| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Trump says it’s time to deny entry to illegal immigrants. Can he? [UPDATED] | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 26 2018, 10:15 PM (20 Views) | |
| Berton | Jun 26 2018, 10:15 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Trump says it’s time to deny entry to illegal immigrants. Can he? [UPDATED] Philip Rucker and Dave Weigel, two of the Washington Post’s most incorrigibly biased anti-Trumpers, lead off their latest editorial thinly disguised as a news report this way:
Rucker and Weigel are among the confused. Either that or they are hiding the ball. 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:
Rucker and Weigel do not mention this presidential power. But its existence undermines their suggestion that Trump would be denying “due-process rights” if he decided to deny entry to immigrants without granting them a trial or an appearance before a judge. Section 1182(f) says nothing about a trial or appearance before a judge. If the president decides that the entry of class of immigrants is detrimental to the interests of the United States, members of that class of immigrants have no right to enter and no right to use our judicial system. Daniel Horowitz discusses §1182(f) and the case law surrounding it here. His main points are:
Citing United States v. Ju Toy, an old Supreme Court case, Horowitz adds that a person who comes to the country illegally is “to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.” The plain language of §1182(f) and the case law involving it notwithstanding, one can easily imagine certain judges second-guessinging a determination by this president that the “detrimental to the interests of the United States” has been met. Maybe some judges would find that the crisis of family separation the left has been screaming about is not detrimental to the interests of the U.S. More likely, they would demand that some other “solution” (i.e., catch and release) be employed. Such judicial activism would amount to an attack on our system of government. President Trump shutting down the border in response to recent developments would be nothing of the kind. UPDATE: Congress has also given the president “expedited removal” authority. It allows deportation of an illegal already here (as opposed to exclusion of someone abroad) without going before a judge. LINK I wish he would start using those provisions in the law. Not tomorrow, but today. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



10:32 PM Jul 11
