4 ms·

>The law passed by Congress in this case states that the immigration department is not allowed to discriminate based by country of origin. See Section 212(f) o

by mordant 10y ago

>The law passed by Congress in this case states that the immigration department is not allowed to discriminate based by country of origin. See Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: "(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." Case closed.

ubernostrum 10y ago
8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(a): Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Paragraph 2 does not provide grounds for Trump's order. It sets a cap on the percentage of visas which can go to any foreign state in a given year, but does not allow blanket bans on a particular state. 1101(a)(27) does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it defines a class of "special immigrants" for reference elsewhere). 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it provides a definition for "immediate relatives"). 1153 does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it defines an allowable scheme of preferential treatment to certain classes of immigrants, such as the highly-skilled). So Trump did not have the legal authority to suspend issuance of visas on the basis of national origin. Attempting to do saw was a violation of applicable federal immigration law. His executive order was thus unlawful, and it was correct to refuse enforcement.
- camiller 10y ago
  8 USC §1182(f) which states in part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." §1152 and §1182 would seem to be at odds with each other. But no Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”). Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    The National Review's article basically boils down to "well, we found this section that allows suspending entry of some people, and even though there's another section explicitly forbidding doing this stuff based on national origin we're going to say he has essentially unlimited power to do whatever he wants". Meanwhile the federal judge who ordered the stay thinks theress a strong likelihood that the order is either unlawful or even unconstitutional, and a senior Justice official thought it was illegal or unconstitutional. I'm going to side with the judge and the Justice official over the law firm of Trump and Bannon, LLP.
    - defen 10y ago
      So if hypothetically we went to war with country X tomorrow, the president would not be able to suspend entry of X nationals without an act of Congress?
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        Hypothetically, wouldn't the Act of Congress constitutionally required to declare war probably include a suspension of immigration itself? ;)
        defen 10y ago
        Yeah, I guess I was using war in the colloquial term (I don't believe the US has issued a formal declaration of war since World War II) FWIW I think banning green card holders was stupid (both legally and politically - predictability is good for a legal system, and we already made a promise to green card holders. Politically he had to have known this backlash would happen). It's just that...I don't know, it seems so polarized right now that you have to support one of two sides, and both are insane. The natural end game of "the right" is that no one else is allowed to come to America, ever. The natural end game of "the left" is that anyone who wants to come to America can, and the magical institutions of America will transform them into Americans, regardless of what they presently believe or how many of them there are. And there is a ratchet effect on both sides, where if you don't believe the most extreme version, you either hate America and its historic population, or you're a racist xenophobe.

by mordant 10y ago

ubernostrum 10y ago

8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(a): Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Paragraph 2 does not provide grounds for Trump's order. It sets a cap on the percentage of visas which can go to any foreign state in a given year, but does not allow blanket bans on a particular state. 1101(a)(27) does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it defines a class of "special immigrants" for reference elsewhere). 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it provides a definition for "immediate relatives"). 1153 does not provide grounds for Trump's order (it defines an allowable scheme of preferential treatment to certain classes of immigrants, such as the highly-skilled). So Trump did not have the legal authority to suspend issuance of visas on the basis of national origin. Attempting to do saw was a violation of applicable federal immigration law. His executive order was thus unlawful, and it was correct to refuse enforcement.

camiller 10y ago
8 USC §1182(f) which states in part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." §1152 and §1182 would seem to be at odds with each other. But no Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”). Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  The National Review's article basically boils down to "well, we found this section that allows suspending entry of some people, and even though there's another section explicitly forbidding doing this stuff based on national origin we're going to say he has essentially unlimited power to do whatever he wants". Meanwhile the federal judge who ordered the stay thinks theress a strong likelihood that the order is either unlawful or even unconstitutional, and a senior Justice official thought it was illegal or unconstitutional. I'm going to side with the judge and the Justice official over the law firm of Trump and Bannon, LLP.
  - defen 10y ago
    So if hypothetically we went to war with country X tomorrow, the president would not be able to suspend entry of X nationals without an act of Congress?
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Hypothetically, wouldn't the Act of Congress constitutionally required to declare war probably include a suspension of immigration itself? ;)
      - defen 10y ago
        Yeah, I guess I was using war in the colloquial term (I don't believe the US has issued a formal declaration of war since World War II) FWIW I think banning green card holders was stupid (both legally and politically - predictability is good for a legal system, and we already made a promise to green card holders. Politically he had to have known this backlash would happen). It's just that...I don't know, it seems so polarized right now that you have to support one of two sides, and both are insane. The natural end game of "the right" is that no one else is allowed to come to America, ever. The natural end game of "the left" is that anyone who wants to come to America can, and the magical institutions of America will transform them into Americans, regardless of what they presently believe or how many of them there are. And there is a ratchet effect on both sides, where if you don't believe the most extreme version, you either hate America and its historic population, or you're a racist xenophobe.