No announcement yet.

Article: President Trump – In How Many Ways Does He Hurt This Country? – DACA And More By Alan Lee, Esq.


  • Article: President Trump – In How Many Ways Does He Hurt This Country? – DACA And More By Alan Lee, Esq.


    I sit here on Martin Luther King Day wondering what to write and what good it will do. This past week has shown the President of the United States to be an out and out racist. Anyone with an ounce of brain matter knew that he was an inveterate liar second or first to Mr. Putin, but everyone hoped against hope that he was not a racist. That hope was blasted by Mr. Trump’s private White House immigration meeting on a Dreamer (“DACA”) compromise negotiation that included a bipartisan group of lawmakers. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, he asked why the U. S. would want to admit people from Africa, the source of many visa lottery applicants, and said “Why do we want all these people from these shithole countries here? We should have people from places like Norway” according to 2 people; and he also expressed dismay with granting legal status in particular to people from Haiti, saying “What do we want Haitians here for?” according to another person. The juxtaposition of his wishes to have people from Norway, an overwhelmingly white country, and his disdain for people of color as coming from shithole countries of Africa proves the case of racism coupled with his support of the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, weak response to the disaster in Puerto Rico characterizing the American Latino islanders a burden and cavalierly lobbing paper towels like footballs to its desperate people, painting Mexicans as rapists and drug carriers, ending temporary protected status (TPS) programs for Haitians, El Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, and soon Hondurans, attempting mass deportations of people of color and hoping their U. S. family members follow, and saying previously that the Haitians in the U. S. “all have AIDS” and Nigerian immigrants would never “go back to their huts” in Africa once they had seen the United States. Although Mr. Trump attempted weakly to deny that he said “shithole countries” with backing from his sycophantic immigration hardline senators David Purdue (R-GA) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) after a day of no denial by the White House, the words cannot be walked back, and more truthful senators like Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) stated the truth of what he said.

    Where does that leave us? Unfortunately for the country, in a terrible place. It does no good to admonish Mr. Trump and tell him that he is wrecking the country when all he seems to care about is taking care of the wealthy and making the country not “great again” but “white again.” The Dreamers have received a short reprieve from a California federal judge’s ruling in the past week that DACA recipients must retain their work permits and protection from deportation while their lawsuit challenging the decision to end the program progresses. U.S.C.I.S.’s website on January 13, 2018, stated the procedure under which the agency would resume accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action and that the DACA policy would be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded on September 5, 2017. In the meantime, Mr. Trump tweeted the next day that DACA is probably dead and blamed the Democratic lawmakers for it. What should Democratic legislators do at this time? The answer is to meet force with force. Today they have leverage to shut down the government on January 19th as Republicans need Democratic support to keep the government running. Kicking the can down the road to March, the Trump administration deadline for DACA, is an exercise in futility as the Republicans even now attempt to undermine the present negotiators with a second set of mainly hardline negotiators.

    For everyone else not blinded by his false promises, the country under Trump is becoming a slow-motion avalanche to disaster in which the inequality of income between top and bottom under his recent tax bill will expand greatly risking momentous social upheaval; the monies borrowed for funding the federal budget will be crippling especially in light of the anticipated giveaways to the military, recent tax bill deficit, monies for infrastructure spending, payments for weather disasters, and no curbing of the Social Security program; the deportation and threat of deportation that are causing many to hide leaving a huge hole in the profits of U. S. companies which will not be able to sell goods and services, especially large purchases of homes, cars, and large appliances, to the 11 million undocumented in this country; the real estate market that will begin to tank with urban blight in many cities because of overbuilding, the tax bill ending state and local tax deductions and capping mortgage deductions, and lack of immigrants buying and leaving the cities; the many jobs in hurting industries that are now and will continue to go wanting simply because they are very hard and Americans born here have been trained by TV to see themselves as stars rather than hard laborers; the 4.1% low rate of unemployment meaning that Americans can basically pick and choose from open jobs; the inflation that will come roaring back as the government begins running the printing presses wildly to cover the deficit spending; and the cost of goods that will skyrocket making any wage gains by the middle class passé as items like hamburger meat sell for $10 a pound and a loaf of bread for $12. On top of that, Mr. Trump has made the U. S. and American companies unpalatable to the African continent, which translates into less U. S. business with a continent rich in natural resources and providing no counterweight to China, which has made Africa a focal point of its foreign-policy. The U. S. State Department diplomatic corps will not be able to assist as it has been tremendously weakened by the slashing and other leaving of personnel and the constant undermining of Secretary of State Tillerson by Mr. Trump so that many doubt that he speaks for the Administration.

