground to collect the information... All of the data sets, the police, the intel services that normally you would go and seek that information [from], don’t exist.” A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) official stated further that the government does not have access to any database in Syria that can be used to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records. National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen explained that “the intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be... you can only review [data] against what you have.”

    The Homeland Security Committee concluded that immediate action must be taken to suspend the admission of Syrian refugees until our intelligence and law enforcement agencies can certify that the refugee screening process is adequate to detect individuals with terrorist ties."


    But how often is reliable or complete information about refugees available from the country of alleged persecution itself?

    Roger may be right that background information on refugee applicants usually is difficult to get. But the officials who testified before the Homeland Security Committee didn't say the information from within Syria was inadequate. They said THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY INFORMATION FROM WITHIN SYRIA. And Syria isn't just another country that people are fleeing. I had this to say on that point in my article
    :


    "Syria is on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism because it provides support for acts of international terrorism. It has been on this list since December 29, 1979. Concern about Syria being a breeding ground for international terrorism is so strong that aliens from Visa Waiver countries who have been present in Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011, have been excluded from participation in the Visa Waiver Program by the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015."

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-17-2016 at 07:41 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger also says that the screening process for Syrian refugees is around two years. In fact, it was 18 months to two years but that changed when it became impossible to reach President Obama's goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees before the end of the year at that rate. Apparently, Roger did not read to the end of my article. If he had, he would have seen the following:


    "Screening process reduced to three months to succeed in bringing 10,000 Syrian refugees here this year


    In a statement released on February 22, 2016, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan announced that, as part of the effort to reach the President’s goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, the State Department has established a temporary refugee processing center near Amman. Access to this center is by invitation only. State is hoping to bring an average of 1,500 Syrian refugees a month to the United States with this program, but it has insisted that it is not cutting corners on security. According to State, the security screening in of itself does not take 18 to 24 months. We have compressed the non-security portions of the case work so that the process can be shorter."

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-17-2016 at 07:40 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. Serpa's Avatar
    America will need in the next two decades a massive influx of migrants, about 300 million to be more precise. The core reason is that more than 130 million US Citizens and legal residents, primordially senior citizens, retirees, babyboomers and the disabled will surely overwhelm the Social Security system, and there are not enough able-body workers today capable to sustain those transfer payments in the coming years.

    Don't be surprised if during the 2020 presidential campaign, the people mentioned above become the new scapegoats, replacing the current ones (the immigrant communities).
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Serpa
    America will need in the next two decades a massive influx of migrants, about 300 million to be more precise. The core reason is that more than 130 million US Citizens and legal residents, primordially senior citizens, retirees, babyboomers and the disabled will surely overwhelm the Social Security system, and there are not enough able-body workers today capable to sustain those transfer payments in the coming years.

    Don't be surprised if during the 2020 presidential campaign, the people mentioned above become the new scapegoats, replacing the current ones (the immigrant communities).

    I agree that we need immigrants and that need is going to increase, but I want to point out that the need for immigrants is not a justification for illegal immigration. Our need for more immigration can be satisfied with an increase in legal immigration. In fact, that would be superior because then the immigrants would be selected on the basis of America's needs, including family unity.

    It would be better to face that reality and find a more plausible justification for legalization, which I think is where you were going with your comment. My suggestion is the wipe-the-slate-clean and start over approach taken in IRCA, which was the last bill to establish a legalization program...and the last bill that could appropriately be called comprehensive.

    The idea is to legalize the undocumented aliens who are here already, not because they are entitled to lawful status or because giving them lawful status is beneficial to America, but because the republicans will go along with legalization if they are convinced that our laws will be enforced prospectively and we won't have a new group of undocumented aliens in ten years taking the place of the group that was legalized.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-17-2016 at 07:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quibbling or hand-wringing over the fact that screening of refugees, by its very nature, is an imperfect process, with or without "in country" information about any given person, and that 100 per cent certainty as to the likelihood of future activity by any refugees (or their children, as in the Boston Marathon and Orlando terror attacks) is impossible, the fact still remains that a large part of the opposition to Syrian refugees in the US today is based on speculation (as Judge Posner pointed out in his above Circuit court decision) or outright lies and overt prejudice, including but not limited to that promoted by one of our two major party presidential candidates.

    This candidate not only claims without any hard evidence that Syrian refugees are a "terrorist threat", but that they would hurt America's "quality of life" (presumably by being Muslims and Middle Eastern, rather than Christians and European).

    See The Guardian's September 21 story:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/trump-syrian-refugees-terrorism-quality-life-bombing-attacks


    In Part 2 of this series of comments, I will show that similar unfounded speculation, prejudice and outright lies against another unpopular minority group were responsible for America's turning away thousands of Jewish refugees from Hitler, many of whom later died in Nazi concentration camps and gas chambers, in the years leading up to World War 2.

    See the excellent article in Fortune.com by Case Western Reserve University historian Peter Shulman, to be discussed in detail in my forthcoming post. Shulman's article is entitled:

    How America's Response to Syrian and Jewish Refugees is Eerily Similar


    http://fortune.com/2015/11/21/syrian...fugees-america

    The problem with basing policy on unfounded speculation, prejudice or outright lies goes well beyond refugee issues.

    The same major party presidential candidate who, along with others in his party, including the Indiana governor and Vice Presidential candidate who was castigated for his "nightmare speculation" about the alleged terror threat posed by Syrian refugees in the above 7th Circuit decision only two weeks ago, is now promoting the open falsehood that next month's election is being "rigged" against him.

    This kind of lie undermines the foundations of our democracy, as was pointed out by none other than Iowa Representative Steve King, a conservative Republican who generally supports Trump's hard line on immigration. See:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-groper-229877


    Steve King is quoted in the above story as saying as saying on CNN:

    "...I don't want to say anything on this program that delegitimizes the elections, because I don't want the American people to lose faith in our process. If we do, this entire constitutional republic could come tumbling down."

    Donald Trump began his campaign by trashing Latino and Muslim immigrants, including, among many others, Syrian refugees. With his latest threat to lock up his main political opponent, Hillary Clinton, and now, his attempt to undermine the electoral process by falsely claiming that the election is "rigged" against him, it is becoming clearer day by day that his target is not only minority immigrants, but America's democracy itself.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-18-2016 at 05:17 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Roger, your ad hominem attacks on Trump are based on "unfounded speculation, prejudice and outright lies," not the objections to bringing Syrian refugees here without background checks that I raised in my article. My article is based such things as the findings of the Homeland Security Committee and the fact that the State Department has kept Syria on the State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1979 for sponsoring international terrorism.
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    More facts. Taking 10,000 refugees from Syria is not an effective way to address the horrendous situation in Syria. As I explain in a previous article on displaced persons, i.e., people who had to leave their homes but can't get out of Syria:

    The total population in Syria is 22,000,000 people. At a briefing on the humanitarian situation in Syria, Antonio Guterres, UNHCR Commissioner for Reugees said that the effects of the Syrian conflict are taking dramatic proportions. Fourteen million people have been displaced by the interlinked crises in Syria and Iraq. The situation has become utterly unsustainable, and it has produced increasingly dangerous global consequences. According to UNICEF, the escalating conflict sweeping Syria has left 7.5 million Syrian children in need, nearly 15 times the number in 2012. Half of all Syrians are displaced. Many of Syria’s youngest children have known nothing but war for their entire lives. The Syrian government not only has failed to protect its citizens from being displaced, it has been the main cause for their displacement. Among other things, sieges, checkpoints, and international border restrictions have prevented them from fleeing to safer areas, either within or outside the country. Fundamentalist Islamist groups also have caused displacement by committing human rights violations.

