I certainly don't agree with DJT's demonization of immigrants, legal or otherwise. However, as a practical matter, the large influx of immigrants across our border has overwhelmed our ability to process asylum requests in a meaningfully timely manner. Moreover, among other problems, it has overwhelmed our ability to …
As to Biden' invocation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authority: In Trump v Hawaii (S. Ct. 2018), the Supremes interpreted the executive's authority under this provision broadly. As one commentator summarized: "The majority stated that, “[b]y its terms,” Section 1182(f) “exudes deference to the President” [holy fucking shit!] and grants the President broad authority to impose entry restrictions. The Court reasoned that Section 1182(f) is a “comprehensive delegation” that gives the President discretion over every detail of the entry restrictions he sets under it, including “when to suspend entry,” “whose entry to suspend,” “for how long,” and “on what conditions.”" See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10458
On the other hand, the Supremes in Hawaii also said that 1182(f) cannot be used inconsistently with other provisions of the immigration act. With regard to asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) provides: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Post-Trump v Hawaii lower courts have inconsistently applied these provisions. Some lower courts have held that 1158 has precedence (see East Bay Sanctuary litigation; others have limited the broad scope of Hawaii to situations where immigration has foreign policy and national security ramifications rather than domestic considerations; others have interpreted it as broadly as Hawaii. In light of this judicial ambiguity and lack of direct resolution by the Supremes, while Biden's invocation of 1182(f) is not a slam dunk either way in the courts, its promulgation is a far cry from fascism.
On the merits, Biden's rule would have some of the effect of the proposed border bill, in the sense that it would limit asylum proposals. Are you against that legislation as well. If so, what is your plan?
Also, politically, immigration is a weak spot for Biden vis-a-vis DJT. Notwithstanding this proposal, there is a *huge* difference both in tone and policy between Biden and DJT on immigration (e.g., Biden isn't proposing separating kids from parents as a deterrent or rounding up and deporting immigrants already within the country) . . . it's not even close. This strikes me as a reasonable effort to try to regain control over our immigration and asylum process while undercutting some of DJT's momentum on the issue.
Finally, as a more macro matter, if you are concerned about fascism, DJT ought to give you far worse nightmares than Biden.
I agree. A temporary restriction to where people can live who are seeking Asylum is not a ban. You can apply for Asylum at the US embassy in your native country.
So, what's your plan?
I certainly don't agree with DJT's demonization of immigrants, legal or otherwise. However, as a practical matter, the large influx of immigrants across our border has overwhelmed our ability to process asylum requests in a meaningfully timely manner. Moreover, among other problems, it has overwhelmed our ability to see to the safe treatment of the numerous unaccompanied children crossing the border. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/us/unaccompanied-migrant-child-workers-exploitation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
As to Biden' invocation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authority: In Trump v Hawaii (S. Ct. 2018), the Supremes interpreted the executive's authority under this provision broadly. As one commentator summarized: "The majority stated that, “[b]y its terms,” Section 1182(f) “exudes deference to the President” [holy fucking shit!] and grants the President broad authority to impose entry restrictions. The Court reasoned that Section 1182(f) is a “comprehensive delegation” that gives the President discretion over every detail of the entry restrictions he sets under it, including “when to suspend entry,” “whose entry to suspend,” “for how long,” and “on what conditions.”" See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10458
On the other hand, the Supremes in Hawaii also said that 1182(f) cannot be used inconsistently with other provisions of the immigration act. With regard to asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) provides: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
Post-Trump v Hawaii lower courts have inconsistently applied these provisions. Some lower courts have held that 1158 has precedence (see East Bay Sanctuary litigation; others have limited the broad scope of Hawaii to situations where immigration has foreign policy and national security ramifications rather than domestic considerations; others have interpreted it as broadly as Hawaii. In light of this judicial ambiguity and lack of direct resolution by the Supremes, while Biden's invocation of 1182(f) is not a slam dunk either way in the courts, its promulgation is a far cry from fascism.
On the merits, Biden's rule would have some of the effect of the proposed border bill, in the sense that it would limit asylum proposals. Are you against that legislation as well. If so, what is your plan?
Also, politically, immigration is a weak spot for Biden vis-a-vis DJT. Notwithstanding this proposal, there is a *huge* difference both in tone and policy between Biden and DJT on immigration (e.g., Biden isn't proposing separating kids from parents as a deterrent or rounding up and deporting immigrants already within the country) . . . it's not even close. This strikes me as a reasonable effort to try to regain control over our immigration and asylum process while undercutting some of DJT's momentum on the issue.
Finally, as a more macro matter, if you are concerned about fascism, DJT ought to give you far worse nightmares than Biden.
I agree. A temporary restriction to where people can live who are seeking Asylum is not a ban. You can apply for Asylum at the US embassy in your native country.