U.S. Supreme Court lets hardline Trump immigration policy take effect

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court lets hardline Trump immigration policy take effect

By Andrew Chung

 

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., January 21, 2020. REUTERS/Will Dunham

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.

 

The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted the administration's request to lift a lower court's injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy while litigation over its legality continues. The rule has been criticized by immigrant rights advocates as a "wealth test" that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.

 

The court's five conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and two justices appointed by Trump, carried the day. The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the administration's request. The action was announced even as Roberts sat as the presiding officer in Trump's impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.

 

Lawsuits aiming to block the policy were filed against the administration by the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont as well as by New York City and several nonprofit organizations.

 

In imposing an injunction blocking it, Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge George Daniels on Oct. 11 called the rule "repugnant to the American Dream" and a "policy of exclusion in search of a justification."

 

The administration asked the high court to let the rule go into effect even before the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump's appeal of the injunction. The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and arguments expected soon afterward. 

 

The administration can now enforce the rule nationwide except in Illinois, where a lower court has blocked its implementation.

 

Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), praised the high court.

 

"It is very clear the U.S. Supreme Court is fed up with these national injunctions by judges who are trying to impose their policy preferences instead of enforcing the law," Cuccinelli told reporters.

 

GREEN CARDS

At issue is which immigrants will be granted legal permanent residency, known as a "green card." Under Trump's policy, immigration officers would consider factors such as age, educational level and English proficiency to decide whether an immigrant would likely become a "public charge" who would receive government benefits such as the Medicaid health insurance programme for the poor.

 

The administration has said the new rule is necessary to better ensure that immigrants will be self-sufficient. Critics have said the rule would disproportionately bar low-income people from developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia from permanent residency.

 

"Limiting legal immigration based on an applicant's wealth is shameful and entirely un-American," Democratic Senator Dick Durbin wrote on Twitter.

 

A spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes visa applications, said it would "determine the most appropriate method to implement the public charge rule" and would release additional information soon.

 

Trump has made his tough immigration stance a hallmark of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.

 

U.S. immigration law has long required officials to exclude people likely to become a "public charge" from permanent residency. U.S. guidelines in place for the past two decades had said immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalisation, in a nursing home for example, at public expense would be barred.

 

The new rule expands the "public charge" bar to anyone deemed likely to receive a much wider range of public benefits for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period including healthcare, housing and food assistance.

 

The vast majority of people seeking permanent residency are not eligible for public benefits themselves. A 2019 Urban Institute survey found that the administration's rule was already deterring people from seeking benefits for U.S. citizen children for fear of harming their own future immigration status. Benefits for family members are not considered under the rule.

 

Claudia Center, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the rule targets disabled people applying for green cards and "enshrines the false stereotype that people with disabilities do not contribute to our society."

 

The high court could give Trump more victories on immigration policy. The conservative justices signalled support in November for Trump's bid to kill a program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants - dubbed "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. A ruling is due by the end of June.

 

The court in 2018 upheld Trump's "travel ban" targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

 

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who voted to lift the injunction, issued an opinion criticizing lower courts' "increasingly common" use of nationwide injunctions to halt government policies. Gorsuch urged the court to confront the issue.

 

"What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?" Gorsuch asked.

 

Two other federal appeals courts previously lifted nationwide injunctions ordered by lower courts blocking the rule.

 

(Reporting by Kristina Cooke, Lawrence Hurley, Jonathan Stempel, Ted Hesson and Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham and Sandra Maler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-28

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[thaibeachlovers]

When I went to live in Thailand I knew I'd be eligible for no governmental assistance. Why should any one be allowed to immigrate to the US that is likely to require taxpayer assistance?

Edited January 28, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Tulak]

Majority of countries in this world control (or try to control) their borders.

Lucky for many (in US) that they don't have to pay penalties for "overstay".

[BobBKK]

Common sense decision. 

[rabas]

Legal decision!

[Tug]

Another sad day in America 

[yogi100]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Another sad day in America 

I'd have thought any action that may reduce the amount of unwanted and unproductive new immigrants in any country would be a day for it's citizens to celebrate and rejoice rather than one to be sad about.

[atyclb]

so much for the dream that all supreme court judges are apolitical

[TopDeadSenter]

3 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I'd have thought any action that may reduce the amount of unwanted and unproductive new immigrants in any country would be a day for it's citizens to celebrate and rejoice rather than one to be sad about.

I believe he is thinking of the lost potential votes. As we know, among productive members of society socialism is almost a swear word. The only way a democratic state can get socialism voted in is by replacing the electorate. 

[IAMHERE]

6 hours ago, Tug said:

Another sad day in America 

Certainly sad day for the parasites that want to come to the USA and live off welfare.

[winslowsjardine]

6 hours ago, Tug said:

Another sad day in America 

Right. And who says poor people are not productive? Who takes the jobs americans dont want to do?

[Saint Nick]

4 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I'd have thought any action that may reduce the amount of unwanted and unproductive new immigrants in any country would be a day for it's citizens to celebrate and rejoice rather than one to be sad about.

Yeah, of course you are right!

I actually can't wait for all the US- citizens to line up and take all those high paying jobs, now taken away by immigrants!

...who pay taxes and commit fewer crimes, than the average American!

[Tug]

4 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I'd have thought any action that may reduce the amount of unwanted and unproductive new immigrants in any country would be a day for it's citizens to celebrate and rejoice rather than one to be sad about.

I don’t know I know lots and lots of Latinos the VAST majority of them are hard working family types most are a bit to religious what saddens me is trump is pandering for votes and trying to deny the American dream to others how many Latinos do you know personally?

[Thingamabob]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

Another sad day in America 

Nonsense.

[Salerno]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

Another sad day in America 

Why?

[Scott Tracy]

Seems like an episode from The West Wing. The Supreme Court divided along party lines. 

Such differences in interpretation of the law. Is it, or is it not Constitutional?

[phkauf]

2 hours ago, atyclb said:

so much for the dream that all supreme court judges are apolitical

That dream ended with the Warren Court. Get a clue.

[Tulak]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

I don’t know I know lots and lots of Latinos the VAST majority of them are hard working family types most are a bit to religious what saddens me is trump is pandering for votes and trying to deny the American dream to others how many Latinos do you know personally?

Not to dispute hard working people who would like to be better of, but until passports are abolished, nations have the right and indeed obligation (to their citizens) to decide whom to allow in - or the world will end up with big chaos

Do you have any PRACTICAL suggestions?

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I believe he is thinking of the lost potential votes. As we know, among productive members of society socialism is almost a swear word. The only way a democratic state can get socialism voted in is by replacing the electorate. 

If not replacing the electorate then control the number of American citizen voters impact by gerrymandering, voter registration purges and requiring photo IDs restricting the poor (No? Then check out what is currently taking place in Kentucky). I do agree with the need for US comprehensive immigration reform.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, Tulak said:

Not to dispute hard working people who would like to be better of, but until passports are abolished, nations have the right and indeed obligation (to their citizens) to decide whom to allow in - or the world will end up with big chaos

Do you have any PRACTICAL suggestions?

We do need immigration reform but not taking toddlers away from their mommies locking people up in prisons and doing everything possible short of shooting them for trying as usual trumps ideas don’t reflect American ideals and are inhumain

[Kelsall]

Thank you, SCOTUS!

[Hanuman2547]

6 hours ago, phkauf said:

That dream ended with the Warren Court. Get a clue.

Right.  Now whoever is President tries to stack the SC with as many judges as possible of their political party to assist with furthering their agenda.  As these are life long appointments it can shape the political landscape for easily 10-30 years.  

[JHolmesJr]

A fantastic decision...another promise kept.

Put this down in the winning column.

Now if the Don can get some traction on the Israel Palestine peace deal

that would be epic....it's going to be uphill all the way...expect CNN/MSNBC

to spend all their time trying to take it down.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, winslowsjardine said:

Right. And who says poor people are not productive? Who takes the jobs americans dont want to do?

It's not about people working to support themselves. It's about people coming that are likely to be using taxpayers money.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Right.  Now whoever is President tries to stack the SC with as many judges as possible of their political party to assist with furthering their agenda.  As these are life long appointments it can shape the political landscape for easily 10-30 years.  

Probably every president ever served did that.

Edited January 28, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Tug said:

We do need immigration reform but not taking toddlers away from their mommies locking people up in prisons and doing everything possible short of shooting them for trying as usual trumps ideas don’t reflect American ideals and are inhumain

I see absolutely nothing in what you have written that is about the OP.

[Tulak]

8 hours ago, Tug said:

We do need immigration reform but not taking toddlers away from their mommies locking people up in prisons and doing everything possible short of shooting them for trying as usual trumps ideas don’t reflect American ideals and are inhumain

...one small step for man...

[Tulak]

5 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Right.  Now whoever is President tries to stack the SC with as many judges as possible of their political party to assist with furthering their agenda.  As these are life long appointments it can shape the political landscape for easily 10-30 years.  

sure it will - for better or worse

 

[Cryingdick]

My husband came to the USA legally. He was told that if he uses government assistance such as welfare, it would seriously jeopardize his ability to continue to reside here. This is the reason many Latinos support Trump to the disbelief of the left. They resent that there are rules for people who do the right thing and those who feel that crossing illegally into the USA is their God given right.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.