What to know about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS LAUNCHED A RAPID PACED IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN. DENVER, CHICAGO, NEW YORK, MIAMI THE LIST OF CITIES WHERE FEDERAL AGENTS ARE CARRYING OUT RAIDS GROWS NEARLY EVERY DAY. THE IMAGES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BODY ARMOR ESCORTING HANDCUFFED PEOPLE, FLOODING SOCIAL MEDIA. BUT WHAT’S PERHAPS MOST CONSEQUENTIAL IS LANGUAGE IN THE ADMINISTRATION’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS. IT’S VERY INTENTIONAL USE OF SPECIFIC WORDS THAT CARRY GREAT POWER AND AUTHORITY FOR THE PRESIDENT. ERNESTO CASTANEDA IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN AND LATINO STUDIES AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY. IT’S SO NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK, SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SOLEDAD. WHEN YOU LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS, WHAT’S THE IMPACT OF THE WORD TERROR AND TERRORIST? SO TERRORISM IS SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW BY EXPERIENCE. WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS VERY WELL. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT ORGANIZED CRIME BASED IN IN MEXICO AND LATIN AMERICA ARE DOING. PEOPLE DO LOSE THEIR LIVES. BUT THE AIM OF THE ORGANIZED CRIME IS NOT TO TAKE OVER ANY ONE GOVERNMENT HERE OR THERE. SO THEREFORE IT’S A MISNOMER TO CALL THIS HORRIBLE ORGANIZATIONS TO CALL THEM TERRORISTS. BUT FOR PEOPLE ALREADY HERE WITH THIS DESIGNATION OF PEOPLE AS COMING OR COMING FROM PLACES WHERE THERE’S TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, THEN IT’S EASIER TO DETAIN, TO STOP, TO IMPRISON AND TO DEPORT PEOPLE WITHOUT THE REGULAR DUE PROCESS THAT EVEN FOREIGNERS ARE ENTITLED TO. SO THIS MAKES THESE MASS DEPORTATIONS THAT HE WANTS TO DO SO MUCH EASIER TO CARRY OUT IN THIS NEW LEGAL FRAMEWORK. EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE DUE PROCESS WAS BEFORE THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS. PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED IN THE US FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, EVEN WITHOUT UNDOCUMENTED STATUS, THEY CANNOT JUST BE A GRAB AND DEPORTED. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO TO IMMIGRATION COURT TO PRESENT THE CASE. NOT THAT THEY’RE GOING TO WIN IT. MOST OF THE TIME THEY ARE DEPORTED ANYWAY, BUT THERE IS A SYSTEM OF LAWS THAT REGULATES HOW DEPORTATIONS HAPPEN. SO THAT IS WHAT TRUMP IS LOOKING TO DO AWAY WITH, WITH THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT TREAT THEM NOW AS ENEMY COMBATANTS SO THAT THEY CAN BE DEPORTED MUCH FASTER. THE OTHER WORD THAT I HAVE FOUND INTERESTING IS INVASION. WHY DOES FRAMING THIS AS AN INVASION IN A WAY, CHANGE THE IMPACT AND THE IMPORT OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS, BECAUSE HE SAYS THERE’S AN INVASION NOW, HE CAN SAY THAT THERE’S A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND DEPLOY ACTIVE TROOPS TO THE US-MEXICO BORDER. AND NOW USING AIRPLANES FROM THE MILITARY FOR REMOVALS AND DEPORTATIONS. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT TRUE. ASYLUM SEEKERS, IMMIGRANTS, UNACCOMPANIED MINORS ARRIVING AT THE US-MEXICO BORDER, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DO NOT COME BEARING ARMS. THEY ARE NOT HERE TO TAKE OVER A TERRITORY AND DECLARE INDEPENDENCE. SO AGAIN, IT’S A MISNOMER. BUT AGAIN, IT OPENS ALL THESE AVENUES FOR DONALD TRUMP TO USE. FOR EXAMPLE, BUDGET FROM THE PENTAGON, FROM DEFENSE TO ENGAGE IN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. WHAT ARE YOUR PREDICTIONS ABOUT WHERE THIS GOES? TRUMP ALSO INVOKED THE ALIEN ENEMIES ACT OF 1798, WHICH SAYS THAT DURING WARTIME, ONLY THE US THEN HAS THE RIGHT TO DETAIN AND IMPRISON AND DEPORT THE FOREIGN BORN. BUT HE HAS NOT FORMALLY DECLARED WAR ON ANY OTHER NATION. SO WE ARE NOT AT WAR TIME. SO HE SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DO THIS. BUT HE’S ALREADY USING THE LANGUAGE OF WAR AND SHOWING THE IMAGES OF THE US BEING AT WAR. HE’S TRYING TO INVOKE THE FEELING THAT WE HAD AFTER NINE OVER 11 WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED, AND THAT THERE WAS A RALLY AROUND THE FLAG AND WHERE THE MILITARY PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN SOCIETY. HE’S TRYING TO GO TO GO BACK TO THAT, TO GARNER SUPPORT FOR HIS CAUSE. BUT WE ARE LIVING IN A DIFFERENT REALITY TODAY. EARNESTO CASTANEDA IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN AND LATINO STUDIES AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY. TH

Again and again the Trump White House has turned to a 73-year-old legal statute to defend its immigration crackdown.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to explain the arrest and planned deportation of a Palestinian activist and legal U.S. resident with a green card.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cited it when announcing that anyone living in the U.S. illegally would have to register with the federal government.The act has been mentioned in presidential orders, press releases and speeches.But what is it?Why do officials keep talking about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?The act comes up so frequently because it is the legal foundation of modern immigration law, encompassing a vast range of regulations and procedures. It has been amended hundreds of times since it was passed, during the Truman administration.Decades of sweeping changes in immigration law link back to the act.“These were all massive public laws in their own standing, but they were all amending” the 1952 legislation, said Niels Frenzen, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.The law, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, came amid the anti-communist fears of the early Cold War. While it eased some race-based immigration restrictions, particularly for Asians, it effectively limited most immigration to Europeans. It also codified rules allowing ideology to be used to deny immigration and allow deportation.How has the Trump administration used the act and its many provisions?Most recently, the Trump White House used the act as the basis to arrest Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who helped organize campus protests at Columbia University against the Israel-Hamas war. Khalil, a Palestinian who was born and raised in Syria, became a legal permanent resident, also known as a green card holder, last year. He is married to an American citizen.But the administration says he still can be expelled.“Under the Immigration and Nationality Act the secretary of state has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the U.S., Leavitt told reporters Tuesday.The reality is more complicated, legal scholars say. The provision the White House is using—Section 237 (a)(4)(C)—is rarely invoked, requires extensive judicial review and is intended for unusual cases when someone’s presence in the U.S. could cause diplomatic turmoil.“The deportation has to have some seriousness to it,” said Richard Boswell, a University of California San Francisco law professor whose work often focuses on immigration. “The burden is on the government” to show the person should be deported.Scholars often point back to the Clinton administration for a recent, high-profile example.Mario Ruiz Massieu was a former deputy attorney general in Mexico when he was arrested in 1995 for trying to leave the U.S. with $26,000 in undeclared cash. Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that not deporting Ruiz-Massieu “would jeopardize our ability to work with Mexico on law enforcement matters.”When else has the act been invoked?-Under Section 212(f) , the president may block entry of “any aliens or class of aliens into the United States” whose presence would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Donald Trump used that broad language to impose a travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries during his first term and, on the first day of his second term, laid groundwork for a renewed travel ban. His advisers are expected to make recommendations later this month.-In late February, Noem said in a statement she would “fully enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and would require anyone living in the U.S. illegally to register with the federal government, with those who don’t facing fines, imprisonment or both.- Joe Biden used the act's humanitarian parole provision more than any president to allow temporarily allow people into the U.S. from countries including Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Specifically, it allows the president to admit anyone “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit for ending the long-standing legal tool.

Again and again the Trump White House has turned to a 73-year-old legal statute to defend its immigration crackdown.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to explain the arrest and planned deportation of a Palestinian activist and legal U.S. resident with a green card.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cited it when announcing that anyone living in the U.S. illegally would have to register with the federal government.

The act has been mentioned in presidential orders, press releases and speeches.

But what is it?

Why do officials keep talking about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

The act comes up so frequently because it is the legal foundation of modern immigration law, encompassing a vast range of regulations and procedures. It has been amended hundreds of times since it was passed, during the Truman administration.

Decades of sweeping changes in immigration law link back to the act.

“These were all massive public laws in their own standing, but they were all amending” the 1952 legislation, said Niels Frenzen, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

The law, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, came amid the anti-communist fears of the early Cold War. While it eased some race-based immigration restrictions, particularly for Asians, it effectively limited most immigration to Europeans. It also codified rules allowing ideology to be used to deny immigration and allow deportation.

How has the Trump administration used the act and its many provisions?

Most recently, the Trump White House used the act as the basis to arrest Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who helped organize campus protests at Columbia University against the Israel-Hamas war. Khalil, a Palestinian who was born and raised in Syria, became a legal permanent resident, also known as a green card holder, last year. He is married to an American citizen.

But the administration says he still can be expelled.

“Under the Immigration and Nationality Act the secretary of state has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the U.S., Leavitt told reporters Tuesday.

The reality is more complicated, legal scholars say. The provision the White House is using—Section 237 (a)(4)(C)—is rarely invoked, requires extensive judicial review and is intended for unusual cases when someone’s presence in the U.S. could cause diplomatic turmoil.

“The deportation has to have some seriousness to it,” said Richard Boswell, a University of California San Francisco law professor whose work often focuses on immigration. “The burden is on the government” to show the person should be deported.

Scholars often point back to the Clinton administration for a recent, high-profile example.

Mario Ruiz Massieu was a former deputy attorney general in Mexico when he was arrested in 1995 for trying to leave the U.S. with $26,000 in undeclared cash. Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that not deporting Ruiz-Massieu “would jeopardize our ability to work with Mexico on law enforcement matters.”

When else has the act been invoked?

-Under Section 212(f) , the president may block entry of “any aliens or class of aliens into the United States” whose presence would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Donald Trump used that broad language to impose a travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries during his first term and, on the first day of his second term, laid groundwork for a renewed travel ban. His advisers are expected to make recommendations later this month.

-In late February, Noem said in a statement she would “fully enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and would require anyone living in the U.S. illegally to register with the federal government, with those who don’t facing fines, imprisonment or both.

- Joe Biden used the act's humanitarian parole provision more than any president to allow temporarily allow people into the U.S. from countries including Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Specifically, it allows the president to admit anyone “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit for ending the long-standing legal tool.

��vlog