Form Proposed Order In Immigration Court: Fill & Download for Free

There’s a legal principle called “substance over form”. Like all legal principles, the details of it are very complicated, but in this case it can be summarized pretty simply: “If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”Donald Trump repeatedly proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States during his campaign. He occasionally toyed with small variations on that idea—like banning entry from “countries with terrorism”—which he hoped would be legal, and explicitly connected them to his previous Muslim ban proposal. His advisor, Rudy Giuliani, said in an interview on Fox News that Trump had asked him to come up with a way to do the Muslim ban legally, and his solution was the executive order. The executive order targeted only majority-Muslim nations while suggesting that Christians would eventually be exempted. And when courts asked if the Trump Administration had based the order on any specific information about threats, the Justice Department’s only answer was a laughable claim that the President could do anything he wanted in immigration and the courts weren’t allowed to review it:[U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema] asked [DOJ lawyer Erez] Reuveni if the president could deem all redheads a threat to the country and ban them.“Are you saying a court could not look at that order and say, ‘What is going on here?’” she asked.Reuveni responded that the government, not the courts, make national security determinations.[1]Absent some evidence that there was a real basis for the executive order, the courts will notice that it walks like a Muslim ban, swims like a Muslim ban, and quacks like a Muslim ban, and conclude that it’s a Muslim ban.Footnotes[1] Federal judge: Courts ‘begging’ for evidence to support Trump’s travel ban

Properly, there's probably no such thing as a truly unbiased opinion, but I'll try to be as fair as possible.This is the list that the Trump administration has put out of their accomplishments, which is presumably the most comprehensive available (since they'd be unlikely to ignore anything they could put on the list).http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/donald-trump-white-house-100-day-accomplishments/The list includes 35 items. I could 19 executive orders, 6 executive memos, 4 bills signed into law, and one Supreme Court Nomination. The executive orders/memos are, unsurprisingly, the dominant items, because those are the simplest and fastest things for a president to do. They're also generally limited in their utility: he can't provide money except for some limited shifting within departments, he can't change laws (though he can step enforcement up or down), and anything he does can be reversed at a moment's notice. Bills are a much bigger deal, because they actually become laws, make serious differences in the country, and show the ability of a leader to build a consensus. Trump's attempted signature legislation on healthcare famously fell apart before ever getting to the House floor, casting down on Trump's ability to drive legislation even with majorities in both Houses.For an examination of his specific categories:- Cutting RegulationsThis category had some of the most concrete changes, but also a lot of fluff. It includes "reexamination" and "review", he ordered the creation of task forces and ordered agencies to "minimize the burden" of the Affordable Care Act. We can't truly say what will or won't come out of any of this. On the other hand, he revoked some of Obama's executive orders placing limits on energy extraction and placing conditions on federal contractors, and signed bills revoking environmental and extraction regulation. Those are genuine changes, and whether they're good or bad depend on your ideology. Trump's argument is that they make things easier for energy companies and federal contractors to create jobs, Democrats would argue that he's harming the environment and weakening protections on LGBT workers.- Job CreationTrump approved the Keystone XL pipeline and expressed support for the Dakota Access pipeline. Whether those are good or bad depend on your political bent. He signed orders and memos dictating that the executive branch should "maximize" using American labor and materials wherever possible, and ordering the Secretary of Commerce to create a plan for maximizing US-made material in the pipelines. What any of that will actually mean in real life is questionable, since there are no specifics or enforceable provisions. It's really more a statement of ideals than anything. In the "Partnering with the Private Sector" section, he lists a number of companies that are expanding or investing in the US, with the implication that such is an accomplishment of the Trump administration. I won't take a position on whether or not that's thanks to Trump, but I will point out that a) the administration doesn't actually claim or provide any evidence that these things are thanks to Trump, and projects of this magnitude were all, without question, in planning for many months or years in advance.- TradeThe administration reports three accomplishments. Once is withdrawing from the TPP, which wasn't law and wasn't expected to become law. Obama had been pursuing it and Trump isn't. So, less an accomplishment than a policy position. Nor has he proposed a replacement deal (or set of deals). The other two accomplishments are to order his cabinet to "develop a plan" on trade enforcement and "prepare and submit" a report on trade deficits. None of this affects trade directly, so the best we can hope is that something useful will come out of it eventually.- EthicsThe administration ordered a freeze on hiring federal employees and a new set of ethics commitments for Executive Branch appointees. The first is a real thing, but with a lot of potential side effects (some of which could take years to become evident). The second seems not to change much in real life.-National security.Trump ordered an air strike on a Syrian airfield and tightened sanctions on Iran-connected groups in response to a ballistic missile test. I can't speak to the military value of those actions, so I'll submit them without comment. The administration issued a series of bans prohibiting people from certain countries from entering the US. All of them have been blocked by the courts, so I'll leave it at that. They proposed an $50 billion increase in defense spending, but the President has no real power over that, so the 'proposal' is just a statement of encouragement. Trump also claims credit in negotiating the price of a batch of F-35 fighter jets.- ImmigrationThis has been one of the more famous (and infamous) issues for Trump. In his first 100 days, he issued executive orders demanding the building of a border wall, the removal of illegal immigrants, stripping funding from 'sanctuary cities" and hiring more border enforcement agents and immigration judges. The problem is, he doesn't really have the power to do any of that, except to set priorities in detaining and deporting immigrants. He can direct the hiring of more agents and judges, but can't allocate more money to do so, nor does he have the authority to fund or build a wall. all of that has to be done by congress. He has no authority over how much money cities get for anything, and it's possible that any such measures would be unconstitutional anyway. It's unquestionable that the president sets the tone in immigration policy and enforcement, but few of these accomplishments really accomplish anything on their own.- Public SafetyThe accomplishments here amount to a series of orders to study and form strategies around various issues of public safety (opioid crises, violent crime, etc). To be fair, that's the most you could hope to accomplish in such a big issue in 100 days, so we'll have to wait for an outcome to see if there's anything of value there.-Women and MinoritiesTrump signed two bills into law, one encouraging women in entrepreneurship and the other encouraging women in space exploration. Both are nice, but neither seems to make any concrete changes. He signed an executive order changing some positions in the Department of Education around encouraging "excellence" at historically black colleges and universities. There was also a roundtable he hosted with the Prime Minister of Canada to promote Women Entrepreneurs. All of these are in service to laudable goals, but it's hard, at this stage to distinguish between signs of actual commitment to these causes, and photo-ops. Once again, time will tell- The Supreme CourtThe President nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat. He was approved by the Senate voting directly along party lines. That can be listed as an actual accomplishment, but it's also something won more out of party control than consensus-building or persuasion. If the GOP had not had a majority in the Senate, it would likely have happened very differently.In fairness, it's hard for a president to have many really concrete accomplishments in 100 days, given the limits of his powers. The really concrete changes I can see in this list are laws and orders reducing regulations, approval of the oil pipelines, his military strikes and Iran sanctions, and nominating Justice Gorsuch. Any or all of those can be seen as either positive or negative, depending on your political bent. He's certainly set a tone in areas such as immigration, trade and international diplomacy. Once again, whether that tone is a good or a bad thing is a matter of interpretation, and we'll have to wait to see what the long term consequences are. It's fair to note, though, the things he hasn't accomplished. His attempts to repeal the ACA were an abject failure, a number of his executive orders have been blocked or overturned by the courts, and a huge number of promises he made on the campaign trail have gone unfulfilled. It can be argued that every president overpromises, but there's a long list of first day/first month promises that he's completely backed off from (come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, label China a currency manipulator, promise an amendment on congressional term limits). Being as unbiased as I can, I have to say that most of what he's done in his first 100 days has been aspirational or symbolic. We'll see if any of it bears fruit down the road.From the other side of it, I'm not going to say much, because I can't promise to be unbiased on that. I will point out that, on the campaign trail he promised that, after he was elected he wouldn't take vacations, would stop Tweeting, would protect Muslims from profiling, and would put his assets in a "secret trust". He also promised he wouldn't settle the "Trump University" lawsuit. There are a lot of broken promises in 100 days.

No. The President cannot issue an executive order that is in any way binding on lobbyists, who are private citizens, nor on any aspect of Congress, which is outside the executive branch.There are few things that are more misunderstood in American politics than executive orders. This is partly because whichever party is out of power nearly always presents executive orders as power grabs by the president. The reality is, executive orders are a fairly routine part of how the President sets policy in the executive branch.Presidents can only issue executive orders to subordinate departments in the executive branch. So, for example, Harry Truman, as commander-in-chief, was able to order the armed forces to desegregate via an executive order in 1948. Sometimes, executive orders can have consequences outside of government, and are even designed to do so, but the orders themselves only apply to employees of the executive branch. For example, in 1965, Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order barring all federal agencies from awarding contracts with any company that discriminated on the basis of race in its employment practices. Because there are thousands of businesses that seek government contracts, this required many private businesses to create anti-discrimination policies so that they could continue to compete for federal contracts. But the order was not to those businesses; it was to the agencies that issue the contracts. President Obama’s executive order establishing DACA was an order to federal prosecutors and immigration officials, directing them to de-prioritize people who met certain criteria when it came to pursuing deportations.This does not mean that all executive orders are constitutional; they are subject to judicial review, and presidents can (and have) overstepped their authority in the issuing of executive orders. But the scope of those orders is always more limited than the public generally realizes. At the same time, federal agencies have a lot of power, and changing their policies through executive orders can have a lot of consequences. For example, Trump’s executive order establishing the first travel ban back in January caused chaos for many travelers at US airports, but the order was directed at customs and immigration officials. The problems resulted when those officials suddenly were told to deny entry to hundreds of people who previously had been cleared for entry into the U.S., and when it became unclear whether those officials could permit legal permanent residents (green card holders) to re-enter the country as part of the new policy.So in the case proposed by this question, “lobbyists for certain organizations” are private citizens working for private businesses or other organizations, and are therefore not subject to executive order. Congressional campaigns are similarly outside the executive branch’s authority, and cannot be regulated by executive order.What a president COULD do would be to issue an order barring federal agencies from contact with lobbyists who donate to Congressional campaigns, or barring those agencies from hiring former lobbyists from such organizations. This would be of somewhat limited effect; lobbyists deal more extensively with Congress (though they do deal with agencies that set government regulations as well). But a president cannot directly regulate lobbyists’ behavior, or Congressional campaign contributions, through executive order.Congress could perhaps regulate such contributions by legislation, though there are constitutional restrictions on restricting campaign donations, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.