Immigration

Conservatives Embrace Presidents Making Laws on "Sticky Notes"

Donald Trump has rewritten much of U.S. immigration law from the Oval Office, without congressional oversight or public debate.

|

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration violated the law when it attempted to rescind the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli slammed the decision as a "double standard," asking: "Does anyone think they'd let @realDonaldTrump just make up 'laws' on sticky notes like @BarackObama?"

The answer is clear: Yes, they would. Indeed, just two days after Cuccinelli leveled this criticism, President Donald Trump announced that he will unilaterally impose new restrictions to block foreign workers from entering the country, despite decades-old laws allowing companies to hire foreign workers in certain circumstances.

Trump told Fox News Saturday that the restrictions would be "very tight" with "very little exclusion" for "a period of time." The president may not be writing the law on sticky notes in his office, but he's definitely making new laws from his Oval Office just the same—with zero congressional oversight and zero public debate and thrusting it on Americans with barely a day's notice.

This latest executive sticky note isn't unique. Trump has essentially rewritten all of U.S. immigration law to his liking. He is just two months removed from a ban on immigrant family members of Americans—a move he had proposed in legislation that failed in Congress. Like his latest restriction, this is supposedly going to "protect jobs."

Even before COVID-19, the president blocked asylum seekers at the southern border and sharply restricted refugees. He rewrote high-skilled immigration procedures in ways that courts found violated the law. And who could forget his late-night ban on immigrants from a grab bag of majority-Muslim countries, issued just days into his presidency, and the chaos it unleashed at America's airports?

That "Muslim ban" was a proving ground for all that followed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in that case that "immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show" and that Congress did not—and could not—have delegated the authority to the president to exclude anyone he wants. Yet the Supreme Court disagreed, and now, contrary to Cuccinelli, immigration is a one-man show.

A single man's vision laid out in secret is a far cry from the founders' vision of two branches of Congress robustly debating and carefully crafting laws in public.

Even the Supreme Court's latest ruling doesn't limit the president's authority to terminate DACA. It just requires him to follow the procedures laid out in the law—namely, that he fully explains why he wants to do it. That's about as low a bar for action as there can be.

But what about President Barack Obama? Did the Supreme Court let him "make up" immigration law too? No. DACA was never challenged in court under Obama, but a similar program was. When the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the program was illegal, an evenly divided Supreme Court affirmed that decision and the president backed off, immediately announcing that he would follow the ruling. We've seen no similar announcement from Cuccinelli or Trump about the Supreme Court's DACA ruling.

The president's latest action also puts to bed another common trope among immigration opponents: that they just want the laws on the books enforced. Turns out that many of them would prefer that laws allowing immigrants to come here not be enforced. Apparently, "enforcing the law" is fine only as long as it involves removing people from America.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: June 23, 1987

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.

  1. POTUS Trump limiting immigration visas for six (yes 6) months in the face of mass unemployment is just common sense. I don’t see that as the end of immigration as we know it.

    What planet does Bier live on?

    1. The plural of anecdote isn’t data, but most of the business owners and managers I’ve talked to are having just as much trouble hiring people now as they were pre-covid. I suspect it has something to do with the “generous” unemployment and stimulus payments.

      Anyway, maybe we should first eliminate all the government programs that create disincentives to work before we limit visas. That would make sense from the viewpoint of the private sector job creators anyway.

      1. But most HB1 VISA jobs pay more than unemployment. The UE compensation is killing low wage employers.

        1. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour.

          Here’s what I do… Money90

      2. I’m good with both = eliminate all the government programs that create disincentives to work + restrict visas for 6 months

    2. Even if this were correct, Bier is saying that the President shouldn’t have the ability to do this unilaterally. If legislation were “common sense” then why not go to Congress and have that debate, as it was intended by our Constitution?

      1. AOC is too busy taking selfies for Instagram. Seriously, have you seen the people elected to Congress?

        1. The people deserve the government they vote for.

          AOC taking selfies or Trump constantly tweeting are welcome distractions from either of them trying to govern.

          1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

            Here’s what I do…………….new Income Opportunities

        2. Yes. Congress has successfully frittered itself into irrelevance much like the Roman Senate of the early empire.

          The trouble is, Trump is no Caesar Augustus. Maybe more of a Tiberius. But you know who comes after Tiberius . . .

          1. I wish Trump was more of a Nero but, unfortunately, Trump has no artistic flair.

            1. “What an artist the world is losing.”

          2. There are some parallels between Trump and Gaius Julius.
            Don’t see any Augustus waiting in the wings. Then again, Octavian wasn’t all that visible prior to JC’s assassination…

            1. Do you, in Trump, see many a Marius?

        3. Her primary is tonight. Would love to see Cabrera take her out.

      2. Sorry Leo, but the Congress delegated that authority to the POTUS. They did so deliberately and voluntarily. They can pass legislation and change it.

        1. They don’t have the authority to change the separation of powers by a simple majority. Amending the Constitution is outlined in Article 5, not Article 1.

          1. Oh Hell Leo, who the fuck do you think you are fooling? That ship sailed a century ago with the creation of the bureaucratic regulatory state.

            You are just noticing the problem now? And your argument effectively invalidates everything of Obama’s that Trump was attempting to undo. Yet it was only the undoing that got checked by SCOTUS. Are you that ignorant, or that biased?

            1. Obama’s implementation of DACA was unconstitutional. Full stop.

              If you want SCOTUS to overturn it then it needs to be challenged on APA grounds, like Trump’s EO was. Full stop.

      3. Congress delegated this authority to the president precisely for these kinds of situations: to give him the ability to act quickly in emergencies like a pandemic. Congress is always free to step in any time to override him.

        It’s working the way Congress intended it to work, you just don’t like the policy.

        1. I’ve been consistent in saying that Obama’s implementation of DACA was also unconstitutional. And I do like that policy. Can you say the same?

          1. You miss the point, Leo. The law is what the Congress passed. They expressly delegated that authority to the Executive. You might not like that, but that is what happened here.

            Your quarrel is with Congress. I urge you to write your elected representatives.

  2. All he needs is a phone and a pen.

    That’s settled law.

    Right?

    1. That’s the real problem isn’t it? 5 years ago there was very little hemming and hawing about diktat via sticky note from the corporate media even though it was the end of the world when Bush did it. The real problem is that we created the position of god-king and both parties are happy to let it happen when their guy is in charge. It’s sooooo much easier than trying to get legislation passed through the legislative branch. When congressmen have their votes on record, it’s a liability to re-election.

  3. The law gives the President authority to limit immigration. If you wanna whine about anything, whine about Congress passing the law in 1952.

    1. But they never anticipated Trump. There is a secret section of the Constitution which allows exceptions if the wrong people are in charge.

      1. Don’t forget the fourth (Media) and fifth (civil service) branches of government which have the power to nullify any Presidential edict.

      2. They’ll have to bring it to the SC. Only John Roberts know where it’s at.

    2. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to simply delegate its constitutional authority to another branch without going through the amendment process. The Constitution is a contract with the states/people. One side doesn’t get to simply change the terms of the contract without the consent of the other.

      Plenty of things have been ruled “legal” which are in plain violation of the intent of the Constitution.

      1. One side doesn’t get to simply change the terms of the contract without the consent of the other.

        Ah, yes, the Darth Vader theory of contracts. Our government has been operating by it for a while now. “I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further.”

      2. Leo, then I know you’ll be interested in the non-delegation cases that will come before SCOTUS.

        1. I have no confidence that SCOTUS will correctly limit Presidential power on any nondelegation cases. Even the line item veto, which it ruled correctly on, was based on Presentment Clause and not nondelegation.

      3. Expecting the branch of government responsible for making law to limit itself from delegating and spending their time running for office isn’t a very rational proposition these days, if it ever was at all.

        1. Will you have the same position the next time a Democrat is in office?

          1. My comment was pretty non-partisan, so read into it what you will.

            I suppose they could always pass an amendment to limit themselves, it’s happened before, but that doesn’t happen often and I wouldn’t put much faith in them doing it any time soon.

            And even then, there’s always the option of them just ignoring what the amendment says. They’ve been doing a lot of that lately too.

