Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce ‘public charge’ immigration restriction

So we always hear how Trump is losing court cases from liberals. What we don't hear is what happens on those appeals. Here we have yet another time the SC has ruled the lower courts have overreached in their rulings. I want to make it clear this is not settled, and still needs to be heard by the SC for the final ruling.

For this case it has always been policy that immigrants can not use welfare in the first 12 months. It simply was never enforced. Trump is enforcing the law, yet lower courts have ruled against him.

While a “public charge” inadmissibility standard has long been part of U.S. immigration law, it had not been formally defined by statute. The rule, announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in August, defines a “public charge” as an immigrant who received one or more designated benefits for more than 12 months within a 36-month period.

At issue is the administration’s rule issued in August that would restrict immigrants entering the United States if the government believes they will rely on public assistance, such as housing or health care benefits. Lower federal courts had blocked the policy from being implemented while the issue is being litigated.

www.foxnews.com...

Liberal activist judges have been abusing their positions so often they were actually rebuked.

Justice Neil Gorsuch -- supported by Justice Clarence Thomas -- wrote a separate concurrence, criticizing the increased reliance on nationwide injunctions to block government policies.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of 'nationwide,' 'universal,' or 'cosmic' scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote.

And of course the Supreme Court is attacked over this.

We have a Constitution, it needs to be followed by everyone.

This is interesting because it could force change in numerous policies. It could also negatively impact these population groups after the fact.

How will it impact support programs in states that ignore the rule that receive dual funding from state and federal coffers? Medicare/Medicaid come to mind and other allowances.

It could also cause a whole slew of other problems, we need a more permanent solution that helps those already here and regulates future problems much more heavily.

a reply to: TheAMEDDDoc

The welfare state needs to be addressed. People who are in welfare already seem to be 'stuck'. From what I have heard it's very hard to get out of it. It's perpetual civil death.

originally posted by: TheAMEDDDoc
This is interesting because it could force change in numerous policies. It could also negatively impact these population groups after the fact.

How will it impact support programs in states that ignore the rule that receive dual funding from state and federal coffers? Medicare/Medicaid come to mind and other allowances.

It could also cause a whole slew of other problems, we need a more permanent solution that helps those already here and regulates future problems much more heavily.

If you are here and need assistance within 12 months you should not be here. My wife had to sign she would not use public support for 12 months.

If a state has the money to give them then they don't need federal funds.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I agree with you, welfare used to be a program to get you back on your feet. People rely on it, think they’re entitled to it and want more and more. But without an education and transition program we're condemning them to failure. People get crazy when they get desperate, not all of them, many will transition to productive lives.

I just don’t get how so many people are okay with just getting by, no drive for personal growth or achievement and it stems from education disparity.

I do love many of the programs he is pushing through plus the thousands of dollars in extra take home pay I can use on my family instead of taxes.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Interesting that they called out the use of those lower-court nationwide injunctions - that really has become all-too-common in recent years - not sure what you can do with that - can't upset due process, but perhaps they can fast-track reviews of such relief orders? I dunno.

I find it unnerving that so many of these rulings are 5-4 - to me, that signifies a lack of objectivity. I find it frightening when even Supreme Court justices re-interpret laws in illogical ways, to make them conform with their own personal beliefs. When an individual judge can re-shape a law to mean what they think it *should* be, rather than what it is, it undermines the whole notion of our legal system.

Anyway, I sponsored an immigrant during the Obama years - I had to sign paperwork that if he used any public benefit for 5 years, I'd have to reimburse the government. Seemed fair. Without a financial sponsor, I gather he would've been denied. But it seemed fair - we have citizens of this country that could use those services.

(By the way, his processing was delayed by 6 months by the DACA executive order - I noticed no one stood up for all of those immigrants who had to wait an extra 6 months to a year for their green cards.)

Sort of related, I know that even tourists entering EU countries and Canada are questioned to be certain that they actually plan to go back, that they have enough money and resources - and a return ticket - before allowing them into the country. Otherwise, they're denied entry.

No one is above the law.

Not even the Supreme Court Justices !! 🕳💥

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
We have a Constitution, it needs to be followed by everyone.

Point me to the parts about immigration and welfare.

Another good day and win for the Trump administration.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
We have a Constitution, it needs to be followed by everyone.

Point me to the parts about immigration and welfare.

The Constitution states that immigration laws are passed by Congress, as long as they do not interfere with the Constitution itself, particularly in the matter of the Bill of Rights.

Welfare is not mentioned in the Constitution at all and is an affront to the Bill of Rights.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that if a lower court rules and the SC has to overturn the ruling, then the judges in the lower court that ruled opposite of the SC should be impeached.

That would quickly flush the activists out of the Judicial system.

originally posted by: TheAMEDDDoc
But without an education and transition program we're condemning them to failure.

Which is why the people doomed to failure should not be allowed in to begin with, exactly what Trump is doing.

originally posted by: squittles

I find it unnerving that so many of these rulings are 5-4 - to me

That's because the liberal justices always vote together, every time. The only time we have swing votes it is always Conservative justices. Which signifies Liberal judges are unable to be objective, and simply vote party ideology.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
We have a Constitution, it needs to be followed by everyone.

Point me to the parts about immigration and welfare.

Way to be completely unable to follow along with the conversation.

Justice Neil Gorsuch -- supported by Justice Clarence Thomas -- wrote a separate concurrence, criticizing the increased reliance on nationwide injunctions to block government policies.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of 'nationwide,' 'universal,' or 'cosmic' scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote.

originally posted by: squittles

(By the way, his processing was delayed by 6 months by the DACA executive order - I noticed no one stood up for all of those immigrants who had to wait an extra 6 months to a year for their green cards.)

My wife's visa was delayed 6 years under the Obama admin because of their shifting policy towards helping illegals and limiting actually needed legal immigrants. My wife is an RN, something we have a huge shortage of.

This is what I know.

I am a legal immigrant in Mexico. I live here permanently and legally but am a citizen of the US.

When I applied for resident status, I had to prove that I was able to take care of myself. The Mexican gov't offers no economic assistance for me. As I understand, I do not have access to free health care. If I am caught trying to vote in an election in Mexico I can be sent to prison and can be fined.

Now, I have no problem with any of these rules. I abide by them. But what I want to know is why these people don't call for reciprocal treatment of US citizens in other countries. (I do not want that, but it seems that if they were interested in universally applicable human rights, they would).)

It's because they don't care. It's all about politics and control.

originally posted by: TheAMEDDDoc
we need a more permanent solution that helps those already here and regulates future problems much more heavily.

What the lower courts blocked was an effective solution to future problems... anyone entering the US should be subject to a means test. If you lack the skills or qualifications needed to be productive in this country, why in the hell should you be allowed in?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah I guess that works, once I turned 21 just over 10 years ago, parents cut me off and said good luck. Talk about a motivator, I wouldn’t have achieved half the stuff I have accomplished without that. 3 kids later and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I know people who still live at home off their parents, in their 30s. It’s nuts.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that if a lower court rules and the SC has to overturn the ruling, then the judges in the lower court that ruled opposite of the SC should be impeached.

That would quickly flush the activists out of the Judicial system.

I disagree. Not every opposing viewpoint is necessarily being an activist. Disgreements and reviews are a natural part of the judicial system.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that if a lower court rules and the SC has to overturn the ruling, then the judges in the lower court that ruled opposite of the SC should be impeached.

That would quickly flush the activists out of the Judicial system.

I disagree. Not every opposing viewpoint is necessarily being an activist. Disgreements and reviews are a natural part of the judicial system.

Until the judicial branch starts making law.

Which they have been used for since FDR.

That needs stomped out.