The last sentence gets cut off. The rest of that sentence is.
"and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable disease recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices"
They basically wrote a wildcard into the law that would allow them to dynamically update it based on recommendations. Here is the current page from the ACIP:
- https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html
- https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm
And this is the current policy page that lists what the criteria for greencard applicants is:
This is a case where recommendations are being treated with the force of law. To my understanding this was ruled unconstitutional in West Virginia v EPA. Congress can not lend out the ability to make laws. Executive branch can make recommendations, congress then needs to vote those recommendations into law.
I could try to walk into the embassy and make a scene about how it's unconstitutional. I don't see that leading to an outcome where they say, "maybe you're right, here's your visa".
The last sentence gets cut off. The rest of that sentence is.
"and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable disease recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices"
They basically wrote a wildcard into the law that would allow them to dynamically update it based on recommendations. Here is the current page from the ACIP:
- https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html
- https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm
And this is the current policy page that lists what the criteria for greencard applicants is:
To my understanding this was ruled unconstitutional in West Virginia v EPA. Congress can not lend out the ability to make laws. Executive branch can make recommendations, congress then needs to vote those recommendations into law.
I could try to walk into the embassy and make a scene about how it's unconstitutional. I don't see that leading to an outcome where they say, "maybe you're right, here's your visa".