It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's not obvious.
originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheRedneck
I explained that the 1965 Immigration act modified the 1952 Immigrationa ct and that the CODE is a summary of those laws...
Actually, it ended the visa waiver program for those countries. Said citizens can go through the visa process (as specified in 1965). They were not banned en masse.
and allows citizens of a designated country, including citizens of other countries who have visited designated countries, to be banned from entering the US.
What are the new eligibility requirements for VWP travel?
Under the Act, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the VWP:
Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, or countries listed under specified designation lists (currently including Iran and Sudan) at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).
Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).
These restrictions do not apply to VWP travelers whose presence in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen was to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country, or in order to carry out official duties as a full-time employee of the government of a program country. We recommend those who have traveled to the seven countries listed above for military/official purposes bring with them appropriate documentation when traveling through a U.S. port of entry.
The vast majority of VWP-eligible travelers will not be affected by the new Act. New countries may be added to this list at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Since individuals from the designated countries cant enter the US without a visa or refugee claim it applies to all nationals.
These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
Correct. But your claim that it:
Absent the visa no citizens of those countries may enter the US.
allows citizens of a designated country, including citizens of other countries who have visited designated countries, to be banned from entering the US.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UKTruth
I hope people survive the coming attacks. Everyone please stay away from the cities.
Reviewability of the Executive Order
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order
because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.”
The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national
security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our
See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to
expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely
immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches
with respect to national security and foreign relations).
Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly
when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene
constitutional rights and protections.
The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.
See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”).
Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “resolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.”
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)).
We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration
and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review
executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.
To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.
(“‘National defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S.
1, 17 (1965)
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.