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。
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。