            1. I read somewhere that politicians have to resort to these tactics because the Constitution is difficult to amend. You see, if the Constitution is difficult to amend, politicians will ignore it. If you make it easy enough to amend, politicians can do whatever they want. Take your pick.

  4. How is the answer clear anyways it’s not like John Roberts signed off on this EO. Reason writers aren’t smart enough to be as glib as they act. Reason is all safety school kids. Leave the glib sophistry to the Ivy League boys at the NYT.

    1. Every one of those words is a perfectly understandable English word, but strung together in the way, they don’t make a bit of sense. I haven’t the faintest clue what point you are trying to make.

      1. Maybe you should have gone to Princeton like me. Toodles.

        1. “I went to a school called Cornell. Ever heard of it?”

          -Andy Bernard-

      1. She only does that for chicks.

  5. DACA was implemented by Obama’s executive order improperly by the same rules cited by the court for not allowing Trump to rescind it. This has put the court in the absurd position of protecting a policy that is illegal by it’s own standards. This becomes arbitrary rule by judges selectively enforcing rules when a majority favors one policy or one man holding the executive office over another.

    1. You forgot to consider motives. Motives are more important than procedure.

      1. Unless the procedure can be used to stop motives that you disagree with, then procedure matters more. If neither gets you what you want, you can flip a coin. If that gets you what you want, then the coin is the most important. If that doesn’t work, you then have permission to light things on fire.

        1. You should teach law. You have a good understanding of it.

          1. I’m not so much a scholar as I am an astute observer.

    2. The court admitted that DACA was illegal. But then said it couldn’t be reascended without following the procedures of the APA. Absurd is too weak of a word.

      1. The court needs to decide a case challenging the legality of DACA. AFAIK it hasn’t. It heard US v Texas, which was a DAPA case, and affirmed the lower court decision 4-4, to send back to the district court.

    3. You are incorrect because DACA was never challenged on the rules that implemented it in the first place. Republicans had the opportunity to challenge on the APA but did not do that. Dreamers are individuals that upset only a few hard core people. I am sure that while Republicans were happy to criticize President Obama, they did not want to really deport Dreamers. Note this article suggest that immigration policy is being run out of the WH. I suspect that a majority of Republicans in Congress are happy to have distance between them and immigration decisions.

      1. He isn’t saying that a court found it to be improper, her is saying that objectively DACA was improper according to the same rules.

        1. Yes, you might conclude DACA was illegal, but it was not challenged at the time. I would content it was not challenged because Republicans wanted only to criticize President Obama and they had no stomach to deport Dreamers. Justice Roberts is willing to allow President Trump to rescind DACA, but it has to be done in the correct manner. The illegality of DACA is irrelevant to SCOTUS’s ruling.

      2. As John noted, Robert’s in his opinion, says DACA was illegally implemented.

        I suppose this could be a gambit by Roberts that when the case that challenges DACA’s legality is heard by SCOTUS, the left wing justices will have signed on to an opinion that says Obama’s executive order was illegal. If so, this still is no way to run a country.

        1. Of course, the follow-up question of ‘what do we do when something is illegally implemented’ is also answered.

          Let it stand, because it doesn’t matter if the original thing was illegal no one will hang or go to jail. Questions won’t even be asked.

          A more perfect stating of ‘fuck you, that’s why’ by Roberts.

          It would be as if slavery were illegally implemented, then it was left to stand because procedures weren’t followed in trying to get rid of it.

          Brilliant reasoning, Roberts. Scintillating, even.

          One might suppose that his rationale is Congress should do something, but it’s nice to see the court is just as activist as it has been for quite some time now.

          SCOTUS is getting so good at kicking the can and not answering questions that they’re giving Congress a run for their money.

          No wonder people look to strong Presidents as the answer. Every other branch is busy throwing shit and typewritters at each other expecting Shakespeare.

  6. Reason embarrasses itself again. This essay is TDS-based drivel.

    1. Barnstormer embarrasses itself again. This micro-essay (having no facts, logic, or links) is TDS-based drivel. TDS comes in PRO-Trump flavors as well, you know!

