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

IDBlog

Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23

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

Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: October 17 - October 23" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    How do dictators destroy democracy?

    Usually they begin by spreading lies or preying on fears about and prejudice against unpopular ethnic or religious groups ,just as Hitler did against the Jews and Donald Trump has been doing against Latino and Muslim immigrants in general since the beginning of his campaign, and is also doing about Syrian immigrants in particular, whom he has been attacking as not only "terrorists" but also "hurting the quality of life" in America.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ombing-attacks

    Then, moving on from attacks against immigrants and other unpopular minorities, they turn against their own country's majority fellow citizens by curtailing or abolishing their rights, just has Hitler also did in Germany and Donald Trump is threatening to do in America limiting free speech through "opening up" the libel laws, through sending American citizens to Guantanamo and threatening retribution against his political opponents, culminating in his statement at the October 9 presidential debate that Hillary Clinton should be in jail, a practice common, not only to Hitler but to Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has expressed admiration for (along with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un) and many other dictators the world over.

    Finally, they attack the foundations of democracy itself by arguing that it is defective or doesn't work, as Trump is now doing with his insane and senseless attacks on the fairness of our elections by claiming that the only way he could lose is because our election system is "rigged" against him. See:

    http://politico.com/story/2016/10/do...r-fraud-229918

    This is why it is so important to speak out against misrepresentations and distortions, or in some cases, outright falsehoods, against immigrants, especially unpopular ones such as Syrian refugees.

    In this regard, many other Republicans beside Trump have been attacking Syrian refugees as "terrorists", including his own Vice-Presidential candidate, Mike Pence, who was recently castigated by a federal appeals court for engaging in "nightmare speculation" by doing so.

    See Judge Richard Posner's opinion, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, in:

    Exodus Immigration v. Pence, 7th Circuit, October 3, 2016

    A respected historian, Peter Shulman of Case Western Reserve University, has compared these unfounded attacks against Syrians trying to flee the twin horrors of Assad's brutal Putin-backed dictatorship and ISIS terrorism to the attacks against Jewish refugees who were turned away from America in the 1930's when they were trying to flee Hitler's concentration camps and gas chambers.

    Does America want to put its own democracy in danger by repeating this shameful history of turning away Jewish refugees, but with Syrian refugees as the scapegoats today?

    See:

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

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-18-2016 at 08:46 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. MarkoM's Avatar
    LEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

    By Marko Milakovich

    The 2016 Presidential campaign is in full, contentious motion. The outcome will have a profound impact and drastically alter the law of the land for both legal and illegal immigration. For those concerned with immigration, the following information and personal analysis is offered. The information presented herein, and my analysis and comments should assist those in the field of immigration to further develop their personal preferences. Obviously, the topic of immigration is only one in a diverse range of many topics that an individual must consider in the overall deliberations on Who To Vote For.

    The topic of immigration has two distinct aspects, illegal immigration and legal immigration. On the surface, the distinction between the two seems fairly obvious. However, they are inextricably bound. We are the United States, a sovereign, independent country, not a member of a ?hemispheric common market?. The fundamental requirement of firm boarders and strong controls for those who would enter our country are a necessity. The information contained herein is intended to focus on legal immigration.

    In the interests of fair disclosure, I must reveal that I have dealt with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on more than one occasion, on personal, family immigration matters. As a consequence, I have many associated scars, and I pray for an overhaul and reform of the legal immigration system. More specifically, as related to legal immigration, I believe that a central objective of reform should be a drastic, profound overhaul of USCIS. What is remarkable, is that while both Presidential Candidates mention ?immigration reform?, neither has mentioned USCIS, the government agency, which Congress has given the responsibility to execute the administration of all Citizenship and Immigration matters.

    The long-standing culture of USCIS has slowly metastasized into the current, defective management, and operation of the Service, which effects those who are subservient to their procedures. A bold charge, so a few comments to support this allegation are appropriate. First, although USCIS derives its power from Congress, they are, for all practical purposes, not under Congressional oversight. The power of Congress is applied through the budget; specifically the approval of the budget for government agencies and services such as USCIS. Please note that in 1988, Congress created the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, which made the portion of USCIS?s budget collected from user fees no longer subject to annual congressional approval. In FY 2014, direct appropriations constituted less that 4% of USCIS?s budget. Therefore, because USCIS is nearly all self-funded through the application fees they charge, in essence, they are autonomous. Thus, their budget approval is nearly all internal and not by Congress. Please excuse the cliques, but this is tantamount to ?the dog watching the hamburger? or the ?fox guarding the hen house?. The obvious question arises, how can USCIS pursue their mission in an impartial, fair, and just manner when it is incumbent upon them to promote and encourage more applications, to pay for new buildings and salaries? Yes, there is a profound need for reform, not only for the rules and procedures, but for the very nature of how USCIS operates. My first recommendation is that they be placed under Congressional oversight and have their budget approved by Congress. If you have ever submitted a Congressional Inquiry, you will probably have experienced pleasant communications, but little meaningful outcomes ? understandable since Congress has no oversight and little influence with USCIS. Another concern; is typified by the often used response from USCIS that a particular item of ?evidence? is not acceptable ?for immigration purposes?. This even extends to ignoring State Court Orders in the prosecution of citizen and immigration matters. When queried to identify the Federal law, which conflicts with a same-topic State law to determine if the Supremacy Clause applies, there is usually silence, as has been noted in court proceedings. Even so, the situation remains active and is troublesome. Yet one more concern is that the USCIS Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.s) should not modify the source law, identified in the INA, USCs and Treaties. Is reform needed? YES!

    For those concerned or interested in legal immigration, the question is, which Presidential Candidate is most likely to bring actual reform to legal immigration in a meaningful way? Below is an overview of information on immigration from the websites of the two major political candidates for President of the United States. However, caution is urged because what is proclaimed in public is not necessarily what they really believe and intend to pursue as a genuine commitment.

    We must each make our personal decision. Please consider the issues raised in the preceding and the information, which follows, then decide. Above all, VOTE. Many have died for the freedoms, values, and way of life, which we enjoy. Honor their sacrifice by your participation in our process of government, through casting your ballot.


    + + + HILLIARY CLINTON + + +

    Please refer to the candidate?s website from which the following information was obtained: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

    ?If we claim we are for family, then we have to pull together and resolve the outstanding issues around our broken immigration system. The American people support comprehensive immigration reform not just because it?s the right thing to do?and it is?but because they know it strengthens families, strengthens our economy, and strengthens our country. ? We can?t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship?. Hillary, May 5, 2015
    As president, Hillary will:
    Introduce comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.
    End the three- and 10-year bars. The three- and 10-year bars force families?especially those whose members have different citizenship or immigration statuses?into a heartbreaking dilemma: remain in the shadows, or pursue a green card by leaving the country and loved ones behind.
    Defend President Obama?s executive actions?known as DACA and DAPA?against partisan attacks. The Supreme Court?s deadlocked decision on DAPA was a heartbreaking reminder of how high the stakes are in this election. Hillary believes DAPA is squarely within the president?s authority and won?t stop fighting until we see it through. The estimated 5 million people eligible for DAPA?including DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents?should be protected under the executive actions.
    Do everything possible under the law to protect families. If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases?such as parents of DREAMers, those with a history of service and contribution to their communities, or those who experience extreme labor violations?to make their case and be eligible for deferred action.
    Enforce immigration laws humanely. Immigration enforcement must be humane, targeted, and effective. Hillary will focus resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety, and ensure refugees who seek asylum in the U.S. have a fair chance to tell their stories.
    End family detention and close private immigration detention centers. Hillary will end family detention for parents and children who arrive at our border in desperate situations and close private immigrant detention centers.
    Expand access to affordable health care to all families. We should let families?regardless of immigration status?buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Families who want to purchase health insurance should be able to do so.
    Promote naturalization. Hillary will work to expand fee waivers to alleviate naturalization costs, increase access to language programs to encourage English proficiency, and increase outreach and education to help more people navigate the process.
    Support immigrant integration. Hillary will create a national Office of Immigrant Affairs, support affordable integration services through $15 million in new grant funding for community navigators and similar organizations, and significantly increase federal resources for adult English language education and citizenship education.

    MY COMMENTS: Hillary Clinton?s statements include the objective to introduce ?comprehensive immigration reform? and ?uphold the rule of law?. But, it also promotes President Obama?s executive actions concerning immigration. Apparently, she endorses executive action over Congressional law. Her intent seems to support fee waivers and let families buy into Affordable Care Act exchanges, which would also mean access to financial subsidies, courtesy of tax payers ? not sure why health plans should be linked to immigration. Additionally, Clinton reportedly said to investors, in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Baonco Itau on May 16, 2013, ?"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders?? Contrary to this statement is her objective (stated above) to ?protect our boarders?. This conflict creates doubt as to what Hillary Clinton actually believes. If she is pro open borders, this conflicts with her objective (stated above) to ?protect our borders?. I am also very concerned about her objective (stated above) to ?Support Immigrant Integration?, which would provide $15 million in grant money to newly created private entities that would ?help? immigrants. This creates a new industry and an opportunity for more immigration abuses. A more direct approach would be to reform USCIS to provide better services to immigrants and to reduce application fees to ease the financial burden on them. This would help promote legal immigration instead of illegal immigration. And, of course, to place them under Congressional oversight.


    + + + DONALD J. TRUMP + + +

    Please refer to the candidate?s website from which the following information was obtained: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration

    Restore integrity to our immigration system by prioritizing the interests of Americans first. Enforce our immigration laws ? at the border and at the workplace. Build a border wall and end sanctuary cities. Send criminal aliens home. Welcome those who embrace our way of life, but keep out immigrants and refugees who don?t through rigorous vetting. Sep 16, 2016

    Donald J. Trump?s Vision

    Prioritize the jobs, wages and security of the American people.
    Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.
    Protect the economic well-being of the lawful immigrants already living here by curbing uncontrolled foreign worker admissions.
    Select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in the U.S. and their ability to be financially self-sufficient.
    Vet applicants to ensure they support America?s values, institutions and people, and temporarily suspend immigration from regions that export terrorism and where safe vetting cannot presently be ensured.
    Enforce the immigration laws of the United States and restore the Constitutional rule of law upon which America?s prosperity and security depend.

    Donald J. Trump?s 10 Point Plan to Put America First

    1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.

    2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

    3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration?s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.

    4. End sanctuary cities.

    5. Immediately terminate President Obama?s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced - we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.

    6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.

    7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.

    8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.

    9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.

    10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.

    MY COMMENTS: Donald Trump has identified many specific immigration objectives (stated above). Collectively, this reflects a well-developed path with specific actions. From a legal immigration perspective, I pay particular note to Item 5, ?All immigration laws will be enforced?? and Item 10, ?Reform legal immigration?? Donald Trump has stated an objective (identified above) to ?restore the Constitutional rule of law?, which implies he would not impose immigration procedures through Presidential executive orders, which has been done by President Obama.


    OVERALL ANALYSIS AND PERSONAL COMMENTS

    I have feebly tried to be objectively neutral, but I must admit that my efforts have fallen short and a preference may be inferred. Even so, the basic information is pertinent on the topic of immigration.

    Hillary Clinton has articulated ?feel-good? objectives and ?visionary? goals. Some of her goals for legal immigration give me considerable apprehension that there will be ?more of the same? if she becomes President and that meaningful reform of our immigration system and laws will be doubtful. Donald Trump has identified specific, actionable objectives. Based on my personal experience with the legal immigration system, and my stalwart recommendation for USCIS reform ? my personal choice should be obvious, but each of us must make our own.

    Immigration is only one factor in making a decision on which Presidential candidate to support with your vote. It is hoped the information provided herein has been helpful to clarify the candidates position on this one topic ? good luck.


    by Marko Milakovich
    Citizen Warrior fighting the elitism, arrogance, and incompetence of our government, a government, which I swore an oath of allegiance to, including ?that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;? How you fight the battle is sometimes more important than actually winning the battle. But, the best hope of winning the battle is a determined, never-give-up-the-fight resolve. If there is a loss, one can have a clear conscience knowing the best effort was committed to the battle. Every warrior knows that not every fight is won, but every fight must be fought with honor and total dedication. (vssmarko@gmail.com)
  3. Christine Flowers's Avatar
    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I am an immigration attorney and a subscriber to your link. I have found it to be extremely helpful with my practice, and I particularly like the occasional "slice of life" articles that appear, given our current political climate.

    Last week, I had forwarded an article written by a friend, Michael J. Halpern, which is both beautifully written and timely. I am resubmitting a revised copy of it, and I would ask if you could let me know, or let the author know, if this would be suitable for publication

    thank you again for your time

    Christine Flowers
  4. Michael J. Halpern's Avatar
    THE KINDNESS OF IMMIGRANTS
    by Michael J. Halpern

    I left my new MacBook and an iPad in a taxi last week in New York.
    It had been a very busy day. I didn’t even notice they were missing until Danny, the doorman at my building, asked me if I had left a MacBook and an iPad in a taxi. When I checked my briefcase, they were gone! OMG!!!
    Danny consoled me; he told me that a taxi driver had come by the building to ask if someone had left a MacBook and an iPad in his taxi. Ariel, the taxi driver, had given his name and phone number to Danny. Fortunately for me, Ariel picked me up very close to the apartment and figured out that I might live in the building. I immediately called Ariel and he returned them the next morning at 6:30am before his taxi shift started.
    Ariel cared. He cared about a stranger. He cared enough to find me.
    Ariel is an immigrant from the Philippines. He is married and has three children and three grandchildren. Through hard work he has given his children better opportunities than he had. Ariel, his children and his grandchildren are living the American dream.
    The American dream is alive. It’s still there for all Americans. There are some who try to ar- gue that by living the American dream, Ariel has taken it away from someone born in America. This is not true. The American dream is not a zero-sum game. This United States of America is an exceptional country because of immigrants, not in spite of them. We are a melting pot. We are a country of immigrants.
    New immigrants revitalize our country. Dr. Darrell West of the Brookings Institution writes in his 2010 book Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy “Despite legitimate fear and anxiety over illegal immigration, I suggest that immigrants bring a “brain gain” of innovation and creativity that outweighs real or imagined costs. Throughout the nation’s history, immi- grants have enriched economic, intellectual, social, and cultural life in the United States in a number of fundamental respects.” The average age of an immigrant is considerably lower than Americans born here; they are an ideal demographic of wage earners that have good in- comes and relatively low health care costs. Immigrants are a large part of the reason why American GDP grows faster than Europe or Japan.
    Immigrants also refresh our spirits by bringing with them values that remind of us of the best of ourselves.They bring with them an appreciation for our country and for the rights and free- doms bestowed up on us by our Constitution. Many immigrants are religious and bring with them a faith in living a life that has a higher purpose. They bring with them family values in the true sense of that phrase: love, hard work, education, respect for your parents and re- spect for your fellow man.

    This is not to say that Americans born in the United States don’t have strong values. We do. This is does not say we don’t need to protect our country from terrorism. We do. This is not to say that we don’t need a thoughtful policy on immigration which must be enforced. We do. This is not to say all immigrants are perfect. They’re not; no group is perfect. Dr. West argues “The nation needs a new national narrative on immigration that moves from themes of illegal- ity and abuse to innovation and enrichment. The country needs to build a new public policy based on empirical realities, no t abstract fears and emotions.”
    “Change is the only constant” Heraclitus, a 6th century BC Greek philosopher, wrote. And the pace of change is accelerating. Old skills become obsolete at faster pace. The internet per- forms many tasks better, cheaper and faster than humans. Containerized ships bring cheap imports to the United States, displacing entire American industries. As Darwin wrote, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.” We must aggressively adapt to a rapidly changing world by changing priorities and our allocation of resources. We must have a sense of urgency, yet take a long term approach with the courage of our convictions. Among the many changes that need to be made, we must improve our educational system and develop more programs for continuing education. We can’t predict the future, but we can prepare for it such that we can embrace this rapidly changing world instead of fearing it. There will be anxiety on the rocky path to the future, but we must commit to never allow fear to rob us of our humanity.
    Blame is not a strategy for leading our country in the 21st century. Especially blaming immigrant.


    We are all Ariel.
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoM
    LEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

    By Marko Milakovich

    The 2016 Presidential campaign is in full, contentious motion. The outcome will have a profound impact and drastically alter the law of the land for both legal and illegal immigration. For those concerned with immigration, the following information and personal analysis is offered. The information presented herein, and my analysis and comments should assist those in the field of immigration to further develop their personal preferences. Obviously, the topic of immigration is only one in a diverse range of many topics that an individual must consider in the overall deliberations on Who To Vote For.


    by Marko Milakovich
    (vssmarko@gmail.com)
    It's nice to see an objective comparison of the immigration positions advanced by Hillary and Donald. I will add my comments to what you have said. Maybe Roger will see some merit in stating reasons to support one's conclusions instead of name calling and ad hominem attacks.

    Is Trump’s Ten-Point Immigration Plan a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? (August 31, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b004ff0420dcfc

    Hillary’s immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences. (September 5, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...57k1sm2g2v5cdi

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-20-2016 at 01:09 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar

    Roger says:

    How do dictators destroy democracy?
    Usually they begin by spreading lies or preying on fears about and prejudice against unpopular ethnic or religious groups ,just as Hitler did against the Jews and Donald Trump has been doing against Latino and Muslim immigrants in general since the beginning of his campaign, and is also doing about Syrian immigrants in particular, whom he has been attacking as not only "terrorists" but also "hurting the quality of life" in America.

    I can't adequately express how offensive it is for you to compare Trump to Hitler. Do you really think the inarticulate talking points Trump has expressed about various groups of immigrants rises to the level of murdering 8 million Jews in an attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish race?

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-22-2016 at 12:20 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have never accused Donald Trump of advocating genocide, and i have also defended him against what I thought were unfair and absurd charges of anti-Semitism based on one of his tweets with a six pointed sheriff's badge, which some people seized on as allegedly resembling the Jewish Star of David.

    I have compared Trump to a number of dictators, Adolf Hitler included, for reasons which I have always explained clearly, quite often with exact sources or links.

    Mr. Rappaport might wish to consider reading or responding to my actual comments about Donald Trump, and the acute danger he poses to our democracy, instead of berating me for things about Trump that I have never said or suggested.

    Roger Algase
    Updated 10-19-2016 at 06:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I have compared Trump to a number of dictators, Adolf Hitler included, for reasons which I have always explained clearly, quite often with exact sources or links.

    Mr. Rappaport might wish to consider reading or responding to my actual comments about Donald Trump, and the acute danger he poses to our democracy, instead of berating me for things about Trump that I have never said or suggested.

    Roger Algase
    You are blind to what you are doing. Just look at your reply above. You say you have compared Trump to a number of dictators, not just Hitler. How does that contradict my claim that you are comparing him to Hitler?

    In any case, Trump is a politician who has never held an elected office. This is his first campaign. Tell me what the man has done that justifies comparing him to dictators like Hitler? Said some things you don't like? Okay. WHAT ELSE HAS HE DONE?

