3 ms·

> The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for ar

> The reason it is a weasel's move is because decisions at the consulate are made by consular officers who are career public workers and won't deny visas for arbitrary reasons. No? Visa can be denied for arbitrary reasons based on what executive branch of US. there have been multiple cases where it has been clear that visas are a privilige not a right. Visa needs a reason to be granted, by default it is denied.

bubblethink 1mo ago
No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer.
mlazos 1mo ago
Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.
- skinfaxi 1mo ago
  It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.
  - philipwhiuk 1mo ago
    Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.
    - TitaRusell 1mo ago
      Chaos aptly describes the US right now. And it suits people with money and connections. America is becoming the India that they hate.
  - ryoshu 1mo ago
    That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
    - koolba 1mo ago
      Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.
      - r2_pilot 1mo ago
        >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
        koolba 1mo ago
        The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment’s usage of “well-regulated” means “well-equipped” (i.e., they should have lots of guns!). It’s been repeatedly established through multiple SCOTUS interpretations that it’s just one example of why such rights shall not be infringed.
    - cheonc720 1mo ago
      > That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime. Survival of the fittest, as nature intended. Expanded rights, therefore good.
      - mgkimsal 1mo ago
        Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed.
        1mo ago
  - mrguyorama 1mo ago
    That was still bad actually. A lot of "legal" weed business still lives in a state of weird limbo because of it.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- hammock 1mo ago
  Isn’t that the whole definition of “executive branch”? They are given (by we the people) the power to choose how to execute the laws. And we elect them. The alternatives I can think of are for laws to be executed at the whim of an algorithm, a king, a more local executive like the governors of each state, or a more distant foreign executive like the UN
  - throwway120385 1mo ago
    No, the executive branch has a responsibility to execute the law. It's not a privilege. We elected them to perform a duty on our behalf. Do you understand the difference?
    - skinfaxi 1mo ago
      Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary?
      - mixdup 1mo ago
        The executive only has discretion if the law says they do. If the law says they must or shall do something, they must do that thing. If it says they MAY do something or otherwise explicitly gives them discretion in making a decision, then yeah, they have that discretion But it's not a given that they can just decide what laws they will or will not enforce or follow
      - estearum 1mo ago
        No. Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" The judiciary doesn't have discretion as in it has been "granted" discretion. It de facto has a high degree of discretion because the act of judging a case necessarily entails a judgment of the laws. Judicial review is a functional necessity. It's a necessary downstream consequence of simply having a Constitution as the supreme law. The analog to the executive is that the executive naturally has finite resources to enforce law, and so as a matter of functional necessity it has some degree of discretion. That is not discretion to say "I disagree with this law and so am choosing not to enforce it," but the discretion to say "there are other priorities that are more important."

bubblethink 1mo ago

No, you are confusing discretion with whims of the executive branch. Consular officers have discretion to adjudicate the applications and they can deny them for reasons prescribed in the INA. Those decisions are not reviewable. They are still supposed to follow their training, the FAM, and the INA in making the decisions. If Rubio sends an email to the consulates that says, "deny all visas", that would be illegal as a matter of policy and will be overturned by the courts under the APA. Note that 212(f) (aka Muslim ban from Trump v. Hawaii) gives discretion to the president to bar entry into the country, not visa adjudications. Visa adjudications require individualized determination by the consular officer.

mlazos 1mo ago

Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.

skinfaxi 1mo ago
It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.
- philipwhiuk 1mo ago
  Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.
  - TitaRusell 1mo ago
    Chaos aptly describes the US right now. And it suits people with money and connections. America is becoming the India that they hate.
- ryoshu 1mo ago
  That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
  - koolba 1mo ago
    Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.
    - r2_pilot 1mo ago
      >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
      - koolba 1mo ago
        The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment’s usage of “well-regulated” means “well-equipped” (i.e., they should have lots of guns!). It’s been repeatedly established through multiple SCOTUS interpretations that it’s just one example of why such rights shall not be infringed.
  - cheonc720 1mo ago
    > That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime. Survival of the fittest, as nature intended. Expanded rights, therefore good.
    - mgkimsal 1mo ago
      Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed.
      - 1mo ago
- mrguyorama 1mo ago
  That was still bad actually. A lot of "legal" weed business still lives in a state of weird limbo because of it.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
hammock 1mo ago
Isn’t that the whole definition of “executive branch”? They are given (by we the people) the power to choose how to execute the laws. And we elect them. The alternatives I can think of are for laws to be executed at the whim of an algorithm, a king, a more local executive like the governors of each state, or a more distant foreign executive like the UN
- throwway120385 1mo ago
  No, the executive branch has a responsibility to execute the law. It's not a privilege. We elected them to perform a duty on our behalf. Do you understand the difference?
  - skinfaxi 1mo ago
    Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary?
    - mixdup 1mo ago
      The executive only has discretion if the law says they do. If the law says they must or shall do something, they must do that thing. If it says they MAY do something or otherwise explicitly gives them discretion in making a decision, then yeah, they have that discretion But it's not a given that they can just decide what laws they will or will not enforce or follow
    - estearum 1mo ago
      No. Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" The judiciary doesn't have discretion as in it has been "granted" discretion. It de facto has a high degree of discretion because the act of judging a case necessarily entails a judgment of the laws. Judicial review is a functional necessity. It's a necessary downstream consequence of simply having a Constitution as the supreme law. The analog to the executive is that the executive naturally has finite resources to enforce law, and so as a matter of functional necessity it has some degree of discretion. That is not discretion to say "I disagree with this law and so am choosing not to enforce it," but the discretion to say "there are other priorities that are more important."