what effect did the olive branch petition have
Olive Branch Petition The Kingâ€™s refusal to consider the petition gave Adams and others the opportunity to push for independence, and it characterized the King as intransigent and uninterested in addressing the colonists' grievances. It polarized the issue in the minds of many colonists, who realized that the choice from that point forward was between complete independence and complete submission to British rule,[5] a realization crystallized a few months later in Thomas Paine's widely read pamphlet Common Sense.
Plenary power In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the immigration laws passed by Congress. The doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nationâ€™s right to define its own borders. Courts generally refrain from interfering in immigration matters.[6] Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a hands-off approach when asked to review the political branches' immigration decisions and policy-making. The Center for Immigration Studies, an organization with a slant toward isolationism, suggests there is a movement to "erode" political-branch control over immigration in favor of a judge-administered system and that the results have created national security concerns. [7] The U.S. Supreme Court case Zadvydas v. Davis is cited as an example of the U.S. Supreme Court not following plenary power precedent.[7][8]