Posted on 06/25/2018 3:20:39 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Daniel Horowitz discusses §1182(f) and the case law surrounding it here. His main points are:
1. The criteria for exclusion [are] not based on “national security concerns” or “terrorism.” It’s anything that, in the determination of the president, would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” That includes public welfare, health concerns, values, attitudes, etc. Thus, in this case, where the surge has already created the worst drug and gang crisis in the history of the country, the president would be justified in invoking this power.
2. Just like the president has the authority to completely shut off immigration, he may impose any restrictions on entry even if he chooses to continue various forms of immigration. Thus, in order to abide by the Geneva Conventions on asylum, the president can condition any asylum claims on applying at a U.S. consulate in Mexico, not at the border – or turn them back immediately.
3. This is not the type of provision in which a court can demand evidence that the condition of “detrimental to the interests of the United States” was met. The delegation of authority was designed as plenary power. The courts have absolutely no authority to second-guess the president’s determination. That is up to Congress and the electorate. As a recent Congressional Research Service report observes, from the House report on the 1952 immigration bill that granted this authority: “The bill vests in the President the authority to suspend the entry of all aliens if he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, for such period as he shall deem necessary” (H.R.RPT.1365, 82d Cong.,2d Sess., at 53 (Feb. 14, 1952)).
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
If he can, why hasn’t he?
Make it so.
Law says you can’t just come across our border without first asking permission via several methods.
Good article, but the left would just take Trump to court where some leftist judge would override Trump’s presidential authority.
I believe he can.
.... Mere tweets are not going to cut it this time.
Just do it!
It may be why they are not referring cases for
Prosecution
Preparatory step To wholesale deportation with no hearing
I thought about immigration to Australia years ago, they are very strict, stringent and specific about who and for how long you can be there.
I think the same model can be applied to America.
And....new immigrants must have say a 5 year waiting period before they are eligible to register to vote.
Easy, just build the Wall. With lots of machine guns on top. Easiest way to deny entry is to make it nigh impossible.
The moment Trump appealed the renegade Judges in the Travel ban he ceded his exutive authority to restrict immigration to the Judiciary. Seems to me that ship sailed. I don’t see how he can do this now.
Per our conversation, here’s how the President can overcome the asylum issue...he can order that asylum claims must be made at the U.S. Consulate in Mexico, not at the border. And, the courts have no authority to override him.
If Horowitz is right about this, what’s the hold up? Do it NOW.
I agree. The left has poisoned the discourse with so much insanity that nobody knows what to think.
Today I saw a headline in the NYT that read “Trump denies due process at the border.”
First of all, “due process” is for citizens. Secondly, the people who are being deported have never even applied legitimately, but only do so after they have been apprehended. If they applied legitimately and voluntarily went through vetting, probably a lot would be accepted. But just getting a coyote to smuggle them across and dump them in the desert, where they are then apprehended, is not going to work. But it’s practically the recommended course of action from the left and the Mexican government, primarily because they know it will make the US look bad. This is all a propaganda war by the Mexican left.
Most of these people are not Mexicans, but Central Americans that Mexico is funneling through (since Mexico is sure not going to accept them in Mexico!) in contravention of international law. Mexico is the first country they enter, and therefore Mexico is supposed to accept them. But believe me, it’s sure not going to do that.
If the Central Americans got in through some non-legal way in the past, we tried to give hearings and be nice, but the Dems objected. So the best thing we can do now is turn them away if they don’t apply legally. Which, btw, is not “denying due process,” no matter what the Times tries to claim.
Don’t they already do this at airports?
Every day at every international airport in America hundreds of foreigners are denied entry into the USA and are sent home on the next airplane, confined until they are boarded on the next plane.
Why should the border be any different.
Perfect.
That judicial rule was about legal immigration & visa visits. Not about illegals.
But that is precisely the point. The judicial branch of the FedGov doesn't have the authority to make such a ruling. Andrew Jackson called that bluff a long, long time ago.
This is stupid! iLLEGAL!!!!! what prat of that connotes they can legally enter the country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.