      Since Barnstormer is too lazy to post a link, I’ll post one here, for all ye who lust after the Trumptatorshit and Der TrumpfenFuhrer’s lusting after “absolute rights”, AKA a dictatorshit!

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/president-trump-absolute-rights/607168/
      Donald Trump’s Strange and Dangerous ‘Absolute Rights’ Idea
      This is a profound misunderstanding of the American constitutional system.

      1. You’re seriously confusing a casual phrase with a legal theory?

        Trump says a lot of sht all day long. What matters is what he actually does, and he generally seems to listen to lawyers and experts.

      2. If you need a link to drivel, here it is: http://www.churchofsqrls.com.

  7. As DACA was implemented by Obama’s executive order, and most of the staff of Reason cheered, then libertarians have embraced sticky not lawmaking for years? How does a Reason writer dare criticize conservatives for embracing executive orders when it is something they themselves embrace when it gets them the p ok Lucy they want.

    1. I can’t speak for Reason writers. While the intent of DACA is something that I agree with, the implementation is not. It should go through Congress… period.

      1. And that’s Trump’s position.

  8. Conservatives have ignored Congress since Dumbya’s hundreds of signing statements. They love the Unitary Executive as long as he is an Aborto-Freak ignoramus.

    1. Yeah, it was Republicans who launched illegal wars in Libya, Syria and Kosovo right? And was Bush not Obama who set an all time record for losing the most 9-0 decisions (44) at the Supreme Court, right?

      Go back to jerking off to child porn you miserable lying fuck. Everyone here hates your guts. The entire world hates you. You are just a bag of puke that someone needs to throw in the trash.

    2. You have to be an “ignoramus” to believe such nonsense.

      Democrats and Republicans have been largely interchangeable. Obama abused executive powers more than usual. Trump has done so far less, but Trump isn’t really a traditional Republican anyway.

  9. “…the policy they want.”

    My auto fill went mad.

    It even just tried put in “autistic” for auto fill above. It may have a correct self diagnosis.

  10. The premise of this article is simply wrong. He’s not “making new laws”. The President is simply acting on the authority expressly given to him by Congress with words like “the President shall determine” or “Whenever the President finds”

    His actions may be misguided or even stupid, but they usually have a solid basis in the law. Even the recent DACA decisions was decided not on his right to make such a change, but that the change was made without following every scrap of the law to the exact letter. It was not overturned, it was sent back.

    For example 8 U.S. Code § 1182 is basically Presidential carte blanche on restricting immigration, I cannot see how virtually any action the President might take on restricting the admission of aliens into the country would be extra-legal given how this law is written:

    8 U.S. Code § 1182. Inadmissible aliens

    f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    And control of refugee admissions are similar turned over to the President (so long as some Cabinet members talk to some people in Congress) about it first.

    8 U.S. Code § 1157. Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency situation refugees

    1) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in fiscal year 1980, 1981, or 1982, may not exceed fifty thousand unless the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation (as defined in subsection (e)), that admission of a specific number of refugees in excess of such number is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

    (2) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

    (3) Admissions under this subsection shall be allocated among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States in accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate consultation.

    (4) In the determination made under this subsection for each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 1992), the President shall enumerate, with the respective number of refugees so determined, the number of aliens who were granted asylum in the previous year.

  11. Article doesn’t even mention COVID.

    1. It’s now implied in everything. Steve Bing’s suicide is certainly COVID related.

  12. DACA was/is illegal. Trump’s alteration of DACA is also illegal. It’s all illegal. Two wrongs don’t make a right. One wrong being more wrong than the other other doesn’t make a kinda-right. It’s not about “fairness”. There is no free pass to break the rules because someone else broke the rules.

    Stop legislating with pens and phones. Congress makes law, not the president.

    1. Stopping to do something illegal is illegal? That’s absurd. Since you agree that DACA was never legal to begin with, stopping it is merely returning to a lawful state.

      Furthermore, Trump has been clear that he is doing this precisely so that Congress starts doing its job and actually come up with a legislative solution.

    2. Not illegal. Just that not all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed in the procedure for making the change. SCOTUS indicated he CAN make the change, he just didn’t quite follow the rules. DACA was not “saved” it was sent back. So if Trump and DHS can follow the rules, DACA can be eliminated.

      1. If all the procedures were improperly followed to implement DACA, then it is just as improper for the executive branch to carry out that order as the court ruled it is to carry out Trump’s order. That is why this is an absurd situation the Court put the country in by this ruling.

        1. Agree. Now someone should challange DACA on APA grounds, wonder how that plays out. Trump admin can agree with the lawsuit and not defend DACA.

  13. When the courts require “a full explanation” or a “rational basis”…that means NO

  14. The article ignores basic facts. Congress did pass a law, and that law lets the president exclude pretty much anybody he wants. The law also restricts entry into the US and imposes penalties and deportation. That’s why Trump’s actions are lawful and Obama’s weren’t.

    1. 8 U.S. Code § 1182. Inadmissible aliens

      f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      And control of refugee admissions are similar turned over to the President (so long as some Cabinet members talk to some people in Congress) about it first.

  15. We appear to have reached the “lamentations of their women” stage.

    Do conservatives still dream of a real man coming to rescue them from getting stomped in the culture war?

    Enjoy the ride, clingers.

    1. Every time I fuck your wife her only lamentation is that your tiny penis can’t hit the back walls like my eleven incher can. I keep that bitch fed.

  16. It’s time Congress grew a set and took back it’s powers from the President. The power to enact trade and immigration legislation rests with the legislature, not the executive.

    To the Democrats: Placing power in the hands of a single person is bad, because eventually a bad person like Trump will have that power. Did you really think Obama would be president forever?

    To the Republicans: Placing power in the hands of a single person is bad, because eventually a Democrat will have that power. Do you really think Trump will live forever?

  17. “And who could forget his late-night ban on immigrants from a grab bag of majority-Muslim countries, issued just days into his presidency, and the chaos it unleashed at America’s airports?”

    Muslim countries?

    How about the countries that Obama had selected as potential state sponsors of terrorism? He used Obama’s list!

    SJW isn’t a good look for libertarians. The problem is that “social” justice is so often in conflict with actual justice.

  18. Thoughts from an immigration attorney:

    DACA was never illegal, just poorly thought out. It’s essentially prosecutorial discretion by the executive. The problem is that it is not settled law, so the next president can take it back. But congress is too busy discussing flatulence with SCOTUS nominees to do their job and make law.

    This executive order is outrageous. We already severely limit the number of H-1B visas each year and run a lottery each April. We get 200,000+ petitions for 85,000 visas (20,000 of those are reserved for people with an advanced degree from a US institution). The reason employers rely on H-1B workers is because Americans don’t want to study engineering or computer science. They prefer gender studies or Latin American literature.

    It costs a company far more to hire an H-1B worker than it does to hire a US worker. There are substantial legal and filing fees. They are bound to pay the prevailing wage as determined by DOL (US workers don’t get this benefit, or I would make $20k more per year). The idea that any company hires H-1B workers because they can get away with paying them less is absurd.

    I’m not sure this is extraconstitutional, but it is ill advised and based on misinformation. This is what happens when we elect a president who has no understanding of the law or the function of government. He’s solving a problem that doesn’t exist, and creating myriad new problems in the process. Companies will have to scramble to change course for those they intended to employ in H-1B status, and the entire immigration system is going to try to figure out how the hell all of this will actually work.


    1. The problem is that it is not settled law, so the next president can take it back.

      He just tried, and how did that work out for him? It appears that attempting to ‘take it back’ results in a SCOTUS case that says ‘no, he can’t because rules weren’t followed’. So there are rules you have to follow to ‘take it back’ but no rules on implementation? Curious way to do business, wouldn’t you say?

      1. Or, to put it more succinctly, one might think that limiting the possibility of capricious policy would be less disruptive than putting roadblocks in the way of ridding ourselves of capricious policy.

        Letting the President get away with such a massive loophole in ‘prosecutorial discretion’ is madness.

        Not that reform isn’t needed, but it’s insane that Congress can write a law and the President can effectively ignore it and do whatever they want. That was true under Obama, and it’s equally true under Trump. However, their actions are opposed on this action so I’d be curious how Trump isn’t able to use the same ‘discretion’ as Obama since you seem to assume that the original order was totally legal.

        1. DACA essentially said that the administration would suspend deportations and allow people to stay and work based on certain criteria. It was never suggested that it was anything but temporary. There is no path to permanent residence or citizenship. It’s in the name: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Deferred means the same thing as postpone.

          Trump’s EO goes so much farther. First of all, it restricts legal immigration, overriding the INA. It covers numerous categories. It will hamper US businesses’ ability to function. The only way it is legal is that it is technically temporary.

          It’s like Obama decided not to prosecute people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Doesn’t change the law, just the way it is enforced. Trump has decided to take alcohol away from people even though it’s legal.

          1. It’s like the people who like DACA never even read any of the tortured logic that was used to stop the repeal. Literally, no federal court said that what the Obama administration did was legal. They just performed a series of mental gymnastics to argue that to repeal it you must use the proper legal channels.

            The Obama administration illegally diverted funds toward a program that they invented out of whole cloth. The “just didn’t enforce the law” is not at all what happened.

            1. I take your point. I can see how deferring deportation is one thing; issuing work authorization (which DACA does) may be what takes it too far. You’ve shifted my thinking. I don’t know about the financing, but I am wrong to say that it is simply not enforcing the law because they granted a benefit as well.

              For what it’s worth, I don’t support DACA. As to constitutionality, reasonable minds may differ. But it is a bad way to try enact new policy. What Obama did was make a promise he could not keep to hundreds of thousands of people. They then gave the government their information and relied on that promise. I support the outcome Obama was trying to achieve, but it should never have come from the executive. Everyone who relied on DACA is now in miserable legal limbo, and it was entirely predictable because, technically, the next administration can flip. Again, SCOTUS did not say that it would be unconstitutional to rescind DACA. The Trump administration failed to make an effective legal case.

      2. DACA was left intact for now. However, the ruling by SCOTUS sends it back to the lower courts because the Trump administration failed to provide a legal basis for rescinding the program.

        Sometimes SCOTUS issues opinions that are essentially drafting instructions. In other words, they’re saying, “if you had done X, we could rule on Y,” prompting the petitioner to go do X.

        There are rules for implementation. The problem is that you have to challenge the new order once it has been issued. You can’t preemptively sue claiming that rules were not followed when nothing has happened. There will be legal challenges to this EO.

        1. And they likely will fail. Trump is within his power to do this. Read the damned statute.

    2. It costs a company far more to hire an H-1B worker than it does to hire a US worker. There are substantial legal and filing fees. They are bound to pay the prevailing wage as determined by DOL (US workers don’t get this benefit, or I would make $20k more per year). The idea that any company hires H-1B workers because they can get away with paying them less is absurd.

      There is more to cost of an employee than their wages. The great thing about an HB1 VISA holder is that they lose their VISA if they lose their job. So, the employer can demand virtually anything from them and if they don’t like it the employee can go back to Pakistan or wherever. “Prevailing wage” doesn’t include benefits and retirement and training or leave or anything else. Once you get an HB1 VISA holder, you don’t even have to treat them like a human being.

      Just who do you think you are kidding here? If it were really more expensive to hire HB1 VISA holders, there wouldn’t be much of a demand for them. There is only demand for them because the overall cost is lower for the reasons I give. And the legal costs of getting the VISA are small when you compare to the cost of paying the employee for years.

      It’s essentially prosecutorial discretion by the executive. The problem is that it is not settled law, so the next president can take it back.

      And that is complete horseshit. Prosecutorial discretion is deciding not to prosecute an individual case for reasons of justice or policy. It is not declining to prosecute an entire class of crimes. If it were, then the DA gets a veto on every law passed. It is not enough to pass a law and put it on the books. No, you have an extra step where the DA decides not to just read it out of the books via “prosecutorial discretion”. That is what your argument is saying and that is bullshit.

      You are just a fucking immigration lawyer who like every other immigration lawyer thinks no proceeding is over until the immigrant wins and no one should ever be denied entry. Well, the country disagrees. So fuck you.

      1. “You are just a fucking immigration lawyer who like every other immigration lawyer thinks no proceeding is over until the immigrant wins and no one should ever be denied entry. ”

        I hope you never need a lawyer pal, because that is exactly what a good lawyer does for a client; fight until the very end.

        I don’t even understand how a person who reads Reason can fail to grasp the essential and elementary nature of lawyers in a free society. You sound like an authoritarian, not a libertarian or even someone who leans that way. The same nonsense as those who argue suspected criminals shouldn’t be represented because they are bad people.

        I am also an immigration lawyer, and no I don’t think everyone should be admitted and none deported. The system is pretty good about deporting dangerous individuals and no amount of arguments is going to save a client with an extensive criminal record from getting a removal order against them. The fact that such individuals can find their way back here is a failure of our border security, not the attorneys who navigate extremely complicated laws and regulations on behalf of the 99% of immigrants who just want the opportunity to have a better life.

        And no buddy, the “country” doesn’t disagree, especially if you consider the fact that the President couldn’t even get basic immigration restrictions or border security measures passed by a congress the Republicans controlled early in his term.

        Most Americans are ok with immigration, they want an organized and fair system as well as secure borders. They don’t want a wholesale ban on immigration and immigrants. Its funny though because even the President ran on stopping illegal immigration, not all immigration. It seems though as with everything, he simply doesn’t care enough to pay attention and lets restrictionists like Miller and Tom Cotton determine what his policies should be.

        1. “The same nonsense as those who argue suspected criminals shouldn’t be represented because they are bad people.”

          Or people who think that there’s no need for a trial if a suspect confesses because no one would confess to a crime they didn’t commit.

          As for Trump’s strategy, I really think this is more about the economy and reelection than immigration. He’ll be able to go out there and say the economy is recovering because he stopped the people trying to take yer job.

          ClassicLib – good to meet another Immigration Attorney. I wonder if we’ve met. It’s not a huge community.

        2. I hope you never need a lawyer pal, because that is exactly what a good lawyer does for a client; fight until the very end.

          I don’t how anyone could be so stupid that they think that because I understand that immigration lawyers make whatever arguments they can for their clients that I am somehow bound to take them seriously or in not taking them seriously I somehow think no one has a right to an attorney or they have no right to do there jobs. Yet, here you are.

          You totally don’t understand my point. Your point is completely stupid and not responsive. But you make up for it by being smug. Thanks for reminding me how stupid people actually can be. I forget sometimes.

          1. You’re welcome!

      2. WOW. You’re wrong about the benefits – companies are required to provide the same benefits to H-1B visa holders that they do to all their employees. And they seek the H-1B visas because otherwise they cannot fill the jobs. I’m not sure how long you have worked in business immigration (I assume never), but my experience is that companies struggle to find US workers with the technical skills to do many of these jobs.

        You do have to treat them like a human being. USCIS makes random site visits to ensure that the employee in H-1B status is in fact being treated fairly, being paid the promised wage, and is actually doing the job listed in the petition at the stated location. If an employer fails a site visit, they face serious consequences.

        I said it was “essentially” prosecutorial discretion. The executive branch is charged with executing the law, so arguably it can choose to shift enforcement. Many state and city governments have done this with marijuana (people with small amounts won’t go to jail).

        Finally, not all fucking immigration lawyers think the same way. I do think there are instances where people should be turned away or denied a visa, and as a policy I oppose open borders.

        I don’t do removal defense or practice in immigration court, so I don’t have to stand up and say that a rapist should be given asylum. That isn’t something I am built to do. But I strongly support business immigration and you are goddam right that this fucking immigration lawyer will fight for her client all the way.

        1. Also, prosecutors often use their discretion about enforcement of law. They can seek a deferred sentence, and plea deals are absolutely the norm. Someone charged with a DUI can end up with a conviction for reckless driving. Someone who could face conviction for murder at trial will jump at an offer of manslaughter. That’s prosecutorial discretion.

          1. In individual cases not for entire sections of the law. Look you stupid bitch, make whatever argument you like but stop fucking pretending that I am making an argument I am clearly not. I never said they didn’t do that. I said they couldn’t read entire sections of the code out by refusing to ever enforce it.

        2. WOW. You’re wrong about the benefits – companies are required to provide the same benefits to H-1B visa holders that they do to all their employees. And they seek the H-1B visas because otherwise they cannot fill the jobs. I’m not sure how long you have worked in business immigration (I assume never), but my experience is that companies struggle to find US workers with the technical skills to do many of these jobs.

          Give me a fucking break. I see HB1 VISAs as a part of my job a good amount. You going to tell me there are no mechanical engineers qualified to work at a power plant? Bullshit. I see that all the time. You are just lying here or you believe everything your clients tell you.

          Again, it is just not true. HB!s don’t even go to that high skilled of labor. Sorry but being a coding monkey for Google or Facebook isn’t that high skilled. Everything you are saying is fucking bullshit.

          And USCIS shows up and makes sure that they are doing the job and getting paid. That pay doesn’t have to include the same benefits as Americans or training or being treated anything like they treat Americans. All they have to do is pay them and have them do the one job. That is it. The employees have no other leverage.

          Your clients are barely better than slavers. Frankly I would have more respect for you if you did removal hearings for rapists. At least then you wouldn’t lie to yourself and pretend you were defending good guys.

          1. I represent the employees as well as the employers. Calm down.

    3. “DACA was never illegal, just poorly thought out. It’s essentially prosecutorial discretion by the executive. The problem is that it is not settled law, so the next president can take it back. But congress is too busy discussing flatulence with SCOTUS nominees to do their job and make law.”

      My God, not with this horseshit again. No court recognized this argument as valid. Money was appropriated to a program that was made-up out of whole cloth. Not even Roberts could deny that the program was illegal.

      1. I don’t want to get into the weeds about appropriation of funds. I don’t know if the money was shifted around by USCIS or DHS, but if it was an unconstitutional act, why didn’t the Trump administration make that argument in court? The court can’t decide on an issue that is not presented, nor entertain arguments not made.

        The basic concept of deferring action on the part of the executive is, I think, constitutional. The problem with DACA is that it did more than just suspend deportations. It provided work authorization. I need to look through the lower court opinions.

        1. Deferring action in individual cases not entire classes.

  19. Slightly OT but still on the topic of SCOTUS being contradictory and retarded: In light of Bostock v. Clayton, how is every sexual harassment case under the sun not significantly compromised by the decision. If it’s illegal to fire someone for their sexual orientation because you wouldn’t fire a person of the opposite gender in the same situation, doesn’t that significantly undermine the vast majority of sexual harassment cases/issues?

    Smacking women on the ass while you compliment or encourage them, shoulder massages, and terms of endearment like sweety, honey, and sugar are just fine if a woman does them and just fine if a gay man does them. Even if I 100% agree with the courts “I’ll know sexual harassment when I see sexual harassment.” or “LGBT discrimination in the workplace needs to stop.” sentiments, it still requires me to know/infer guilt disparately based on sexual orientation. I still have to look at a man smacking a woman on the ass and say, “If a transperson or woman smacked a woman on the ass like that, it would still be sexual harassment.” (or fuck over women by ignoring legitimate claims of harassment because the harasser was of the appropriate class).

    1. Your point is valid if we are to pretend as if consistency and logic governs the federal courts. It’s hilarious to believe that at this juncture. They’ll make-up some double standard

  20. Congressional oversight lol they’re fucking crooks dude.

  21. Give me a break. Obama wrote the book on policy by decree.

  22. Your complaint is with John Roberts, yet you were cool with him allowing presidents to make law via fiat because you liked those illegal laws, so I fail to see how you have any leg to stand on here.

  23. O/T, but here comes the collapse of indoor plumbing, running water and sewage:
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/23/millions-of-americans-cant-afford-water-bills-rise

    Old soviet socialism is coming for your, uhhh, everything.

  24. The president may not be writing the law on sticky notes in his office, but he’s definitely making new laws from his Oval Office just the same grand rapids electrician

  25. Considering that the numbskull horseface governor of Rhode Island wants to RENAME THE STATE by executive fiat because the word “plantation” might offend some thin-skinned lollipop, I hardly think dissing Trump for making new laws when a do-nothing, passive, comatose congress won’t get off its thieving derriere to fix anything is apropos and balanced commentary.

Please to post comments