Immigration

Courts Rule That Trump's Immigration Orders Are an Abuse of His Executive Authority

They are correct.

|

Last week was a rough one for President Donald Trump's anti-immigration agenda. Multiple federal courts across the country ruled against his executive order to build the wall and his public charge rule to stop low-income immigrants from coming to America. These rulings will no doubt be challenged in the Supreme Court. But for now, they aren't just a victory for proponents of pro-immigration policies—but also those who oppose unchecked executive power.

Trump had promised to build a "big, beautiful wall" on the southern border. However, he has unable to deliver because Mexico refused to pay for it as Trump insisted it would and Congress refused to appropriate funds even though he tried to twist its arm by shutting down the government last year.

This January, he again requested $5.7 billion for the "construction of a steel barrier for the Southwest border." But Congress granted him only $1.375 billion when it passed the 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA). What's more, it stipulated that the funds were meant solely for "the construction of primary pedestrian fencing" in the "Rio Grande Valley Sector" and could not be used for building any other portion of the wall anywhere else. And then, just to ensure that Trump did not try to do an end run around its will, it added: "None of the funds made available in this or any other appropriations Act may be used to increase, eliminate, or reduce funding for a program, project or activity as proposed in the President's budget request for a fiscal year until such proposed change is subsequently enacted in an appropriation Act."

But Trump thumbed his nose at Congress and declared a national emergency to raid defense funds for his wall. He claimed that the rush of Central American migrants at the border had created a "security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security" and ordered the Department of Defense to hand over $6.1 billion of its money to build the wall—$2.5 billion from the Funding for Counterdrug Activities Section 284 and another $3.6 billion from the Military Construction Act Section 2808. However, the city of El Paso and Border Network for Human Rights sued.

U.S. District Judge David Briones went along with the administration's diversion of the $2.5 billion because he believed that the secretary of defense, who rubber-stamped Trump's order, had the statutory authority to hand over counter-narcotics funds as his disposal to other departments for fighting the flow of drugs, one of the rationales for building the wall.

However, he put his foot down over the diversion of the $3.6 billion. Briones pointed out that Congress had earmarked $20 million of that money for a military project in El Paso (which is why the city had standing to sue, contrary to the claims of the administration). Worse, Trump was funneling this money to build a wall in New Mexico. This violated the CAA in two ways: It eliminated funding for a program that Congress had expressly authorized and it built the wall in an area outside Texas's Rio Grande Valley, which Congress had expressly barred.

Briones, a Clinton appointee, refused to rule on whether the emergency declaration itself was unconstitutional or violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the other grounds for El Paso's lawsuit. Nevertheless his ruling is significant because it is the first one in the multiple lawsuits challenging the wall that evaluated the merit of the arguments presented. By contrast, this summer the Supreme Court stayed a lower court injunction that had barred the diversion of military funds for the wall because the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, Sierra Club and the Southern Border Community Coalition, had no standing to sue because they did not have a credible case of economic harm, the five conservative justices declared.

There are no guarantees, but The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin notes that Briones' narrow and carefully argued ruling might appeal to these justices. If it doesn't, future presidents will be emboldened to flout Congress' appropriation powers for their pet projects. For example, President Elizabeth Warren could cheerfully declare income inequality or climate change or lack of universal coverage a national emergency in order to divert all kinds of funds from all kinds of departments—Congress be damned. We might as well order a crown for the president now.

The administration's public charge rule isn't quite as egregious an abuse of executive power as the border wall emergency, but it's still pretty bad and three federal courts—in California, Washington state, and New York—ruled as much last week, preventing the rule from going into effect today as planned.

The rule would bar immigrants already in the country from obtaining green cards or citizenship and those outside the country from coming on certain kinds of visas if immigration officials determined that they were "likely to become a public charge." For those already in the country, the administration defined "public charge" not as someone who is primarily or solely dependent on government cash for survival (as has typically been the case) but as someone who has received designated public benefits for 12 months in the aggregate within a 36-month period—the so-called "12/36 rule."

