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 24 - October 30

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 24 - October 30" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: October 24 - October 30" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: October 24 - October 30" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: October 24 - October 30" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: October 24 - October 30" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: October 24 - October 30" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: October 24 - October 30" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. Carolynn D.Vernon's Avatar
    I was disappointed with your article on the 6 conservative newspapers not endorsing Trump. This is immigration-related news how? Your article discussed nothing to do with immigration. Why is this news in an immigration-devoted weekly? I read your posts because I am interested in immigration-related topics. If I want to read about the election, I can go on-line elsewhere. Disappointing.

    Carolynn D.Vernon
  2. TheronM's Avatar
    I was under the impression I actually signed up for immigration daily ? constantly getting lambasted on the opening of my emails to this blatantly partisan posturing that does not even mention immigration has caused me to strongly consider ending my interest with your newsletters before I even begin as a practitioner of immigration law.
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    A not so subtle transition has occurred in recent years. The liberal democrats were criticizing republican views on immigration issues when I was the immigration counsel for the democrats on the House immigration subcommittee. In those days, the criticism was reasonably close to being objective, and it was never ad hominem or a character assassination. I am not speaking just about the criticism I wrote myself. Most of my talking points and some of my source materials came from immigrant advocacy groups. AILA was especially helpful.

    In recent years, that changed. At some point, the Democrats abandoned any pretense to objectivity by calling Republican congressmen who advocated enforcement of our immigration laws racists, bigots, anti-Hispanics, and so on.

    Then Trump came on the scene. Good for the republican congressmen. Attention switched from them to Trump. But the approach changed. The old insults were still used. People called Trump a racist and so on. But hostility increased dramatically and with it, the nastiness of the insults. Trump has been called a fascist, someone who wants to destroy democracy, a sexual groper, and too many other hateful things to make a complete list in a single comment.

    What happened to Freedom of Speech? Is it gone now? Or do people just have to get used to ad hominem attacks and character assassinations if they express views that antagonize the political correctness police. I can't think of any other term that would be more appropriate.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 10-27-2016 at 12:00 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to the first two of the above letters, I can only say that their highly partisan, politicized, straight down the right wing or (Tea?) party line of faux outrage at reading opinions about the election they evidently don't entirely agree with shows that Immigration Daily is doing something right.

    Next month's election could determine America's immigration policy for at least a generation - maybe for the next half century. To stay on the sidelines and say nothing about the candidates or their positions on immigration would be the height of irresponsibility and cowardice.

    Bravo to Immigration Daily for speaking out bravely and boldly instead!

    With regard to the letter immediately above this one, the best way that I can show my respect and admiration for the more than 1,000 courageous Jewish rabbis and numerous Jewish organizations which are standing up for the rights of Syrian refugees in an effort to steer America away from repeating the tragedy of the 1930's, is to use a good Jewish expression to describe my reaction to both the tone and content of the letter;

    AZOY!

    Unfortunately, this term is untranslatable. The closest English equivalent I can think of is:

    OY VEH!

    Roger Algase

    Attorney at Law

    Updated 10-25-2016 at 08:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    My above comment doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with everything that Immigration Daily or any other of Trump's critics say about him. Even most of Trump's opponents underestimate him and the danger he poses for American democracy and for the continued existence of the human race. In the words of William Saletan, writing in Slate on October 20, just after the third presidential debate:

    "Trump is a Madman"

    http://election.democraticunderground.com/12512528990

    Even this statement only begins to describe how dangerous it would be for this country and the world to elect Trump as president of the United States, thereby, in all likelihood, elevating to the role of the most powerful person in the world, perhaps, given modern technology, in all of human history.

    Roger Algase Attorney at Law



    Updated 10-25-2016 at 09:11 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs


    With regard to the letter immediately above this one, the best way that I can show my respect and admiration for the more than 1,000 courageous Jewish rabbis and numerous Jewish organizations which are standing up for the rights of Syrian refugees in an effort to steer America away from repeating the tragedy of the 1930's, is to use a good Jewish expression to describe my reaction to both the tone and content of the letter;

    Roger Algase

    Attorney at Law

    Roger is demonstrating another way to avoid issues in his reaction to my comment on the use of ad hominem and character assassination attacks. He ignores what I said and gives a brief lecture on an unrelated topic. When Trump made an issue of the difficulty in doing background investigations on Muslims coming to the US, Roger and the rest of the political correctness police completely ignored the extremely important security issue Trump was raising and claimed that he was discriminating against Muslims on the basis of their religion. I am very afraid of what those tactics have done to freedom of speech.

    Nolan Rappaport


  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    True enough. Sometimes I do raise points might go beyond Nolan's original comment in some respects - such as that Donald Trump may be not only a fascist, but a mentally unstable one.

    But whether such a person would make a good president or not is also and issue that the voters need to consider less than two weeks from now.

    But let me say a couple of things about Nolan's security arguments. The first is that US officials, allegedly, can't get information about refugees from inside Syria.

    But our normal screening process based on refugee camp interviews and other databases, takes to two years. It has worked so far - there have been no terrorist incidents involving Syrian refugees anywhere in North America (Canada uses a similar process, to the best of my knowledge - Europe does not) - as far as I am aware.

    How much cooperation would the Nazis have been willing to provide in terms of background information about Jewish refugees in the 1930's?

    How much information was available from inside Vietnam about the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people we admitted as refugees in the late 1970's - early 1980's?

    In the case of the Mariel Boat people from Cuba, we took them in even though we did have information about them from inside Cuba - namely that they all had criminal records!

    Nolan's other argument is that the Syrian government has been on the terrorist sponsor list for almost 40 years.

    But our main concern, as repeated so often by Donald Trump himself and many other politicians - is that the refugees might turn out to be ISIS supporters.

    ISIS is NOT the Syrian government, as Nolan surely knows well,

    ISIS is (in common with US backed rebel groups, but for a different reason), fighting against the Syrian government and trying to overthrow it.

    What relevance does the Syrian government's being or not being on a certain list have to whether any given refugee might support or join ISIS, which is the real terrorist threat to Europe and America, not the Syrian government, e evil as the Putin-backed murderers, torturers and war criminals who run that government admittedly are?

    As to free speech, of course I support it, regardless whether it is used for arguments that make sense, or for ones that don't, as in the case of Nolan's arguments for excluding Syrian refugees.

    Both types of arguments are Constitutionally protected.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-27-2016 at 07:30 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Sometimes I do raise points might go beyond Nolan's original comment in some respects - such as that Donald Trump may be not only a fascist, but a mentally unstable one.

    But whether such a person would make a good president or not is also and issue that the voters need to consider less than two weeks from now.

    Is your point that if you don't like my comment you can deal with it by ignoring what I said and talking about something you think is more important?

    But let me say a couple of things about Nolan's security arguments. The first is that US officials, allegedly, can't get information about refugees from inside Syria.

    But our normal screening process based on refugee camp interviews and other databases, takes to two years. It has worked so far - there have been no terrorist incidents involving Syrian refugees anywhere in North America (Canada uses a similar process, to the best of my knowledge - Europe does not) - as far as I am aware.

    First, the Administration said it would use a screening process for Syrian refugees that would take 18 to 24 months, not two years. But when someone finally realized that you can't admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in a year if you do a background investigation that takes 18 to 24 months, they cut it back to three months.

    Second, the screening process is based on searching FBI and other government agency records, and the heads of the pertinent agencies have said they don't have information from within Syria. So what is the point of searching their records for information about the Syrian refugees?

    How much cooperation would the Nazis have been willing to provide in terms of background information about Jewish refugees in the 1930's?

    What is your point, Roger, that if no information is available, we have to let them in without knowing anything about them?

    Nolan's other argument is that the Syrian government has been on the terrorist sponsor list for almost 40 years.

    But our main concern, as repeated so often by Donald Trump himself and many other politicians - is that the refugees might turn out to be ISIS supporters.


    Who are you responding to me or your wildly distorted version of what Trump has said?

    What relevance does the Syrian government's being or not being on a certain list have to whether any given refugee might support or join ISIS, which is the real terrorist threat to Europe and America, not the Syrian government, e evil as the Putin-backed murderers, torturers and war criminals who run that government admittedly are?

    I have not based my opinion on concerns about ISIS. Everything I have said about not taking refugees from a state sponsor of terrorism without a meaningful background investigation would apply even if there had never been an ISIS.

    As to free speech, of course I support it, regardless whether it is used for arguments that make sense, or for ones that don't, as in the case of Nolan's arguments for excluding Syrian refugees.

    No, you don't support it. You are destroying it and democracy along with it.

