US Immigration Reform

[Aeroblast]

Trump signs executive orders to temporarily ban refugees from select Middle Eastern and African countries

Spoiler:

Source (REUTERS)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-exclusive-idUSKBN1582XQ

President Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders starting on Wednesday that include a temporary ban on most refugees and a suspension of visas for citizens of Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries [Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen], according to several congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.

(continued in spoiler)

Spoiler:

Trump, who tweeted on Tuesday night that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to order a multi-month ban on allowing refugees into the United States except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place.

Another order will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

In his tweet late on Tuesday, Trump said: "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"

The border security measures likely include directing the construction of a border wall with Mexico and other actions to reduce the number of illegal immigrants living inside the United States.

The sources have said the first of the orders will be signed on Wednesday. With Trump considering measures to tighten border security, he could turn his attention to the refugee issue later this week.

Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration, said the president had the authority to limit refugee admissions and the issuance of visas to specific countries if the administration determined it was in the public's interest.

"From a legal standpoint, it would be exactly within his legal rights," said Legomsky, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. "But from a policy standpoint, it would be terrible idea because there is such an urgent humanitarian need right now for refugees."

The Republican president, who took office last Friday, was expected to sign the first of the orders at the Department of Homeland Security, whose responsibilities include immigration and border security.

On the campaign trail, Trump initially proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, which he said would protect Americans from jihadist attacks.

Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than placing a ban on people who follow a specific religion.

Many Trump supporters decried former President Barack Obama's decision to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States over fears that those fleeing the country's civil war would carry out attacks.

LEGAL CHALLENGES POSSIBLE

Detractors could launch legal challenges to the moves if all the countries subject to the ban are Muslim-majority nations, said immigration expert Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law. Legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional, he said.

"His comments during the campaign and a number of people on his team focused very much on religion as the target," Motomura said.

To block entry from the designated countries, Trump is likely to instruct the State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations, according to sources familiar with the visa process. He could also instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from entering the United States.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the State and Homeland Security Departments would work on the vetting process once Trump's nominee to head the State Department, Rex Tillerson, is installed.

Other measures may include directing all agencies to finish work on a biometric identification system for non-citizens entering and exiting the United States and a crackdown on immigrants fraudulently receiving government benefits, according to the congressional aides and immigration experts.

To restrict illegal immigration, Trump has promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to deport illegal migrants living inside the United States.

Trump is also expected to take part in a ceremony installing his new secretary of homeland security, retired Marine General John Kelly, on Wednesday.

Trump signs executive orders to build the wall in Mexico and defund sanctuary cities

Spoiler:

Source (Twitter/AP): https://twitter.com/AP/status/824329301306839047

 

[Klippy]

Before anyone has a total meltdown, all of Trump's predecessors have used this power granted to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to bar foreign groups or nationalities entry to the United States. Obama, Bush, Clinton, H.W., Reagan, and Carter have all used it at some point. Trump's, I believe, will be the most broad use of it however. The news will certainly make you think this is an overreach of his power, but it's well within his right as President to do so just as his predecessors have.

 

[Kanzler]

Before anyone has a total meltdown, all of Trump's predecessors have used this power granted to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to bar foreign groups or nationalities entry to the United States. Obama, Bush, Clinton, H.W., Reagan, and Carter have all used it at some point. Trump's, I believe, will be the most broad use of it however. The news will certainly make you think this is an overreach of his power, but it's well within his right as President to do so just as his predecessors have.

Do you mean this:

— July 25, 2011. Barred those under a UN travel ban, or who broke 29 executive orders covering transactions with terrorists.

— Aug. 4, 2012. Banned anybody involved in war crimes, or just about any other crime including human rights violations.

— April 23, 2012. Barred those helping Syria or Iran, or involved in human rights abuses for those governments.

— May 1, 2012. Another block on those helping Iran and Syria.

— April 3, 2014. Banned anyone known to threaten South Sudan.

— March 6, 2014 . Barred entry of those claiming government authority in the Crimea region of Ukraine, presumably on behalf of Moscow.

Because in each of those cases, no person was banned for just being of a certain nationality. Trump has the same rights has his predecessors, but what he's doing with that right is simply not comparable with previous presidents. I'm sure the courts will have something to say about this.

 

[Klippy]

Because in each of those cases, no person was banned for just being of a certain nationality. Trump has the same rights has his predecessors, but what he's doing with that right is simply not comparable with previous presidents. I'm sure the courts will have something to say about this.

Bush banned members of the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe and the Lukashenka government in Belarus.

Clinton banned members of the Haitian military, their families, and anyone who participated in the coup, as well as members of the military in Sierra Leone and their families.

Reagan banned any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders from the high seas and banned entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants.

Carter, in response to the Iranian hostage crisis: "invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."

None of them compare in scale to his action, but Reagan's is similar and so is Carter's. Trump's clearly going beyond what they ever did, which is why I said, "Trump's, I believe, will be the most broad use of it however." I felt I was pretty clear and direct in my post, so I'm not sure why you cherrypicked it like I said Obama did the exact same - he used the same Act as Trump will use, regardless of their intended target.

Doesn't change that it's silly to start having a fit as some will undoubtedly do like he's doing something out of his power - he's within his right to, and the courts will decide if it's overreaching beyond that.

 

[Ivysaur]

I won't say that it's "illegal" or an "overreach". I'll just say that it's pretty racist (because it assumes that those people are "dangerous" by default because of their nationality), cruel (because the people who flee those places are fleeing war and ISIS precisely) and won't do a thing for the US because the (already very few) refugees the US were letting it were vetted enough. This is not going to do anything of use to anybody- it won't save anybody in that side from any danger and it will force the refugees to either die or suffer in wars or to flee elsewhere. It will just make the very prejudiced people who relish on the words "radical muslim terrorism" feel marginally better and that's about it.

 

[Mewtwolover]

Awesome, Trump is seriously making America great again. Western europe should do the same, they've already let in too many refugees.

 

[Kanzler]

Bush banned members of the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe and the Lukashenka government in Belarus.

Clinton banned members of the Haitian military, their families, and anyone who participated in the coup, as well as members of the military in Sierra Leone and their families.

Reagan banned any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders from the high seas and banned entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants.

Carter, in response to the Iranian hostage crisis: "invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."

None of them compare in scale to his action, but Reagan's is similar and so is Carter's. Trump's clearly going beyond what they ever did, which is why I said, "Trump's, I believe, will be the most broad use of it however." I felt I was pretty clear and direct in my post, so I'm not sure why you cherrypicked it like I said Obama did the exact same - he used the same Act as Trump will use, regardless of their intended target.

Doesn't change that it's silly to start having a fit as some will undoubtedly do like he's doing something out of his power - he's within his right to, and the courts will decide if it's overreaching beyond that.

And in each of those other examples, the ban was used in response to a pressing national security issue or to put diplomatic pressure on unfriendly foreign governments. I think it's obfuscating to describe Trump's plans as an increase in scale, because in this case it's not as if Trump is going after banning more people in an unfriendly government or going after more threats to the United States. What he's doing is banning a group of people simply because of their nationality. I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a change beyond simply an increase in scale, it's banning a new set of people for new (and arguably unjustified or discriminatory) reasons. Based on what we know so far, that anti-regime Western-trained Syrian doctor wouldn't be able to obtain a visa because ... what, he's a terrorist who's gonna slip past the immigration system as it is?

The issue that people have trouble with is not the power he has as president, but the way he is using it. You keep going back to the idea that since he's using the same legislation with the same language it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but Trump is arguably outside the spirit of the law even if it's within the letter of the law, for what he intends targets nor pressures any of the six foreign governments he's selected.

In summary, the main issue people have with it is that it's not just about the scale and it's not just about his right. You keep stressing those details, but they don't address the reasons people are actually upset. Honestly, I think it's just a political move with no real benefits or consequences to the United States, but simply appeases the emotions of right-wingers. It serves not the national interest, but Trump's political interests. Trump wouldn't be the first to do something like that obviously, but that's why it irks me so much.

 

[Mareep123]

The wall of Trump!

so it looks like Donald will be getting all his promises in during his first month in office. What's he going to do then go on vacation? I have to say I am shocked that he has decided to crack on with this whole wall idea...although the environmental legalities of it as well as the costs I'm sure will hold him back? What does everyone think of his proposal? For me it's pure madness. An increase in tax for what gain? Yeah you may stop a few people crossing the border....but there will always be illegal immigration!

 

[pastelspectre]

i honestly think him building a wall is ridiculous. sure there is an influx of immigrants, specifically illegal crossing the border but.. there's no need for a wall. i just think he's xenophobic and won't admit it.

 

[Keiran]

This is just racism and prejudice at its finest. We were under no threat. Like Kanzler said, this was done just to appease the right. It is also hypocritical because it's the U.S that terrorizes the east, not the other way around.

 

[Somewhere_]

if we have learned anything in the past election and few days of his presidency, Trump never holds back and nothing seems to stop him

 

[Somewhere_]

Because in each of those cases, no person was banned for just being of a certain nationality. Trump has the same rights has his predecessors, but what he's doing with that right is simply not comparable with previous presidents. I'm sure the courts will have something to say about this.

The only other precedent as far as Im aware of is the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). The law was not repealed by the courts, but rather the Magnuson Act in 1943. So It has a good 60 or so years of being untouched by the courts. I believe the law is constitutional because the 14th amendment grants equal protection to US citizens only. Im not saying the law is a good thing, just that its most likely constitutional.

 

[Ivysaur]

Awesome, Trump is seriously making America great again. Western europe should do the same, they've already let in too many refugees.

The Madrid City Hall. I voted for the mayor that put this up and I would do it again a million times.

You can never have "too many" people who are being murdered in civil wars at home, unelss you are a truly heartless, selfish person like Trump.

While you mention Western Europe, I'll add that Trump is not making the US "Great". He's making it feel like Italy under Mussolini or Spain under Franco. If the Republicans succeed at putting enough barriers to voters and effectively neutering elections (see: North Carolina), then it will be literally impossible to distinguish them.

 

[gimmepie]

Just so you know, I've merged two threads discussing Trump's immigration related policies together here (the restriction of immigration from Islamic nations and the wall). I don't think we need two threads discussing such closely related topics.

 

[Hands]

Awesome, Trump is seriously making America great again. Western europe should do the same, they've already let in too many refugees.

"Awesome, we should stop all victims of our illegal wars having any chance at a good life and push them into the hands of radicals and give them every reason to hate us"

Flawless logic from the right as always

 

[Esper]

I'm waiting for the legal challenges to see how the courts respond to all this and how Trump et al will respond if they don't get what they want from the courts. I suspect there will be cries of "Fake judges!" or something similarly outlandish if any court decides that this is an overreach or tries to limit the scope or scale.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

Stops potential terrorist attacks. Great.

Now sort your domestic gun problem out if you're worried about protecting American lives.

 

[Trev]

The only other precedent as far as Im aware of is the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). The law was not repealed by the courts, but rather the Magnuson Act in 1943. So It has a good 60 or so years of being untouched by the courts. I believe the law is constitutional because the 14th amendment grants equal protection to US citizens only. Im not saying the law is a good thing, just that its most likely constitutional.

Interestingly, that act was created in response to Chinese immigrants "taking jobs" and it ended up failing miserably, as Chinese immigrants were still able to enter into the country, and there were still Chinese immigrants in the country at the time the law was passed. History may repeat itself but the results rarely change...

Regarding the wall, I just think it's a huge waste of money. I don't want to pay for that. I'd rather my taxes go towards something that could realistically happen. I'm still shocked to this day that people thought this idea was feasible in any way, shape, or form. The second he said, "we're going to make Mexico pay for it," I literally lol'd. Like yeah, okay, a country is totally going to agree to pay for a wall that is meant to keep them out. Can't see why they'd be opposed. >_>

I'm waiting for the legal challenges to see how the courts respond to all this and how Trump et al will respond if they don't get what they want from the courts. I suspect there will be cries of "Fake judges!" or something similarly outlandish if any court decides that this is an overreach or tries to limit the scope or scale.

I've been impatiently waiting for ACLU to make good on their promises and actually get around to suing him (especially after the whole silencing dilemma), but so far they just keep posting on their Facebook page, and it's getting quite infuriating. I feel like no one in this country except some parts of the press are really holding him accountable for his actions, and they're getting shat on because the entire administration is literally attempting to re-write reality so that they can do no wrong.

 

[Somewhere_]

Interestingly, that act was created in response to Chinese immigrants "taking jobs" and it ended up failing miserably, as Chinese immigrants were still able to enter into the country, and there were still Chinese immigrants in the country at the time the law was passed. History may repeat itself but the results rarely change...

To be fair, its not like they added any border security, but the intention was absolute crap. Deplorable.

Regarding the wall, I just think it's a huge waste of money. I don't want to pay for that. I'd rather my taxes go towards something that could realistically happen. I'm still shocked to this day that people thought this idea was feasible in any way, shape, or form. The second he said, "we're going to make Mexico pay for it," I literally lol'd. Like yeah, okay, a country is totally going to agree to pay for a wall that is meant to keep them out. Can't see why they'd be opposed. >_>

Assuming that the US would pay for the wall and assuming the wall would work, its actually very economically feasible IF most of the illegal immigrants were also deported. So, it depends on many factors and if its moral to deport illegal immigrants. There are many ideological and practical barriers to deportation and a wall. For Trump's plan to work, they must coincide. You can't have one without the other (if you were to take his argument).

 

[EC]

No two ways about this, this is horrendous, and I am ashamed to be an American on this day. And every day going forward until this ban is lifted with extreme haste, and this man is removed from office.