https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/house-republicans-pass-laken-riley-act-immigration-rcna186488 Who runs the U.S. immigration system? If the Senate passes the Laken Riley Act this week, the answer might not be Congress or the president. The bill, already passed in the House, would hand state attorneys general, like Ken Paxton in Texas, veto power over large swaths of federal immigration policy. Under a provision of the bill that has gotten little attention, federal courts in places like Texas and Louisiana could hear lawsuits seeking to impose sweeping bans on all visas from countries such as India and China. State officials could also seek court orders forcing the government to deport a specific individual without the sign-off of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. 现在就看共和党掌握的参议院了。
Furthermore, the bill’s supporters won’t tell you that the law’s biggest change is its second part, which goes far beyond the circumstances involving Ibarra — indeed, far beyond the traditional separation of powers. On the other end of the spectrum, the law would allow state attorneys general to force a secretary of state to invoke a Cold War-era law that authorizes the U.S. government to issue sweeping visa bans to countries that do not accept the deportation of their own nationals, even if the secretary had chosen not to invoke that authority.The threat of judicially imposed visa bans is very real. The bill authorizes state attorneys general to sue “alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas” to recalcitrant countries and seek “appropriate injunctive relief” from any federal judge.
回复 8楼 Chaohistory 的帖子 Both China and India, to give two particularly relevant examples, are “recalcitrant” countries that have historically not cooperated fully with the United States on deportations (other recalcitrant countries include Venezuela, Cuba, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Russia and Somalia). Yet in fiscal year 2023, over 1.8 million nonimmigrant and immigrant visas were issued to nationals of India and China. While the majority were short-term visas for tourism or business visits, hundreds of thousands went to international students, guest workers or people receiving immigrant visas through a close relative or a job offer from a U.S. company. Because the United States is so intertwined with these countries, administrations of both parties have been unwilling to threaten blanket visa bans as a punishment for not accepting deportees. Yet should the Laken Riley Act become law, that decision may no longer be in the hands of our nation’s top diplomats and law enforcement officers; it could be in the hands of a single federal district court judge in Texas or Louisiana.
Chaohistory 发表于 2025-01-08 19:20 Furthermore, the bill’s supporters won’t tell you that the law’s biggest change is its second part, which goes far beyond the circumstances involving Ibarra — indeed, far beyond the traditional separation of powers. On the other end of the spectrum, the law would allow state attorneys general to force a secretary of state to invoke a Cold War-era law that authorizes the U.S. government to issue sweeping visa bans to countries that do not accept the deportation of their own nationals, even if the secretary had chosen not to invoke that authority.The threat of judicially imposed visa bans is very real. The bill authorizes state attorneys general to sue “alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas” to recalcitrant countries and seek “appropriate injunctive relief” from any federal judge.
美国的法律框架里一直就允许美国政府针对某些国家公民的visa ban，比如宣布national emergency，还有Presidential Proclamation INA Section 212(f)。 你提到的这个” visa bans to countries that do not accept the deportation of their own nationals“ ，某国公民的visa被不被禁止，那就取决于某国接不接受遣返的走线客了
Chaohistory 发表于 2025-01-08 19:20 Furthermore, the bill’s supporters won’t tell you that the law’s biggest change is its second part, which goes far beyond the circumstances involving Ibarra — indeed, far beyond the traditional separation of powers. On the other end of the spectrum, the law would allow state attorneys general to force a secretary of state to invoke a Cold War-era law that authorizes the U.S. government to issue sweeping visa bans to countries that do not accept the deportation of their own nationals, even if the secretary had chosen not to invoke that authority.The threat of judicially imposed visa bans is very real. The bill authorizes state attorneys general to sue “alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas” to recalcitrant countries and seek “appropriate injunctive relief” from any federal judge.
U.S. government 本来就有权BAN VISA. 不需要你们BILL通过就能。感觉你这话是强行附合，并没什么意义 。
川粉自己愿意自我安慰，继续意淫，MAGA支持合法，不支持非法。 这是Reddit 上讨论， https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/1hwu1xy/the_house_gops_first_bill_of_2025_could_enable_a/?rdt=53075 msnbc OP • Official • 5h ago From Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council: What could this look like in practice? Imagine a person from China living in Texas on an H-1B visa who commits an offense that leads to a deportation order. If China does not accept the deportation, Ken Paxton could go to court seeking to force the federal government to ban all visas from China (or maybe just all H-1B visas) without having to worry about taking the blame for the economic or diplomatic fallout to the United States. The Laken Riley Act would completely upend the long-standing power balance between the states and the federal government on immigration enforcement. Rather than federal supremacy, states could have the power to second-guess decisions made throughout every level of the federal government and potentially overrule the president himself*.*
“Ken Paxton could go to court seeking to force the federal government to ban all visas from China “ 太能扯了，这相差太远了: could......go to court. 这种东西离变成现实中禁止所有VISA，感觉至少相差一个光年
法案的总结在这里 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/29?s=4&r=1 “The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. ” 简单的说这个法案给了各州政府因为移民问题控告联邦政府的权利，控告的原因是联邦政府遣返或者控制移民不力，给那个州造成了损失。具体的事由可以是把该拘留的人释放了，或者在边境没有检查，也包括该停止发签证的时候没有发签证。比如一个人从边境混进了美国，后来在某个州犯罪了。那该州检察长可以以这个理由控告联邦政府的边检机构。 可以想象德州政府想靠这个法案给予的权力告赢联邦政府并阻止发放H1B签证是很难成功的。另一方面，万一成功了，那整个美国的H1B签证都会停止发放，不是只有德州的H1B签证会停止发放。
ecaeca 发表于 2025-01-08 22:03 法案的总结在这里 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/29?s=4&r=1 “The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. ” 简单的说这个法案给了各州政府因为移民问题控告联邦政府的权利，控告的原因是联邦政府遣返或者控制移民不力，给那个州造成了损失。具体的事由可以是把该拘留的人释放了，或者在边境没有检查，也包括该停止发签证的时候没有发签证。比如一个人从边境混进了美国，后来在某个州犯罪了。那该州检察长可以以这个理由控告联邦政府的边检机构。 可以想象德州政府想靠这个法案给予的权力告赢联邦政府并阻止发放H1B签证是很难成功的。另一方面，万一成功了，那整个美国的H1B签证都会停止发放，不是只有德州的H1B签证会停止发放。
给你发的新闻链接没人愿意看，或者阅读理解有问题。 Yet should the Laken Riley Act become law, that decision may no longer be in the hands of our nation’s top diplomats and law enforcement officers; it could be in the hands of a single federal district court judge in Texas or Louisiana. 一但参议院通过了此法案，就是给德州的总检长递了刀，他就可以起诉联邦的移民政策，只要有一个federal district court judge in Texas , 判他赢，他就可以实施禁止发放 中国 和印度visa。你知道德州这几年提名了多少MAGA federal district court judge, 找一个太容易了。 当然其他州的总检长也可以行动，蓝州的federal district court judge 自然会判相反的结果。 所以还是要看州的政治光谱了。 当然这个法案最恶心的地方还有，我就不提醒川粉了，你自己做鸵鸟好了。 现在就看参议院的，一旦通过，影响可不止四年，以后就算能，再选民主党总统也在很难推翻。
是作者的观点没错，可是你仔细看原始法律条文了吗？ 还这样一折腾就是几年，就是wishfor thinking。简直是太小看MAGA 斗争经验了，人家在法案里给诉讼加了优先权， Not only does the law require federal judges to prioritize these lawsuits above anything else on their (often crowded) dockets, it also instructs judges to ignore traditional judicial principles about who is authorized to file a lawsuit. 人家法案要求法官最先处理这类诉讼，提速了诉讼的进程速度。 德州总检长赢了，看样子是全国范围，也是幼稚，蓝州也可以提诉讼和蓝州联邦发官也可以判不能禁止。 打到最高法，现在是6:3，最后还是看各州的政治光谱，和资本家是否需要移民，需要什么样的移民。 不过最终看资本家何时制造经济危机，和经济衰退多久。那么全国范围内禁止就有可能发生。 历史上排华法案也是先在几个州，再到全国。 1943年，《排华法案》被《马格努森法案》废止，可是在一些红州排华法案却继续延续。 到此为止了，你并没有认真读法案，继续做鸵鸟，乐观对待。不会再讨论了 现在参议院是很大概率通过了，就最近几周的事。
回复 40楼 Chaohistory 的帖子 我当然仔细看了原文， “(c) Penalties.—Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(e) Enforcement by attorney general of a State.—The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of State on behalf of such State or the residents of such State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.” Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253)说的是 “(d) Discontinuing granting visas to nationals of country denying or delaying accepting alien On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.” district court可以迅速判，但是联邦政府也可以上诉，这一来二去最快也一两年过去了。而且你要看清楚，这个法案没有一个字说各州可以在本州范围内禁止某种visa，它说的是各州如果认为联邦政府的Secretary of State应该停止对某个国家发某种visa但联邦政府没有停止，各州有权控告联邦政府的Secretary of State。如果告赢了，法院真判要停止发visa，怎么可能只在一个州范围内停visa？那是驻该国领事馆都要停止发visa。其他州只要有一个不满意就会提起反告，这样一下子五六年就过去了。如果最后还是告赢了，那就说明美国全国对禁某个国家的某种visa达成了广泛共识，那就不是一两个州的问题了。
ecaeca 发表于 2025-01-10 16:03 回复 40楼 Chaohistory 的帖子 我当然仔细看了原文， “(c) Penalties.—Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(e) Enforcement by attorney general of a State.—The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of State on behalf of such State or the residents of such State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.” Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253)说的是 “(d) Discontinuing granting visas to nationals of country denying or delaying accepting alien On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.” district court可以迅速判，但是联邦政府也可以上诉，这一来二去最快也一两年过去了。而且你要看清楚，这个法案没有一个字说各州可以在本州范围内禁止某种visa，它说的是各州如果认为联邦政府的Secretary of State应该停止对某个国家发某种visa但联邦政府没有停止，各州有权控告联邦政府的Secretary of State。如果告赢了，法院真判要停止发visa，怎么可能只在一个州范围内停visa？那是驻该国领事馆都要停止发visa。其他州只要有一个不满意就会提起反告，这样一下子五六年就过去了。如果最后还是告赢了，那就说明美国全国对禁某个国家的某种visa达成了广泛共识，那就不是一两个州的问题了。
联邦政府是可以上诉， 但是现在trump是总统，Trump 的联邦政府会上诉”德州区联邦法院的裁决”。trump自己支持的法案，他会上诉他任命MAGA法官的判决？ 最有可能是加州起诉此法案Violation of Immigrants’ Rights: Broad detention mandates and targeting could infringe on due process rights under the Constitution， 或者此法违宪。 ，然后起诉到加州联邦法院，并请求法院占停实施此法案到有结果出来。 If California successfully obtains a preliminary injunction against the Laken Riley Act in federal court, the scope of that injunction (whether it applies nationwide, to California only, or to other states ) would depend on how the court structures the ruling. Here’s how it could play out: 1. Nationwide Injunction • Scenario: A federal district court judge could issue a nationwide injunction if they find that the Laken Riley Act’s provisions are likely unconstitutional and that its enforcement would cause irreparable harm across the country. • Impact: In this case, the injunction would temporarily block the act’s implementation everywhere, including in red states like Texas. • Precedent: Courts have issued nationwide injunctions in other high-profile cases involving federal laws or policies, such as the Trump administration’s travel bans. • Criticism: Nationwide injunctions are controversial, as critics argue they allow a single judge to halt federal policies for the entire country, even in states not involved in the lawsuit. 2. Limited Injunction • Scenario: The court could issue an injunction that applies only to California, limiting its scope to the state filing the lawsuit. • Impact: In this case, the Laken Riley Act could still be enforced in other states, including Texas. Red states would likely welcome the act and continue implementing its provisions. • Result: This approach might create a patchwork enforcement landscape, where the act is blocked in some states (e.g., California) but enforced in others. 3. Circuit-Wide Injunction • Scenario: If the court ruling is appealed and goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals (e.g., the Ninth Circuit for California), the injunction could be expanded to all states within the circuit’s jurisdiction. • Impact: States in the Ninth Circuit (like California, Oregon, and Washington) would see the act blocked, but it would still be enforced in other circuits, including Texas (which is in the Fifth Circuit). Factors Influencing the Scope 1. Nature of the Challenge: If California’s legal arguments focus on the act’s unconstitutionality under federal law, the court might favor a nationwide injunction because constitutional violations cannot be applied selectively. 2. Federal Judge’s Discretion: The district court judge has discretion in deciding the scope of the injunction, but their decision is subject to appeal. 3. Appeals and Supreme Court: If appealed, the circuit court or Supreme Court could modify the scope of the injunction. Historically, the Supreme Court has been cautious about upholding nationwide injunctions unless the harm is deemed universally applicable. 对加州最有利自然是Circuit-Wide Injunction • Impact: States in the Ninth Circuit (like California, Oregon, and Washington) would see the act blocked, but it would still be enforced in other circuits, including Texas (which is in the Fifth Circuit). 因为最终打到最高法，6:3 ，Historically, the Supreme Court has been cautious about upholding nationwide injunctions unless the harm is deemed universally applicable. 版上的川粉天天骂加州州长Newsom , Newsom 说了加州有些财政盈余，这些盈余会用来跟Trump 上台后各类法律官司。 大概率法案是要在参议院通过了。现在只能祈祷通过后蓝州会为移民打官司吧。
If the Senate passes the Laken Riley Act this week, the answer might not be Congress or the president. The bill, already passed in the House, would hand state attorneys general, like Ken Paxton in Texas, veto power over large swaths of federal immigration policy.
Under a provision of the bill that has gotten little attention, federal courts in places like Texas and Louisiana could hear lawsuits seeking to impose sweeping bans on all visas from countries such as India and China. State officials could also seek court orders forcing the government to deport a specific individual without the sign-off of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.
现在就看共和党掌握的参议院了。
该开心的还是一样开心，庆祝他们的abc娃上大学找工作压力小了，只要刀这次不落自己头上就行
Furthermore, the bill’s supporters won’t tell you that the law’s biggest change is its second part, which goes far beyond the circumstances involving Ibarra — indeed, far beyond the traditional separation of powers.
On the other end of the spectrum, the law would allow state attorneys general to force a secretary of state to invoke a Cold War-era law that authorizes the U.S. government to issue sweeping visa bans to countries that do not accept the deportation of their own nationals, even if the secretary had chosen not to invoke that authority. The threat of judicially imposed visa bans is very real.
The bill authorizes state attorneys general to sue “alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas” to recalcitrant countries and seek “appropriate injunctive relief” from any federal judge.
Both China and India, to give two particularly relevant examples, are “recalcitrant” countries that have historically not cooperated fully with the United States on deportations (other recalcitrant countries include Venezuela, Cuba, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Russia and Somalia). Yet in fiscal year 2023, over 1.8 million nonimmigrant and immigrant visas were issued to nationals of India and China. While the majority were short-term visas for tourism or business visits, hundreds of thousands went to international students, guest workers or people receiving immigrant visas through a close relative or a job offer from a U.S. company. Because the United States is so intertwined with these countries, administrations of both parties have been unwilling to threaten blanket visa bans as a punishment for not accepting deportees. Yet should the Laken Riley Act become law, that decision may no longer be in the hands of our nation’s top diplomats and law enforcement officers; it could be in the hands of a single federal district court judge in Texas or Louisiana.
美国的法律框架里一直就允许美国政府针对某些国家公民的visa ban，比如宣布national emergency，还有Presidential Proclamation INA Section 212(f)。 你提到的这个” visa bans to countries that do not accept the deportation of their own nationals“ ，某国公民的visa被不被禁止，那就取决于某国接不接受遣返的走线客了
德州闹了这么久这些中资总部还在那，说明还不是很危急。
能报复啥？
U.S. government 本来就有权BAN VISA. 不需要你们BILL通过就能。感觉你这话是强行附合，并没什么意义 。
对等不给工作签证？美国很多公司在中国有外派工作人员，比如说特斯拉，苹果，耐克，通用，福特（以下省略500字）…
政容们做事经常不用脑子，只看着选票。
是不是媒体假新闻，如果参议院也通过，以后就等看德州总检长，会不会做禁止中国和印度的visa。 川粉以为是假新闻， 就继续等好了！
在美国的中国人H1，是为美国公司工作，并时刻准备叛变，申请绿卡，外藉，当美国人的。 在中国的美国人，还是为美国公司工作，时刻准备回美国继续当美国人的 而H1，没有选票。。。
你再想想？
原来是针对 非移的。LZ的确故意混淆。难怪他的帖子看着就不合理。
你想多了吧？特斯拉要是把外派人员都撤回来，工厂怎么办，卖给比亚迪？但特斯拉有一半的车是在中国卖出去的。
看清楚是给了”州总检长” 权力，” the law would allow state attorneys general to……
猪粉愚弄自己就好了，就不要愚弄大众了。 一个针对罪犯的非法移民法案，也能跟H1-B的政策联系起来。难道楼主认为H1-B的人是罪犯吗？ 两个不同的事情，等H1-B的相关政策出来你再反对吧？你要替包庇罪犯的猪党找理由，也得找个好点的
川粉自己愿意自我安慰，继续意淫，MAGA支持合法，不支持非法。 这是Reddit 上讨论，
https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/1hwu1xy/the_house_gops_first_bill_of_2025_could_enable_a/?rdt=53075
What could this look like in practice? Imagine a person from China living in Texas on an H-1B visa who commits an offense that leads to a deportation order. If China does not accept the deportation, Ken Paxton could go to court seeking to force the federal government to ban all visas from China (or maybe just all H-1B visas) without having to worry about taking the blame for the economic or diplomatic fallout to the United States.
The Laken Riley Act would completely upend the long-standing power balance between the states and the federal government on immigration enforcement. Rather than federal supremacy, states could have the power to second-guess decisions made throughout every level of the federal government and potentially overrule the president himself*.*
太能扯了，这相差太远了: could......go to court. 这种东西离变成现实中禁止所有VISA，感觉至少相差一个光年
希望所有川粉统统拉黑我，都不用我自己动手，省事了。
“The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. ”
简单的说这个法案给了各州政府因为移民问题控告联邦政府的权利，控告的原因是联邦政府遣返或者控制移民不力，给那个州造成了损失。具体的事由可以是把该拘留的人释放了，或者在边境没有检查，也包括该停止发签证的时候没有发签证。比如一个人从边境混进了美国，后来在某个州犯罪了。那该州检察长可以以这个理由控告联邦政府的边检机构。
可以想象德州政府想靠这个法案给予的权力告赢联邦政府并阻止发放H1B签证是很难成功的。另一方面，万一成功了，那整个美国的H1B签证都会停止发放，不是只有德州的H1B签证会停止发放。
又要排华法案了吗
中间州又没有工作机会
给你发的新闻链接没人愿意看，或者阅读理解有问题。 Yet should the Laken Riley Act become law, that decision may no longer be in the hands of our nation’s top diplomats and law enforcement officers; it could be in the hands of a single federal district court judge in Texas or Louisiana. 一但参议院通过了此法案，就是给德州的总检长递了刀，他就可以起诉联邦的移民政策，只要有一个federal district court judge in Texas , 判他赢，他就可以实施禁止发放 中国 和印度visa。你知道德州这几年提名了多少MAGA federal district court judge, 找一个太容易了。 当然其他州的总检长也可以行动，蓝州的federal district court judge 自然会判相反的结果。 所以还是要看州的政治光谱了。
当然这个法案最恶心的地方还有，我就不提醒川粉了，你自己做鸵鸟好了。
现在就看参议院的，一旦通过，影响可不止四年，以后就算能，再选民主党总统也在很难推翻。
新闻上的解释只能说明新闻作者的观点，当然没有原始的法律条文准确。
我之前也说了，如果法院判德州检察官胜诉，那联邦政府当然可以上诉，这样一折腾就是几年。就算最后德州检察官胜诉了，那全国的H1B都会被禁，不止德州的H1B被禁。
是作者的观点没错，可是你仔细看原始法律条文了吗？
还这样一折腾就是几年，就是wishfor thinking。简直是太小看MAGA 斗争经验了，人家在法案里给诉讼加了优先权， Not only does the law require federal judges to prioritize these lawsuits above anything else on their (often crowded) dockets, it also instructs judges to ignore traditional judicial principles about who is authorized to file a lawsuit. 人家法案要求法官最先处理这类诉讼，提速了诉讼的进程速度。
德州总检长赢了，看样子是全国范围，也是幼稚，蓝州也可以提诉讼和蓝州联邦发官也可以判不能禁止。 打到最高法，现在是6:3，最后还是看各州的政治光谱，和资本家是否需要移民，需要什么样的移民。
不过最终看资本家何时制造经济危机，和经济衰退多久。那么全国范围内禁止就有可能发生。
历史上排华法案也是先在几个州，再到全国。 1943年，《排华法案》被《马格努森法案》废止，可是在一些红州排华法案却继续延续。
到此为止了，你并没有认真读法案，继续做鸵鸟，乐观对待。不会再讨论了 现在参议院是很大概率通过了，就最近几周的事。
我当然仔细看了原文， “(c) Penalties.—Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(e) Enforcement by attorney general of a State.—The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of State on behalf of such State or the residents of such State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.”
Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253)说的是
“(d) Discontinuing granting visas to nationals of country denying or delaying accepting alien On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.”
district court可以迅速判，但是联邦政府也可以上诉，这一来二去最快也一两年过去了。而且你要看清楚，这个法案没有一个字说各州可以在本州范围内禁止某种visa，它说的是各州如果认为联邦政府的Secretary of State应该停止对某个国家发某种visa但联邦政府没有停止，各州有权控告联邦政府的Secretary of State。如果告赢了，法院真判要停止发visa，怎么可能只在一个州范围内停visa？那是驻该国领事馆都要停止发visa。其他州只要有一个不满意就会提起反告，这样一下子五六年就过去了。如果最后还是告赢了，那就说明美国全国对禁某个国家的某种visa达成了广泛共识，那就不是一两个州的问题了。
Ken Paxton本人就是利用职权拒捕多年，被本党弹劾却被另一个罪犯保下来的罪犯。
联邦政府是可以上诉， 但是现在trump是总统，Trump 的联邦政府会上诉”德州区联邦法院的裁决”。trump自己支持的法案，他会上诉他任命MAGA法官的判决？
最有可能是加州起诉此法案Violation of Immigrants’ Rights: Broad detention mandates and targeting could infringe on due process rights under the Constitution， 或者此法违宪。 ，然后起诉到加州联邦法院，并请求法院占停实施此法案到有结果出来。 If California successfully obtains a preliminary injunction against the Laken Riley Act in federal court, the scope of that injunction (whether it applies nationwide, to California only, or to other states ) would depend on how the court structures the ruling. Here’s how it could play out:
1. Nationwide Injunction • Scenario: A federal district court judge could issue a nationwide injunction if they find that the Laken Riley Act’s provisions are likely unconstitutional and that its enforcement would cause irreparable harm across the country. • Impact: In this case, the injunction would temporarily block the act’s implementation everywhere, including in red states like Texas. • Precedent: Courts have issued nationwide injunctions in other high-profile cases involving federal laws or policies, such as the Trump administration’s travel bans. • Criticism: Nationwide injunctions are controversial, as critics argue they allow a single judge to halt federal policies for the entire country, even in states not involved in the lawsuit.
2. Limited Injunction • Scenario: The court could issue an injunction that applies only to California, limiting its scope to the state filing the lawsuit. • Impact: In this case, the Laken Riley Act could still be enforced in other states, including Texas. Red states would likely welcome the act and continue implementing its provisions. • Result: This approach might create a patchwork enforcement landscape, where the act is blocked in some states (e.g., California) but enforced in others.
3. Circuit-Wide Injunction • Scenario: If the court ruling is appealed and goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals (e.g., the Ninth Circuit for California), the injunction could be expanded to all states within the circuit’s jurisdiction. • Impact: States in the Ninth Circuit (like California, Oregon, and Washington) would see the act blocked, but it would still be enforced in other circuits, including Texas (which is in the Fifth Circuit).
Factors Influencing the Scope 1. Nature of the Challenge: If California’s legal arguments focus on the act’s unconstitutionality under federal law, the court might favor a nationwide injunction because constitutional violations cannot be applied selectively. 2. Federal Judge’s Discretion: The district court judge has discretion in deciding the scope of the injunction, but their decision is subject to appeal. 3. Appeals and Supreme Court: If appealed, the circuit court or Supreme Court could modify the scope of the injunction. Historically, the Supreme Court has been cautious about upholding nationwide injunctions unless the harm is deemed universally applicable.
对加州最有利自然是Circuit-Wide Injunction • Impact: States in the Ninth Circuit (like California, Oregon, and Washington) would see the act blocked, but it would still be enforced in other circuits, including Texas (which is in the Fifth Circuit).
因为最终打到最高法，6:3 ，Historically, the Supreme Court has been cautious about upholding nationwide injunctions unless the harm is deemed universally applicable.
版上的川粉天天骂加州州长Newsom , Newsom 说了加州有些财政盈余，这些盈余会用来跟Trump 上台后各类法律官司。 大概率法案是要在参议院通过了。现在只能祈祷通过后蓝州会为移民打官司吧。