Immigration Law's Boundary Problem: Determining the Scope of Executive Discretion

被引:0
|
作者
Margulies, Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] Roger Williams Univ, Sch Law, Law, Bristol, RI 02809 USA
关键词
NATIONAL-SECURITY; HISTORICAL GLOSS; ENFORCEMENT; SEPARATION; FOREWORD; ORIGINS; POWER; CARE; CONSTITUTION; SOVEREIGNTY;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
D9 [法律]; DF [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
In immigration law, executive discretion has become contested terrain. Courts, officials, and scholars have rarely distinguished between regulatory discretion, which facilitates exclusion and removal of noncitizens, and protective discretion, which safeguards noncitizens' reliance interests. Moreover, courts have long discerned an internal-external divide in discretion, deferring to executive measures that exclude noncitizens abroad, while reducing deference for measures concerning noncitizens who have already entered the United States. Immigration law needs a cohesive framework for executive discretion. This Article suggests a stewardship model to fill that gap.Recent developments have emphasized the need for a coherent model of discretion. The Trump Administration altered the landscape of executive discretion, seizing every chance to make the law harsher. The Biden Administration's efforts to correct this imbalance have been only partially successful. For example, the Biden Administration has issued a final rule supporting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and has issued enforcement guidelines that prioritize threats to national security and public safety and address recent irregular entries at the border. The Biden Administration has also sought to end the Trump Administration's "Remain in Mexico " program, which subjects tens of thousands of asylum seekers to peril. However, for over a year, President Biden retained the Title 42 program, which precluded asylum in the name of preventing the introduction of COVID-19. That program undercuts asylum and does not perform its ostensible public health mission. Only an unfavorable court decision in 2022 spurred efforts to terminate Title 42. At that point, another court enjoined Title 42's termination, illustrating yet again the confused state of executive discretion.A workable approach to executive discretion requires returning to first principles. To achieve these goals, the stewardship model highlights three factors: fit with the statutory framework, protection of reliance interests, and avoidance of adverse impacts on foreign relations. This Article applies these values to DACA, the Biden enforcement guidelines, Title 42, and the Remain in Mexico program.
引用
收藏
页码:679 / 764
页数:87
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT AND THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF DISCRETION UNDER BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION LAW
    Harpaz, Guy
    Shany, Yuval
    [J]. ISRAEL LAW REVIEW, 2010, 43 (03) : 514 - 550
  • [22] The scope of Baker's law
    Pannell, John R.
    Auld, Josh R.
    Brandvain, Yaniv
    Burd, Martin
    Busch, Jeremiah W.
    Cheptou, Pierre-Olivier
    Conner, Jeffrey K.
    Goldberg, Emma E.
    Grant, Alannie-Grace
    Grossenbacher, Dena L.
    Hovick, Stephen M.
    Igic, Boris
    Kalisz, Susan
    Petanidou, Theodora
    Randle, April M.
    Rubio de Casas, Rafael
    Pauw, Anton
    Vamosi, Jana C.
    Winn, Alice A.
    [J]. NEW PHYTOLOGIST, 2015, 208 (03) : 656 - 667
  • [23] SCOPE OF DISCRETION OF TAX AUTHORITIES IN APPLYING PUNITIVE RATE IN THE TAX ON CIVIL LAW TRANSACTIONS
    Ofiarski, Zbigniew
    [J]. TAX SOVEREIGNTY AND THE CONCEPT OF FISCAL RULE-MAKING IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, 2018, : 321 - 332
  • [24] Weyl's Law for the Steklov Problem on Surfaces with Rough Boundary
    Karpukhin, Mikhail
    Lagace, Jean
    Polterovich, Iosif
    [J]. ARCHIVE FOR RATIONAL MECHANICS AND ANALYSIS, 2023, 247 (05)
  • [25] Weyl’s Law for the Steklov Problem on Surfaces with Rough Boundary
    Mikhail Karpukhin
    Jean Lagacé
    Iosif Polterovich
    [J]. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 2023, 247
  • [26] Executive's business law
    不详
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTANCY, 1929, 47 (06): : 475 - 475
  • [27] China's Immigration Problem
    Epstein, Gady
    [J]. FORBES, 2010, 186 (01): : 26 - 26
  • [28] Stability for an inverse boundary problem of determining a part of a boundary
    Bukhgeim, AL
    Cheng, J
    Yamamoto, M
    [J]. INVERSE PROBLEMS, 1999, 15 (04) : 1021 - 1032
  • [29] Immigration Law's Missing Presumption
    Marouf, Fatma
    [J]. GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 2023, 111 (05) : 983 - 1041
  • [30] IMMIGRATION LAW'S ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES
    Cox, Adam B.
    [J]. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, 2008, 157 (02) : 341 - 393