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-20-2016 at 01:08 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not going to repeat the very long list of valid reasons I have given for comparing Donald Trump to Hitler and other dictators in terms of danger to democracy, which other commentators too numerous to mention have also pointed out, including the Huffington Post, which Nolan himself writes for (though this of course does not mean that he agrees with this publication).

    My only point is that a comparison to Hitler does not mean that someone accusing a person of genocide, or even anti-Semitism. I have never done either with Trump.

    As to Trump's danger to democracy, I will mention just one representative statement which I have mentioned before - his statement at the October 9 debate that Hillary Clinton belongs in jail, and that he would appoint a special prosecutor toward that end.

    That kind of threat, direct or indirect, to lock up a political opponent is not what I was taught that democracy means when I majored in Government at Harvard College. I can assure all readers that it was not what Nolan Rappaport would have been taught when he was a university student either. But it is something that Hitler would have understood.

    He sent his political opponents to Buchenwald and Dachau in the 1930's. Trump has said he would be "fine" with sending American citizens to Guantanamo.

    I will also mention two other of Trump's statements which came up for the first time at the October 19 final debate. The first was Trump's refusal to commit himself in advance to accept the results of next month's election. Taken together with his claims that any election he loses (even the Emmy awards!) must be rigged, we have a view of democracy that is certainly closer to Adolf Hitler's (and Vladimir Putin's, Saddam Hussein's and Kim Jung Un's to mention three dictators whom Trump has praised for their "strength" (yes, Nolan, he did say this as a compliment - there is no way to spin that, even though he may also admittedly have said other, less complimentary things about one or more of these tyrants) than to the view of democracy in our constitution as written and intended by our founding fathers.

    Finally, we have been talking in our respective Immigration Daily blog pieces about Syrian refugees. I have pointed out, we strongly disagree on policy over that issue, but at least I believe that we agree on some basic facts: ISIS is a threat; Syria is on the terror sponsor list; there are arguably gaps in our knowledge about the backgrounds, of the refugees, etc.

    We also agree on how many refugees have actually been admitted, 10,000, and I presume, we also agree that no Syrian refugee in the US has committed any acts of terrorism or otherwise shown any evidence of allegiance to ISIS to date.

    Now look at Trump's statement at the October 19 debate, which I quote with the link so you can check it out yourself if you were not watching the debate yourself (as i was). Speaking about Hillary Clinton, Trump said:

    "She 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."


    www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/19/trump_seemingly_concedes_to_clinton_lots_of_luck.html


    Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees already admitted to the US, who in many cases are definitely ISIS-aligned?

    You yourself have been writing at great length that we allegedly don't know very much, if anything at all, about Syrian refugees. Can you explain where Donald Trump gets his alleged information that many of them are definitely ISIS-aligned?

    I can explain it. It is just another example of the strategy that Trump has been using against minority immigrants and against his political opponents since the start of his campaign. It is known as the Big Lie.

    Who became famous for using and relying on the Big Lie to seize power in his own country? It was a certain German politician by the name of Adolf Hitler.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law




    Updated 10-20-2016 at 09:51 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I am not going to repeat the very long list of valid reasons I have given for comparing Donald Trump to Hitler and other dictators in terms of danger to democracy, which other commentators too numerous to mention have also pointed out, including the Huffington Post, which Nolan himself writes for (though this of course does not mean that he agrees with this publication).

    My only point is that a comparison to Hitler does not mean that someone accusing a person of genocide, or even anti-Semitism. I have never done either with Trump.

    As to Trump's danger to democracy, I will mention just one representative statement which I have mentioned before - his statement at the October 9 debate that Hillary Clinton belongs in jail, and that he would appoint a special prosecutor toward that end.

    That kind of threat, direct or indirect, to lock up a political opponent is not what I was taught that democracy means when I majored in Government at Harvard College. I can assure all readers that it was not what Nolan Rappaport would have been taught when he was a university student either. But it is something that Hitler would have understood.

    He sent his political opponents to Buchenwald and Dachau in the 1930's. Trump has said he would be "fine" with sending American citizens to Guantanamo.

    I will also mention two other of Trump's statements which came up for the first time at the October 19 final debate. The first was Trump's refusal to commit himself in advance to accept the results of next month's election. Taken together with his claims that any election he loses (even the Emmy awards!) must be rigged, we have a view of democracy that is certainly closer to Adolf Hitler's (and Vladimir Putin's, Saddam Hussein's and Kim Jung Un's to mention three dictators whom Trump has praised for their "strength" (yes, Nolan, he did say this as a compliment - there is no way to spin that, even though he may also admittedly have said other, less complimentary things about one or more of these tyrants) than to the view of democracy in our constitution as written and intended by our founding fathers.

    Finally, we have been talking in our respective Immigration Daily blog pieces about Syrian refugees. I have pointed out, we strongly disagree on policy over that issue, but at least I believe that we agree on some basic facts: ISIS is a threat; Syria is on the terror sponsor list; there are arguably gaps in our knowledge about the backgrounds, of the refugees, etc.

    We also agree on how many refugees have actually been admitted, 10,000, and I presume, we also agree that no Syrian refugee in the US has committed any acts of terrorism or otherwise shown any evidence of allegiance to ISIS to date.

    Now look at Trump's statement at the October 19 debate, which I quote with the link so you can check it out yourself if you were not watching the debate yourself (as i was). Speaking about Hillary Clinton, Trump said:

    "She 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."


    www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/19/trump_seemingly_concedes_to_clinton_lots_of_luck.html


    Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees already admitted to the US, who in many cases are definitely ISIS-aligned?

    You yourself have been writing at great length that we allegedly don't know very much, if anything at all, about Syrian refugees. Can you explain where Donald Trump gets his alleged information that many of them are definitely ISIS-aligned?

    I can explain it. It is just another example of the strategy that Trump has been using against minority immigrants and against his political opponents since the start of his campaign. It is known as the Big Lie.

    Who became famous for using and relying on the Big Lie to seize power in his own country? It was a certain German politician by the name of Adolf Hitler.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law




    I challenged you to tell me what Trump has done that justifies comparing him to the most evil leaders in the history of mankind, but you seem just to be repeating things he has said. Did I miss something?

    Nolan Rappaport
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    "Just repeating things he has said"? Is that not what we judge our candidates by? Suppose that a hypothetical presidential candidate were to say that he or she thought that the Holocaust was a great idea and that they only wished that Hitler had finished the job. I emphasize "hypothetical". obviously Trump has never said this or anything even remotely near it, even though some of his KKK or Stormfront admirers, whom he has disavowed, may well hold such views.

    Would you not be repeating that ad infinitum, with fully justified outrage, if anyone ever said that? Trump of course, as I mentioned, has not said anything even remotely like that. But he has said and done plenty of other things that indicate his contempt of democracy and total unfitness to be president, even though he is not Adolf Hitler.

    What is wrong with repeating his own words (while there is still time)? If he becomes president, no one may be allowed to do that any longer or to say anything against Trump, without going to jail.

    That is what is at stake in this election.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-20-2016 at 02:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    "Just repeating things he has said"? Is that not what we judge our candidates by? Suppose that a hypothetical presidential candidate were to say that he or she thought that the Holocaust was a great idea and that they only wished that Hitler had finished the job. I emphasize "hypothetical". obviously Trump has never said this or anything even remotely near it, even though some of his KKK or Stormfront admirers, whom he has disavowed, may well hold such views.

    Would you not be repeating that ad infinitum, with fully justified outrage, if anyone ever said that? Trump of course, as I mentioned, has not said anything even remotely like that. But he has said and done plenty of other things that indicate his contempt of democracy and total unfitness to be president, even though he is not Adolf Hitler.

    What is wrong with repeating his own words (while there is still time)? If he becomes president, no one may be allowed to do that any longer or to say anything against Trump, without going to jail.

    That is what is at stake in this election.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    "Just repeating things he has said"? Is that not what we judge our candidates by? Suppose that a hypothetical presidential candidate were to say that he or she thought that the Holocaust was a great idea and that they only wished that Hitler had finished the job. I emphasize "hypothetical". obviously Trump has never said this or anything even remotely near it, even though some of his KKK or Stormfront admirers, whom he has disavowed, may well hold such views.

    Would you not be repeating that ad infinitum, with fully justified outrage, if anyone ever said that? Trump of course, as I mentioned, has not said anything even remotely like that. But he has said and done plenty of other things that indicate his contempt of democracy and total unfitness to be president, even though he is not Adolf Hitler.

    What is wrong with repeating his own words (while there is still time)? If he becomes president, no one may be allowed to do that any longer or to say anything against Trump, without going to jail.

    That is what is at stake in this election.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    If you really were repeating things he has said and making objective interpretations of his words, I would be encouraging you. That would be the kind of free exchange of ideas that makes our right to freedom of speech such a great benefit.


    But that's not what you are doing. You are distorting what he says and putting completely irrational spins on the distortions that you create. Can I substantiate that claim? Yes, I try never to make claims that I can't substantiate. For this particular one, I don't have to look further than the last few sentences in your comment:


    What is wrong with repeating his own words (while there is still time)? If he becomes president, no one may be allowed to do that any longer or to say anything against Trump, without going to jail.


    You have no rational basis for thinking that Trump would want to do something that absurd, and if you were to pause and think about what you are accusing him of, you would/should realize that no president has that kind of power.


    Nolan Rappaport
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For another opinion on Trump's assault on democracy by announcing his refusal in advance to accept the results of next month's "rigged" election, see Jamelle Bouie, writing in Slate on October 20 in an article called:

    Donald Trump vs. American Democracy:

    "What happens if, on November 8, Trump loses and then refuses to concede? What happens if he attacks Clinton's legitimacy and insists, as he did at Wednesday's debate, that 'she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency'?

    Any suggestion that this doesn't matter gives short shift to the rage that could flare in the face of a Trump defeat, given the paranoia and conspiracy-mongering that dominates the Trump campaign. It's possible, that on November 9, authorities have to deal with anti-Clinton protests and demonstrations, all based on the idea that she stole the election from its rightful winner. It's possible that, in those areas where Trump wants his voters to monitor the polls, we'll see violence and intimidation, as angry and desperate supporters try to 'protect' the vote. And it's possible that two years into Hillary Clinton's presidency, large numbers of Republicans - maybe even a majority - will believe that she wasn't actually elected. That the game was rigged in her favor...

    We're at a point in this country where the fabric of our society could unravel more than it already has."

    See:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/201...lf_393934.html

    Bouie's article doesn't mention this, but there are plenty of precedents for authoritarian politicians who have seized power by convincing large segments of the public that democracy isn't working properly or doesn't work at all. One of these politicians won what historians confirm was a free, open and fair election in Germany in 1932. For more details on that German leader's views on democracy, which have a good deal in common with those of other, more recent heads of state whom Donald Trump has complimented for their "strong" leadership, such as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein, see:


    http://www.mattbrundage.com/publicat...-and-democracy


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-21-2016 at 08:03 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    For another opinion on Trump's assault on democracy by announcing his refusal in advance to accept the results of next month's "rigged" election, see Jamelle Bouie, writing in Slate on October 20 in an article called:

    Donald Trump vs. American Democracy:

    "What happens if, on November 8, Trump loses and then refuses to concede? What happens if he attacks Clinton's legitimacy and insists, as he did at Wednesday's debate, that 'she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency'?

    Any suggestion that this doesn't matter gives short shift to the rage that could flare in the face of a Trump defeat, given the paranoia and conspiracy-mongering that dominates the Trump campaign. It's possible, that on November 9, authorities have to deal with anti-Clinton protests and demonstrations, all based on the idea that she stole the election from its rightful winner. It's possible that, in those areas where Trump wants his voters to monitor the polls, we'll see violence and intimidation, as angry and desperate supporters try to 'protect' the vote. And it's possible that two years into Hillary Clinton's presidency, large numbers of Republicans - maybe even a majority - will believe that she wasn't actually elected. That the game was rigged in her favor...

    We're at a point in this country where the fabric of our society could unravel more than it already has."

    See:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/201...lf_393934.html

    Bouie's article doesn't mention this, but there are plenty of precedents for authoritarian politicians who have seized power by convincing large segments of the public that democracy isn't working properly or doesn't work at all. One of these politicians won what historians confirm was a free, open and fair election in Germany in 1932. For more details on that German leader's views on democracy, which have a good deal in common with those of other, more recent heads of state whom Donald Trump has complimented for their "strong" leadership, such as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein, see:


    http://www.mattbrundage.com/publicat...-and-democracy


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Congratulations. You found someone making even more absurd predictions that you have been making.
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am far more worried about the damage you and your kindred spirits have done to free speech. When I think about how badly Trump has been treated for expressing unpopular conservative views, I can't imagine who is going to be willing to step up and express those views in the future. I think you have succeeded in destroying the core value of our democracy, which is the free exchange of ideas, particularly political ideas. Congratulations. Job done well.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-22-2016 at 12:21 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There is a constitutional right to spew even the most vile hatred, poison and lies, whether about women, African-Americans, disabled people, veterans, political opponents or Muslim and Latino immigrants. That is what makes America unique and great.

    That is also why Trump's threats to "open up" the libel laws, to use torture a "helluva" lot worse than waterboarding, (which is bad enough), to send American citizens to Guantanamo and to lock up his only real opponent for the highest office in the land, are not exactly what George Washington and the other founders of this country had in mind by the term "free speech".

    Nevertheless, if someone wants to advocate setting up a fascist dictatorship in America, he has the right to do so. But last time I looked at the Constitution, I didn't see anything in it about anyone's "right" to be president. That has to be earned - by winning an election. And the voters have the ultimate say in whether they agree with Trump's poisonous brew of hate and falsehood or not.

    If a majority agree, Trump will be our next president - just as Adolf Hitler won a free and fair German election in 1932 by saying openly and widely what was on his mind. If a majority of America's voters happen to disagree with Trump's views, made according to his unchallenged Constitutional right to free speech, someone else will be president, and Trump will have lost the election.

    That is the way our democracy works - as everyone in America except Donald Trump, who insists that if he loses it will mean the election was "rigged". i.e. that he will not accept the outcome of a democratic election - agrees.

    Roger Algase

  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    here is a constitutional right to spew even the most vile hatred, poison and lies, whether about women, African-Americans, disabled people, veterans, political opponents or Muslim and Latino immigrants. That is what makes America unique and great.

    Is that why you spew out the most vile, hateful, poison, and lies about Trump, and before him, you did it to Republican members who wanted immigration laws enforced? What you are doing to Trump isn't protected by the constitution. It would be libel if he weren't a celebrity.

    That is also why Trump's threats to "open up" the libel laws, to use torture a "helluva" lot worse than waterboarding, (which is bad enough), to send American citizens to Guantanamo and to lock up his only real opponent for the highest office in the land, are not exactly what George Washington and the other founders of this country had in mind by the term "free speech".

    I don't want to respond to every unsubstantiated allegation you make, so I will just comment on one of them. He hasn't threatened to lock Hillary up. He has said that if he is elected, he will appoint a special prosecutor to look into her email issues. That's what Obama should have done. And I suspect that a great many people share his suspicion that the FBI director's conclusion that Hillary should not be prosecuted was made under political pressure from the AG and Obama. The only way to find out is to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an unbiased investigation.

    The voters have the ultimate say in whether they agree with Trump's poisonous brew of hate and falsehood or not.

    Is that an example of using his words against him? That's pure, totally irrational hatred. I think you are going to have trouble dealing with your anger when Trump is off the scene. I won't be surprised if I hear that you are on a roof somewhere with a sniper rifle shooting people walking by on the sidewalk below.

    If a majority agree, Trump will be our next president - just as Adolf Hitler won a free and fair German election in 1932 by saying openly and widely what was on his mind. If a majority of America's voters happen to disagree with Trump's views, made according to his unchallenged Constitutional right to free speech, someone else will be president, and Trump will have lost the election.

    You are still comparing him to Hitler???

    That is the way our democracy works - as everyone in America except Donald Trump, who insists that if he loses it will mean the election was "rigged". i.e. that he will not accept the outcome of a democratic election - agrees.

    He has never said he will challenge the results if he loses.

  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There is a constitutional right to spew even the most vile hatred, poison and lies, whether about women, African-Americans, disabled people, veterans, political opponents or Muslim and Latino immigrants. That is what makes America unique and great.

    Is that why you spew out the most vile, hateful, poison, and lies about Trump, and before him, you did it to Republican members who wanted immigration laws enforced? What you are doing to Trump isn't protected by the constitution. It would be libel if he weren't a celebrity.

    It's ironic. You could have attacked Trump very effectively if you had taken the time to understand what he is saying and analyzed it objectively. The name calling wasn't necessary, and it has destroyed your credibility.

    That is also why Trump's threats to "open up" the libel laws, to use torture a "helluva" lot worse than waterboarding, (which is bad enough), to send American citizens to Guantanamo and to lock up his only real opponent for the highest office in the land, are not exactly what George Washington and the other founders of this country had in mind by the term "free speech".

    I don't want to respond to every unsubstantiated allegation you make, so I will just comment on one of them. He hasn't threatened to lock Hillary up. He has said that if he is elected, he will appoint a special prosecutor to look into her email issues. That's what Obama should have done. And I suspect that a great many people share Trump's suspicion that the FBI director's conclusion that Hillary should not be prosecuted was made under political pressure from the AG and/or Obama. The only way to find out is to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an unbiased investigation.

    The voters have the ultimate say in whether they agree with Trump's poisonous brew of hate and falsehood or not.

    Is that an example of using his words against him? Your comment reflects pure, totally irrational hatred. I think you are going to have trouble dealing with your anger when Trump is off the scene. I won't be surprised if I hear that you are on a roof somewhere with a sniper rifle shooting people walking by on the sidewalk below.

    If a majority agree, Trump will be our next president - just as Adolf Hitler won a free and fair German election in 1932 by saying openly and widely what was on his mind. If a majority of America's voters happen to disagree with Trump's views, made according to his unchallenged Constitutional right to free speech, someone else will be president, and Trump will have lost the election.

    You are still comparing him to Hitler???

    That is the way our democracy works - as everyone in America except Donald Trump, who insists that if he loses it will mean the election was "rigged". i.e. that he will not accept the outcome of a democratic election - agrees.

    He has never said he will challenge the results if he loses.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-22-2016 at 12:38 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I will only respond to Nolan's last sentence, claiming that Trump "has never said he will challenge the results if he loses."

    Nor has Trump said that he will accept them. He expressly refused to say that when asked point blank if he would do so at the October 19 debate.


    What kind of democracy can we have if candidates refuse to accept election results? Of course, I am not talking about very special cases such as 2000, when George W. Bush "won" by the huge margin of 537 votes. Certainly, Al Gore challenged that, but through legal procedures, and Gore accepted the results of those procedures. We have yet to see the same kind of commitment from Trump. If Trump provides that commitment, I will withdraw my comment.

    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: