Avatar of admin


Repeal and Replace the Immigration and Nationality Act

December 3, 2014 in Economics

By Alex Nowrasteh

Alex Nowrasteh

President Obama’s executive action on immigration revealed some deep-seated problems with our immigration laws. They include broad grants of presidential discretion, arbitrary immigration restrictions, and complicated quotas that make a mockery of James Madison’s vision of the Constitution. Obama’s executive actions should be seen as a logical consequence and feature of our immigration laws, not some overreach that shreds them.

Obama’s actions, combined with our dysfunctional immigration laws, hint at a radical solution: scrap the Immigration and Nationality Act altogether and replace it with laws that actually work.

Our immigration laws, written by Congress over the centuries and kludged into the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952, delegate significant power to the president to defer the deportations of unlawful immigrants, grant some of them temporary work permits, and allow migrants into the country for humanitarian and other purposes.

Obama’s executive actions should be seen as a logical consequence and feature of our immigration laws, not some overreach that shreds them.”

The laws provide numerous specific statutory avenues by which the President can defer deportations. As the Supreme Court observed in the 2012 case of Arizona v. United States, “[d]iscretion in enforcing immigration laws embraces immediate human concerns” that extend to economic and other humanitarian imperatives.

Even though the president’s actions are likely legal, they do raise troubling constitutional concerns. Congress’ vague and poorly-written immigration laws grant wide authority to the President. Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman wrote, “in most cases the legislative branch has delegated to the president the sole responsibility to decide what the law should be, how and when to implement it, and even whether to enforce it at all.”

Worse than the delegation of power to the president, our immigration laws are a convoluted maze of gobbledygook. California Associate Justice Harry E. Hull Jr. wrote that our immigration laws are “second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.” Conservative U.S. appellate lawyer John Elwood, who has argued seven cases before the Supreme Court, wrote , “It’s well known that prolonged exposure to the hyper-reticulated Immigration and Nationality Act can actually cause your brain to melt.”

Such an inscrutable body of law has several consequences. First, it has produced a thoroughly unjust immigration system that primarily serves to harm immigrants and Americans alike. It shuts out virtually all foreigners who want to come here legally. And it effectively makes broad use of executive authority inevitable.

These problems can only …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.