    And I have never said we should exclude Syrian refugees. I said we should not let them come here as refugees until we can do meaningful background checks on them. Even Hillary has said that she would not let them in without thoroughly vetting them. My difference with her is that she thinks the current screening system is effective and I don't.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-27-2016 at 11:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan's concern's relating to Syrian refugees are not based on possible ISIS affiliation, but are instead based on fears of possible terrorist attacks in the US sponsored by the Syrian government, then he is really off in the world of what Judge Posner accurately calls "nightmare speculation".

    In the past 40 years, when has any Syrian government ever been accused of sponsoring a terrorist attack against the United States or Europe? Their focus has been on Israel, operating mainly through Hezbollah, which is itself no longer on America's terrorist organization list.

    Even Donald Trump is more accurate than that, as he has made clear that ISIS is the primary threat to America's safety now - something which the rest of the country (including Hillary Clinton) also knows.

    Alleged inability to obtain information from records of the Syrian government, based on any presumed terror threat to America from that government. is, with all due respect not a serious or genuine reason for suspecting that Syrian refugees, as a group, may be dangerous to the safety or security of the United States.

    This is on the same level as the argument during the 1930's that Jewish refugees might turn out to be Nazi spies in disguise.

    If I point out that something that Nolan, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else said is not justified by the facts (something which has been an especially frequent occurrence with Trump), does that mean that one opposes free speech?

    I don't see the connection.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 10-27-2016 at 01:19 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Here is a great quote from the October 27 Huffington Post:

    "...the country now has the chance [in next month's election] to bury not just Donald Trump, but the racist, misogynistic politics he stands for."

    A wonderful quote from a great publication.

    Bravo, Huffpost!

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If Nolan's concern's relating to Syrian refugees are not based on possible ISIS affiliation, but are instead based on fears of possible terrorist attacks in the US sponsored by the Syrian government, then he is really off in the world of what Judge Posner accurately calls "nightmare speculation".

    In the past 40 years, when has any Syrian government ever been accused of sponsoring a terrorist attack against the United States or Europe? Their focus has been on Israel, operating mainly through Hezbollah, which is itself no longer on America's terrorist organization list.

    Even Donald Trump is more accurate than that, as he has made clear that ISIS is the primary threat to America's safety now - something which the rest of the country (including Hillary Clinton) also knows.

    Alleged inability to obtain information from records of the Syrian government, based on any presumed terror threat to America from that government. is, with all due respect not a serious or genuine reason for suspecting that Syrian refugees, as a group, may be dangerous to the safety or security of the United States.

    This is on the same level as the argument during the 1930's that Jewish refugees might turn out to be Nazi spies in disguise.

    If I point out that something that Nolan, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else said is not justified by the facts (something which has been an especially frequent occurrence with Trump), does that mean that one opposes free speech?

    I don't see the connection.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    I raised 8 specific, different points in my previous comment, and you ignored 7 of them, just as you will ignore what I say this time unless it suggests something you want to lecture us on. So I won't waste much time on this response.

    The Syrian government has sponsored international terrorism for almost 40 years, and according to the Administration, still needs to be on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. But apparently your intelligence sources in Syria have assured you that Syria will not sponsor any terrorist strikes in the United States. Maybe because the Syrian government likes us so much. I will pass this information on to the congressmen I know so they can let Obama know it's okay to take Syria off the list.

    One of the points you have ignored several times now. The recent, overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to reduce the risk of terrorists using the Visa Waiver Program excludes nationals of Visa Waiver countries who have spent any time in Syria in recent years. Should I tell my congressional contacts that this provision is no longer necessary either?

    Nolan Rappaport
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Neither Nolan nor anyone else has come up with a real reason for assuming that any given Syrian refugee, as a member of that group, is a greater risk for committing a terrorist act in the US than any of more than a million other refugees America has admitted in the last few decades, most, if not all, with less screening than those which the Syrians must undergo. I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason that makes any more sense than the pretexts that were used to keep Jewish refugees out in the 1930's.

    How much did the Nazi government of Germany "like" America in the 1930's when it was preparing for war with America, or in the 1940's, when we actually were at way with Germany?

    Was it right to keep out Jewish refugees then? What is the difference, other than that the German government was far more dangerous to America than the Syrian regime, odious as may be, is now.

    Admittedly, the danger to Jewish refugees was greater at the time because of the genocide, but does that mean that it it safe for Syrian refugees to return to their country now?

    Are the war criminals who control part of their country and the and terrorist organization that controls the rest peace-loving, humanitarian organizations?



    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I do not believe in wasting my time or that of Immigration Daily readers, on answering arguments on any topic that are not in point. But since Nolan relies so much on a law that Congress passed recently making a change in the Visa Waiver program, I can only, courteously and respectfully, point out that this law had nothing whatsoever do to with refugee admissions. It only provides that someone from a visa waiver country who has visited Syria must apply for a visa to enter the US.

    I ask Nolan as an expert: which process is more intensive, normal visa security checks, which often take just a week or two, or the screening process for Syrian refugees, which usually (though possibly not always) takes up to two years?

    Nolan also fails to mention that there actually were two bills introduced in Congress, one in the House and one in the Senate, that specifically addressed Syrian refugees and put such tight controls on the process that admission of these refugees would have been virtually halted.

    Neither of these bills was ever enacted into law, so far as I am aware.

    So if Nolan wants to use Congressional legislation one way or the other as evidence that Syrian refugees are as dangerous as he contends, Congress has not given him much of a leg to stand on to date.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-27-2016 at 07:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan's concern's relating to Syrian refugees are not based on possible ISIS affiliation, but are instead based on fears of possible terrorist attacks in the US sponsored by the Syrian government, then he is really off in the world of what Judge Posner accurately calls "nightmare speculation".

    Frankly, from what you have said, Judge Posner doesn't understand border security any better than you do. I would give you both D- if you were expressing such nonsense on a law school exam. But I haven't read Judge Posner's decision. A basic principle of border security is that you never let an alien you know nothing about into the country....UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. And certainly not from a country like Syria. If you can't understand that principle, you should stop writing articles about refuges.

    In the past 40 years, when has any Syrian government ever been accused of sponsoring a terrorist attack against the United States or Europe? Their focus has been on Israel, operating mainly through Hezbollah, which is itself no longer on America's terrorist organization list.

    We aren't talking about dogs, Roger. There is no first bite rule with refugees. Syrian refugees do't get a pass on background investigations until one of them is caught committing an act of terrorism. If you know nothing about them, keep them out of the country until you find a way to do a meaningful background investigation on them.


    This is on the same level as the argument during the 1930's that Jewish refugees might turn out to be Nazi spies in disguise.

    I wouldn't have let Jewish refugees into the country without meaningful background investigations either. Again, you don't let aliens you know nothing about into the country.

    If I point out that something that Nolan, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else said is not justified by the facts (something which has been an especially frequent occurrence with Trump), does that mean that one opposes free speech?

    No, that wouldn't be a problem at all, but that is not what you do....with Trump. You do everything in your power to demonize him, just as you did in the pre-Trump era to republican congressmen who advocated immigration enforcement. Many of your articles sound just as abusive and irrational as Nazi/skin heads standing on a corner shouting about the Jews and the blacks.

    But I have to acknowledge that you have never done that with me despite the number of times we have disagreed.
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not challenging Nolan's familiarity with current refugee screening procedures, including the up to two year series of interviews and background checks which most, if not all, Syrian refugees must pas though today.

    But, again with all due respect to his unquestioned knowledge and experience in today's immigration laws, I wonder if he is aware of the equally, if not even even more rigorous security checks that Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930's had to go through in applying for visas to the United States, the great majority of which were refused anyway.

    There is an exhaustively detailed description of the procedure that German Jews had to undergo, including asking their own persecutors, the Nazi authorities, to provide them with certain documents that the US officials needed for the visa applications.

    But even when the Nazi officials were "considerate" enough to provide these documents to their Jewish victims, this was in most cases still not enough for most Jewish applicants, who were stigmatized by US visa officers and much of the America public as potential "communists", "bolsheviks," or even "Nazi spies", just as Syrian refugees are stigmatized as potential "terrorists" today, to be successful in receiving their visas.

    An excellent article by Barbara L. Bailin:

    The Influence of Anti-Semitism on United States Immigration Policy With respect to German Jews during 1933-1939

    http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/262

    published in CUNY Academic Works (2011), (extracts from this lengthy article will be discussed in my upcoming Immigration Daily comments) shows how the visa process was stacked against Jewish refugees, no matter how much information or documentation they could provide.

    Nolan wants to do the same thing with Syrians today, by requiring information from inside Syria as as a sine qua non, while at the same time arguing that this information is impossible to obtain.

    While I am sure that Nolan is motivated only by what he regards as genuine security concerns, his argument can also be used by the avowed Islamophobes, such as Donald Trump and his VP pick Governor Mike Pence, in their spirit of:

    Ha, ha, ha, Muslim refugees, take that! Gotcha!

    Moreover, even if the Syrian war criminals and Russian puppets who are in charge of that country's government today were to announce that they have complete records on every single one of the 4 million refugees who have fled that country to date, and that they would be happy to share them with American security officials, the people who do not want any more Muslim immigration to America under any circumstances would no doubt be providing plenty of reasons to show that the Syrian government records were "inadequate", based on "improper methodology", or whatever, and are therefore "useless".

    Again with all due respect, Nolan's argument that we can never know all we need to about Syrian refugees for whatever reasons, is nothing more than the kind of "nightmare speculation" which Judge Posner justly condemned in his recent decision.

    Fortunately for America, we still have judges in this country who make decisions regarding immigration on the evidence, or in the case of Pence's unsuccessful attempt to bar lawfully admitted Syrian refugees from being resettled in his state of Indiana, the utter lack of evidence that these refugees posed any kind of realistic danger at all.

    We should be proud of Judge Posner, who stood up against popular prejudice to decide Exodus Immigration v. Pence (7th Circuit, October 3, 2016) on the basis of the evidence, not political expediency, just as all too few US officials tried to stand up for Jewish refugees in the 1930's.

    If Donald Trump becomes president (which in one of his latest comments he recommended doing without an election!), how many principled and independent judges like Judge Posner can we expect to see appointed in the future?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 10-28-2016 at 11:34 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not challenging Nolan's familiarity with current refugee screening procedures, including the up to two year series of interviews and background checks which most, if not all, Syrian refugees must pas though today.

    Roger is not reading my comments very carefully. I have pointed out several times that the 18-24 month screening program was dropped in favor of a three-month surge program.

    But, again with all due respect to his unquestioned knowledge and experience in today's immigration laws, I wonder if he is aware of the equally, if not even even more rigorous security checks that Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930's had to go through in applying for visas to the United States, the great majority of which were refused anyway.

    I am not a historian. I have to defer to Roger's knowledge about the Jewish refugees in the 1930's. I hope he is right that they were given more than a three-month surge screening. But I don't know what relevance things that happened more than 80 years ago has to the current situation. If we assume that the Jewish refugees were wrongly denied refuge, what has that got to do with security measures now?

    Nolan wants to do the same thing with Syrians today, by requiring information from inside Syria as as a sine qua non, while at the same time arguing that this information is impossible to obtain.

    Yes, that is what I am saying, but Roger has not responded to the reason I have given for that positions, which is that we should never admit an alien we known nothing about, particularly an alien from a country on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. As I have said previously, if he can't understand that point, he shouldn't be lecturing us on refugee security measures.

    While I am sure that Nolan is motivated only by what he regards as genuine security concerns, his argument can also be used by the avowed Islamophobes, such as Donald Trump and his VP pick Governor Mike Pence, in their spirit of:

    Ha, ha, ha, Muslim refugees, take that! Gotcha!

    In fact, Trump and his VP are saying the same thing I am saying. The only difference is that their words have been grossly distorted, and Roger hasn't done that to what I am saying......yet.


    Again with all due respect, Nolan's argument that we can never know all we need to about Syrian refugees for whatever reasons, is nothing more than the kind of "nightmare speculation" which Judge Posner justly condemned in his recent decision.

    Again, I have not read Posner's decision, but if he says the things Roger attributes to him, he doesn't know enough about border security to be lecturing on refugee security measures either. The difference between Posner and Roger though, is that Posner had a finite set of facts about the situation in the record before him. His decision is based on that record. It should not be used as a broader policy statement to guide US decisions on how much information is necessary before we can admit a refugee from a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

    Fortunately for America, we still have judges in this country who make decisions regarding immigration on the evidence, or in the case of Pence's unsuccessful attempt to bar lawfully admitted Syrian refugees from being resettled in his state of Indiana, the utter lack of evidence that these refugees posed any kind of realistic danger at all.

    Not the same issue at all, Roger. The federal government has decided to admit Syrian refugees and send some of them to Pence's state. In that situation, he has the burden of proving that the federal government should be stopped. That's very different from deciding what security measures the government should be taking in deciding which refugees to admit to the US.

    We should be proud of Judge Posner, who stood up against popular prejudice to decide Exodus Immigration v. Pence (7th Circuit, October 3, 2016) on the basis of the evidence, not political expediency, just as all too few US officials tried to stand up for Jewish refugees in the 1930's.

    "Popular prejudice"? That's how you describe a governor's concerns for the safety of the people in his state? Keep it up and someone is going to sue you for libel or defamation of character. You can't say unsubstantiated abuse things about people as often as you do without eventually finding yourself in court.

    Nolan Rappaport

  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Incidentally, Roger, what was the basis for the refugee claims that the Jews made in the 1930s and during WWII? Current law is based on the 1951 Refugee Convention, which took place after WWII ended. http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-28-2016 at 04:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    One of the most respected jurists in this nation ruled, along with his two unanimous colleagues on the 7th Circuit's panel (one of whom was reported to be on Trump's own list for a possible Supreme Court nomination, if I read the news correctly - I don't have the reference handy right now) that there was not the slightest merit to Pence's claim that he had a valid reason to be concerned about the safety of his state's own people.

    To use my phrase (not the Court's) Pence's argument was nothing but "Trumped-Up" speculation.

    With regard to the attempts of thousands of deperate Jews to gain refuge in the United States in the 1930's there was no refugee convention at that time, as I understand it.

    But there were immigrant visas available, even though only a tiny number under the restrictive quotas of the 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law.

    As shown in the article I cited above by Barbara L. Bailin, even those tiny quotas were not fully filled, because of the antisemitic attitudes that were so current on the part of politicians and other public figures in the US, similar to today's Islamaphobia which we are hearing from all too many of our politicians and other public figures today.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-28-2016 at 05:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    One of the most respected jurists in this nation ruled, along with his two unanimous colleagues on the 7th Circuit's panel (one of whom was reported to be on Trump's own list for a possible Supreme Court nomination, if I read the news correctly - I don't have the reference handy right now) that there was not the slightest merit to Pence's claim that he had a valid reason to be concerned about the safety of his state's own people.

    Again, Roger, that is a judicial finding that is based on the record that the parties established. It would be extremely irresponsible for our government to base its policy decisions on Judicial findings.
    And you still aren't responding to my point that even Hillary has said that she will only admit refugees who have been thoroughly vetted. You may be the only one saying that background investigations don't matter.

    With regard to the attempts of thousands of deperate Jews to gain refuge in the United States in the 1930's there was no refugee convention at that time, as I understand it.

    But there were immigrant visas available, even though only a tiny number under the restrictive quotas of the 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law.

    As shown in the article I cited above by Barbara L. Bailin, even those tiny quotas were not fully filled, because of the antisemitic attitudes that were so current on the part of politicians and other public figures in the US, similar to today's Islamaphobia which we are hearing from all too many of our politicians and other public figures today.

    I don't know the requirements for those visas or what factors went into deciding who would get them, so I can't comment on whether the Jewish refugees should have received them. But we have already gone over "Islamaphobia" and you are yet to provide an objective basis for your claims about it.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-30-2016 at 12:38 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Full details about the requirements for obtaining visas by Jewish victims of Hitler seeking safety in the United States, including a list of every single one of the approximately two dozon questions on the visa applications, as well as what could well be the most exhaustive discussion of the anti-semitic attitudes of the US officials responsible for refusing visas which would in all probability have saved the lives of Anne Frank and thousands of other German Jews are contained in the article:

    The Influence of Anti-Semitism on United States Immigration Policy With respect to German Jews During 1933-1939

    by Barbara L. Bailin (CUNY Academic Works, 2011).

    Despite its length, I hope that Nolan will read it before he writes anything further on this issue

    I will continue my discussion of this issue in more detail in future Immigration Daily comments.

    More immediately, in this Letters section and elsewhere, I will discuss a different issue, namely whether Trump's unconscionable and brazen lie to the effect that FBI Director Comey's curiously-timed decision to look into some emails that may be allegedly related to Hillary Clinton. but which Comey's letter states he doesn't know are significant or not, shows, in Trump's words, that Clinton is allegedly guilty of conduct "worse than Watergate", will have any further damage on Trump's campaign to damage our national security by overthrowing key provisions of the Constitution, as described in a recent ACLU report about which I will have more to say shortly.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-30-2016 at 01:25 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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: