Just in:
Meta Earth Official Website Launch: The Pioneer Explorer in the Modular Public Blockchain Domain // Ajman Celebrates Conclusion of Ramadan Activities with Grand Ceremony // Superland Announced Annual Results for 2023, 2023 Net Profit Increased approximately 39.5% to approximately HK$22.2 million as Compared to the 2022 Adjusted One // Renewables Surge Sets Record, But Global Equity Lags // Samsung Partners National Heritage Board to Bring a Slice of Singapore’s Cultural Heritage to Samsung The Frame TV // Sharpening the Focus: Sharjah Health Department Refines Evaluation Criteria for “Healthy Schools Programme” // Emirati Aid Reaches Ukraine as Food Shortages Bite // AIA Hong Kong Wins More Than 20 Accolades at MPF Ratings MPF Awards, BENCHMARK MPF of The Year Awards and Bloomberg Businessweek Top Fund Awards // Following the Money Trail: US and UK Investigate $20 Billion in USDT Transfers Tied to Sanctioned Russian Exchange // Emirates Post Speeds Up Deliveries for GCC with Special Day // Andertoons by Mark Anderson for Thu, 28 Mar 2024 // First-Ever Fortune Innovation Forum Draws Top Global Leaders to Hong Kong, Promoting Agendas On Collective Cross-Sector Advancement // Court Sides with Coinbase on Wallet Service, But Staking Program Remains in Limbo // No running of govt from jail, says Delhi Lt Governor // Universal Language for Healthcare: General Authority Embraces Global Coding System // Party Nominees Refusing To Contest: Major Perception Threat For BJP // Global Audience to Witness Thrill of Dubai World Cup // AI Boost for Galaxy Devices: Samsung Expands One UI 6.1 Update // US reiterates concern over Kejriwal arrest, Cong accounts // Experience Ultimate Shopping Freedom at 4.4 Shopee Spree: Don’t Worry, Shop Shopee! //
HomeNewsboxOp-Ed Contributor: Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal

Op-Ed Contributor: Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal

27bierWeb facebookJumbo

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 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 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 certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued 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 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 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 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.

Continue reading the main story

NYtimes

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
Just in:
Meta Earth Official Website Launch: The Pioneer Explorer in the Modular Public Blockchain Domain // Universal Language for Healthcare: General Authority Embraces Global Coding System // Samsung Partners National Heritage Board to Bring a Slice of Singapore’s Cultural Heritage to Samsung The Frame TV // Emirates Post Speeds Up Deliveries for GCC with Special Day // U.S. Compliance Takes Center Stage at OKX Following Industry Jitters // Hope for Respite as UAE Endorses UN Plea for Gaza Truce // AI Boost for Galaxy Devices: Samsung Expands One UI 6.1 Update // No running of govt from jail, says Delhi Lt Governor // Ajman Celebrates Conclusion of Ramadan Activities with Grand Ceremony // Emirati Aid Reaches Ukraine as Food Shortages Bite // Experience Ultimate Shopping Freedom at 4.4 Shopee Spree: Don’t Worry, Shop Shopee! // Following the Money Trail: US and UK Investigate $20 Billion in USDT Transfers Tied to Sanctioned Russian Exchange // Party Nominees Refusing To Contest: Major Perception Threat For BJP // Sharpening the Focus: Sharjah Health Department Refines Evaluation Criteria for “Healthy Schools Programme” // Ingdan Announces 2023 Annual Results // German Job Market Resilience Bodes Well for Economic Recovery // Court Sides with Coinbase on Wallet Service, But Staking Program Remains in Limbo // Arvind Kejriwal Was Used By BJP In 2011 Movement To Take On The Congress // Infineon and HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering jointly develop ship electrification technology // Global Audience to Witness Thrill of Dubai World Cup //