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

Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry


© Getty Images

Human trafficking presents President Donald Trump with an opportunity to show what he can accomplish when he is not hampered by political partisanship. It is one of the least partisan issues he will face as president, and it is a major problem. There were fewer than 10,000 worldwide convictions of human traffickers in 2016, and the number of victims remains in the tens of millions.

Former President Barack Obama said, “Our fight against human trafficking is one of the great human rights causes of our time.”

Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump gave a speech at the launch ceremony for the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report, which highlights the successes and the remaining challenges. She pointed out that trafficking often is a secret crime. It can be a great challenge just to identify the victims.

“Most tragically, human trafficking preys on the most vulnerable, young children, boys and girls, separating them from their families, often to be exploited, forced into prostitution or sex slavery,” she said.

Ending human trafficking, she continued, "is a major foreign policy priority for the Trump administration."

Palermo Protocol

The preamble to the Palermo Protocol, which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, declares that:

Read more at
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...an-trafficking

Published originally on The Hill.

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 an 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 20 years.






Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "Trump can leave his mark by decimating human trafficking.  By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Good idea.

    There are some other ways that Trump could leave his mark on immigration as well. One would be to do as Ronald Reagan did in 1986, except on a much larger scale, since ultimately, only 2-3 million people were able to benefit from Reagan's measure.

    Trump is a president with a broad and sweeping view and a large vision, and he could, if he wishes, help many more non-criminal, non-dangerous, productive immigrants to stay in our Nation of Immigrants, as well as to move here to grow our economy and bring all the advantages of diversity to our society.

    If the president needs a little extra "absolute power" from Congress and the courts to accomplish this, I will be the first to support him.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-08-2017 at 04:20 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have been advocating the IRCA approach to immigration reform for many years now, but it would have to be modified. While the IRCA deal worked for the democrats, it was a terrible failure for the republicans.

    See my article --
    What is IRCA, and What Does It Have To Do with Comprehensive Immigration Reform? (Feb. 8, 2013),

    https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnews...edirected=true

    Also, Roger's desire for a much larger legalization program this time is quite unrealistic. The Democrats have been holding out to get everything they want without offering much in return for a very long time now, without success of any kind. IRCA's legalization program was more than 30 years ago.


    There is no reason to expect to get it now with a republican congress and a republican president. For that matter there is no reason to expect any kind of a deal while so many democrats are constantly saying terrible things about the president.

    Roger was right to point out Ronald Reagan's contribution to IRCA. It's instructive to consider some of the things he said at the signing ceremony:

    "[IRCA] is 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...."

    That's what's needed now, persistent bipartisan effort for as long as it takes, not democratic senators, with a few republican supporters, rapidly pushing a bill through the senate with opposition from a majority of the republicans only to see it dead on arrival in the house.


    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-08-2017 at 07:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with Nolan that a bipartisan effort is required. I wish Nolan had been telling that to the Republicans when their leadership refused to let the House even consider the bipartisan CIR immigration reform bill which passed the Senate only a few years ago, with support from a few Republican leaders who put serious negotiation ahead of racial demagogy on this issue.

    Now, the Democrats do not seem to have a real leader yet, even though they have some good up and coming people with solid ideas, such as Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison. Elizabeth Warren would also make a wonderful president one day, hopefully beginning with the 2020 election.

    NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is also a great fighter and advocate for human rights in America who would make a wonderful successor to Donald Trump (or Mike Pence, if the Russia investigation goes too deep) as president.

    We are certainly not going to get anything new from has-beens such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or other Democratic establishment leaders. The sooner they head over to Memory Lane in terms of public service, the better, and I do not have the slightest doubt that Nolan will agree with me on this, especially about last year's resounding presidential popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton.

    Bernie Sanders is a very great American who is just a bit too old to be elected president, but who will go down in our history as speaking the truth unhesitatingly and never selling out his principles.

    This is the kind of attitude that the Democrats need in order to have the best chance of success in bipartisan negotiations with the Republicans on immigration.

    As for the negotiators on the Republican side, Trump already has three extremely knowledgeable immigration experts available who, I am sure, would be great people to work out a compromise with the Democrats.

    One of these experts is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who praised America's whites only 1924 "national origins" immigration law in his 2015 immigration Handbook for Congressional Republicans.

    Sessions, was, of course, by no means the first or the only commentator to praise this law; another immigration analyst by the name of Adolf Hitler also praised the same law quite effusively 90 years earlier (to be fair, for a different stated reason) in his own "Handbook" known as Mein Kampf.

    Sessions could be assisted in the negotiations with the Democrats by his former aide Stephen Miller, who is on record as a bitter foe of diversity and multiculturalism in America; and by Senior presidential adviser Steven Bannon, who thinks that America is locked in a "War of Civilizations" with Islam, and who got into an argument with then candidate Trump himself a couple of years ago during an interview in which Bannon offered the helpful observation that he thinks there are too many Asian CEO's in Silicon Valley.

    Trump, to his credit, set Bannon straight on that comment and tried to bring him out of the 19th and into the 21st Century when America no longer has Asian exclusion laws (unless Trump's Bannon-inspired "Extreme Vetting" winds up accomplishing the same thing).

    With this kind of immigration experience and negotiating talent on each side, I am sure that a wonderful compromise on immigration will emerge.

    If the talks get bogged down, Trump can always bring Mike Flynn, who has called Islam a "cancer" rather than a religion, back into service to help break through any impasse.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-08-2017 at 09:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, " I wish Nolan had been telling that to the Republicans when their leadership refused to let the House even consider the bipartisan CIR immigration reform bill which passed the Senate only a few years ago, with support from a few Republican leaders who put serious negotiation ahead of racial demagogy on this issue."

    Roger apparently doesn't know much about the legislative process. The Senate bill he is talking about was opposed by a majority of the Senate republicans and then sent to the house, which had a republican majority. It is very unlikely that any of the sponsors of the bill when it was in the senate expected it to go anywhere in the house. If they had been serious about immigration reform, they would have worked with the senate republicans on a bill that could have been supported by a majority on both sides of the aisle. Instead, they rejected the republican amendments.

    House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), explained why the bill was unacceptable to the republicans in a press release when S. 744 was passed:

    "While I congratulate the Senate for working hard to produce immigration reform legislation, I have many concerns about its bill. The bill repeats many of the same mistakes made in the 1986 immigration law, which got us into this mess in the first place. Among my many concerns, the Senate bill does not adequately address the interior enforcement of our immigration laws and allows the Executive Branch to waive many, if not most, of the bill’s requirements."

    But the House democrats didn't change the bill to meet the republican needs, which doomed it to failure in the republican controlled house. Instead, they called for the senate bill to be considered out of order in the House, i.e., to skip the legislative process and go directly to a vote on the floor. I doubt if any democratic congressman thought such an outrageous request would be granted.

    Roger, the reason for the legislative process is to let the committees with subject matter expertise hold hearings on a bill and amend it at markups to get it ready for a floor vote. In fact, the house held a hearing on it and told the democrats again at the hearing why the bill was unacceptable. Still no changes were made to reach an agreement that would meet the political needs of both parties.

    I provide a more thorough explanation in my article, It is time to try a different approach to comprehensive immigration reform.

    http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?3...olan-Rappaport

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 07-09-2017 at 02:02 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan does not respond to my comment about the three most likely White House negotiators, Bannon, Sessions and Miller, all of whom are bitter foes of non-white immigration to the US and admirers of the same "Nordics" only 1924 immigration law that Hitler wrote about so favorably in Mein Kampf.

    Did Nolan read Trump's Warsaw speech, which was full of white nationalist dog whistles about the alleged superiority of European "culture". "traditions" and
    "ancestry" to that of every other part of the world on this planet, and how "defending borders" should reflect this ideology?

    See my own July 8 ilw.com comment.

    Certainly, Nolan knows the legislative process a thousand times better than I do. But suppose that Congressional Republicans are willing to put their 20 years (or more) history of trying to undermine the 1965 immigration reform law through one-sided legislation such as IIRIRA and follow the lead of grown-ups in their party such as Lindsay Graham and John McCain by agreeing to a reasonable CIR compromise.

    Doesn't the president still have to sign it? How much chance is there of that as long as Bannon, Miller and Sessions are in charge of White House immigration policy?

    Yes, Nolan has a wonderful immigration compromise pipe dream. It might even come true once we have a different president - and a different Congress.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, "Nolan does not respond to my comment about the three most likely White House negotiators, Bannon, Sessions and Miller, all of whom are bitter foes of non-white immigration to the US"

    Staffers don't dictate policy. If they fail to carry out his instructions effectively, he will replace them.

    Did Nolan read Trump's Warsaw speech, which was full of white nationalist dog whistles about the alleged superiority of European "culture". "traditions" and "ancestry" to that of every other part of the world on this planet, and how "defending borders" should reflect this ideology?

    Roger doesn't understand the republicans. The IRCA deal is based on agreement from the democrats to enforce the law and seal the borders prospectively against all aliens who come here or try to come here illegally. Defending the borders is part of that. They don't agree to legalization programs because they want to help the undocumented aliens. They do it in return for democratic cooperation with enforcement and border security efforts.

    Certainly, Nolan knows the legislative process a thousand times better than I do. But suppose that Congressional Republicans are willing to put their 20 years (or more) history of trying to undermine the 1965 immigration reform law through one-sided legislation such as IIRIRA and follow the lead of grown-ups in their party such as Lindsay Graham and John McCain by agreeing to a reasonable CIR compromise.

    Both parties have done one sided immigration legislation. The two big immigration reform bills are perfect examples. Neither would have established effective border security or interior enforcement of the immigration laws, the two key political objectives of the republicans. Both sides have to be willing to compromise before you will see another IRCA.

    Doesn't the president still have to sign it? How much chance is there of that as long as Bannon, Miller and Sessions are in charge of White House immigration policy?

    Staffers are never in charge of policy, in the White House or in Congress. Trump makes the policy decisions in the White House. If his staff oppose him, they will be replaced.

    Yes, Nolan has a wonderful immigration compromise pipe dream. It might even come true once we have a different president - and a different Congress.

    But we had different presidents and different congresses for thirty years before Trump was elected.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-09-2017 at 09:40 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    All Nolan's points above are valid enough, but whoever is writing Trump's speeches, Trump is the one who is giving them, who knows what is in them (I am not a Trump supporter, but I do not buy the nonsense put out by some of his critics that he is stupid, illiterate or suffers from dementia), and who is responsible for their content. Trump's Warsaw speech, a virtual paean to the superiority of white civilization over all others in the world, is not the kind of address that a president or any other politician who is seriously interested in negotiating a bipartisan agreement on immigration policy normally gives.

    Salon writer Amanda Marcotte makes an apt comment on Trump's Warsaw speech as follows her article:

    Trump's Alt Right Poland Speech: Time to Call His White Nationalist Rhetoric What It Is

    "Which isn't to say that Trump is a Nazi, but he shares their authoritarian DNA...

    For two years, Trump has been demagoguing with openly racist rhetoric, painting immigrants and refugees as a dire threat to our national security, hiring white nationalists like Steve Bannon, starting authoritarian initiatives like an immigrant crime database and nationwide voter suppression efforts, and tweeting out white supremacist propaganda...

    [The Warsaw speech] was one where he said 'Our freedom, our civilization and our survival depend on those bonds of history, culture and memory,' which is rhetoric that deliberately excludes those who have different histories, cultural practices and memories...

    Anyone who denies Trump's leanings cannot be truly believed to be ignorant of this pattern, not after two solid years of this. Indeed, such a person must be understood as complicit."

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...etoric-what-it

    Again, nobody is calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist, and I would be the last person to do so -Trump is not antisemitic and has never advocated genocide or extermination of any group, or anything that even remotely resembles that; even though his constant harping on the theme of European (i.e. white) common "ancestry" "tradition" "culture" and "civilization" does bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the Nazi phrase Blut und Boden ("Blood and Soil"). See:

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blut-und-Boden-Ideologie

    But Trump's rhetoric and actions, whether in his Warsaw speech and his August 31, 2016 Arizona immigration address, or in his appointing open white supremacists such as Stephen Bannon and Steven Miller to top policy posts in his administration, are those of a person who shows all signs of having a deeply held, unshakable, and yes, sincere belief in the natural superiority of people of white, European ancestry over all other people on this planet.

    Trump would certainly not be alone in having such views; nor would be be the first president to do so: even Abraham Lincoln was, if I recall correctly, quoted as saying that he would not hesitate to place the white race in a position of superiority to people of color.

    The only question is, if America has a president with such views about race, whether that augurs well for the possibility of his supporting an immigration compromise that, as Nolan states, meets the political needs of both parties - one of which is irrevocably dedicated to the principle of racial equality in America.

    (I will leave it up to Nolan to guess which party I am talking about: hint - it is the one that won the majority of the popular vote of the American people of all races, creeds and colors in last year's presidential election).

    If no such compromise emerges during the Trump presidency, no one can, in good conscience or in good faith, blame the Democrats.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-09-2017 at 04:28 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, All Nolan's points above are valid enough, but whoever is writing Trump's speeches, Trump is the one who is giving them, who knows what is in them (I am not a Trump supporter, but I do not buy the nonsense put out by some of his critics that he is stupid, illiterate or suffers from dementia), and who is responsible for their content.

    No, Trump is not stupid, illiterate, or suffering from dementia. But that doesn't mean that he is aware of what his speeches are saying, particularly when they are on subjects he knows little about.

    One of the most frightening experiences I had as a counsel was writing a statement supporting an amendment one of the members I worked for was going to introduce.

    The decision was made 4 minutes before the member had to introduce it, and I couldn't remember what it said when I was told to write the statement. Fortunately, the lobbyist who was responsible for the amendment was in the room with me. I ran over to him and demanded to know what the amendment was about in a single sentence and told him frantically that I had three minutes to write a supporting statement for its introduction. He blurted something out which fortunately was enough to refresh my memory.

    I ran back to the computer and started typing. My supervisor ran into the room two minutes later and said he needed the statement. I yelled back that it wasn't finished.

    He shouted, HIT PRINT! DO IT NOW! I hit print and he ran over to the printer to gather the pages together, and run back to the hearing room.

    The member had just been called. He was standing up when the general counsel handed the statement to it. He read it as written, and I was terrified watching CSPAN and other news cameras recording his speech.

    Fortunately, the statement made sense, explained what the amendment would do, and made a decent argument for accepting it.

    Had Roger been in the audience, he would have held the member accountable for every word in that statement. And perhaps that is the right thing to do. As Roger would say, it was his statement. But the reality is that he had no idea what he was saying until he said it.

    That only happened to me once in seven years, but it illustrates my point. Members, and particularly the president are expected to speak on literally an infinite number of topics with an infinite number of issue. They have to rely on staff to know or find out what the issue is and come up with a position that they think represents what the member or president would say if he had the time to research and think about the issue himself.

    And it isn't just true of speeches. At every hearing, markup, and whenever a bill is on the floor, the members are provided with talking points so they will have something to say when it is their turn to speak. Many of them are brilliant at scanning a list of talking points and then speaking intelligently about the issue for one or two minutes, which typically is long enough.

    But nothing I say is going to persuade Roger that he should be more flexible in judging Trump.

    The only question is whether, if America has a president with such views about race, that augurs well for the possibility of his supporting an immigration compromise that, as Nolan states, meets the political needs of both parties - one of which is irrevocably dedicated to the principle of racial equality in America.

    Notwithstanding Roger's prejudices, the immigration reform debate is not about racial equality.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-09-2017 at 04:41 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The immigration reform debate has always been focused on racial equality. That has been the case ever since the 1965 immigration reform law abolishing the whites only quotas of the 1924 immigration law (that Adolf Hitler admired in the 1920's and that some of Trump's top immigration advisers have had kind words for now) was enacted as part of the civil rights movement.

    Look at the legislative history of both statutes, the 1924 one and the 1965 one, where racial and ethnic issues relating to immigration were openly and extensively discussed.

    Yes, there are without question many other factors involved in immigration policy as well, but throughout our history, racial issues have always been central, no matter how much one might try to hide this or talk around it.

    Is Nolan going to tell us next that race had nothing to do with the 1880's Chinese exclusion laws or with the 1920's era laws restricting naturalization only to white immigrants?

    And when Trump makes an openly racist speech claiming that European "traditions", "customs", "values" and "ancestry" are superior all others in the world, we have to listen to him - to take him at his word instead of making half-hearted excuses for him which no one can take seriously.

    (I am not saying that European civilization and culture are of no value of all or that I look down on the European tradition - I am a tremendous admirer of the thought and literature of ancient Greece and Rome which are at the foundation of western civilization; and as a classical music lover, I believe that works of some immeasurably great but not widely known today European composers whom Nolan might possibly never have heard of, and whom I am not sure if even Steve Bannon or Steve Miller know much about, are among the greatest pieces of music ever written - if Nolan want to call my overwhelming admiration for European classical music and for the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome "prejudices", I will take that as a great compliment. Thank you, Nolan.)

    But that does not mean that I look down on other nationalities, other ethnic groups, other cultures and traditions from outside Europe.

    Donald Trump, unless he is utterly, unbelievably ignorant of what he is saying in his speeches and signing in his immigration executive orders, to the point of being what German folk tradition (as embedded in Wagner's opera Parsifal) calls " Der reine Thor" - a "pure-hearted fool", does look down on other, non-European, ethnic groups (such as Mexicans, whose president he grossly insulted while sitting right next to him! - with yet another demand that Mexico pay for the Wall), civilizations (such as the Muslim one) cultures and traditions, judging by his Warsaw speech and many of his immigration related statements and actions as a candidate and as president.

    Donald Trump is not a pure-hearted fool. Instead, he is in a long tradition of open racial bigotry which has influenced the content and administration of America's immigration laws ever since we have had such laws.

    By trying to whitewash (no pun intended!) and make excuse after excuse for Trump's obvious antagonism toward, not only Mexican and Muslim, but many other, if not all, non-white immigrants and his making this the basis of his (Trump's) immigration policies, Nolan is not adding much clarity to a discussion of Trump's immigration objectives.

    That is why I am not optimistic about Nolan's laudable and commendable call for a serious legislative effort to reach a truly bipartisan immigration compromise bill that will serve the political needs of both parties ever coming to fruition while Donald Trump is in office.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-09-2017 at 09:37 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger is right that nationality is a major factor in immigration matters, but basing decisions on nationality is not racism if there is a legitimate reason for it. But Roger sees racial hatred in every attempt to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

    The only hatred I see in Roger's diatribes is Roger's hatred for anyone who wants to enforce our immigration laws.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-10-2017 at 04:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Every serious immigration law scholar in America, regardless of whether he or she supports high or low levels of immigration now, or where he or she would like to see America's immigrants come from (or be excluded from) recognizes that the 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act, which was the basis of US immigration policy for the next 40 years and had a huge effect on America's immigration demographics (as well as, among other things earning praise from Adolf Hitler for its racially based exclusions and adding to the death toll in the Holocaust by keeping all but a few Jewish refugees from coming to the US) was ostensibly framed in terms of nationality, not race or religion.

    Nothing in that law said that Jews, Catholics, Asians, Africans or other targeted non-white Protestant immigrant groups were barred from coming to the United States.

    Instead everything was framed in terms of quotas based on nationality. The "Nordic" countries of Western Europe, which were mainly populated by white protestants mirroring the dominant group in the United States, were given comparatively generous annual immigration quotas, such as approximately 35,000 for Great Britain, 50,000 for Germany (not exact figures, but close), while Russia, where much of the world's Jewish population lived, had a quota of only about 3,000 per year.

    Heavily Catholic Italy also had a quota of only about 3,000 per year. Since Nolan obviously knows these facts as well as I do, and as well as everyone else who can claim to be a serious US immigration law scholar or analyst, I will not belabor the point.

    Nolan also, of course, knows just as well as I do what the annual quotas were for Asian countries and most other non-white countries of the world (except for the "Western Hemisphere" countries which were not subject to the law's "National Origins" quota system).

    But for general readers, I will give a few examples of the annual immigration quotas for some major non-white countries under the 1924 law:

    India-100 (not a typo - I am not leaving off any zeros by mistake;

    China -100;

    Japan - 100.


    Why am I going back over this almost century old history? Not merely because of the fact that two of Trump's top immigration advisers, Jeff Sessions and Stephen Bannon, have expressed admiration for this obviously racially bigoted law thinly disguised with the words "national origins" (just as Trump has, transparently almost to the point of ridicule, tried to disguise his "animus" against Muslim immigrants - those are the words of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Nolan, not mine - (are you also going to accuse these distinguished jurists of personal hatred against the president as you are doing above - and not for the first time - in response to my comments?) with the magic words "national security".

    Instead, I am reciting this history only because barring immigrants from the United States only on the basis of nationality has never before, to the best of my knowledge, ever been used for a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason to quote the Mandel dictum which is widely cited even though technically non-binding, by many judges and legal writers today.

    With all due respect to Nolan, banning citizens of an entire country has so often been used to promote racial or religious prejudice, ever since the time of the notorious Chinese exclusion laws beginning in 1882, which were also based on nationality when the obvious purpose, as stated by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping (1889) - maybe judges were more honest in those days - was to exclude on the basis of race, that I don't know if there has ever been a single instance in US history (other than during an openly declared war such as WW1 and WW2), when banning immigrants from an entire nation or nations had a legitimate purpose, as opposed to a simple expression of prejudice and hate.

    In fact, given the history of national exclusions in US immigration law when the real object was race or religion, it is surprising that anyone would think that Trump's six or seven Muslim country entry bans could even pass the basic Mandel test of being facially legitimate and bona fide.

    In the light of America's history of using national origin immigration exclusions as a pretext for racial or religious motives, it would be more accurate to say that Trump's Muslim ban orders - even without looking behind them into the history of Trump's campaign statements, etc - are, on their face:

    fraudulently illegitimate and mala fide.

    Finally, out of respect for Nolan's well - deserved reputation for distinguished legal scholarship, I will not respond to his personal comments about me above, other than to point out the obvious fact that making personal accusations against a fellow commentator who happens not to share one's particular views about the subject under consideration has no place in a site devoted to serious legal discussion such as ilw.com

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-10-2017 at 10:40 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger's right that I shouldn't have commented on the anger and hatred I think his work reflects. I apologize.

    Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that Roger sees racism in everyone who tries to enforce our immigration laws. We were having the same arguments about racism before Trump appeared on the political scene. Only then the objects of his accusations of racism were republican congressmen and other prominent enforcement minded republicans.

    But I have to admit that some prominent federal judges have done the same thing with Trump in the travel ban decisions. Their Trump animosity seems to have robbed them of their objectivity.

    I explain my view on their opinions in my article, "Federal courts flout precedent in blocking Trump's travel ban (March 20, 2017),"
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-trumps-travel

    I am not going to say what I think of them as judges.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 07-10-2017 at 11:10 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I appreciate Nolan's apology. However, now he is doing the same thing with regard to federal judges that he did above with me, namely accusing them of personal bias and anti-Trump hostility because he doesn't like their legal opinions.

    I was taught in law school, and have also learned in more than 50 years as a practicing lawyer, that lawyers are people who engage in discussions with each other based on the law, not on comments about alleged personal motivations of the people one is discussing the law with. Nolan was certainly taught the same thing and learned the same principles in his own distinguished career as an immigration law analyst and scholar.

    This does not rule out making comments about the hidden (or in Trump's case, not so hidden - at least not as long as Twitter continues to be publicly available!) motives of the president or other public officials when they affect laws or legal policies under discussion, as the 4th Circuit did, to give just one of many such examples in judicial decisions on various issues, in the Muslim ban case.

    In this spirit, Nolan refers to a previous article of his claiming that some federal courts are ignoring precedent in blocking Trump's Muslim ban orders. This is certainly a legitimate argument that one can make on this issue.

    However, I do not see any reference in Nolan's cited article to any judicial precedents upholding a presidential or legislative ban against most or all of the population of an entire country or countries from entering the United States.

    This is not to say that there are no such precedent decisions. I respectfully draw Nolan's attention to one such precedent which he did not include in his article (unless I overlooked it), namely Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. 130 U.S. 531 (1889).

    In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the notorious Chinese Exclusion Law, which barred most (though not all - there was an exception for "merchants" as opposed to "laborers", who were banned) of the population of China from entering the United States.

    The Supreme Court expressly determined that, even though the Chinese ban was ostensibly based on nationality (as in Trump's seven and then six almost 100 per cent Muslim country bans more than 125 years later), the main motive was racial; and the Court upheld the ban in large part for that reason.

    This case has never been officially overruled. Is this the kind of precedent that Nolan would like to rely on for his argument that the courts are "flouting" precedent today by blocking Trump's religiously motivated Muslim ban?

    If Nolan does not think that this case is a good precedent for supporting his argument, can he point to any other pre-Muslim ban court decisions upholding executive or legislative power to bar citizens of an entire nation from entering the United States?

    And if Chae Chan Ping is a good precedent to follow, what other precedents will supporters of Trump's immigration policies, with their disproportionate effects on non-white immigrants and immigrant communities in America, be citing next?

    Dred Scott (1857)? Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)?

    In closing, let me return to the issue of alleged personal hostility toward the president on my part which Nolan keeps raising, as if this were even a relevant factor in our discussion, which it is not.

    Aside from the fact that I have vigorously defended Donald Trump against totally unjustified charges of anti-Jewish bias which some people have made against him, and have also praised and commended the president for not cancelling the DACA program, as some of his most avid supporters have urged him to do, my criticisms of Trump's motivations are based on his own public statements or actions, and they are usually accompanied by specific references to these statements or actions.

    Was I incorrect in stating that, in December 2015, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims in the entire world from entering the US?

    Was I wrong when I stated that, in a March, 2016 CNN interview Trump stated: "...Islam hates us?"

    Is in not a fact that after being elected president (while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million votes) and when Trump was longer "only" making campaign statements, he appointed Michael Flynn (who since resigned for unrelated reasons, to Trump's publicly expressed regret) who had called Islam a "cancer" rather than a religion as a top national security adviser?

    Was I misstating when I wrote that Jeff Sessions, whom Trump appointed as Attorney General after the election, had praised the same racially motivated (as I explained above and which Nolan evidently does not dispute) "national origins" 1924 immigration act in a 2015 Congressional immigration "Handbook", which statute Adolf Hitler also praised (for different reasons, to be sure - I want to be fair) in Mein Kampf, written some 90 years earlier?

    If Nolan can show that my statements about what Trump has actually said and done are incorrect, then Nolan does not need to apologize to me.


    To the contrary, I would welcome any factual corrections that he or anyone else might have.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com
    Updated 07-11-2017 at 10:25 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I appreciate Nolan's apology. However, now he is doing the same thing with regard to federal judges that he did above with me, namely accusing them of personal bias and anti-Trump hostility because he doesn't like their legal opinions.

    I am accusing the federal judges of personal bias and anti-Trump hostility, but it isn't because I dislike their legal opinions. It's because I think they were written with personal bias and anti-Trump hostility.

    I was taught in law school, and have also learned in more than 50 years as a practicing lawyer, that lawyers are people who engage in discussions with each other based on the law, not on comments about alleged personal motivations of the people one is discussing the law with.

    But that's what the federal judges did when the evaluated the travel ban executive order. Instead of applying the law to their analysis of it, they based their analysis on their perception of Trump's personal motivations--on the basis of campaign statements, and there was no precedent for using campaign statements that way.

    This does not rule out making comments about the hidden (or in Trump's case, not so hidden - at least not as long as Twitter continues to be publicly available!) motives of the president or other public officials when they affect laws or legal policies under discussion, as the 4th Circuit did, to give just one of many such examples in judicial decisions on various issues, in the Muslim ban case.

    It's a free country, and you have the a constitutional right to express your opinions. But federal judges have to base their opinions on proper evidence, and there is no precedent for the way they used the campaign statements.

    Remember Jimmy Carter's lust in my heart statement during an interview with Playboy magazine. Do you think that statement would have been admitted into evidence if he subsequently found himself in criminal proceedings on a rape charge?

    And what about Bush senior's famous campaign statement, "Read my lips. No new taxes!" Did federal judges use that statement to invalidate the new taxes he called for after the election?

    And what about Roger? Can we discredit things he says in his blogs by showing that they are inconsistent with things he said when he was a law student? Or in high school?

    In this spirit, Nolan refers to a previous article of his claiming that some federal courts are ignoring precedent in blocking Trump's Muslim ban orders. This is certainly a legitimate argument that one can make on this issue.

    So where's your response to that argument?

    However, I do not see any reference in Nolan's cited article to any judicial precedents upholding a presidential or legislative ban against most or all of the population of an entire country or countries from entering the United States.

    That's not what the ban did. It was a 90-day suspension to give his new administration time to redo the vetting system. If the courts had not intervened, it would have been replaced already by a permanent ban against all countries that are unwilling to cooperate with the new vetting system, which, incidentally, you can expect the new ban any day now.

    The Supreme Court expressly determined that, even though the Chinese ban was ostensibly based on nationality (as in Trump's seven and then six almost 100 per cent Muslim country bans more than 125 years later), the main motive was racial; and the Court upheld the ban in large part for that reason.

    This case has never been officially overruled. Is this the kind of precedent that Nolan would like to rely on for his argument that the courts are "flouting" precedent today by blocking Trump's religiously motivated Muslim ban?


    Again, that's not what the travel ban did.

    In closing, let me return to the issue of alleged personal hostility toward the president on my part which Nolan keeps raising, as if this were even a relevant factor in our discussion, which it is not.

    Roger is right. I need to stop raising that point.

    Aside from the fact that I have vigorously defended Donald Trump against totally unjustified charges of anti-Jewish bias which some people have made against him, and have also praised and commended the president for not cancelling the DACA program, as some of his most avid supporters have urged him to do, my criticisms of Trump's motivations are based on his own public statements or actions, and they are usually accompanied by specific references to these statements or actions.

    It is commendable that Roger can acknowledge the good things that Trump does. Will he praise Trump's immigration enforcement efforts when the laws of our great country are being enforced against all aliens here illegally, without regard to any other factors, and our border is secure? That's Roger's objective, isn't it? That Justice is blind and that enforcement should apply equally to all races of undocumented immigrants.

    Is Roger criticizing any other elected official on the basis of their campaign statements? Or does that test only apply to presidents named "Trump"?

    Was I incorrect in stating that, in December 2015, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims in the entire world from entering the US?

    He called for a temporary ban of Muslims until the government could figure out "what's what," which in view of recent statements from the DHS Secretary and others about not being able to do background investigations on refugees from countries like Syria meant TO ME, until adequate vetting could be put in place. And that's what he did to a much more limited extent with his travel ban.

    Was I wrong when I stated that, in a March, 2016 CNN interview Trump stated: "...Islam hates us?"

    He meant that Islamic extremists hate us, and that seems to be quite true.

    Is in not a fact that after being elected president (while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million votes) and when Trump was longer "only" making campaign statements, he appointed Michael Flynn (who since resigned for unrelated reasons, to Trump's publicly expressed regret) who had called Islam a "cancer" rather than a religion as a top national security adviser?

    I'm not going to analyze everything Trump does.


    If Nolan can show that my statements about what Trump has actually said and done are incorrect, then Nolan does not need to apologize to me.


    To the contrary, I would welcome any factual corrections that he or anyone else might have.


    I think I have met that challenge. Maybe Roger will turn his attention now to the subject of the article he is commenting on, human trafficking.

    Nolan Rappaport

  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I agree with Nolan about human trafficking. What more do I need to say about that?

    Back to the issue of the relevance of Trump's statements in judging the purpose of his Muslim ban orders, as the 4th Circuit and other federal courts have done, Nolan's attempt at reductio ad absurdum doesn't quite cut it. We are not talking about statements that Trump made many years or decades ago.

    We are talking about certain campaign promises made less than two years ago regarding excluding all Muslims of the world (not just terrorists) based on their religion, and actual actions that he has taken as president which can reasonably be construed as going in the direction of fulfilling these promises, as the 4th Circuit has so construed them.

    I have to express a certain respect for Nolan's ingenuity. Defending someone like Trump is not easy, because, as soon as one comes up with a plausible rationalization for some of his statements or actions, Trump goes on Twitter or Fox News to blow the rationalization apart.

    One statement would be that he regretted revoking his original seven country Muslim ban, just after his White House and legal advisers had worked out an elaborate argument that the six country ban had allegedly "cured" everything that was wrong with the original ban, but which Trump himself condemned as a "watered down", "politically correct", version.

    Another relevant example would be Trump's expressed regret over firing Michael Flynn (for unrelated reasons), who called Islam a "cancer" rather than a religion.

    Suppose America were ever to elect a president who had, as a candidate, promised to ban every Jewish person in the world from entering the US, and who had stated (as Joseph Goebbels actually did during the Nazi era) that "Judaism hates us" ("Die Juden sind unser Unglueck"); and who then, as president, had appointed a top adviser who had once stated that Judaism was a "cancer" rather than a religion, and that this president had then gone on to issue an executive order banning all citizens of Israel from entering the US because of ongoing problems of violence and terrorism in that country.

    Would Nolan be so eager to make excuses for such a president, or to castigate judges (or other lawyers) who take such comments and actions seriously?

    It is a little like a lawyer defending a murder suspect in court with a carefully constructed, well worked out theory that the victim's death was entirely accidental and there was no intention to cause his death - only to be interrupted by the suspect in court saying:

    "Don't pay any attention to that, Judge. Of course I tried to kill him. He deserved it, and I would do it all over again if I had the chance!"

    As I said above, defending Trump is not always an easy task, especially when it comes to his Muslim ban orders, and I know that Nolan is really trying his best.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-11-2017 at 01:57 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Apparently, the only way I am going to get Roger to read my articles is to quote from them in my responses to his comments. This was taken from an article I gave him a link to earlier in this debate.

    "[t]he religious discrimination finding is based primarily on Trump’s campaign statements, and according to Eugene Kontorovich, a Northwestern University law professor, 'there is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive.


    Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski expresses a similar view on considering such statements in his dissent to the decision on en banc reconsideration:


    'This is folly. Candidates say many things on the campaign trail; they are often contradictory or inflammatory. No shortage of dark purpose can be found by sifting through the daily promises of a drowning candidate, when in truth the poor shlub’s only intention is to get elected.


    'No Supreme Court case — indeed no case anywhere that I am aware of — sweeps so widely in probing politicians for unconstitutional motives.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-trumps-travel

    Nolan Rappaport
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I agree with Nolan about human trafficking. What more do I need to say about that?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Perhaps you could show some outrage over the fact that more people are kidnapped to be sold into slavery in the United States than in any other country in the world, except perhaps Mexico and the Philippines.

    Or about the fact that people anywhere in the world can pay to see young children raped and sodomized on the Internet. It was taken out of my article, but I also mentioned that these perverts can specify how the children will be raped and sodomized and enjoy private viewings. I assume it was taken out because I was over my 800 word limit.

    And so on.

    The plight of undocumented aliens facing deportation is not the only issue that warrants your attention. And other than the DREAMers, the aliens facing deportation are here by choice. The 8 year old boy being sodomized to entertain some pervert sitting in front of his computer screen did not choose to be in that situation....and he has no way of escaping.

    Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 07-11-2017 at 04:05 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan no doubt raises many valid points about the evils of human trafficking. I am not an expert on that issue, but I do not see anything to disagree with in his comments on that topic.

    I also note that the title of Nolan's above article also includes the phrase "Trump can leave his mark".

    Since Nolan raises this subject in his title, I have tried to make some helpful and constructive suggestions above as to other immigration related ways in which the president is leaving his mark, or how he could do so in the future.

    If Nolan feels that these comments are not responsive to or related to his article, perhaps there might be some way that he could change the title.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-12-2017 at 08:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan no doubt raises many valid points about the evils of human trafficking. I am not an expert on that issue, but I do not see anything to disagree with in his comments on that topic.

    I also note that the title of Nolan's above article also includes the phrase "Trump can leave his mark".

    Since Nolan raises this subject in his title, I have tried to make some helpful and constructive suggestions above as to other immigration related ways in which the president is leaving his mark, or how he could do so in the future.

    If Nolan feels that these comments are not responsive to or related to his article, perhaps there might be some way that he could change the title.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    The purpose of my article with respect to Trump is to tell how much work is left too do in the United States and to encourage him to do it. Adding criticism about him and things he is doing in other areas sabotages my efforts.

    The constant barrage of insults and criticisms of the Trump haters, not just Roger, will result in the deportation of millions of noncriminal aliens who are here illegally in the upcoming expanded expedited removal deportation campaign.

    You can say that it would not have been possible to work with him on comprehensive immigration reform that meets the essential needs of both parties, but the truth is that we will never know because you have slammed the door shut on that possibility.

    Nolan Rappaport
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Just as I finished writing the following response to Nolan's above comment, I saw the news that the Afghan young women's robotics team has arrived in the US due to Trump's personal intervention after they had been refused visas.

    Congratulations, Mr. President! People of good will throughout the entire world support you on this one!

    If Nolan's purpose is to save millions of non-criminal immigrants from deportation, he has my full support. Nolan also has infinitely more political experience than I do, and I am not qualified to respond to him on the strictly political question whether the interests of these non-criminal immigrants will be served better by trying to "work with" a president who, so far, has indicated only that he wants to deport as many people as possible, or to stand up and oppose these policies head on.

    I am only able to comment on legal issues, such as the one discussed above about whether or not the courts have the authority to go behind Trump's Muslim ban orders to determine what their real intent and purpose might be.

    This is a genuine legal issue about which lawyers (and judges, as we have seen from the 4th and 9th Circuit Court decisions that are now up on review before the Supreme Court) can certainly argue about, including either supporting or, as in the case of the two above Circuit Court majorities, disagreeing with the administration's legal positions in good faith.

    Certainly, arguing that the president is wrong on the law when he claims to have virtually unlimited executive power to bar almost 200 million members of a particular world religion from coming to the United States may not be a good way to win over the president's "heart and mind", as they used to say during the Vietnam War (which involved another president, a Democratic one, whose claims of broad executive power to conduct that war also raised wide concerns at the time).

    Nolan is no doubt quite justified in contending that any comment which might disagree with the president's position on any legal matter affecting immigration might not be a way of earning his good will or support.

    Nolan would have to agree that Trump has not been particularly supportive toward federal judges who have disagreed with his views on the law with regard to the Muslim ban orders, for example. But questions about whether the president might or might not respond favorably toward people who are critical of his administration's legal arguments in federal court on immigration issues should not have any role in carrying on such a legal discussion on the merits.

    When one debates legal issues, the question about whether the nation's chief executive will respond favorably to one's arguments or react negatively is entirely irrelevant to the validity o one's argument, on either side of a legal question. This might not necessarily be true in Russia, China or North Korea. But we are talking about America.

    As for anyone who might mistakenly think that my comments about the president's legal arguments or immigration policies are motivated by any personal animosity toward Trump, he or she can read my comment below (on Page 2) about my July 13 ilw.com article commending the president for allowing the Afghan young women's robotics team to come to the United States after their visas were initially refused. I have never hesitated to support Trump on the few occasions when I believed he was right.

    If Nolan feels comfortable defining that as the attitude of a "Trump-hater", merely because one might differ from the president (or from Nolan's own views) on immigration law or policy, Nolan is of course free to adopt whichever creative or innovative definitions of plain English words that he chooses.

    But pinning unjustified labels on people who disagree with one's own views is not the way to conduct open or objective discussion of legal or policy issues.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-15-2017 at 10:56 AM 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: