@no1marauder saidDoesn't this contradict your earlier claim that Trump was also trying to reduce legal immigration?
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. The President can't unilaterally impose immigration laws; we haven't made him a Fuehrer.
I think you're confused.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNo1, I find that provision ambiguous. What's to stop a reader construing it as follows?
It means that after the year 1808, Congress can prohibit the migration of persons. That's called "immigration" in case you are unaware.
There is nothing in the Constitution giving such a power to the Executive Branch. True, Congress can delegate portions of the power (it would obviously be unwieldy if every person who wished to immigrate required a special act of Congr ...[text shortened]... but you are incorrect to think that Congress has "gave away" such power. It Constitutionally cannot.
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight. [Therefore, it may only be prohibited, before 1808, by the President or by a court; afterwards, it may be prohibited by Congress as well]."
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that the President should have the unilateral right to curtail immigration, only that such an interpretation strikes me as in accordance with the letter of a statute restricting the lawmaking powers of Congress only.
@teinosuke saidThe three branches of govt are executive, legislative, and judicial; congress is to make laws, the president is to execute them, and the police and courts are to enforce them. The president is to 'make' only such provisions as are necessary to carry out his function of executing what congress decided.
No1, I find that provision ambiguous. What's to stop a reader construing it as follows?
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight. [Therefore, it may only be prohibited, before 1808, by the President or b ...[text shortened]... me as in accordance with the letter of a statute restricting the lawmaking powers of Congress only.
@earl-of-trumps saidNo, it doesn't.
Doesn't this contradict your earlier claim that Trump was also trying to reduce legal immigration?
I think you're confused.
Are you seriously claiming he wasn't?
"The Trump administration has proposed drastic cuts in legal immigration, unlike any seen since the Immigration Act of 1924, as part of its price tag to legalize the DREAMers who were eligible for a deportation-relief program killed by President Trump. In a one-page framework, which may be dead on arrival in Congress, the White House is pressing to cut family-sponsored immigration by as much as 40 percent .............."
"Under the plan, Americans would lose the right to petition for their parents, adult or married children, or siblings to join them, allowing them only to reunite with spouses and minor children. And legal permanent residents, who have had more limited ability to reunify with relatives, would no longer be able to petition for their adult children. The effects would be greatest for parents of U.S. citizens, who received 59 percent of the green cards in the categories slated for elimination under the White House proposal."
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/trump-immigration-plan-lopsided-proposal
"The Trump administration has repeatedly bypassed Congress’s lawmaking authority and used its executive powers to rewrite immigration policy"
And then a list of such policies which include restrictions on asylum seekers, bans from certain predominantly Muslim countries, slashing refugee admissions, etc. etc. etc. https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attacks-legal-immigration-system-explained
@teinosuke saidI find Moonbus' explanation adequate.
No1, I find that provision ambiguous. What's to stop a reader construing it as follows?
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight. [Therefore, it may only be prohibited, before 1808, by the President or b ...[text shortened]... me as in accordance with the letter of a statute restricting the lawmaking powers of Congress only.
Historically, the provision was a compromise insisted on by the States of Georgia and South Carolina to allow the slave trade up to 1808. It would make little sense to insist on the provision IF the President or SCOTUS could have unilaterally abolished the slave trade.
@no1marauder saidAh - I see - useful explanation, thanks for clarifying the matter!
I find Moonbus' explanation adequate.
Historically, the provision was a compromise insisted on by the States of Georgia and South Carolina to allow the slave trade up to 1808. It would make little sense to insist on the provision IF the President or SCOTUS could have unilaterally abolished the slave trade.
@averagejoe1 saidBut you fellers, and little Suzianne, said months ago that Trump failed at his promise to build a wall. Can you say now that he apparently can do anything that he sets out to do? I checked my news sources and, indeed there is a wall. The guy is just unbelievable
But, I thought you fellers said that Trump had broken a promise, that he didn't build a wall. So,,,,there's a wall? First I've heard about it. I thought y'all were really making fun of us Trumpies, that he had failed miserably:, that, of all his 100 promises, he was only able to do 99 of them. So, there's a wall?
Trump has built a wall? How long is it? Wish y ...[text shortened]... ut it, you have been disingenuous , to say the least. We would have told you, if we had screwed up.
@no1marauder said" Congress can delegate portions of the power (it would obviously be unwieldy if every person who wished to immigrate required a special act of Congress) but you are incorrect to think that Congress has "gave away" such power. It Constitutionally cannot.'
I wasn't wrong so I can't admit to a lie.
Study this provision carefully:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each ...[text shortened]... but you are incorrect to think that Congress has "gave away" such power. It Constitutionally cannot.
May be unconstitutional (thats another argument). It is EXACTLY what has happened though. Another example of democrats changing rules when they are in power that later comes back to bite them, such as the latest, court packing.
"In the decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power”—absolute power—over immigration to Congress and the Executive, in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is found nowhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair.
In later years, the Court has also allowed Congress to delegate its immigration authority to the Executive Branch. Congress has now given away much of its plenary power over immigration to the Executive in sweeping grants of power—more sweeping grants than in any other area of the law."
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/immigration-and-the-separation-of-powers
@no1marauder
"The Trump administration has repeatedly bypassed Congress’s lawmaking authority and used its executive powers to rewrite immigration policy"
Never knew he could do that. Between Trump and Obama it is clear,, something
has to be done to reel in the powers of the executive.
@earl-of-trumps saidWhy does a president have to 'use executive powers' to keep people (invaders) the hell out of our country? Why is that? A governor does not have to use equivalent powers to deal with lawbreakers,,,,,the law is already there. As is the law against violating our borders. Enforce the law, that is all. Whew. Curious stuff, don't you think?
@no1marauder
"The Trump administration has repeatedly bypassed Congress’s lawmaking authority and used its executive powers to rewrite immigration policy"
Never knew he could do that. Between Trump and Obama it is clear,, something
has to be done to reel in the powers of the executive.
@earl-of-trumps saidPractical application of “The Rule Of Law:“
@no1marauder
The Hill said: the latest blow to the Trump administration’s effort to limit immigration.
Wrong! Trump's effort is to limit ILLEGAL immigration.
I wonder why The Hill would forget to include that proper descriptor, illegal... [whistles]
1. Find something you don’t like.
2. Make it illegal.
3. Appeal to The Rule Of Law as sufficient justification for enforcement.
@averagejoe1 saidAJ, I was referring to POTUS' ability to change even the legal immigration.
Why does a president have to 'use executive powers' to keep people (invaders) the hell out of our country? Why is that? A governor does not have to use equivalent powers to deal with lawbreakers,,,,,the law is already there. As is the law against violating our borders. Enforce the law, that is all. Whew. Curious stuff, don't you think?
That should be set by the congress and only changed if it is found to be unconstitutional.
@mott-the-hoople saidNot after ethnically cleansing in original inhabitants.
as a sovereign country, does the US not have a right to set the number of immigrants? and as a duly elected president doesnt Trump have the right to make this decision?
A bit like Germany limiting the amount of Jews who want to live there.
@shavixmir saidLike Germany? Citizens who lived there? Back of the class. I think I will hire a secretary to filter all of your comments so that I will only have to deal with proper discussions
Not after ethnically cleansing in original inhabitants.
A bit like Germany limiting the amount of Jews who want to live there.
@shavixmir saidnot sure what you are referring to.
Not after ethnically cleansing in original inhabitants.
A bit like Germany limiting the amount of Jews who want to live there.