ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS


The last successful comprehensive immigration reform bill celebrated its 30th birthday three days ago, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). It was signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. According to the statement President Reagan made at the signing ceremony, IRCA was —

The product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms.

Since then, the Senate has passed two major immigration reform bills, but neither has been acceptable to the republicans. On May 25, 2006, the Senate passed the Reid-Kennedy immigration bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611, with a vote of 62 yeas and 36 nays. Only 23 republican senators voted for it; the other 32 republicans and four democrats voted against it.


The House republicans conducted hearings on the problems they expected S. 2611 to cause. For instance, on July 27, 2006, the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing on, “Whether the attempted implementation of the Reid-Kennedy Immigration bill will result in an administrative and national security nightmare.” Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler noted in his opening statement that, “In the Reid-Kennedy bill, the Senate proposes to replace our current rational immigration process with a scheme to allow an unknown number of additional aliens who came here illegally to stay forever.”


On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, S. 744, with 68 yeas and 32 nays. It was opposed by 70% of the senate republicans. Only fourteen republicans voted for it; the other 32 voted against it. The House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the bill, “S. 744 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Lessons learned or mistakes repeated?” The opening statement of Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte included the following reference to IRCA:

The bill [IRCA] provided for three main reforms: legalizing the millions of immigrants already in the country, increasing border enforcement, and instituting penalties for employers who hired unauthorized workers, in order to stop the flow of new unlawful immigrants. These reforms were based on the realization that if Congress simply passed a legalization program we would simply be encouraging future illegal immigration. The Select Commission on Immigration had warned just a few years earlier that without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.

Unfortunately, IRCA’s enforcement measures never materialized, and the Commission’s fears were realized. Border security barely improved. Employer penalties were not enforced. Now, 26 years later, all of us who want to fix our broken immigration system are haunted by the legacy of IRCA’s failure, and we have serious concerns that S. 744 repeats some of IRCA’s mistakes.

I believe that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, her immigration policies would not have led to the enactment of a comprehensive immigration reform bill either. Although her heart is in the right place, her policies do not meet the political needs of both parties. President Elect Donald Trump’s policies do not meet the political needs of both parties either, but I predict that he will soon discover that his Ten-Point Immigration Plan cannot be implemented.


For instance, consider point number 8, which is to complete a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system. Under this system, a record is made of a nonimmigrant alien visitor’s entry and again when the visitor leaves. Trump says he will ensure that it is in place at all land, air, and sea ports. This can be done at air and sea ports, but inspection-lane space and inspection time limitations make it virtually impossible at land ports. And feasibility is not the only problem. Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 established the first statutory provision for an entry-exit system. I was counsel to the democrats at the hearing for consideration of implementing this provision. We blocked it with a single question, “Would the system have any enforcement value?” The answer was “no.” It would identify alien visitors who had not left the country when their authorized visits were finished, but it would not provide any information on where they are. You would not have any way of finding them. The idea was dropped until the 9/11 Commission brought it back years later.


Consider also his promise to deport the 11 million undocumented aliens, which already has been whittled down to deporting the criminals “and then we’ll see.” It cannot be done. The republicans have never provided the funding or other resources needed for a large-scale, nationwide enforcement program, and they probably never will. Trump intends to hire more enforcement officers, but major increases in detention facilities and immigration courts also would be necessary. DHS currently detains nearly half a million people annually, and the current immigration court backlog reached 521,676 cases in October.


When he realizes that he will not be able to implement his Ten-Point plan, I expect him to turn to the challenge of bringing the two parties together on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Being an experienced businessman, as opposed to being a politician, I expect him to look for a compromise that would meet the essential needs of both parties instead of trying to achieve an outcome that would advance the agenda of his party. And he can be counted on to implement enforcement and border security provisions. We may see a second Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA of 2017.


Published initially on Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...=1478711913203


About the Author
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twenty years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "I expect our new president to facilitate comprehensive immigration reform. By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Updated 11-09-2016 at 10:31 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Update: December 27:

    With the hindsight of almost 8 weeks since since the above article by Mr. Rappaport appeared, once can only ask whether his suggestion that Donald Trump might be willing to negotiate on CIR with immigration supporters was meant seriously rather than as some kind of joke.

    All indications are that, to the contrary, Trump, or at least some of his closest advisers and supporters, are trying to bludgeon and smear anyone who refuses to fall in lockstep behind his radical program of mass deportation of 3 million people and of banning Muslims from around the world, or major parts of the world, from entering the US solely because of their religious beliefs, by accusing them of being "disloyal" - whether to America or whether just to Trump's own party is not clear.

    See a recent article in Trump senior presidential adviser Stephen Bannon's Breitbart News by the immigrant-bashing former Republican Congressman, Tom Tancredo.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-trump-agenda/

    While impeaching Donald Trump should not be ruled out as a serious possibility, based on his repeated attempts before and after the presidential campaign to intimidate and threaten anyone who speaks out against him, as well as to send American citizens to Guantanamo in violation of the Constitution's due process protections (as well as his threat to take away their citizenship in violation of the same guarantees); and to reinstate the use of torture in direct violation of the Eighth Amendment and of federal law, accusing members of Trump's own party of being "disloyal" based on the fantasy that they are planning to "impeach" him, merely because some Republican leaders might not hate immigrants as much as Breitbart News does, is not what free speech is all about.

    Are we about to enter a period in our history where any American who disagrees with the new president (or his top advisers) about how our immigration laws should be applied will be branded as "disloyal" or "un-American", just as Senator Joseph McCarthy called anyone who opposed his career-destroying witch hunts a "pinko" or "Communist sympathizer" back in the 1950's?

    Or worse still, are we about to enter an era of Trump "cult of personality" where anyone who has the temerity to create a Furor by opposing our new Leader on immigration or any other issue (German speakers will certainly understand my reference), or who fails to attend Trump's rallies on schedule, with be sent to a labor camp, as in North Korea? Will America have a Trump dynasty, just as North Korea has the Kim dynasty?

    Even if nothing quite so extreme happens in the US under Trumpism, "Democratic Backsliding" has happened in other countries and it can happen here. There are already many signs that it is happening here, or is about to after January 20, 2017. See:

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/08/happ...emocratic.html

    Will Breitbart News, whose editor is now about to enter the West Wing of the White House as the new president's senior adviser, become America's Pravda, or its Voelkischer Beobachter?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    My previous comments in response to Mr. Rappaport's article appear below.

    The above is a nice, rose-colored, if not very realistic, forecast, given that Trump's reported top immigration advisers, Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions and Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, are about as likely to approve of Trump's supporting any kind of immigration reform as Trump himself is to convert to Islam. But one can always dream on, even in the face of the grim reality.

    The reality of yesterday's election (in which, by the latest count, Hillary Clinton appears to have won the popular vote - something which normally carries some weight in a true democracy rather than America's partial one) is described quite well in The Guardian as follows:

    "But this is primarily an American catastrophe that America has brought upon itself."

    The Guardian adds in its November 9 article

    The Guardian view on President-Elect Donald Trump: a dark day for the world:

    "The second [fear] is the impact of this result on race in America more widely. Mr. Trump campaigned against migrants and against Muslims, insulted black and Latino Americans...and was cheered to victory by every white racist in the land."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-for-the-world

    Truly this election reminds one of the words of the great 1st century AD Roman poet Lucan (who was forced at the age of 25 to commit suicide by the emperor Nero, a worse and more dangerous tyrant than even a hundred Donald Trumps could ever be):

    ...populumque potentem/in sua victrici conversum viscera dextra

    ("...a powerful nation, victorious, turning its right hand against its own entrails")

    Could there be any better description of what America did to itself (and to the world) on November 8 by electing Donald Trump as president?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 12-27-2016 at 08:17 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Have you forgotten how he treated Republican leadership when they pressed him to change his ways? If he wants to show his deal-making skills by negotiating a comprehensive immigration reform bill, he won't care what Sessions, Kobach, or anyone else thinks he should do.

    But more importantly, you should follow the lead of Hillary and Obama and give the man a chance to succeed instead of continuing your compulsive daily character assassinations.

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There is good reason to believe that Sessions and Kobach are in fact two of Trump's top immigration advisers, if not his chief ones, and most, if not all, of Trump's immigration proposals during the campaign were right out of their playbook. Especially if one looks at Trump's Phoenix August 31 speech about immigration levels allegedly being too high in general, and supposdly needing to reduced to "historical" levels (in order to make America white again) one can recognize the typical restrictionist line that Sessions and the anti-immigrant organizations he has connections with have been spouting for years.

    I would not be at all surprised if Sessions (or more likely one of his staffers) wrote large parts of Trump's August 31 speech.

    Yes, I agree that we should all wait and see what Trump actually does on immigration before rushing to judgment.

    But Mr. Rappaport has not taken very long to offer his own rosy prediction without waiting to see what Mr. Trump will do in reality. I am doing the same thing as Mr. Rappaport is doing, only with a less rosy prediction than his. See my own Immigration Daily blog comment of November 9 about the future of immigration under a Trump presidency, based, as I always try to do, on referring to Trump's own proposals.

    Does repeating Trump's own public immigration proposals and statements mean that I am engaging in character assassination?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law



    Updated 11-09-2016 at 03:02 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, I don't care who wrote Trump's political speeches. My only comment on his speeches is that they were brilliant, absolutely brilliant. They got a celebrity no one took seriously elected to the presidency.

    My prediction was based on following the development of his immigration policies over the course of the campaign. In fact, I have written a number of articles analyzing his policies, not just the one I posted this morning.

    You ask, "Does repeating Trump's own public immigration proposals and statements mean that I am engaging in character assassination?"

    Don't you read your own comments before you post them? In your previous comment you said, "Mr. Trump campaigned against migrants and against Muslims, insulted black and Latino Americans...and was cheered to victory by every white racist in the land." Those are false statements that would support a suit for malicious libel if you said them about someone who wasn't a celebrity or a politician.

    I asked you last night and I will ask again now. Stop the anti-Trump tirades. He is the President of the United States now, and his immigration views have the support of the American people. If you want to disagree with his immigration positions, write an article expressing the policies that you think the president should follow.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 11-09-2016 at 04:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. Felpone's Avatar
    Mexico's President press conference after congratulating Trump (in Spanish, no English translation):
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OdbV-0kHOhM

    If your understanding of Spanish is good enough to grasp what's been inferred in that conference, you will realize that Mr. Pena Nieto and Trump may have already designed a substantial (and broad) agenda in which some sort of immigration agreement between both countries is the likely outcome.
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am sure that Mr. Rappaport does not mean to imply that because Trump won the election (with fewer votes than his opponent received) he should now be beyond criticism. Any schoolchild who takes his or her first course in American history or government immediately learns that the American system doesn't work that way. The Russian one does, but we are not Russia.

    I also assume that Mr. Rappaport is not making reference to "libel laws" as a means of stifling criticism. I am sure that since he is an outstanding legal scholar who certainly cares about our democracy as much as anyone else in America, he does not want America to become the kind of country where someone could be taken to court for quoting a comment from a major newspaper about the president or president-elect of the United States, as I have done above.

    I hope and trust that Donald Trump also shares the same commitment to our values and our Constitution, though this was not always clear from some of the "brilliant" statements he made during his campaign.

    Mr. Rappaport also writes that Trump's immigration views have the "support of the American people". If by that he means the support of the overwhelmingly white voters who helped Trump win a total of 200,000 votes less than his opponent received nationwide, then no one can dispute his statement. But that is a rather narrow definition of the "American people", and it overlooks that fact that, even though Trump won the election fair and square according to our rules, more American voters actually voted against Trump's immigration policies than voted for them on November 8.

    George Will of the Washington Post, one of America's best known conservative columnists and a strong Trump opponent, suggests that Trump's victory yesterday may turn out to be a Pyrrhic one (my term, not his), for the Republican party, a sort of last gasp of white dominance in America. Writing in the November 9 Washington Post he states (sorry, once again I cannot find the link to this Washington Post article, but is is easily available through Google):

    "Demography need not dictate for Republicans a grim destiny but it soon will, unless they act to counter adverse trends. Republicans should absorb Tim Alberta's data in National Review: Arizona whites have gone from 74 per cent to 54 per cent in 25 years, minorities will be a majority there by 2022 [He then quotes similar figures for Texas, Nevada and Georgia.] Clinton...did better than Obama did in Georgia, Texas, Arizona and where 1 in 8 Americans live - California.

    George Will concludes:

    "The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on, perhaps soon to inscribe this: In 2016, Republicans won a ruinous triumph that convinced them that they can forever sponsor by capturing an ever-larger portion of an ever-smaller portion of the electorate.

    The kamizaze arithmetic of white nationalism should prompt the president-elect to test his followers' devotion to him by asking their permission to see the national tapestry as it is and should be."

    Translated into English, as one often has to do with George Will's comments, this means that the Republican party cannot expect to win elections forever by appealing mainly or only to white voters.

    Donald Trump appeared to recognize this himself when he promised in his brief November 8 victory speech to be the president of all the American people, without regard to race or religion.

    Let us hope that he sticks to that promise, instead of rewarding only the white voters, including no small number who are now politely and politically correctly referred to as "white nationalists" but deserve a stronger and more accurate appellation, who helped Trump gain the White House, by trying to impose irrational immigration policies which in some cases, such as mass deportation, Nolan himself argues would be impossible for Trump to fulfill.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-09-2016 at 09:18 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I don't know how to make my comments about your Trump tirades any clearer. I do not object to legitimate criticism. I object to your false statements and wild distortions. And the fact that you never stop. Are you going to continue to do this every day until Trumps term in office is over?

    And I object to your political comments that do not relate to immigration issues. I don't care what George Will has to say about the election. Why are you quoting his political ideas in a comment to my immigration article?

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    What makes Nolan's rosy prediction of a Donald Trump led comprehensive immigration package so unrealistic, if not absurd (much as all immigration advocates, including myself, would like to believe that it could become reality), is that, as Nolan has quite accurately written on occasions too numerous to mention, immigration reform depends on compromise, on the willingness to accommodate the political needs of both parties.

    I am sure that Nolan will recognize this phrase. He has used it countless times in his various comments and immigration articles, based on his own extensive experience as a Congressional staffer. Therefore George Will's comment about the longer term demographic political needs of his own party, the Republican party, could not possibly be more relevant to immigration policy, and the prospects of immigration reform, in the coming years.

    Nolan surely knows this better than anyone else. Anyone who thinks that racial identity has nothing to do with immigration attitudes only has to look at the results of his election (in which, by the way, more Americans voted for the inclusive immigration policies of Hillary Clinton than the restrictive ones proposed by Donald Trump).

    But, much as one would like to believe that Nolan's rose-colored vision of comprehensive immigration reform under Donald Trump is a realistic one - and no one would like to believe this and hope for it more than I do - the reality is that there is now no need for the Republicans to compromise with the Democrats in immigration or any other issue.

    The Republicans control both Houses of Congress, the White House and, will, soon, control the Supreme Court. What the Democrats may want to do on immigration is now all but irrelevant. They can filibuster legislation in the Senate, but the Republican majority can, and very possibly may, change the rules to take this power away from the Democratic minority. And, as I pointed out in recent clog comments, the executive branch has enourmous powers over immigration under our current system (despite President Obama's unsuccseeful attempt to uphold certain features of DAPA/Expanded DACA in the federal courts).

    True, not all Republican leaders may be as relentlessly anti-immigrant as people like Senator Jeff Sessions, whom Trump singled out to call to the stage in his speech after the election and who has been one of his most important advisers on immigration according to so many press accounts (and joint appearances at campaign rallies) that it would be impossible to deny this fact.

    There might even conceivably be a split of some sort on immigration within the Republican party. But Trump is not likely to be the kind of president who will tolerate opposition from within his own party, based on his campaign behavior. As Nolan also knows better than anyone else from his behind the scenes role as a Congressional staffer in trying to remedy some of the worst features of IIRIRA, most Republican immigration proposals during the last 20 years have been along the same enforcement first or enforcement only lines as Donald Trump's.

    With all due respect to Nolan's rosy vision and the wishes of many immigration advocates including myself that it could turn out to be right, there is every reason to believe that comprehesive immigration reform could just turn out to be a pipe dream.

    It could just as easily happen that, in the absence of any effective Democratic opposition, there could be a series of Republican passed immigration "Nuremberg Laws", not against a specific group of people targeted for extermination as in the case of the original Nuremberg laws - our new president-elect has NEVER supported anything remotely resembling that horror - but against immigration in general. These laws could undo every kind of progress America has made in immigration in the past half century and take us back to the whites-only immigration policies of the pre-1965 era.

    Worse still, they could undo the system of birthright citizenship for all US-born children, regardless of race, color or religion, that has been in place for the past 118 years, eve since the US Supreme Court's 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision. We could also see an entire class of immigrants excluded by statute, or decree, from entering the United States, along the lines of the late 19th Century Chinese exclusion laws.

    Are these latter two suggestions mere "tirades" "distortions", "character assassination" or other pejorative terms which Nolan sometimes uses to respond to my disagreements with him? Or are they based on actual proposals which one of the two presidential candidates has openly and expressly made? I refer to abolishing birthright citizenship and to the Muslim ban proposal, based either expressly on religion, or on national origin from countries where that religion is practiced.

    Which candidate am I referring to as having made the above two proposals? The answer is: the one who received fewer votes from the American people in this election, and who is now set to occupy the White House according to our laws and our Constitution as our next president.

    Finally, could Nolan refer me to any statute or Constiutional provision which makes it any less legitimate to express one's unfavorable opinions or predictions (which, as also in the case of Nolan's article, are nothing more than speculation or guesswork, since no one can see into the future) about the potential actions of a new president than Nolan's more favorable views expressed in his article, and to do so as often as necessary or desired?

    Even Donald Trump cannot abolish the First Amendment to the Constitution - one hopes.

    I might add that even though I have the unquestioned right to do, I do not always comment unfavorably about Donald Trump. If Nolan ever cares to read my November 9 blog article in Immigration Daily about the possible future of immigation under Donald Trump, he will see that I had high praise for Trump's November 8 post election victory speech.

    If Trump's presidency is based on the respectful, conciiatory and inclusive tone that he used in that speech but that we did not hear very often in his campaign, we could look forward to a much brighter future for immigration policy under Trump's presidency than I am predicting - one closer to Nolan's vision. I earnestly hope that his prediction will be right and mine will turn out to be wrong - although I do not see much likelihood of this happening, based on what we know about the past and present.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-10-2016 at 08:22 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, the most important objective of the majority is keeping its majority. The republicans would have a stronger hold on the majority if they could improve their relations with the Hispanic and black voters....and Muslim voters for that matter. An immigration reform deal could do that for the republicans if they control the process. One of the problems the dems have had in this regard is that they write one-sided bills and try to force the republicans to go along. If the republicans cut a deal under those circumstances, they show weakness and the credit for the deal goes to the dems. Reverse that and the credit would go to them.

    Of course, the republicans aren't going to agree to a vast expansion of lawful immigration or indiscriminate legalization of the undocumented aliens already here. The democrats would have to accept far less than they want. And I'm not sure that they would want legalization if they thought the new LPRs were going to be grateful to the republicans when they became citizens. Are you?

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with Nolan Rappaport that the Republicans would have a stronger hold on their majority if they could improve their relations with black, Hispanic and, yes, Muslim voters. This should certainly give the Republicans a motive to seek an accommodation with the Democrats on immigration.

    In this regard, the quote from George Will's article that I reproduced above is also relevant as to the line of thought that at some Republicans who are concerned about the future of their party in a country that would be going through major demographic change, even if all legal and illegal immigration were halted beginning tomorrow, might well be considering. This would certainly be an incentive to reach a deal on CIR.

    I am sure that many Republican leaders, even as they are popping the corks on their champagne and reveling in their unexpected (by most people) victory, will also notice that their party lost the popular vote for president, albeit by a tiny margin, and that they will only control the new Senate by one seat.

    If they introduce excessively harsh or unreasonable immigration legislation, it is not written in stone that all 51 Republican Senators will necessarily follow suit.

    At the same time, I doubt that there would be many, if any, Democrats in Congress who think that now is exactly an ideal time to push for sweeping legalization leading to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants, or for broad liberalization of legal immigration standards. That would be as delusional, if not even more so, than some of the immigration comments which I criticized Donald Trump for making during his campaign.

    If I were a Congressional Democrat, I would be more than happy at this point to settle on an immigration reform bill which beefs up enforcement and security protections in reasonable and doable ways (and I do not mean mass deportation of 12 million people) but still leaves the essentials of the ostensibly race-neutral, worldwide immigration system we have known for the past half-century basically in place, along with at least minimal due process guarantees for immigrants.

    That might not be Hillary Clinton-style reform, but, hey, she lost the election. If I were a Democrat in Congress, I would grab and be happy with whatever reform I could get, given current political realities.

    Of course, if President Donald decided to turn into another President Ronald on immigration reform, I would not oppose him either, but this is not very likely.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-10-2016 at 11:16 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs


    If I were a Congressional Democrat, I would be more than happy at this point to settle on an immigration reform bill which beefs up enforcement and security protections in reasonable and doable ways (and I do not mean mass deportation of 12 million people) but still leaves the essentials of the ostensibly race-neutral, worldwide immigration system we have known for the past half-century basically in place, along with at least minimal due process guarantees for immigrants.

    That might not be Hillary Clinton-style reform, but, hey, she lost the election. If I were a Democrat in Congress, I would grab and be happy with whatever reform I could get, given current political realities.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I agree that the democrats should be happy with whatever they can get under the present political realities. But they haven't shown much inclination to compromise before, so I am not optimistic about what they will be willing to do now.

    Roger, what changes do you think the republicans want to make in the INA? They have everything they need for effective enforcement. It's the dems who need to make changes in the INA.

    Nolan Rappaport

  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In the highly unlikely event that I were ever to become a member of the staff of Senator Jeff Sessions, who is considered by many in the media to be Donald Trump's principal immigration policy adviser, there are quite a few ways I could think of to make the some of the enforcement provisions of the INA even harsher and more devastating than they are now.

    Some of these ideas have already been part of legislative proposals introduced by Republican Congressional members, mainly in the House, over the past decade or so, but have not become law so far. A few are just my own ideas, as far as I know. They are relatively simple changes, but could have a severe effect on thousands, if not millions of immigrants.

    Just in case Senator Sessions or anyone on his staff happens to be reading my comments, I will take the advice that Nolan has kindly given me with regard to other comments I have made about Trump's statements and policy proposals, and remain silent about my suggestions on this topic.

    Not even waterboarding, which our president-elect openly supports, would make me comment further.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-11-2016 at 01:06 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    You can always make laws harsher, but it isn't necessary for enforcement purposes. The failure there has been unwillingness to fund large-scale, nationwide enforcement operations, and now the fact that immigration court has been rendered virtually inoperative by a backlog crisis. Not the fact that the laws aren't harsh enough. But if Sessions asks my opinion, I will refer him to you for suggestions on ways to make the law harsher.

    Nolan Rappaport
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: