I can prove you wrong, using Trump’s own Executive Order as prima faciae evidence.
Executive Order 13767 of January 25, 2017
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208 Div. C) (IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the
United States as well as to ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are
faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:
(Text of Order omitted for brevity, available at the provided link.)
The President’s authority to issue executive orders comes jointly from his responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and from the actual statutes passed by Congress.
As long as he acts within the limits of the statutes, he is fine. If he exceeds those limits, then the courts can strike down his actions as unlawful.
Trump’s own Executive Order cites the very statutes on which it depends for its existence.
Baez-Sanchez applied for a special visa allowing him to remain in the U.S. if he was also a victim of a crime. An immigration judge twice granted Baez-Sanchez a waiver.”
First of all, it’s pretty obvious what is happening here. The borders are closing on illegal immigration, so libertine lawyers are looking for new loopholes. Apparently they found a law that says that if an illegal immigrant who commits a crime is also a victim of a crime, they can apply for a deportation waver, and the libertines are running a test on weaponising this law to circumvent Trump’s strengthening of the borders. If successful, they will judge-shop for waivers for criminal illegals, claiming they were also victims of crimes. It would be interesting to know the original intent of that statute.
I’m right about the libertines’ strategy here, though. If this is an unintended consequence of the loophole law, the Supreme Court will likely side with the President on rejecting a court order based on said loophole.
No, they really won’t. The Supreme Court is big on the whole “rule of law” thing. They’re not going to rule that the President can unilaterally ignore laws he doesn’t like.
Do you agree that the President is bound by the laws of the United States, or do you believe that the President has supreme authority to ignore laws he doesn’t like?
Because that’s what we’re talking about - and the post of mine that you appeared to have a problem with.
That first Travel Ban was revised, that revision expired 90 days after implementation and was replaced by a third revision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
