The Court has held consistently, over at least a century and a half, that “the authority to control immigration — to admit or exclude aliens — is vested solely in the Federal Government.”
This principle, that the federal government has virtually exclusive authority over immigration policy, stretches back at least as far as the Court’s decision in Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875), which held that “the passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states.”
As the Court warned in Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), “international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs” committed against foreign nationals.
As that judge explained, the Constitution “and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.”
On top of that, the Fifth Circuit panel that issued this “administrative stay” temporarily delayed its own order by seven days to give the Supreme Court enough time to hear the case.
But the fact that she turned a blind eye to such a transparent effort to evade the rules in the Texas case does not suggest that Barrett will police this line very closely.
The original article contains 1,339 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Court has held consistently, over at least a century and a half, that “the authority to control immigration — to admit or exclude aliens — is vested solely in the Federal Government.”
This principle, that the federal government has virtually exclusive authority over immigration policy, stretches back at least as far as the Court’s decision in Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875), which held that “the passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states.”
As the Court warned in Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), “international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs” committed against foreign nationals.
As that judge explained, the Constitution “and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.”
On top of that, the Fifth Circuit panel that issued this “administrative stay” temporarily delayed its own order by seven days to give the Supreme Court enough time to hear the case.
But the fact that she turned a blind eye to such a transparent effort to evade the rules in the Texas case does not suggest that Barrett will police this line very closely.
The original article contains 1,339 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!