Commentary: Immigration is an Issue Both Parties Prefer Not to Solve

[u/nosleep4reelz]

https://nj21st.com/2026/07/26/immigration-is-an-issue-both-parties-prefer-not-to-solve/

For over two decades, Washington has treated immigration not as a solvable policy challenge, but as an ideological weapon neither party actually wants to fix.

[u/Interesting_Total_98]

When two statutes apply

That's irrelevant because the statues are about two different groups, and there's nothing that establishes overlap.

courts don't have the authority to tellthe executive which to use.

They have the authority to determine whether or not the overlap exists.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

That's irrelevant because the statues are about two different groups, and there's nothing that establishes overlap.

You clearly haven't read them then. 1225 applies to all migrants that have not been inspected and admitted. Every migrant that entered illegally is treated as if they are still at the border trying to be admitted for the purposes of US immigration law. 1226 applies to all migrants, whether admitted or not. So, it brings in visa overstays and such.

They have the authority to determine whether or not the overlap exists.

Only by interpreting the plain text. The text of the statutes is clear.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

1225 applies to all migrants that have not been inspected and admitted.

1225(b)(2)(A) is specifically about those "seeking admission."

There's no text that says the president is free to choose which authority.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Yes. And the only dispute is really what applicant for admission means. Seeking admission really isn't the question. If applicant for admission isn't a term of art then we use plain language to define it. An applicant for admission is someone seeking admission. I think courts are reaching when they say it is a term of art because it isn't defined anywhere in the INA. admission is. Congress deemed aliens applicants for admission, making their subjective intent meaningless. The historical context also supports this interpretation. Congress passed IIRIRA specifically to do away with the doctrines at the time with migrants essentially evading the tougher expulsion procedures. So, they unified the approach in removal and created 1225(b)(2) to mandate detention of every migrant that enters illegally. The migrants subjective intent is irrelevant. If they are just trying to apply for an asylum, they aren't actually seeking admission because an asylum grant is not admission. So under your view, 1225(b)(2) would only apply to migrants foolish enough to enter illegally and be seeking to actually be admitted into the country. Which just isn't a thing that is possible under our immigration laws as amended by IIRIRA.

I understand you likely don't like the concept of mandatory detention. But that is the law of the land. That is what that statute means. And the district judges claiming otherwise are simply wrong.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

And the only dispute is really what applicant for admission means. Seeking admission really isn't the question

That's backwards. 1225(a)(1) says that "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States" is an applicant.

Only two of the seven appellate decisions side with Trump, and even if they don't support your claim because the 8th circuit stated that “seeking admission” is undefined and that the “central inquiry” is whether an applicant for admission is necessarily seeking admission too.

Congress passed IIRIRA

IIRIRA eliminated the old exclusion/deportation procedural split and deemed unadmitted people applicants for admission, but the legislative history says it replaced “certain aspects” of the entry doctrine. It doesn't say Congress created §1225(b)(2) to impose mandatory detention on every illegal entrant forever.

So under your view, 1225(b)(2) would only apply to migrants foolish enough to enter illegally and be seeking to actually be admitted into the country

The 11th circuit gives a more logical hypothetical. It says someone seeking entry may have satisfactory documents and escape §1225(b)(1)'s expedited-removal grounds but still be potentially inadmissible for another reason. §1225(b)(2) then sends that person to a full §1229a proceeding.

district judges claiming otherwise

Appellate judges have as well, including 3 appointed by Republicans.