AI
Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:35:17 PM
Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal
.. we've read so many places it was illegal it had to be blocked ..
By DAVID J. BIERJAN. 27, 2017
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded .. https://ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=47 .. all Chinese, almost .. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/japanese-relations .. all Japanese, then .. http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html .. all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created .. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act .. a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned .. http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html .. all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said .. http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration .. that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Protesters near the White House on Wednesday. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 .. that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 .. plainly that no person could 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.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally .. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/green-card-eligibility .. be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was .. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration .. Mr. Trump’s original proposal.
While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred .. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233 .. certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly .. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1980/04/10/issue.html .. students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/09/carters-visa-crackdown-wont-hurt-immediately/2d181230-dcf9-4fe7-958c-947b7626213e/?utm_term=.ea60cd6ca5ec .. many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued .. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002973860 .. to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked .. http://openjurist.org/45/f3d/469/legal-assistance-for-vietnamese-asylum-seekers-v-department-of-state-bureau-of-consular-affairs .. the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 .. that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped .. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html .. President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.
David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0
10 minutes ago
Judge Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ALAN FEUERJAN. 28, 2017
WASHINGTON — A federal judge blocked part of President Trump’s executive order on immigration on Saturday evening, ordering that refugees and others trapped at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. But the judge stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.
[...]
“We’ve gotten reports of people being detained all over the country,” said Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project. “They’re literally pouring in by the minute.”
There were numerous reports of students attending American universities who were blocked from returning to the United States from visits abroad. One student said in a Twitter post that he would be unable to study at Yale. Another who attends the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was refused permission to board a plane. A Sudanese graduate student at Stanford University was blocked for hours from entering the country.
[...]
A Christian family of six from Syria said in an email to Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, that they were being detained at Philadelphia International Airport on Saturday morning despite having legal paperwork, green cards and visas that had been approved.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html
.. lemme sign it so i can be seen to be tough .. screw the details and any humanitarian concerns ..
.. we've read so many places it was illegal it had to be blocked ..
By DAVID J. BIERJAN. 27, 2017
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded .. https://ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=47 .. all Chinese, almost .. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/japanese-relations .. all Japanese, then .. http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html .. all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created .. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act .. a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned .. http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html .. all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said .. http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration .. that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Protesters near the White House on Wednesday. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 .. that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 .. plainly that no person could 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.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally .. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/green-card-eligibility .. be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was .. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration .. Mr. Trump’s original proposal.
While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred .. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233 .. certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly .. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1980/04/10/issue.html .. students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/09/carters-visa-crackdown-wont-hurt-immediately/2d181230-dcf9-4fe7-958c-947b7626213e/?utm_term=.ea60cd6ca5ec .. many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued .. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002973860 .. to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked .. http://openjurist.org/45/f3d/469/legal-assistance-for-vietnamese-asylum-seekers-v-department-of-state-bureau-of-consular-affairs .. the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 .. that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped .. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html .. President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.
David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0
10 minutes ago
Judge Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ALAN FEUERJAN. 28, 2017
WASHINGTON — A federal judge blocked part of President Trump’s executive order on immigration on Saturday evening, ordering that refugees and others trapped at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. But the judge stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.
[...]
“We’ve gotten reports of people being detained all over the country,” said Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project. “They’re literally pouring in by the minute.”
There were numerous reports of students attending American universities who were blocked from returning to the United States from visits abroad. One student said in a Twitter post that he would be unable to study at Yale. Another who attends the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was refused permission to board a plane. A Sudanese graduate student at Stanford University was blocked for hours from entering the country.
[...]
A Christian family of six from Syria said in an email to Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, that they were being detained at Philadelphia International Airport on Saturday morning despite having legal paperwork, green cards and visas that had been approved.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html
.. lemme sign it so i can be seen to be tough .. screw the details and any humanitarian concerns ..
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