    While Mr. Trump may have recently passed his medical, no information was available on the tests administered, much less whether any were given pertaining to his mental state. His temperamental attitude, constantly repeated phrases, and continual vacillation on decision-making are tremendously worrisome to many professionals in mental health, and especially as he has his finger on the nuclear football and has made outlandish threats against North Korea for its missile launches.

    In this writer’s opinion, there will soon be a tipping point for America in which the momentum will be too great to stop the rolling catastrophe. The 2018 midterm elections offer the nation a chance to tell the Republicans that they should separate themselves from Mr. Trump as it appears that the party is in thrall to him and the red state base that he brings. Is that the solution? No, but at least it’s a start.

    This article © 2017 Alan Lee, Esq.

    About The Author

    Alan Lee, Esq. Alan Lee, Esq. The author is an exclusive practitioner of immigration law based in New York City with an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for 20+ years, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, on the New York Super Lawyers list (2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-2017), and recognized as a New York Area Top Rated Lawyer. He has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Epoch Times, Pakistan Calling, Muhasba and OCS; testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings; and is a regular contributor to Martindale-Hubbell’s Ask-a-Lawyer program. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004; his 2004 case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged Legacy INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof, although its central holding that the government had to notify approved immigrant petition holders of the revocation prior to the their departure to the U. S. for the petition to be able to be revoked was short-lived as it was specifically targeted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (which in response changed the language of the revocation statute itself). Yet Firstland lives on as precedent that the government must comply with nondiscretionary duties established in law, and such failure is reviewable in federal courts. His 2015 case, Matter of Leacheng International, Inc., with the Administrative Appeals Office of USCIS (AAO) set nation-wide standards on the definition of “doing business” for multinational executives and managers to gain immigration benefits.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      Editing a comment
      There are many ways to judge a president's performance, and Trump has made many a lot of people very happy. The stock market has had a record-breaking year and the economy is doing great. If that continues, many people will consider him a great president and vote for him if he chooses to run again, which I am sure he won't.

      You and the rest of the liberals have made being the president a terrible experience for him. Maybe you are justified; maybe you aren't. But the fact remains that he has received more ugly criticism and personal attacks than any other politician I can think of. I don't know why he hasn't quit. As he said when he was running for office, he has a great life to go back to if politics doesn't pay off.

      Incidentally, your posts are hard to read because you use a small font and write long paragraphs.

      Nolan Rappaport
      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 01-16-2018, 10:51 PM.

    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      Editing a comment
      Donald Trump insists that he is not a bigot or racist. But, based in his consistent record of attacking and making even legal immigration more difficult for non-white immigrants from around the world, whether Mexicans, Muslims, Africans, Haitians or highly skilled and educated Asian H-1B workers; not to mention his appalling January 11 "shithole" comment (or, according to one report. "shithouse" - I want to be fair to our president and avoid misquoting him); and his statement, also made on January 11, that America needs more immigrants from "countries like Norway" instead of Africa, it is hard to give credence to these denials.

      To the contrary, for those of us who are old enough to remember Watergate, Trump's saying that he is "not a racist" cannot help bringing back memories of President Nixon's saying that he was "not a crook".

      That said, I have to agree with Nolan on one point: It would be easier for readers if Alan Lee could use bigger font and shorter paragraphs.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 01-17-2018, 07:10 AM.
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
    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
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM