The Law of Nations, Sovereign Power Over Immigration, and Asylum: It ’s Not As Clear As It Seems

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently struck down a Trump administration policy barring asylum for those who do not enter through a legal port of entry.   Tigar’s major point is that Trump’s order conflicts with a statute that specifically says that those who entered illegally are eligible for asylum.  Despite this temporary ruling against the administration’s asylum order, a higher court will probably approve Trump’s action by invoking I. N.A. 212(f) that,according to the Supreme Court decision in the Travel Ban case, seems to give the president nearly unlimited power to ban whomever he wants from coming here no matter what the rest of the law says.   I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t bet against that outcome.Some commentators are outraged by the court order blocking president Trump ’s change to asylum because they think it violates thenational sovereignty of the U.S. government to determine who can enter without limitation.   Outside of the fringes, debates about national sovereignty are rare in the context of immigration policy because theSupreme Court hasfrequentlyaffirmed Congress ’s plenary (read unlimited) power to pass any immigration law it wants because of inherent power vested in the national sovereignty of the United States.  Despite somearguments that seek to limit that power or that it was invented almost a century after the Constitution was enacted, this inherent power is not seriously...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs