No announcement yet.

Blogging: Obama v. Romney in 2012; Johnson v. Goldwater in 1964: Any Similarities? by Roger Algase


  • Blogging: Obama v. Romney in 2012; Johnson v. Goldwater in 1964: Any Similarities? by Roger Algase

    Bloggings on Immigration Law

    Roger Algase

    Obama v. Romney in 2012; Johnson v. Goldwater in 1964: Any Similarities?

    In my July 11 post, I took a look back some 2,700 years, to the 8th century BC, when many scholars believe that the ancient Greek poet (or poets) who went under the name Homer wrote the Odyssey. This epic, among many other legends which have had such a great influence on the world's cultural heritage, contains the story of Scylla and Charybdis.

    In today's comment, I will go back only 48 years, to the 1964 presidential election between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. Of course, I was not around to witness Odysseus' men being eaten by a six-headed sea monster, just as we can expect hundreds of thousands of minority immigrants to continue being caught up for each of the next four years in the jaws of Barack Obama's monstrous deportation system, if America steers in the direction of re-electing the president this fall, in order to avoid having most or all of our immigration system swallowed up in Mitt Romney's whirlpool.

    But I was around to see the 1964 presidential election, and to vote in it. There are some comparisons with this year's coming election which are worth noting. To begin with, Goldwater, who represented the extreme right wing of the Republican party, and opposed not only the entire New Deal, but also civil rights laws which would have relieved people of color from discrimination and oppression, won in Arizona (his home state) and all the states of the deep South. 

    These included the states which have enacted the harshest anti-immigrant laws today - Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. However, this is also a sign of how much America has veered off to the even more extreme right since Goldwater's time. Goldwater won only 10 states. The rest of the country voted for Johnson, partly in reaction against Goldwater's famous statement: "Extremism in support of liberty is no vice."

    It is unthinkable that this year's election could turn out to be so one-sided, even though today's Republican party is so extreme on some issues compared to 1964 that even Goldwater himself disowned some of its current positions before his death. For example, Goldwater supported abortion, *** rights, and non-interference by religious groups in political issues. What chance would he have of being nominated for any office by today's Republicans?

    However, the important point is that the Democrats did not win such an overwhelming victory that year because of any great affection for president Lyndon Johnson, who was running for his first full term after succeeding the assassinated John F. Kennedy, one of the most beloved presidents in American history (after his death). Instead, the Democratic landslide was a reaction to fear of what would happen to America under Goldwater. 

    This fear was based in large part on his identification with the right wing nut cases, such as the two middle aged ladies whom I walked past one day on a lower Manhattan street corner, while they were shouting: "The Reds are for Johnson! The Reds are for Johnson! How Red are you?" But even more so, the fear of Goldwater had everything to do with America's most emotional and divisive issue of that time - comparable to the unauthorized immigration issue today - namely the Vietnam war.

    Goldwater wanted to escalate the war, famously suggesting that we should "defoliate" the leaves of that country's trees (which of course Johnson and Nixon did anyway). But scariest of all, he also said that using nuclear weapons in Vietnam should be considered. For a country which was still traumatized by the Cuban Missile Crisis which had brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster only two years before, this was too much.

    (On a personal note, my first marriage took place during the weekend that the Cuban Missile Crisis reached its peak near the end of October, 1962. My wife and I spent a good deal of time seriously trying to choose a place for our honeymoon that would be less likely to be blown up - Neither of us voted for Goldwater in 1964, needless to say. Nor did millions of Americans who saw the Democrats' "Daisy" campaign ad against Goldwater, still the most famous campaign ad of all time, vote for him either.)

    The point of all the above trips down political memory lane is that the Johnson 1964 landslide did not take place because of widespread affection for LBJ. To the contrary, there was great mistrust and resentment against him, especially because he was beginning to escalate the Vietnam war. Of course, few people could imagine how much he actually would escalate it after being elected to a full term in office. But under Goldwater, things would have been even worse, or so Goldwater himself led everyone to believe.

    On immigration, there is no affection for Barack Obama. Nor should there be. But, based on everything we have heard from Mitt Romney and his supporters, he would be far worse. In many important ways, Romney is a far less attractive candidate than Goldwater was, and for immigration and minority rights in general, Romney would be even more dangerous. Besides, which president, however much liberals may have distrusted him on many issues, nevertheless signed the great immigration reform act of 1965? More about this in my next comment.

    About The Author

    Roger Algase is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been practicing business immigration law in New York City for more than 20 years.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM