ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed


Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5

Rate this Entry
Please email your letters to

Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: January 30 - February 5" to

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's Executive Order, "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES," has a ban on the admission of aliens from seven specified countries. People are calling this unconstitutional because it is based on the fact that the countries have a Muslim majority. That makes no sense in view of the fact that the list was put together initially by Congress and then Obama added five countries to it. Trump had nothing to do with it. The objective was to exclude aliens from VWP countries from participating in the program if they had visited one of the countries at any time since March 11, 2017. The countries are known to sponsor international terrorists.

    Congress and Obama felt that aliens who had visited theses countries required the additional screening of going through the visa issuing process. It makes perfect sense for Trump to find that aliens should be stopped from coming here from these countries until adequate screening methods are in place. This is the paragraph:

    c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-31-2017 at 06:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's Executive Order, "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" provides authority for case-by-case waivers of the ban on seven countries and on the suspension of the refugee program.

    (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

    (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 01-31-2017 at 06:53 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    One could also, I suppose, argue that the German Nuremberg Laws were not anti-Semitic because they were also, arguably, a first step toward a larger goal of asserting absolute power over all of German society, using the least popular segment of that society, namely the Jews, as the initial targets.

    I doubt that the Jews affected by those laws would have agreed, any more than the estimated 60,000 Muslims who had their visas revoked and the dozens, or hundreds, of Muslims who were detained in handcuffs at US airports for hours without access to counsel and, in many cases, forcibly sent back to their countries even though they had valid visas would agree with Nolan's analysis of the order.

    But all the verbiage about "uniform screening methods" and "list of countries providing requested screening information" is in Trump's order is nothing more than a smoke screen to conceal the real purpose - making almost 200 million people from seven Muslim countries ineligible to enter the US - and this is just for starters, according to the order.

    It is also worthy of note that Trump's vicious and unconscionable attack on a federal judge, James Robart, who dared to block major parts of our new Leader's Muslim ban order has now created quite a Furor. in the White House, according to the latest reports. (German pun is entirely intentional.)

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 02-05-2017 at 02:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Is it too early about drafting articles of impeachment together against a president whose assault on an independent judiciary in calling a federal judge who dared to disagree with the Will Of Our Great Leader, Donald Trump, by issuing an order against Trump's Muslim immigrant ban a "so-called judge"?

    What does this say about our new president's intention to abide by this country's Constitution and its separation of powers?

    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: