Apparently there is plenty of legislative support for Trump’s Executive Order on refugees etc. There is ‘The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 . ‘ And section 212(f) provides the authority for the measure. And it is not the first time a President has used it for this purpose.
Here is a Conservative Review ( a website) article:
‘ According to the report, ( A Congressional Report) here are the number of times each president, since Reagan, has limited immigration to specific groups of people:
Ronald Reagan – Five times
George H. W Bush – One time
Bill Clinton – 12 times
George W. Bush – Six times
Barack Obama – 19 times
Not included in the CRS report is that Hillary Clinton’s State Department, without a presidential action, suspended all refugee applications from Iraq for six months in 2011.
ABC News reported, on the de facto ban of Iraqis in 2013:
‘As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.’
While one can disagree with the policy, it seems that Trump is well within his rights to issue this order.
Barack Obama far and away used the power to limit immigration more than any other president in recent memory. Perhaps this is why the mainstream media is predicting that Trump’s orders will withstand legal scrutiny. Politico reported, that “Early wins against [the] Trump immigration order may not last.”
One Muslim-rights group, the Council on American Islamic Relations, said it planned a new federal lawsuit Monday charging that Trump’s order is unconstitutional because it amounts to thinly veiled discrimination against Muslims.
That suit could face an uphill battle because courts have rarely accorded constitutional rights to foreigners outside the U.S. However, foreign citizens who are permanent U.S. residents generally have a stronger claim to recourse in the courts. In addition, legal experts say U.S. citizen relatives of foreigners could have legal standing to pursue a case charging religious discrimination.
Still, presidents have broad discretion over the nation’s immigration and refugee policy. A 1952 immigration law gives the chief executive the power to bar “any class” of immigrants from the country if allowing them is deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
The media fueled hysteria over the weekend, pushing the narrative that Trump’s executive order was “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” While one can disagree with the policy, it seems that Trump is well within his rights to issue this order.