Thread: SCOTUS Sides With Donald Trump, Opposes Joe Biden

SCOTUS Sides With Donald Trump, Opposes Joe Biden

Maggie Mitchell20 hours ago0 3 minutes read



US Supreme Court has agreed to pay attention to a Trump-era public-charge rule
The SCOTUS will hear the federal government’s appeal of a lower court decision against a rule requiring immigrants “to be able to support themselves financially—while the Biden administration is considering rescinding the rule.”
Join Our Telegram channel here: https://t.me/TheTrueReporter
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) v. New York, court file 20-449 began during Trump’s presidency and the petition of certiorari was granted Feb. 22.” NY, Connecticut, Vermont, and New York City are the governmental respondents. The list of respondents includes several advocacy groups, including Make the Road New York and Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc.
Public-charge provisions have been part of our immigration law since 1882. Historical data shows that one of the earliest public-change laws in colonial Massachusetts got enacted in 1645. American colonies screened immigrants by the end of the 17^th century.
Liberal advocacy organizations slammed the Trump administration for trying to define the concept of the “public charge.” According to them, it’s cruel and xenophobic.
The rule didn’t touch those with green cards or US citizenship. It also passes asylees.
Biden signed Executive Order 14012 a few weeks ago. It directs the State, Justice, and Homeland Security departments to review this particular rule and cooperate with the Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development departments about “the effects and implications of public charge policies.”
Lead agencies have to “recommend steps that relevant agencies should take to clearly communicate current public charge policies and proposed changes, if any, to reduce fear and confusion among impacted communities” within two months of the order, delivering a report to the President.
The SCOTUS granted Biden administration requests to cancel any hearing on the border wall and the “remain in Mexico” asylum policy. The legal case was first brought on board in 2019.
On Oct. 11, 2019, Judge George B. Daniels of New York issued a nationwide injunction against this rule. He said it was “repugnant to the American Dream,” “unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious,” and that the parties challenging it “have raised at least a colorable argument” that this rule discriminates against disabled individuals.


The federal government didn’t have any success in articulating “why they are changing the public charge definition, why this new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the Rule—which has absolutely no support in the history of U.S. immigration law—is reasonable.”
On Dec. 2, 2019, the federal district judge decided to deny “a request by DHS to lift the injunction pending appeal. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit refused to lift the injunction Jan. 8, 2020. But the Supreme Court voted 5-4 on Jan. 27, 2020, to stay the injunction issued by Judge Daniels and allow the public-charge rule to be enforced pending disposition of the government’s appeal in the 2nd Circuit.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the practice of granting nationwide injunctions and expressed hope that US courts will opt to address the practice in the future.
“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.
“Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III” of the Constitution, he wrote.
Join Our Telegram channel here: https://t.me/TheTrueReporter
Source: The Epoch Times

https://thetruereporter.com/scotus-s...ses-joe-biden/

Would this apply if they have U.S. born children? By way of birthright citizenship, many illegal aliens receive benefits in the name of the "citizen" child.

Illegal alien parents should not be able to collect ANY taxpayer funded benefits on behalf of a U.S. citizen, whether that citizen is a minor or otherwise.

Deport the illegal alien parents WITH their minor children. They cannot leave them here like a box of unwanted puppies.

End birthright citizenship and start issuing a "Certificate of Child Born Abroad".

That child is a citizen of the mothers country whether it was born on an airplane at 20,000 feet, on a cruise ship out at sea, or on foreign soil.

They are NOT and never have been qualified as U.S. citizens.