XPost: alt.home.repair, rec.food.cooking, alt.politics.immigration
XPost: alt.california.illegals, alt.idiots

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On 2024-11-11, David LaRue <[email protected]> wrote:

Obviously the Biden-Harris Administration didn't like the terms for Legal
Immigration set by Congress and the Constitution. The Constitution
authorizes the President to stop illegal immigration should it be
necessary.

Which article and section?

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-2/ALDE_00013725/

Amdt5.6.2.2 Exclusion of Aliens Seeking Entry into the United States

According to the Supreme Court, aliens seeking initial entry into the
United States have no constitutional rights regarding their applications
for admission.1 The Court has reasoned that the government has the
inherent, sovereign authority to admit or exclude aliens, and that
aliens standing outside of the geographic boundaries of the United
States have no vested right to be admitted into the country.2

Thus, in its 1953 decision in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel.
Mezei, the Court held that the government could deny entry to an alien
without a hearing, notwithstanding the alien’s temporary harborage on
Ellis Island pending the government’s attempts to remove him from the
United States.3 More recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Court in 2020 rejected an alien’s constitutional
challenge to a federal statute that limits judicial review of an
expedited order of removal, reasoning that the alien—who was apprehended shortly after entering the United States unlawfully—could be considered
to be an applicant for admission at the border.4 In short, for aliens
seeking admission into the United States, the decision to permit or deny
entry by an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers
expressly conferred by Congress, is due process of law.5

In certain cases, the exclusion of an alien has been seen to implicate
the rights of U.S. citizens. In its 1972 decision in Kleindienst v.
Mandel, for example the Supreme Court appeared to recognize that U.S. citizens’ First Amendment rights were affected by the denial of a nonimmigrant visa to a Marxist journalist who had been invited to speak
in the United States by a group of university professors.6 In Mandel,
however, the Court also recognized that because the plenary
congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens
has long been firmly established, the Court would uphold, in the face of
a constitutional challenge, an alien’s exclusion as long as there is a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the decision.7 Thus, even
when reviewing constitutional challenges brought by U.S. citizens, the
Court has limited the scope of judicial review and adopted a highly
deferential standard for reviewing the decision to exclude an alien.8

U.S. citizens have also asserted that the exclusion of an alien has
impinged upon their due process rights.9 In Kerry v. Din, five Justices
in 2015 agreed that denying an immigrant visa to the husband of a U.S.
citizen on the grounds that he was inadmissible under a provision of
federal immigration law (pertaining to terrorist activities) did not
violate the due process rights of the U.S. citizen spouse.10 These
Justices differed in their reasoning, though. A three-Justice plurality
held that the U.S. citizen spouse had no protected liberty interest
under the Due Process Clause in her husband’s ability to come to the
United States, and did not decide whether the government had established
a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding her husband.11
A two-Justice concurrence did not reach the question of whether the U.S. citizen wife had asserted a protected liberty interest, but instead
concluded that the consular officials’ citation of a particular
statutory ground for inadmissibility as the basis for denying the visa application satisfied due process under Mandel, which requires only that
the government state a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial.12

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court in 2018 reaffirmed that there is
limited judicial review of executive decisions to exclude aliens seeking admission from abroad.13 The Court rejected an Establishment Clause
challenge brought by U.S. citizens and other challengers to a
presidential proclamation that provided for the exclusion of specified categories of nonresident aliens from mostly Muslim-majority
countries.14 The Court recognized that decisions concerning the
admission or exclusion of aliens generally lie beyond the scope of
judicial review, and are subject only to a highly constrained judicial
inquiry when an exclusion allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of
a U.S. citizen.15 The Court upheld the proclamation, ruling that it was rationally related to the stated government objective of protecting
national security by excluding aliens from countries with deficient information-sharing practices.16

In its 2024 decision in Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, the Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. citizen lacks a constitutionally protected liberty interest
in her noncitizen spouse’s admission into the United States.17 Justice Barrett, writing for five members of the majority, explained that the
Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides heightened protection
against government interference with certain fundamental rights and
liberty interests.18 Nonetheless, the Court determined that a U.S.
citizen’s asserted right to have her noncitizen spouse admitted into the United States so that he could reside with her did not qualify as a
fundamental liberty interest.19 In reversing the lower court’s judgment
to the contrary, the Court concluded that such a right was not deeply
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition because the federal
government had long exercised the sovereign power to set the terms
governing the admission and exclusion of noncitizens without granting
spouses a right to immigrate.20 Consequently, because the U.S. citizen
lacked a fundamental liberty interest that would allow her to invoke an exception to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, the State Department’s denial of her husband’s visa application was not subject to judicial review.21

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1911-8-usc-1325-unlawful-entry-failure-depart-fleeing-immigration

1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing
Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry
into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the
purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8
U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)