The Cato Institute

President Trump’s New Immigration Ban Undercuts His Own Arguments

President Trump signed a new executive order temporarily banning all immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. But is it legally sound?

While the new executive order may, in fact, be legally sound in its own right, the politically toxic atmosphere from the first order may still doom it.

If this new executive order had been what was was signed initially, President Trump wouldn’t have provoked the type of political response he did or the legal quagmire he entered.

The entire point of the new order is to place his ban on more secure legal footing. However, in several respects, the new order actually undermines several of the defenses President Trump has given over the past month.

Specifically, these four arguments made by the Trump Administration have been totally eviscerated by the new order….

1. “Delaying implementation puts our country in peril!” This new executive order does not become effective for more than a week. Does the president’s delayed rollout also “put our country in peril”?
2. “Current vetting is totally inadequate!” This new order allows people who currently have a valid visa to come. If the vetting process is so inadequate, then exempting current visa holders makes no sense.
3. “This is about better vetting, not banning people.” If the whole point of this “temporary” ban is to give the administration 90 days to review the vetting, then why does the new executive order restart the clock to 90 days? 37 days have passed since the order was enacted. Why would the time when the prior order was suspended not count against the 90-day review?
4. “The countries named are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration.” President Trump took Iraq off the list, which means that now he can no longer claim that his list is the same as President Obama’s or is based on a congressional statute. It’s now his list and his alone.

Learn more…

How Immigration Laws Are Making Us Less Safe…

President Trump has said his proposed actions to stiffen immigration enforcement are in the interests of public safety, but deputizing local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law makes the public less safe and interferes with local policing priorities…

The respect for federalism — the recognition of state and local governments’ priorities over the whims of Washington — has long been a mantra of small-government Republicans. Yet, it is hard to think of a larger and more dangerous federal intrusion into local affairs than undermining local law enforcement — and that’s exactly what Trump’s plan does.

Immigration enforcement falls within the federal government’s prerogative, regardless of one’s opinion on current immigration laws. However, that does not make every single enforcement action wise or justifiable. 

If individuals fear law enforcement as much as they do criminals, they will not come forward to report crimes or cooperate with criminal investigations. 

Inherent suspicion of police is dangerous to a community’s well-being, whether that community is comprised of immigrants or the native born. 

Non-cooperation makes police officers’ jobs harder by emboldening and enriching criminals who, consequently, may operate with impunity where people are less willing to help investigators. 

Not only does a lack of trust make policing harder, a mistrustful community puts police officers at risk. 

Taking law enforcement actions against people seeking protection is dangerous and irresponsible. Threatening those most vulnerable to crime is anathema to improving public safety.

Many law enforcement officials recognize this and are trying to remedy this trust gap. The federal government should stop standing in their way. 

Read more…

Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban is Illegal. Congress Should Repeal It.

How fair are the criticisms of Donald Trump’s order on immigration from seven majority Muslim countries?

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order that would ban all Syrian refugees and almost all refugees from all countries from entering the United States for six months, while cutting the overall annual limit for refugees in half and banning for at least 90 days all immigration from seven majority Muslim countries. The implication is that the ban could even continue indefinitely for certain countries.

These policies will not improve national security and will undermine America’s efforts to combat Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world.

The 30-day suspension of all visas targets nationals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.

Terrorism is a hazard to human life and material prosperity that should be addressed in a sensible manner whereby the benefits of actions to contain it outweigh the costs. Any government response to terrorism must take account of the wide range of hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists who entered under various visa categories.

Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year. 

In other words, the hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists are not large enough to warrant extreme actions like a moratorium on all immigration or tourism.

Moreover, the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But, immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

Learn More…

Cato Scholars Debate the President’s Executive Action on Immigration

On Thursday, President Obama announced the provisions of his immigration executive order, which shift priorities for deportations. Cato scholar Alex Nowrasteh argues that in purely policy terms, the executive order will produce positive economic effects and legalize a significant number of unlawful immigrants. However, says Nowrasteh, “Governing by executive order is no way to run an immigration policy, let alone an entire government…The GOP-controlled Congress should respond to Obama’s executive order by passing a bill that simplifies the immigration system.”

In a live broadcast from the Cato studio on Friday morning, Nowrasteh discussed the policy and politics of the President’s plan and answered questions from Twitter. 

You can watch the video online or catch up on the Twitter conversation using #CatoConnects. 

Interested in learning more? Check out these great links: 

• “Bad Laws Lead to Bad Executive Orders,“ by Alex Nowrasteh
• “Obama’s Executive Action Is Good Policy, Bad Law, and Terrible Precedent” by Ilya Shapiro
• “Obama’s Immigration Executive Order – Policy Implications,” by Alex Nowrasteh

TOMORROW: Live Q&A on Executive Action and President Obama’s Immigration Address

Tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST, President Obama will announce the specific provisions of his immigration executive order. This order will have broad policy implications.

“Viewing the executive order in purely policy terms, it will produce positive economic effects and legalize a significant number of unlawful immigrants. But whether this executive order is constitutional is a major question,“ says Cato immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh. "The best possible policy outcome is if Congress were to use this opportunity to seriously debate and pass some of the conservative proposals on immigration reform.”

Tomorrow—Friday morning—at 11 a.m. EST, Alex Nowrasteh will be on Twitter and livestreamed from the Cato studio, discussing the policy and politics of the President’s plan and answering questions from Twitter. 

Watch this event live online at www.cato.org/live. Follow @CatoEvents and use #CatoConnects to ask questions and join the conversation on Twitter.

Looking for some background before the President’s big speech tonight? Check out these great links: 

• “Interpreting Obama’s Immigration Executive Action,” by Alex Nowrasteh
• “The Executive Action Obama Should Take on Immigration,” by Alex Nowrasteh
• “The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform,” by Alex Nowrasteh

The Executive Action Obama Should Take on Immigration

According to various news sources, President Obama is planning executive action on immigration by the end of the year. Most observers are interested in how the president’s executive actions could affect unlawful immigrants, but his actions could also improve the legal immigration system. Cato scholar Alex Nowrasteh has argued that one beneficial reform that’s possible through executive action would be to increase the number of employment-based green cards available to highly skilled workers.

• “The Executive Action Obama Should Take on Immigration,” by Alex Nowrasteh
• “Saving the GOP from Modern Know-Nothingism,” by Alex Nowrasteh
• “The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform,” by by Alex Nowrasteh