    What happens to people who are forced to leave their homes to escape armed conflict or persecution and are not able to leave their countries to seek refuge? (May 6, 2015), http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?4...olan-Rappaport

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-18-2016 at 10:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For once, I totally agree with Nolan Rappaport when he says that taking in 10,000 refugees from Syria is not an effective way to deal with the horrendous situation there. We should be taking in at least 100,000, if not 250,000 to 500,000, as we did successfully with Cuban (for the most part - we even managed to handle the Mariel boat people even though it cost Jimmy Carter his presidency) and Vietnamese refugees a generation ago.

    Certainly, we should avoid repeating the tragic history of our turning away Jewish refugees in the 1930's. See below.

    Nolan also keeps repeating his favorite mantra about my allegedly making "unfounded, ad hominem" attacks against Donald Trump. Most, if not all, of the comments I have made about Trump are based on Trump's own reported statements backed up by links to reliable news outlets such as POLITICO, The Hill, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, etc.

    Whether or not Nolan wishes to read my sources is up to him.

    With regard to the specific issue of screening Syrian refugees, I see a lot of references by Nolan to "findings" of a House Committee which is responsible for advancing Republican political objectives, including immigration restrictionist ones, according to its majority's mandate from America's voters.

    But I have yet to see Nolan discuss or respond to the written testimony of government officials charged with protecting our nation's security such as USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who describes, in great detail, the intensive and extended, though admittedly imperfect by its nature, up to two-year screening process that Syrian refugees have to go through to enter the US.

    I have provided a link to this testimony above.

    Finally, Nolan keeps repeating that Syria was initially put on the terrorist sponsor list almost 40 years ago, long before there was any such thing as ISIS. If he conducts further research, he will find that one of the main reasons Syria was put on the list originally was because it supported Hezbollah, which has now been removed from America's terrorist organization list (in 2015). I have also previously furnished that link as well.

    This is not to say that the hospital-bombing war criminals backed up by Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised along with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un (as Nolan certainly cannot deny is the case), are good people. They are not. Neither are the inhuman ISIS jihadists.

    The Nazis were not good people either.

    But in the 1930's America, with only a few exceptions, denied refuge to their Jewish victims, as I will show in detail in Part 2 of my blog comments and as described in a FORTUNE article by a reputable historian which I have also previously provided a link to.

    I repeat: should we repeat this shameful history by denying refuge to the Syrian refugee victims of dictatorship and terror now?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-18-2016 at 10:25 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For once, I totally agree with Nolan Rappaport when he says that taking in 10,000 refugees from Syria is not an effective way to deal with the horrendous situation there. We should be taking in at least 100,000, if not 250,000 to 500,000, as we did successfully with Cuban (for the most part - we even managed to handle the Mariel boat people even though it cost Jimmy Carter his presidency) and Vietnamese refugees a generation ago.

    Does Roger have any basis for saying that we CAN take in 500,000 Syrian refugees? Try some facts for a change, Roger. Substantiate that claim.

    Certainly, we should avoid repeating the tragic history of our turning away Jewish refugees in the 1930's. See below.

    Really? That would have saved the 8 million Jews who were murdered in concentration camps? You aren't making sense, Roger. The problem wasn't our failure to take refugees. It was not liberating the Jews from the concentration camps sooner.

    Nolan also keeps repeating his favorite mantra about my allegedly making "unfounded, ad hominem" attacks against Donald Trump. Most, if not all, of the comments I have made about Trump are based on Trump's own reported statements backed up by links to reliable news outlets such as POLITICO, The Hill, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, etc.

    That isn't true, but I give up on getting you to see what you are doing with your almost daily attacks on Trump.

    Whether or not Nolan wishes to read my sources is up to him.

    As I have explained many times before, sources are supposed to be used to substantiate things you say, not your conclusions. How effective would it be if I said you are irrational when it comes to Trump and gave a link to one of your Trump assaults. No, that might actually work.

    With regard to the specific issue of screening Syrian refugees, I see a lot of references by Nolan to "findings" of a House Committee which is responsible for advancing Republican political objectives, including immigration restrictionist ones, according to its majority's mandate from America's voters.

