- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS rules 5-4 Trump admin can deny green cards
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:46 pm
LINK
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order Monday allowing the Trump administration to begin enforcing new limits on immigrants who are considered likely to become overly dependent on government benefit programs.
The court acted on a vote of 5-4. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said they would have left a lower court ruling in place that blocked enforcement while a legal challenge works its way through the courts.
The Department of Homeland Security announced in August that it would expand the definition of "public charge," to be applied to people whose immigration to the U.S. could be denied because of a concern that they would primarily depend on the government for their income.
In the past, that was largely based on an assessment that an immigrant would be dependent upon cash benefits. But the Trump administration proposed to broaden the definition to include non-cash benefits, such as Medicaid, supplemental nutrition, and federal housing assistance.
Anyone who would be likely to require that broader range of help for more than 12 months in any three-year period would be swept into the expanded definition.
11
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:47 pm to Ingeniero
Progstains are free to spend all their money on illegals and immigrants if they wish though. Ain’t freedom grand?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:48 pm to Ingeniero
Was Ginsberg actually there this team or voting remotely?
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:49 pm to The Pirate King
She phoned her vote in from Gold's Gym Venice Beach.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:49 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
Two federal appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in the West and the 4th Circuit in the Mid-Atlantic — declined to block the new rule. They noted that the law allows designating someone as inadmissible if "in the opinion of" the secretary of Homeland Security, that person would be "likely at any time to become a public charge," which the courts said give the government broad authority.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:50 pm to Ingeniero
Common fricking sense. That's why the "public charge" section was written into the INA in the first place. I remember at the Border Patrol academy being taught the law was that anyone who was likely to be on welfare and food stamps wouldn't be allowed into the country. The instructors laughed because they knew that law was never applied. Good to see it finally get interpreted correctly.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:51 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
The court acted on a vote of 5-4. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said they would have left a lower court ruling in place that blocked enforcement while a legal challenge works its way through the courts.
Of course they would. All 4 of those women should NOT be on the SCOTUS 2 of WITCH are not qualified IMO.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 1:51 pm to ClientNumber9
Took since 1952 for the law to be applied.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:01 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
. All 4 of those women should NOT be on the SCOTUS
quote:
Stephen Breyer
ISWYDT
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:02 pm to Ingeniero
1. I agree with the Trump admin on tightening the rules as to who constitutes a public charge.
2. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. This is not a substantive ruling on the validity of the change. It is simply removal of an injunction against enforcement of the new rules, during the appellate process related to the validity of those new rules.
In other words, the administration is now allowed to operate under the new rules during the pendency of challenges asserted by their opponents.
There still exists the possibility that the SCOTUS might overturn the new rule some months in the future.
2. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. This is not a substantive ruling on the validity of the change. It is simply removal of an injunction against enforcement of the new rules, during the appellate process related to the validity of those new rules.
In other words, the administration is now allowed to operate under the new rules during the pendency of challenges asserted by their opponents.
There still exists the possibility that the SCOTUS might overturn the new rule some months in the future.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Which is a good sign, not definitive but a good sign.
In other words, the administration is now allowed to operate under the new rules during the pendency of challenges asserted by their opponents.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:04 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
In the past, that was largely based on an assessment that an immigrant would be dependent upon cash benefits. But the Trump administration proposed to broaden the definition to include non-cash benefits, such as Medicaid, supplemental nutrition, and federal housing assistance.
quote:
Anyone who would be likely to require that broader range of help for more than 12 months in any three-year period would be swept into the expanded definition.
How in the hell can you determine that in advance?
A horseshite, nebulous, rule that basically allows them to deny all green cards, except except for people like Melania Knauss.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:05 pm to texridder
quote:
A horseshite, nebulous, rule that basically allows them to deny all green cards, except except for people like Melania Knauss.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:05 pm to Jbird
quote:That is usually the case. I have not been able to find a PDF of the ruling, so I cannot say much more than that at this point. I long-ago stopped relying in any way upon a news report concerning a judicial ruling.
Which is a good sign, not definitive but a good sign.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:06 pm to Ingeniero
frick 'em. If you aren't ready to be a contributing member to our society on Day 1, you don't belong here.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:07 pm to AggieHank86
Here’s something I’d like to see you address if you are so inclined. An opportunity to address something from one of our fringe radical leftist friends.
quote:
How in the hell can you determine that in advance? A horseshite, nebulous, rule that basically allows them to deny all green cards, except except for people like Melania Knauss.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:13 pm to roadGator
quote:TR’s choice of language is a bit incendiary, but he does have a valid point regarding subjective projections of what relief a given individual MIGHT need in the future.quote:How in the hell can you determine that in advance? A horseshite, nebulous, rule that basically allows them to deny all green cards, except except for people like Melania Knauss.
Here’s something I’d like to see you address if you are so inclined. An opportunity to address something from one of our fringe radical leftist friends.
By including this sort of subjective determination in the process, the Administration is certainly opening the door to potential abuse.
I would think that objective criteria would be preferable. E.g. X-number of months receiving Y-category of assistance, during the most recent Z-number of years.
This post was edited on 1/27/20 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:14 pm to Ingeniero
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Similar to new reports concerning E-11A aircraft in my world.
I long-ago stopped relying in any way upon a news report concerning a judicial ruling.
Posted on 1/27/20 at 2:25 pm to AggieHank86
Well, sure. Projecting the future is a bit tough. But couldn’t we do something similar to other nations where you have to prove your ability to support yourself?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News