Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But this is what it looks like.

[Ishmael]

The Col. is trying to hang his hat on what the article is trying to address in part. The article does point out that at least two presidents, Truman (the law was passed by over-riding Truman's veto) and Obama, have ignored a great deal of immigration law in violation of their oath of office. The article suggests that congress should address that issue. Frankly, short of impeachment just how is that made to happen? Congress can not co-opt presidential powers and responsibilities. If congress allows a president, any president, to ignore his oath of office then there isn't much that can be done except via the vote.

The article is also arguing that the administration should have more say in the "front door" processes re. quota's etc. Once more we see that Obama has not seen any of that part of the law an obstacle to what he wants to do. Congress could pass laws enabling the administration greater 'front door' latitude, but to what end? To legalize what Obama is already doing in violation of the letter of the law, if not the intent?

However the article does point out that what you, I, and others have been saying all along is entirely correct. If the president wants them kicked out, out they go. And if the president wants the door slammed in their face, the door gets slammed.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The Col. is trying to hang his hat on what the article is trying to address in part. The article does point out that at least two presidents, Truman (the law was passed by over-riding Truman's veto) and Obama, have ignored a great deal of immigration law in violation of their oath of office. The article suggests that congress should address that issue. Frankly, short of impeachment just how is that made to happen? Congress can not co-opt presidential powers and responsibilities. If congress allows a president, any president, to ignore his oath of office then there isn't much that can be done except via the vote.

The article is also arguing that the administration should have more say in the "front door" processes re. quota's etc. Once more we see that Obama has not seen any of that part of the law an obstacle to what he wants to do. Congress could pass laws enabling the administration greater 'front door' latitude, but to what end? To legalize what Obama is already doing in violation of the letter of the law, if not the intent?

However the article does point out that what you, I, and others have been saying all along is entirely correct. If the president wants them kicked out, out they go. And if the president wants the door slammed in their face, the door gets slammed.

Ishmael

Let me see if I understand your position, if Obama had wanted to deport Romney in the fall of 2012, Obama could have with no legal repercussions, correct?

 

[allateup]

Can't you all JUST GET ALONG?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Let me see if I understand your position, if Obama had wanted to deport Romney in the fall of 2012, Obama could have with no legal repercussions, correct?

Thanks for this!!!

( Also you just stole Johnny's award)

 

[Ishmael]

Let me see if I understand your position, if Obama had wanted to deport Romney in the fall of 2012, Obama could have with no legal repercussions, correct?

No, you don't understand shit. You never did.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I should have clarified. This document is not the supporting document for my, "I don't think they should, but if they did it would be legal" position; A position that I believe has been proven correct and is now settled. In looking for those articles that led me to this position, that I did not bookmark, I came across this. I simply thought it a good article on Immigration as a whole that addressed most aspects. Additionally, it does address, what I read, as the courts limited ability/hesitation to manage immigration issues.

"The plenary power doctrine sharply limits the judiciary’s power to police
immigration regulation"

"Scholars and courts generally understand the plenary power doctrine in
immigration law to sharply limit judicial scrutiny of the immigration rules
adopted by Congress and the President. Since the doctrine was first formulated
in the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has emphasized that
immigration represents an issue best left to the political branches"

"We show, by contrast, that this detailed code has had the
counterintuitive consequence of delegating tremendous authority to the
President to set immigration screening policy by making a huge fraction of
noncitizens deportable at the option of the Executive. Congress, de facto, has
delegated screening authority to the Executive in two ways. First, Congress’s
radical expansion of the grounds of deportation has rendered a large fraction of
legal immigrants deportable. Second, the combination of stringent admissions
restrictions established by Congress and lax border enforcement policy by the
Executive effectively has given the Executive primary control over a large
unauthorized population within the United States"

" Court’s limited and inconclusive jurisprudence on the separation of powers in
immigration"

The more interesting parts of the paper, to me, are the complete disorder of congressional and executive authority. Who has what? I think down the road the courts are going to have to define this as it becomes more likely that they will continue to run counter of each other. But in doing so will they take on more responsibility? Historical, again and again they have stayed out of the immigration questions....

Another document, largely separate from the original, settled, argument, that I found interesting is this:

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

This does speak to why the statement "All PEOPLE within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded the full range of Constitutional protections" is so fucking ridiculous wrong.

The simply fact that The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens should be known to all and makes the statement "full range of protections" wrong.

While I will concede, and have never said otherwise, the constitution does mostly protect foreign nationals in cases of criminal law. But even that it limited:

"Foreign nationals alone are subject to trial by military tribunal if accused of terrorist crimes. Thousands of foreign nationals have been detained under terrorist-related initiatives, most conducted under the rubric of the immigration
law. Foreign nationals have been subjected to
selective interrogation, registration, detention, and deportation
on the basis of their national identity. Foreign nationals were the
targets of the most extreme provisions in the USA PATRIOT
Act"

These are all measures completely against the constitution and show that foreign nationals are indeed not giving the full protection (even when referring to criminal law)

But for the 5th time I will point out I am referring to administrative, not criminal law.

"because the federal immigration power by definition treats foreign nationals differently from citizens,federal discrimination on the basis of alienage in regulating immigration is generally permissible"

This has been my argument in regards to the constitution and non citizens all along.

Thanks for the clarification. Frankly, I was afraid you had somehow confused the phrase "deportable at the option of the Executive" with the authors separate discussion of the "inherent Executive authority," and had that been the case, I was racking my brain as to how I would ever dissuade you from that misinterpretation. Glad to see that was NOT the case.

This document is not the supporting document for my, "I don't think they should, but if they did it would be legal" position; A position that I believe has been proven correct and is now settled.

If we're still talking about deportation here, I think we could have a perfectly civil discussion as to whether that view is "settled" if you could see your way clear to provide whatever documentation or statutory reference you believe supports that view. Like I said, I was sincerely appreciative of your link to the Yale journal, and even though it took me a bit off the trail I thought I was on, I found it interesting and worthwhile. I just think this is the proper way to have these exchange of views.

The more interesting parts of the paper, to me, are the complete disorder of congressional and executive authority. Who has what? I think down the road the courts are going to have to define this as it becomes more likely that they will continue to run counter of each other. But in doing so will they take on more responsibility? Historical, again and again they have stayed out of the immigration questions....

I see it a wee bit differently. To me this whole discussion around competing executive or legislative authority in immigration law is much ado about very little; certainly in no way comparable to the tension between Congress and the President over war making authority and conflicting Executive responsibilities as CIC and the Congressional power to declare war. As the authors twisted themselves into a pretzel around that whole business about "inherent Executive authority" I kept looking for the cat fight engendered by those Presidents who were claiming it. Never happened. We had to get all the way up to 1949 and the goofy Knauff decision.

This does speak to why the statement "All PEOPLE within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded the full range of Constitutional protections" is so fucking ridiculous wrong.

The simply fact that The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens should be known to all and makes the statement "full range of protections" wrong.

Yeah, I knew Johnny had veered off the road when I saw the words "full range." It's an unfortunate mistake many people make when they read the Equal Protection Clause. Of course, that doesn't make him completely wrong about the application of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause has been applied to alien residents as far back as 1886 in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. But I remember when I was first exposed to the idea of non-citizens being recognized as having Constitutional rights. I was actually offended. I thought the Constitution was a document of privilege and solely owned by citizens. I eventually grew out of it.

Anyway, thanks again for the Yale Journal link and please consider revisiting the statutory basis for "discretionary" deportation IF YOU'RE WILLING to provide citations and documentation in support of your position. As a teaser, I will once again attempt to declare my stance in the context of those areas where we already agree:

Where Congress has expressed its will to manage the wholly political questions of immigration and naturalization through the establishment of various administrative laws, regulations and due process procedures it UNARGUABLY CONSTRAINS ITSELF to those discretionary administrative options it has chosen to employ.

That's ALL I am saying and have EVER meant to imply.

Back to you.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Thanks for this!!!

( Also you just stole Johnny's award)

Hi, Vat. Thanks for the award. You were able to avoid that question just like you avoided provided the cites for the law school thing you mentioned.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Thanks for the clarification. Frankly, I was afraid you had somehow confused the phrase "deportable at the option of the Executive" with the authors separate discussion of the "inherent Executive authority," and had that been the case, I was racking my brain as to how I would ever dissuade you from that misinterpretation. Glad to see that was NOT the case.



If we're still talking about deportation here, I think we could have a perfectly civil discussion as to whether that view is "settled" if you could see your way clear to provide whatever documentation or statutory reference you believe supports that view. Like I said, I was sincerely appreciative of your link to the Yale journal, and even though it took me a bit off the trail I thought I was on, I found it interesting and worthwhile. I just think this is the proper way to have these exchange of views.



I see it a wee bit differently. To me this whole discussion around competing executive or legislative authority in immigration law is much ado about very little; certainly in no way comparable to the tension between Congress and the President over war making authority and conflicting Executive responsibilities as CIC and the Congressional power to declare war. As the authors twisted themselves into a pretzel around that whole business about "inherent Executive authority" I kept looking for the cat fight engendered by those Presidents who were claiming it. Never happened. We had to get all the way up to 1949 and the goofy Knauff decision.



Yeah, I knew Johnny had veered off the road when I saw the words "full range." It's an unfortunate mistake many people make when they read the Equal Protection Clause. Of course, that doesn't make him completely wrong about the application of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause has been applied to alien residents as far back as 1886 in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. But I remember when I was first exposed to the idea of non-citizens being recognized as having Constitutional rights. I was actually offended. I thought the Constitution was a document of privilege and solely owned by citizens. I eventually grew out of it.

Anyway, thanks again for the Yale Journal link and please consider revisiting the statutory basis for "discretionary" deportation IF YOU'RE WILLING to provide citations and documentation in support of your position. As a teaser, I will once again attempt to declare my stance in the context of those areas where we already agree:

Where Congress has expressed its will to manage the wholly political questions of immigration and naturalization through the establishment of various administrative laws, regulations and due process procedures it UNARGUABLY CONSTRAINS ITSELF to those discretionary administrative options it has chosen to employ.

That's ALL I am saying and have EVER meant to imply.

Back to you.

Congress has delegated specific DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVOKE immigrant petitions (“Green Card” status) to the Secretary of Homeland.

You agree with this.

but you further clarify:

"The ONLY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY for Expedited Removal without a due process hearing under federal law is codified under 8 USC 1225 and involves the removal of certain aliens by the Department of Homeland Security who are:

• inadmissible because they did not possess valid entry documents; or are

• inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of material fact;

• inadmissible based on “reasonable ground to believe,” the alien seeks to enter the United States to commit espionage, sabotage or terrorism"

Now.... From the very start, I have said that if a president was dumb enough to do this he would do it by country. Iran, Saudi Arabia etc...

Who defines "reasonable grounds"? Not the courts. Not unless someone challenged his order. The president/homeland security defines reasonable grounds.

So if the president said "we have reasonable grounds to believe a significant terror presence has entered the country from x states that are know terrorist supporters and hence fourth we are revoking all current visas in the interest of security"...... What could stop him? Is there a specific law? If so please point it out.

Perhaps it would be challenged. Perhaps the courts would say it was illegal. But that is a complete separate argument and if you where to make it I would argue the courts history suggests otherwise.

So in fact..... The president could indeed revoke visas without due process.


Now. I am honestly getting tired of arguing this.

Switching subjects:

Assuming the courts pick up USA vs. Texas in 2016 re: immigration, how do you think they will rule and what will be the key logic. ( this circles back to my observation that the rules between congress and the executive office powers are a train wreck)

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, you don't understand shit. You never did.

Ishmael

It's good I asked the question then.

Now I'm a bit confused because you've been saying in 3 different threads that he could.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Hi, Vat. Thanks for the award. You were able to avoid that question just like you avoided provided the cites for the law school thing you mentioned.

Before I answer your question.

Do you think trump is a foreign national?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Before I answer your question.

Do you think trump is a foreign national?

Don't see how that's at all related. Please explain what that has to do with anything.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Don't see how that's at all related. Please explain what that has to do with anything.

Because unless you thought trump was a non citizen your question makes no sense.

This has and remains a argument around congressional/executive powers to revoke visas and effectively deport a group of non citizens.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Because unless you thought trump was a non citizen your question makes no sense.

This has and remains a argument around congressional/executive powers to revoke visas and effectively deport a group of non citizens.

Yes, which is why I asked the question.

 

[about_average]

Yeah, I knew Johnny had veered off the road when I saw the words "full range." It's an unfortunate mistake many people make when they read the Equal Protection Clause.

It may depend on how "protections" is interpreted.
The constitution certainly has a lot pf protections enumerated, but there are a lot of other things that aren't protections, like how old you have to be to be president, birth requirements for being president, etc.
Just because someone doesn't meet the requirement for being president doesn't mean they don't have the full range of protections.
If that were the case, then no one in the US has the full range of protections of the constitution until they are 35 and have been resident for 14 years in the US.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Congress has delegated specific DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVOKE immigrant petitions (“Green Card” status) to the Secretary of Homeland.

You agree with this.

but you further clarify:

"The ONLY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY for Expedited Removal without a due process hearing under federal law is codified under 8 USC 1225 and involves the removal of certain aliens by the Department of Homeland Security who are:

• inadmissible because they did not possess valid entry documents; or are

• inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of material fact;

• inadmissible based on “reasonable ground to believe,” the alien seeks to enter the United States to commit espionage, sabotage or terrorism"

Now.... From the very start, I have said that if a president was dumb enough to do this he would do it by country. Iran, Saudi Arabia etc...

Who defines "reasonable grounds"? Not the courts. Not unless someone challenged his order. The president/homeland security defines reasonable grounds.

So if the president said "we have reasonable grounds to believe a significant terror presence has entered the country from x states that are know terrorist supporters and hence fourth we are revoking all current visas in the interest of security"...... What could stop him? Is there a specific law? If so please point it out.

Perhaps it would be challenged. Perhaps the courts would say it was illegal. But that is a complete separate argument and if you where to make it I would argue the courts history suggests otherwise.

So in fact..... The president could indeed revoke visas without due process.


Now. I am honestly getting tired of arguing this.

Switching subjects:

Assuming the courts pick up USA vs. Texas in 2016 re: immigration, how do you think they will rule and what will be the key logic. ( this circles back to my observation that the rules between congress and the executive office powers are a train wreck)

As I said in my original post in this thread, you and yours keep confusing the discretionary right to revoke non-immigrant visas and immigrant "Green Card" status with a NON-EXISTENT right to deport without a due process hearing as a direct consequence of that discretionary visa revocation.

And you're doing it yet AGAIN!

The Expedited Removal program has nothing to do with revoking visas. It is designed exclusively for removing ARRIVING ALIENS who have entered this country ILLEGALLY:

• through fraud or other misrepresentation [8 USC 1182(a)(6)(c)]
  
  
• without proper documentation [(8 USC 1182(a)(7)]; or
  
  
• "If an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3)"

This last bullet point is the relevant language of 8 USC 1225(c)(1) titled REMOVAL OF ALIENS INADMISSIBLE ON SECURITY AND RELATED GROUNDS, and the relevant language of the referenced 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(A) is:

"Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage.....in (espionage, sabotage, terrorism, etc.)......is inadmissible."

Allow me to repeat for emphasis: The discretionary, non-reviewable, lack of due process hearing "reasonable ground to believe" judgment of the consular officer or Attorney General with respect to potential terrorists IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE AT BOTH 8 USC 1225 and 1182 AT "ARRIVING ALIENS" "SEEKING TO ENTER." They may be expelled without due process for the simple reason they had no right to be here in the first place.

The only conceivable instance where a visa revocation would be relevant to the Expedited Removal process would be in that instance where an ARRIVING ALIEN TERRORIST had successfully procured a non-immigrant visa through FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION and it did not come to the Attorney General's attention until after the fact. Boy, then he would really be in double trouble, wouldn't he? But in that instance, I hardly think a formal revocation would even be necessary. The sneaky little bastard more than qualifies for the Expedited Removal process.

Meanwhile, at some indeterminate point down the road, could the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State use their respective DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITIES TO REVOKE immigrant petitions (“Green Card” status) and non-immigrant visas under 8 USC 1155 and 8 USC 1201(i) of every single Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Saudi, Pakistani, Afghani, Egyptian alien who has been walking around the United States for the past eight or nine years for any damn reason they want???

YEP!!! SURE COULD!!! At least theoretically. The only difference here is that if the Secretaries actually wish to DEPORT any of those people, they're going to have to come up with actual legal actionable GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL AS DEFINED IN 8 USC 1227 (which certainly includes terrorism and related ACTIVITIES) since each one of those individual aliens is probably going to demand their STATUTORY RIGHT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING UNDER CURRENT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW and present evidence that both Secretaries are fucking nut cases!!

THAT is the law. I have cited each of the relevant federal statutes by which administrative immigration law functions. Congress, the President, designated cabinet secretaries and all immigration officials are both BOUND BY IT and OPERATE FREELY within it according to its stipulations.

As Sean Renaud sagely observed earlier in this thread, the only way a mass deportation scheme would work in practice would be if every immigration law judge conducting the DEPORTATION HEARINGS associated with hundreds of thousands of INDIVIDUAL deportation orders arising from such DISCRETIONARY REVOCATIONS "played along."

I suppose if one could actually harbor such an aberration in their mind, the process could, within the realm of the fantasy, be contortionately described as "legal." I suspect that is more than good enough for Ish.

Obviously, that's NOT what you had in mind.

Let me get back to you on USA v. Texas. I don't have it in me this evening.



(Edited to add: 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i) reads as follows: "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable." This is as close as current law gets to allowing a massive deportation order.

But here again, under this section of the law, that "reasonable ground to believe" is reviewable by an administrative law judge at a deportation hearing. And, no, as written that standard is not discretionary to the Secretary's definition of "reasonable." It is beyond anyone's "reason" to believe that hundreds of different administrative law judges are going to "play along" when reviewing the individual GROUNDS for different individual visa holders under such a vague statute. It is simply not credible to believe that an Egyptian national legally in this country and working as a janitor for the past seven years suddenly represents "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences."

Now, could Congress pass an amendment removing the right of a due process hearing with respect to 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i)? HELL YEAH!!! They could do that tomorrow. But until they do, there is no practical mass deportation authority under the law based on national origin.

Would the Supreme Court uphold such a program under the long standing deference given the Executive branch in immigration matters? I actually think it would be a toss up. It's a pretty crappy way to treat people who you have allowed to come here and in many cases built up a life leading to naturalized citizenship, but on the other hand, that deference is pretty strong, and appropriately so.)

RE USA v. Texas: I may not be finding the case you are referencing. The only controversial case I can find of that name is a racial discrimination case involving the burden to minorities of being required to have a photo-ID in order to vote. I'm not finding anything related to immigration.

 

[Ishmael]

As I said in my original post in this thread, you and yours keep confusing the discretionary right to revoke non-immigrant visas and immigrant "Green Card" status with a NON-EXISTENT right to deport without a due process hearing as a direct consequence of that discretionary visa revocation.

And you're doing it yet AGAIN!

The Expedited Removal program has nothing to do with revoking visas. It is designed exclusively for removing ARRIVING ALIENS who have entered this country ILLEGALLY:

• through fraud or other misrepresentation [8 USC 1182(a)(6)(c)]
  
  
• without proper documentation [(8 USC 1182(a)(7)]; or
  
  
• "If an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3)"

This last bullet point is the relevant language of 8 USC 1225(c)(1) titled REMOVAL OF ALIENS INADMISSIBLE ON SECURITY AND RELATED GROUNDS, and the relevant language of the referenced 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(A) is:



Allow me to repeat for emphasis: The discretionary, non-reviewable, lack of due process hearing "reasonable ground to believe" judgment of the consular officer or Attorney General with respect to potential terrorists IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTORY LANGUAGE AT BOTH 8 USC 1225 and 1182 AT "ARRIVING ALIENS" "SEEKING TO ENTER." They may be expelled without due process for the simple reason they had no right to be here in the first place.

The only conceivable instance where a visa revocation would be relevant to the Expedited Removal process would be in that instance where an ARRIVING ALIEN TERRORIST had successfully procured a non-immigrant visa through FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION and it did not come to the Attorney General's attention until after the fact. Boy, then he would really be in double trouble, wouldn't he? But in that instance, I hardly think a formal revocation would even be necessary. The sneaky little bastard more than qualifies for the Expedited Removal process.

Meanwhile, at some indeterminate point down the road, could the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State use their respective DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITIES TO REVOKE immigrant petitions (“Green Card” status) and non-immigrant visas under 8 USC 1155 and 8 USC 1201(i) of every single Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Saudi, Pakistani, Afghani, Egyptian alien who has been walking around the United States for the past eight or nine years for any damn reason they want???

YEP!!! SURE COULD!!! At least theoretically. The only difference here is that if the Secretaries actually wish to DEPORT any of those people, they're going to have to come up with actual legal actionable GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL AS DEFINED IN 8 USC 1227 (which certainly includes terrorism and related ACTIVITIES) since each one of those individual aliens is probably going to demand their STATUTORY RIGHT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING UNDER CURRENT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW and present evidence that both Secretaries are fucking nut cases!!

THAT is the law. I have cited each of the relevant federal statutes by which administrative immigration law functions. Congress, the President, designated cabinet secretaries and all immigration officials are both BOUND BY IT and OPERATE FREELY within it according to its stipulations.

As Sean Renaud sagely observed earlier in this thread, the only way a mass deportation scheme would work in practice would be if every immigration law judge conducting the DEPORTATION HEARINGS associated with hundreds of thousands of INDIVIDUAL deportation orders arising from such DISCRETIONARY REVOCATIONS "played along."

I suppose if one could actually harbor such an aberration in their mind, the process could, within the realm of the fantasy, be contortionately described as "legal." I suspect that is more than good enough for Ish.

Obviously, that's NOT what you had in mind.

Let me get back to you on USA v. Texas. I don't have it in me this evening.



(Edited to add: 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i) reads as follows: "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable." This is as close as current law gets to allowing a massive deportation order.

But here again, under this section of the law, that "reasonable ground to believe" is reviewable by an administrative law judge at a deportation hearing. And, no, as written that standard is not discretionary to the Secretary's definition of "reasonable." It is beyond anyone's "reason" to believe that hundreds of different administrative law judges are going to "play along" when reviewing the individual GROUNDS for different individual visa holders under such a vague statute. It is simply not credible to believe that an Egyptian national legally in this country and working as a janitor for the past seven years suddenly represents "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences."

Now, could Congress pass an amendment removing the right of a due process hearing with respect to 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i)? HELL YEAH!!! They could do that tomorrow. But until they do, there is no practical mass deportation authority under the law based on national origin.

Would the Supreme Court uphold such a program under the long standing deference given the Executive branch in immigration matters? I actually think it would be a toss up. It's a pretty crappy way to treat people who you have allowed to come here and in many cases built up a life leading to naturalized citizenship, but on the other hand, that deference is pretty strong, and appropriately so.)

RE USA v. Texas: I may not be finding the case you are referencing. The only controversial case I can find of that name is a racial discrimination case involving the burden to minorities of being required to have a photo-ID in order to vote. I'm not finding anything related to immigration.

Look, I know where you're trying to go here but it's a moot point.

Yes, there is a process. And if you choose to call it 'due process', well, knock yourself out.

The hearings take place in immigration court. A court that has more in common with tax court or traffic court than what most people think of as a "court." There is no presumption of innocence. There is no jury, no finding of guilt or innocence. Those that appear are either in violation of the rules as laid down by the administration or they are not. There are no findings of constitutionality or not and any attorney that goes into immigration court with visions of ending up arguing a case before the Supreme's is going to be sorely disappointed.

So hang on to that thread as hard as you can. It's holding the Sword of Damocles and can be cut by any president at anytime. Oh, the hearings will still occur, but the outcome will be preordained.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

As will them going all the way to the Supreme Court. But Obama's a secret Muslim and Madam President is a member of ISIS so this isn't gonna come up until 2020 at the earliest.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Look, I know where you're trying to go here but it's a moot point.

Yes, there is a process. And if you choose to call it 'due process', well, knock yourself out.

The hearings take place in immigration court. A court that has more in common with tax court or traffic court than what most people think of as a "court." There is no presumption of innocence. There is no jury, no finding of guilt or innocence. Those that appear are either in violation of the rules as laid down by the administration or they are not. There are no findings of constitutionality or not and any attorney that goes into immigration court with visions of ending up arguing a case before the Supreme's is going to be sorely disappointed.

So hang on to that thread as hard as you can. It's holding the Sword of Damocles and can be cut by any president at anytime. Oh, the hearings will still occur, but the outcome will be preordained.

Ishmael

Obviously you don't know where I'm trying to go, because I am alleging nothing other than what you asserted and I placed in boldface above. But people are represent by counsel in these proceedings and the due process involved is focused directly on whether those rules have been violated. Some are easier to establish than others. Whether one has been "making plans to commit or assist acts of terrorism" might be far more contentious than whether someone has been convicted of an aggravated felony. The latter merely requires checking the record.

The point is immigration rules exist for a reason and with regard to immigration intake the rationale for those rules appropriately consider BOTH individual qualification and national origin "formulas" or at least an equitable treatment of applicants from different countries.

Once here, immigration rules focus entirely on regulation of the alien resident as an individual. And that regulatory system stands in philosophical opposition to the idea of deporting entire classes of unarguably innocent, law abiding people in order to protect against whatever potential criminal elements might be within their midst.