Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
Please email your letters to email@example.com
To get a good sense of where Trump's Muslim ban and mass deportation executive orders are leading to, read Anis Shivani in salon.com:
Trump and Mussolini: 11 Key Lessons from Historical Fascism
See especially, Part 10:
Racism is inherent to fascism:
"It is absolutely key that Trump began his campaign
Mexicans - and then Muslims and Arabs."
While, of course, Trump does not by any possible stretch of the imagination support genocide or mass murder, there is still a comparison with Hitler, not only Mussolini.
Hitler began is climb to total power in Germany by attacking the Jews, who were so unpopular among many Germans that they were willing to give up their own freedom as long as Hitler took action against the Jews.
He did take such action, beginning with the infamous Nuremberg Laws in 1936.
Trump's executive orders against Muslim and Hispanic immigrants are, of course, nowhere near as extreme as Hitler's laws and actions against the Jews, which were in a unique class of evil by themselves, but Trump's measures against Muslim and other non-white immigrants are motivated by the same spirit of exploiting racial and religious hatred in the pursuit of absolute power that Hitler used so successfully.
That is what we are seeing today in Donald Trump's America.
Your readers might be interested in discussing CIS's latest nightmare. For over 30 years the I 130 Immigrant Visa Petition has consisted of 2 pages. Now CIS expands it to , not 3 or 4 , but 12 and if for spouse, another 9 more.
In spite of all this clap trap,they still leave out most critical question , that of Adam Walsh convictions???
Dark days ahead???
Rev. Robert Vitaglione
Roger says, "Trump's executive orders against Muslim and Hispanic immigrants are, of course, nowhere near as extreme as Hitler's laws and actions against the Jews, which were in a unique class of evil by themselves, but Trump's measures against Muslim and other non-white immigrants are motivated by the same spirit of exploiting racial and religious hatred in the pursuit of absolute power that Hitler used so successfully."
Really, can you show me which provisions in his executive orders do these things?
Can Nolan show any parts of Trump's executive orders which are not aimed at exploiting hatred and fear of Muslim immigrants - and US citizens - which Trump made the hallmark of his campaign ever since calling for a ban on entry to the US by Muslims throughout the world in December, 2015?
Nolan is asking us to ignore the entire history of Trump's executive orders, both before and after Trump took office as president.
No, the Muslim ban orders are not as broad as Trump's original call to ban every Muslim in the world (even, initially US citizens, if one remembers the statement of his then campaign aide, Hope Hicks, that "Mr. Trump means everyone").
But the toned down orders compared to his original world wide ban are nothing more than a cynical and transparent attempt to hide their real purpose, which has not changed.
Even if our courts, and our nation, accept Trump's offer to "drink the forgetful waters of Lethe" as Ovid, who was "deported" from his own city of Rome in 7 A.D. by another autocrat, Augustus Caesar, wrote in his great poem Tristia, the very language of the ban orders themselves, both the original and the revised ones, contemplate adding additional countries to the original ban.
Does anyone have any doubts as to what will be the major religion in the countries to be added later on?
Hint: It will not be the Episcopalian or Presbyterian faiths.
Another ancient Roman poet, Lucan, (who had his own even more serious problems with an authoritarian emperor by the name of Nero), had a perfect description for Trump's Muslim bans 2,000 years ago:
iusque datum sceleri
- "legality bestowed on infamy".
There could be no better explanation of both Trump's first and second Muslim ban orders.
Roger, I am still waiting for you to show me which provisions in the Executive Order do the things you are complaining about. Stop relying on his campaign statements. Before the 9th circuit started venting its Roger-like prejudice against the President of the United States, no court had ever used campaign statements that way. When is the Trump hatred going to run its course?
The 9th circuit will be stopped by the Supreme Court. In fact, it's my understanding that that circuit is reversed more often by the Supreme Court than any other circuit in the country. But what will stop Roger? I suspect that he will be expressing his Trump hatred and prejudice for the next four years....maybe longer.
Nolan will, for some reason, just not let go of the fiction that Trump's anti-Muslim executive orders exist in a closed universe of their own and that the courts have no power to take their history into account - at least for the limited but still important purpose of determining their good faith. See Mandel (1972) and Kerry v. Din (2015), both of which state that the executive must show good faith behind an order denying a visa or US entry in order to avoid judicial scrutiny.
Of course, everybody agrees that Trump's orders were concocted to make it look as if they were religion-neutral.
But our courts are not required to accept this obvious deception and hypocrisy.
I once again respectfully remind Nolan that we are talking about the legal system of America here, not Russia or North Korea.
Attorney at Law
And what basis does Nolan have for claiming that Trump's order is even religion neutral on its face?
Here we have an order which bars approximately 100 million people, 99 per cent of whom belong to a particular religion from entering the US.
And Nolan expects us to believe that there is nothing in the order that discriminates against that particular religion?
Suppose that we had a president who for at least a year prior to being elected, had been ranting and raving against Jews the way Trump has done against Muslims.
Then suppose that the president, upon taking office, had appointed a senior adviser who was on record as saying that the Christian world was locked on a "war of civilizations" with Judaism, and a national security adviser who had called the Jewish religion a "cancer".
Then, suppose, that a week after taking office, that hypothetical US president issues an order banning all citizens and residents of Israel from setting foot in the United States.
Would any reasonable person, including Nolan, fail to connect the dots in that case? Of course not.
Then what is the problem about connecting the dots when the facts are similar but the targets are are Muslims instead of Jews?