If you want to have a discussion with me, find a law, read it, and cite it appropriately.
You can read all about it yourself.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4913&context=fss_papers
The regime for screening refugees and admitting asylum claimants can be conceptualized as distinct from the system according to which immigrants are admitted for permanent residence based on family or labor-related preferences. Indeed, as we discuss in Part III of this Article, the former operates as a kind of parallel admissions track to the latter, and the admission of refugees and asylum claimants is managed primarily by the Executive, to whom the 1980 Refugee Act gives screening authority over refugees. The Executive also oversees the Bureau of Immigration Appeals and the immigration judges who adjudicate most asylum claims within the Department of Justice, subject to review by the Courts of Appeals. One of our goals in this Article is to map the ways in which the Executive and Congress share responsibility for screening immigrants for admission generally, and to illuminate both the tensions and advantages of shared authority. As will become clear, the participation of the Executive in the screening of immigrants for admission in the refugee and asylum systems underscores both that de jure executive screening is more likely to arise when foreign policy or national security concerns are directly implicated, and that executive screening is not an anomaly in our system.
and here
The immigration laws of the United States are principally organized in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The basic organization of the Act was first adopted in the INA of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. See Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. Major amendments followed in 1965, 1986, 1990, and 1996, but the basic organization of the statute has remained largely unchanged. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009; Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359; Act of Oct. 3, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911. Today the Act is codified at INA §§ 101-507, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537 (2006)
BTW, most posts on reddit have a common scene of composition/division, the texas sharpshooter, and the fallacy fallacy. In my original comment, I had already provided the proof. You asked for more proof only causing a burden of proof fallacy to fall on you to disprove the proof I already provided. I didnt have to reply to you. If you want a discussion with me then you need to actually provide something of merit.