Inquiring minds want to know.
Latest in immigration
The program represents a shift toward moment-by-moment monitoring of immigrant activities during the lifecycle of their interactions with the United States.
Judge John Tigar’s decision echoes his previous emphasis, and that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
While the Supreme Court rejected statutory arguments against Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the statutory case against the new asylum proclamation is more pointed.
On Thursday, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced an amendment to the rules governing asylum requests rendering ineligible for asylum those who attempt to enter the United States in violation of an order issued under Section 212(f) or 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those statutes give the president certain authorities to restrict the entry of aliens to the United States.
President Trump’s latest broad assertion of his own power to disregard constitutional law will be an important test for the new or acting White House counsel.
The oral argument suggests at least three possible outcomes.
Such an accord does not target the root drivers of migration so cannot eliminate the flow of refugees and asylum seekers.
It isn’t every day that the Department of Justice acknowledges formally that the president of the United States lied in a speech to Congress. But that’s how I read a letter I received a few days ago from the department.