Those who collect multiple benefits in a month would be counted as having received benefits for multiple months. And the benefits don't have to be cash benefits—as has been the standard—but anything from housing assistance to Medicaid. Nor do they have to meet any value threshold; any amount would do. In other words, as the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California noted, someone receiving the equivalent of $182 over 36 months—or an average of 17 cents a day—could be branded a public charge and barred from upgrading their immigration status.

The court, in its 90-plus page ruling, traced the long history of the term "public charge" to show just how big a departure this interpretation represents. Congress originally invoked the term in 1882 to bar anyone who was a "convict, lunatic, idiot or any person unable to take care of himself or herself" and therefore would essentially become a ward of the state either because they had to be imprisoned or institutionalized on the taxpayers' dime. It did not mean to include anyone needing any public assistance because it levied on all passengers a 50 cent duty for an "immigrant fund" to help defray the cost of any diseases they'd picked up on their long journey in disease-infested ships. Congress subsequently included "paupers" into the mix of people who could be barred but neither courts nor regulators took this to mean able-bodied poor folks capable of working, especially if they had relatives and friends in the country. "Absent some particularly-identified negative factor" such as having a debilitating disease "those who appear generally capable and willing to work," the California court pointed out, were generally assumed "not likely to become public charges" regardless of their income status.

In 1990, Congress revised the public charge law to ditch the "paupers, professional beggars, or vagrants" language because it had become antiquated and jarring to modern ears and replaced it with "public charge" as a general category of people who could be barred. But the long history of the term made it clear that Congress did not mean to exclude poor people who occasionally availed of some public benefits.

If there is any doubt about this, the California court noted, it should be put to rest by the fact that Congress repeatedly declined to define "'public charge' to include those who receive certain in-kind benefits." Indeed, in 1996, the last time Congress dealt with this issue, it even considered something akin to Trump's 12/36 rule wherein the use of certain means-tested benefits for 12 months would qualify an immigrant as a public charge. But it rejected it after President Bill Clinton protested that this would go "too far in denying legal immigrants access to vital safety net programs."

"This exchange, which deals with the precise issues presented by this litigation, is particularly instructive not because of the president's words," the California court ruled, "but because of Congress' response to those words—it intentionally considered and rejected a definition similar to what the Rule now proposes." Indeed, the administration is ignoring that it is "Congress, not the President, who is responsible for writing legislation," it said.

The California court's ruling—as well as that of the other courts—applies only to the Department of Homeland Security rules that govern visa updates of immigrants already in the country, not the Department of State rules that apply to immigrants outside. So it is unclear whether the latter will still be implemented today.

However, what makes Trump's rule even more infuriating is that it would basically slash family-based immigration while admitting only the select, high-income few after Congress explicitly declined to do so. Indeed, Trump proposed such a scheme in the same bill in which he requested funding for his wall in exchange for legalizing Dreamers—those who were brought to this country as minors without authorization—but Congress turned him down. In other words, just as with his emergency declaration to procure wall funding, his public charge rule is trying to accomplish by executive means what he couldn't through legislative ones.

One does not have to be a fan of immigration or welfare or immigrants getting welfare—just of respecting checks and balances and the Constitution's delegation of powers among the various branches of government—to understand that this is not right.

Postscript: Over at National Review, Robert Verbruggen dismisses the California court's reasoning along with that of other courts as the handiwork of "liberal judges." He argues that Congress has refused to offer a clear definition of public charge but the U.S. Code has handed "astonishingly broad power" to consular officers and immigration bureaucrats in the executive branch to define the term. Hence, the Trump administration is well within its rights to write the rules of admissibility as it sees fit and it is the courts that are overstepping.

It's an interesting argument.

However, it forgets that conservatives rejected this exact rationale when President Barack Obama used his executive authority to temporarily legalize Dreamers and their parents through the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals) programs. They argued that regardless of the vast powers that Obama may have to implement these programs, he should be guided by longstanding norms—although, as I pointed out at that time, Obama's actions were justifiable even by that standard given that previous presidents had made similar grants to similar numbers of immigrants.

More to the point, Verbruggen overestimates the latitude granted to the executive branch by the U.S. Code to make the public charge determination. It is true that the code's first clause notes that the attorney general and consular officers can deny adjustment of status or admission to any alien they fear could become a public charge. But then, in the very next clause, it lists the kinds of factors that they "shall" at a "minimum consider" to make their determination, including the alien's age, health, family status, assets and resources, education and skills. This sounds awfully like the "totality of circumstances" test that the Supreme Court articulated in its 1915 Geigow v. Uhl ruling. That ruling, which has guided courts and administrative agencies, barred immigration authorities from keeping out people who are poor but otherwise capable of working.

Congress has notoriously given the executive vast authority on immigration enforcement. But it is not so broad that the president can totally ignore its explicit will.

NEXT: An Illinois Lawmaker Wants to Reinstate the Death Penalty to Deter Shootings

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

54 responses to “Courts Rule That Trump's Immigration Orders Are an Abuse of His Executive Authority

  1. Fear not, my fellow consumers of billionaire-funded open borders advocacy! The alt-right white nationalist in the White House will be gone by early 2021 — or possibly even sooner — and the Koch / Reason immigration agenda will be implemented by his successor.

    I look forward to posting daily updates about how well Charles Koch is doing under a Democratic President. Honestly it’s depressing to chronicle the stagnation of our billionaire benefactor’s net worth during this low-immigration #DrumpfRecession.

    #BillionairesKnowBest
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. What is this obsession you have with Charles Koch and your hairy reproductive organs, GOP suckup?

      1. Charles Koch is the billionaire benefactor and intellectual godfather of Koch / Reason libertarianism. Which is a philosophy primarily dedicated to making sure the planet’s richest individuals (including, of course, Mr. Koch himself) accumulate even more wealth. To this end, Koch / Reason libertarianism promotes unlimited, unrestricted immigration into the US and the abolition of minimum wage laws.

        “Obsession” is a strong word, but I have a great deal of admiration for Mr. Koch’s agenda. Moreover, I respect that he — unlike Drumpf — is a completely self-made billionaire.

  2. So, I guess the Supreme Court has already heard arguments challenging Trump’s rescinding of DACA. Or is that ongoing?

    Anyway, we should have a ruling on that sometimes in June.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/major-companies-tell-supreme-court-ending-daca-will-hurt-the-economy.html

    1. Fascinating. SCOTUS is supposed to override the law of the land based on big corporations saying it hurts their business. And Democrats are all behind this. Talk about a blatant display of crony capitalism.

    2. Trump is standing up for America – something a dimwit like Shikah neither understands or appreciates. We don’t need a flood of low-IQ invaders entering America to suck up welfare dollars, breed like rats and bolster the Communist/Socialist/DemonCRAP party.

      The judges log-rolling Trump will only prevail for just so long. In the end, Trump will prevail at the Supreme Court.

      In the interim, Trump’s strategy of encouraging the Mexicans to interdict the scum washing over their southern border seems to be working.

      Ultimately, what we should do is station our military on the border with orders to prevent all invasion. Simply shoot the invaders as they attempt to cross. After the first couple hundred are blown apart, and the video transmitted south, the criminals will understand – Invade America at the risk of your life. And at that point, the problem will be solved.

  3. Uh oh… TEAM GOP! EMERGENCY! Limited government doesn’t apply to fucking Mexicans like you, Shikha. Jesus Christ! Doesn’t she know anything?

    1. Welfare state powers activate!

      Form of ENTITLEMENTS!

      Shape of OPEN BORDERS!

    2. You’re fucking terrible at this.

    3. No. She doesn’t. Shikah belongs in a country more attuned to her vision of the perfect government — like Venezuela.

    4. Fuck off, Tony.

  4. but also those who oppose unchecked executive power when the President is from the wrong party. FTFY

  5. There are no guarantees, but The Volokh Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin notes that Briones’ narrow and carefully argued ruling might appeal to these justices. If it doesn’t, future presidents will be emboldened to flout Congress’ appropriation powers for their pet projects. For example, President Elizabeth Warren could cheerfully declare income inequality or climate change or lack of universal coverage a national emergency in order to divert all kinds of funds from all kinds of departments—Congress be damned. We might as well order a crown for the president now.

    Well, you might have to look to the intent of Congress, and it seems pretty clear to me that Congress intends to let the Imperial Executive do as it wills lest they be held accountable for making any decisions the electorate does not care for.

    1. She could divert the entire national budget and it still wouldn’t pay for universal health care.

      1. She’d try. And then she’d blame the billionaires and Republicans for the failures of her programs. It’s what socialists and fascists like her do: it’s always the “reactionaries”, “vast right wing conspiracies”, and “evil capitalists” who are responsible for socialism/fascism not functioning.

    2. For example, President Elizabeth Warren could cheerfully declare income inequality or climate change or lack of universal coverage a national emergency in order to divert all kinds of funds from all kinds of departments—Congress be damned. We might as well order a crown for the president now.

      Somin is such a concern troll, isn’t he? Warren would do that no matter what, Somin would cheer her on, and SCOTUS would let her get away with half her crap in the first few years, and then more in subsequent years, splitting the baby in two.

      And, yeah, if more welfare dependent third world migrants are allowed to stay in the US, that kind of socialist president is exactly what we’re going to get.

    3. Stomped that one right in the nuts, Jer. They just want to bring home the bacon and amass that sweet, sweet campaign cash. Or get junior a cushy position somewhere in , say, Ukraine. Why have to take a position on an issue that might piss off potential voters, er bribeees, when you can get another guy to take the blame for you?

  6. I can’t wait for ILoveConstitution’s reply. What does this “Legislative branch” do anyway and why are they getting in Dear Leader’s way? Article 1? Never heard of it.

    1. Fuck off, Tony.

  7. “However, it forgets that conservatives rejected this exact rationale when President Barack Obama used his executive authority to temporarily legalize Dreamers and their parents through the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals) programs. They argued that regardless of the vast powers that Obama may have to implement these programs, he should be guided by longstanding norms—although, as I pointed out at that time, Obama’s actions were justifiable even by that standard given that previous presidents had made similar grants to similar numbers of immigrants.”

    Yet DACA was done and judges are blocking Trump from ending it.

    Why?

    Even you, with an IQ barely above absolute zero, recognize that the President very much can do this.

    1. And Trump’s actions were also based on previous precedents. But rules and norms only matter when we like the outcome in this progresilsive wokatarian world.

      1. Trump’s public charge rule is literally backed up by the law governing it.

        Section 212(a)(4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)): “Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible[…] In determining whether an alien is excludable under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-(I) age;  (II) health; (III) family status; (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and (V) education and skills . . . .”

    2. Immediately after his re-election, Trump should push DACA detentions, arrests and deportations as hard as possible.

      When parents rob a bank and are later caught, their kids don’t get to keep the cash. The parents who came to this Country ILLEGALLY are CRIMINALS who should be deported along with their spawn. If they don’t want to leave – kill them.

  8. For example, President Elizabeth Warren could cheerfully declare income inequality or climate change or lack of universal coverage a national emergency in order to divert all kinds of funds from all kinds of departments—Congress be damned. We might as well order a crown for the president now.

    So, who here is naive enough to believe that President Warren wouldn’t do those things anyway, regardless of what ruling comes down?

  9. Waiting for the excuse that Obama did it first in three, two, one…

    1. Waiting for the concern that obama did it.

    2. How fucking dumb are you?

      Here is the pertinent law.

      “Section 212(a)(4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)): “Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible[…] In determining whether an alien is excludable under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-(I) age;  (II) health; (III) family status; (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and (V) education and skills . . . .” ”

      How is defining what public charge is, ie using fucking welfare programs, not actually enforceable while Obama’s granting of positive rights despite law is enforceable?

      Do you even think before you say stupid shit?

  10. Both the national emergency declaration and the public charge rule are rooted in powers expressly provided to the President by Congress. The DHS Secretary has the power to make regulations regarding public charge along with any other rules to enforce the INA. Emergency declarations are power provided by Congress expressly to the President. Congress can also both revoke those authorities or modify the extension of power granted. But as of now the law provides any president those powers. Trump may be a good example of why Congress SHOULD NOT provide such sweeping authority, but there can be no denying that they did. Trump is simply using the power Congress gave. Congress maybe shouldn’t be allowed to delegate their responsibility, but the courts have already waived away the non-delegation authority.

    Turning to DACA, there is no statutory basis for it at the scale and implementation that a policy memo outlined.

    Not only did DACA violate the statutory law governing substantive rulemaking in the APA, but it has no root in the statute as implemented. Deferred action and parole were not supposed to be done on a categorical scale, but simply case-by-case for specific reasons like humanitarian concern (DACA waives this away by memo saying that as a group they are a significant public benefit including McDonald’s employees and the like as significant public benefits as a class as opposed to their individual merits).

    So…no. Under the laws of the United States DACA does not compare with the public charge rule or the emergency declaration. But Courts are wildly applying some exacting scrutiny not seen before to Trump’s actions within the law while simultaneously protecting DACA which is, regardless of policy merits, unlawful. And we all know why.

    1. are power provided by Congress expressly to the President.

      It was the people who delegated powers to either Congress, the Executive Branch, or the Judiciary. They didn’t intend for them to share or else they would have explicitly said so; enumerated powers. Get Congress to approve the Wall or get bent.

      And for the record I also think DACA should be ruled against for usurping the will of the people. Get Congress to approve DACA or get bent.

      1. The public charge is literally given to definition by the executive.

        Section 212(a)(4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)): “Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible[…] In determining whether an alien is excludable under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-(I) age;  (II) health; (III) family status; (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and (V) education and skills . . . .”

        See the requirement on the AG.

  11. Old and tired: they only come here to work and there’s no welfare component.

    New hotness: it’s just a little welfare; just the tip.

    Tell me agaun how much you really care about the welfare state when every single revealed preference shows the exact opposite.

    1. Welfare state concerns are open borders bitch.

      “Trump spends too much…AND we need to allow illegals in who will leech off the system”

      1. The ACA is a highly tuned machine that balances the costs of sustaining an elderly population with the benefits of a vital youth population. Except when youth aren’t participating in the program enough to fill out the age bins, then we need to import bring in more young people from outside the country in order to offset the cost. Also, asking undocumented immigrants to prove how old or healthy they are or even cross at checkpoints is racist.

    2. Get rid of welfare for non-citizens? W can’t do that! It’s crazy talk! Build a wall instead!

      1. Shikha had a sadz that you said that.

      2. You think opposition to the wall is big? Imagine what would happen if Trump started a campaign to ban entitlement spending for illegals.

    3. Native-born Americans MOOCH off of the illegal sub-humans, by making them pay into Social Security (which we benefit from), while THEY can NOT benefit! This dynamic props up Social Security to the tune of $10 to $12 billion per year!

      But Conservatards NEVER want to talk about THIS aspect of it!

      See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

      1. Because the benefit to SS is dwarfed by the costs of illegal immigrants you fucking retard.

        1. How does Squirrely remain unmurdered?

    4. Simple to fix that part. Any immigrant who receives any welfare payment gets the death penalty.

  12. No problem. Next stop, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And then SCOTUS, if needed. I note with no small irony, there are now a number of ‘Trump Judges’ now on the Ninth. And more awaiting confirmation, which they will be, no later than Hanukkah.

    1. No such thing as a Trump judge. Or an Obama judge. It is known.

  13. Shika writes article. She is wrong.

  14. Shiksa, you ignorant slut…

    1. You are way too kind.

  15. “future presidents will be emboldened to flout Congress’ appropriation powers for their pet projects. For example, President Elizabeth Warren could cheerfully declare income inequality or climate change or lack of universal coverage a national emergency in order to divert all kinds of funds from all kinds of departments—Congress be damned”

    No, no it doesn’t. And democrats already shot on the constitution already, so really this is just more weak minded bullshit.

    Shikha really is a stupid bitch, and this article is long winded garbage. Nick should be embarrassed this idiot has anything to do with this publication in any way.

    1. Reason publishes a lot of articles that are insightful, a number that are wrong and others distributed along the scale.

      But Shikha’s articles are uniformly, consistently shit of the most odious kind. Is she only kept on because her articles make others look better by comparison? Does she have something on those empowered to fire her? Shikha – are you blackmailing them? Is she related? Can you not terminate her because she’s somebody’s wife’s sister?

      Please – tell us. Tell us what reason there is for Shikha remaining on the Reason staff?
      Aside from the possibilities above – I can think of none.

  16. I think Shikha’s immigration views are driven by shame: she knows full well that on a sensible immigration policy, she wouldn’t have been admitted into the country since she has no useful skills.

  17. “The administration’s public charge rule isn’t quite as egregious an abuse of executive power as the border wall emergency, but it’s still pretty bad”…actually its well within the very broad executive power given by the Congress…does she even bother reading the stuff she writes articles about?

  18. Reason #1 Libertarians are a joke; because in an effort to promote the fringe aspects of your ideology and remain consistent/non hypocritical, you put ideological consistency ahead of morality. There is no moral argument for destroying a nation’s culture and systems of governance by opening its borders to millions of people who don’t share our values. No amount of “principled Conservatism/Libertarianism” will work. You’re not going to destroy this country by flooding it with people who don’t care for our values and we’re going to bend the rules as needed to ensure this.

    1. Libertarians are the only principled moral political philosophy left.

      The very fact that you argue for “our values” which you do not define puts us in very different places. Whose values? Yours, mine, Ben Shapiro’s, Pat Robertson’s, Bernie Sander’s, LeBron’s….So if you want to define “our values” I think you mean that the function of government is to protect your values and those who think like you.

      The function of government is to protect all of our values. That is fundamental in our constitution and the foundation of our country.

      It is ok. Liberty is not easy and most people will trade it for something else. I realize that.

  19. Part of the problem is that work is nothing like it was in the days of Ellis Island because of our ever expanding government and loss of liberty.

    Back then there were no work permits or visas. There were no regulations or restricted fields. If you were a barber you just needed a few tools and you cut hair. If you were a butcher you could save up a bit of money and open a butcher shop. If you were a cook or baker it did not need a permit and thousands in expense to sell your wares. If you did not have skills you found a job in labor or a factory.

    Also people tended to live in communities of similar origin. There was a lot of help and opportunity within them to get started out. Also charity for those who needed it.

    Within a generation or so people spread out and by the next were just like anyone else.

    Give the migrants temporary residency and work permits, say one or two years. If someone of working age cannot get it together by then the permit could not be renewed and they would be subject to deportation. There is no point letting people in then blocking them from finding decent jobs.

    The basis of libertarian thought is that individuals, all of them, have basic natural rights. Those do not come from government or depend on where you were born. Individuals should accept basic responsibility for their own welfare. It is only right to give people a chance.

    1. I’m happy to give them all “a chance”… somewhere else.

      Frankly, anyone wishing to immigrate who has an IQ less than 110 should be immediately excluded. They frankly do not have what will be needed to succeed in the next couple decades.

      This is MY Country. The scum washing over the border has no rights here.

  20. Shikha, you forget that CONGRESS made a law some years ago putting ALL lawmaking authority into the hands of the President in matters relating to immigration and entry into our sovereign territory.

    WHY did you not holler and scream and whinge and get your knickers all in a twist wh=en the most recent president began making radical changes in immigraion and entry laws? Seems whenever someone uses their lawful authority to do something, and they do it YOUR way, no matter how illegal/unconstitutional you’re just fine with it all. ,Let someone even suggest doing it a way of which you do not approve, and they’re a traitor, out of bounds, to be pilloried, outcast, etc.
    We HAVE a Constitution, and laws made persuant thereto. Trump’s immigrationi laws/policies are “persuant thereto”.

Comments are closed.