Foreign Migration Ban

Transcript: 00:00:00 - 00:01:09

will permanently pause migration from all third world countries. Joining us to discuss is Andrew Arthur, fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and former immigration judge. So, good afternoon, Andrew. Hopefully, you had a good Thanksgiving holiday. Uh, so about what Trump said, um, you know, what would the process look like legally? How how would he enact such a pause in migration? So what the uh administration would do, what the uh federal government would do is it would shut down visa counseling in

00:00:34 - 00:01:36

certain countries uh individuals from those countries when they apply for visas to come to the United States, they would find that uh their applications had been paused and that they wouldn't be allowed to obtain those visas in advance. And for those individuals who already have visas, when they show up at a port of entry, uh, CBP would then turn them around. That's a slightly more legally difficult process. But thanks to something called the principle of consular non-reviewability, the

00:01:05 - 00:02:10

president does have the ability to stop the immigration to the United States of any individual or individuals that uh, he deems appropriate for any period of time that he deems appropriate. So he actually does have the power with respect to those individuals to come to the United States. >> You know, Andrew, I I can't I can't help but think uh whether it's tariffs or anything else he President Trump tries to do, there's always something that happens uh like a bump in the road or

00:01:38 - 00:02:54

something. Would there be some possible obstacles that he could potentially face whether legally or otherwise? So yeah, I anticipate that if the president were to act on this plan that uh advocates would go to court would attempt to uh get a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction of that policy. Now, we saw something very similar under the uh first Trump administration when the uh president placed uh bars on the admission of immigrants from certain countries to the United States. That was

00:02:16 - 00:03:21

the travel ban or what the president's critics called a Muslim ban. That went all the way to the Supreme Court. Lower court said actually blocked uh the president's proposal. But when it got to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that the uh article of law that he used uh as the basis for that program oozed deference to the executive at every turn and that was an actual direct quote from the decision. So the president actually has the authority. The question becomes whether as a political matter uh it's going to be

00:02:49 - 00:03:44

popular or whether it's one of those things that needs to be done on a large scale. Well, I could definitely imagine that we need to do a better job of vetting people uh before they come to the United States, vetting people before they're granted asylum, and vetting people before they get green cards. Uh but yeah, I think that what you're actually going to see is a much more tailored uh process than what the president is describing. >> So, Andrew, let me ask you something specific about the post. Uh, it said

00:03:16 - 00:04:28

that the government would denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility or are non-compatible with Western civilization. I'm wondering is this legally a valid reason for stripping citizenship? I think that what the president was referring to there uh as the congressman had alluded to uh earlier was individuals who had engaged in fraud in order to gain naturalization can be denaturalized. uh if you gain any immigration benefit uh through fraud, that benefit can be taken away from you and that includes

00:03:52 - 00:04:56

naturalization. But you know, simply uh denaturalizing individuals because uh you know they they have beliefs that are at uh odds with uh you know other beliefs that other Americans have. That's a much more questionable legal uh issue. I think most people that have uh citizenship who have been sworn in who didn't engage in fraud are going to be able to keep you will be able to keep that status. I think the courts would definitely knock down any attempt to take uh their citizenship from them. But I think that

00:04:24 - 00:05:33

what you're going to see is a much more broader review of uh past naturalization grants to see if there were uh indicative fraud to do investigations and then to denaturalize people. But yeah, there is a legal process for denaturalization, but it is extremely limited. >> Okay. And the Trump administration is apparently looking at deporting the shooting suspect's family. So on what grounds could this be done legally if the family weren't involved in the crime? So under the immigration and nationality

00:04:58 - 00:06:04

act, if an individual uh carries out a terrorist attack, engages in terrorist activity, then not only that individual, but that individual's spouse and children are also removable from the United States. This is a very rarely used provision in the law, but it's one that's been in the law for two decades plus now. So uh the president does actually have the authority to do that. the uh Department of Justice, DHS do have that authority. And in fact, if those individuals are taken into custody, they can't be released from

00:05:31 - 00:06:41

custody even if they didn't know anything about the terrorist uh attack. And this is, you know, not to punish them, but more to give individuals who would think about engaging in terrorist activity pause before they uh do that. I think that that's a pretty loudable goal. >> Okay, Andrew, I I just have one more thing. Uh I'm wondering about this migration pause. So on an international level, some nations say the US has an obligation to accept refugees and asylum seekers. So um I mean does does the US

00:06:05 - 00:07:12

have any obligation in this regard? >> No, actually not. Uh with respect to refugees, there uh is a provision in the law to uh bring refugees to the United States, but the executive branch has full discretion on which refugees should be allowed to come and in what numbers they're allowed to come. So, you know, that uh itself is not actually going to uh be an issue if this is the way that the president decides to go. With respect to asylum, if an individual doesn't have any right to enter the

00:06:39 - 00:07:38

United States initially, uh the United States isn't under any obligation to allow them to enter this country. Now, people could come illegally uh and apply for asylum that would be covered by this, but the federal government does have the authority to detain those individuals until they're actually granted asylum. And I think that this particular class of individuals would be subject to additional scrutiny, more vetting, uh things like that. So, um you know, I I think that this is one of

00:07:09 - 00:08:12

those things where, you know, certainly on the margins, it's more it it's definitely legal. Uh but I think that, you know, the president is simply, you know, expressing outrage at how many individuals unvetted were allowed to come to the United States under the last administration. >> Well, all right, Andrew. I think that about covers it. Uh, thank you for explaining this so clearly for us. >> Thank you so much for having me today. President Donald Trump says the US will soon launch new ground operations aimed