    The committee substantiates its findings with persuasive evidence. They are based on testimony from high level agency officials in the Obama administration who are in a position to know what information is available from within Syria.

    But I have yet to see Nolan discuss or respond to the written testimony of government officials charged with protecting our nation's security such as USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who describes, in great detail, the intensive and extended, though admittedly imperfect by its nature, up to two-year screening process that Syrian refugees have to go through to enter the US.

    Roger, that's the subject of my last article, the one you are disagreeing with. Please read it before you make any more comments about it. Especially the last paragraph where I explain that the 18 to 24 month screening process has been reduced to three months to meet the president's goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.

    Finally, Nolan keeps repeating that Syria was initially put on the terrorist sponsor list almost 40 years ago, long before there was any such thing as ISIS. If he conducts further research, he will find that one of the main reasons Syria was put on the list originally was because it supported Hezbollah, which has now been removed from America's terrorist organization list (in 2015 - I have also previously furnished that link as well.

    Roger, Syria hasn't remained on the list for almost 40 years because of circumstances that existed when it was initially put on the list. According to the State Department, it has continued to be a supporter of international terrorism for 40 years.

    This is not to say that the hospital-bombing war criminals backed up by Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised along with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un (as Nolan certainly cannot deny is the case), are good people. They are not. Neither are the inhuman ISIS jihadists.

    Trump said Putin is a strong leader. He was comparing him to Obama, who he thinks is a weak leader. And Trump was right that Putin is a strong leader. That doesn't mean that he IS A GOOD LEADER, just that he is a strong leader.

    I repeat: should we repeat this shameful history by denying refuge to the Syrian refugee victims of dictatorship and terror now?

    We should be ashamed that we didn't liberate the Jews from the concentration camps before 8 million of them were exterminated. And we should be ashamed that we are not doing something to ease the plight of the Syrians who are unable to get out of Syria.
    Nolan Rappaport

  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am surprised to see Nolan try to defend any positive statement that Donald Trump or anyone else might have made about Vladimir Putin.

    Are you suggesting that no one should acknowledge that Putin has some positive traits, or that it is impossible for him to have such traits? It would be easier to understand the world if bad man were bad all the time in every way and that good men were good all the time in every way. Is that how you see the world?

    What we should NOT be doing is blaming the victims by keeping almost all of them out of the United States based on what Judge Posner aptly called "nightmare speculation" about possible terrorist connections, just as Jewish refugees were kept put of America in the 1930's because of unfounded fears that they might be Nazi spies, or allegedly dangerous to America's safety or society in various other ways, as my forthcoming post in Part 2 of this series will explain in more detail.

    It is not nightmare speculation. Syria has been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for roughly 40 years because the State Department says it is sponsoring international terrorism. Why can't you address that fact?

    I find your comparison between Syrian refugees and Jews in Nazi Germany offensive. Hitler was trying to exterminate the entire Jewish race, and he succeeded in murdering 8 million of them. How is that similar in any way to the plight of the Syrian refugees?

    Updated 10-19-2016 at 12:08 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I would hope and trust that Mr. Rappaport will find my comparison between Syrian refugees today and Jewish refugees in the 1930's somewhat less "offensive" after reading the comparison made by Anne Frank's own step-sister, Eva Schloss, who is an actual Holocaust survivor, in the Huffington Post (which Mr. Rappaport also happens to be a contributor to - though this does not imply agreement on his part with their views on any given topic).

    See the link below and also see Part 2 of my comments in this series which was posted on ilw.com on October 19.

    The link to the Huffpost's article about Eva Schloss is:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adam...b_9095980.html

    See also a FORTUNE article by Case Western Reserve University historian Peter A. Shulman entitled:

    How America's Response to Syrian and Jewish Refugees is Eerily Similar

    http://fortune.com/2015/11/21/syrian...ugees-america/

    I will discuss this article in detail in Part 3 of my comments about this important, vitally relevant comparison, which some people may wish to avoid but is no less valid for that reason.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-19-2016 at 11:21 AM 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: