Supreme Court Rejects Republican Bid to Revive Trump’s ‘Public Charge’ Rule

Supreme Court Rejects Republican Bid to Revive Trump’s ‘Public Charge’ Rule

BY JACK PHILLIPS
April 26, 2021

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a motion filed by Republican state attorneys general to resurrect former President Donald Trump’s “public charge” immigration rule that enabled new restrictions on immigrants who receive some form of government aid.

The high court, in its order (pdf), left open the possibility for the attorneys general to try again at a later time, saying that the states can raise arguments before lower courts and return to the Supreme Court if needed.

President Joe Biden’s administration formally rescinded the Trump-era rule last month, sparking the lawsuit from the attorneys general.

The court noted that on March 15, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) one a lower court’s “now-effective judgment to remove the challenged rule from the Code of Federal Regulations without going through notice and comment rulemaking” and that after “DHS had voluntarily dismissed its appeal, a group of States sought leave to intervene,” which was denied.

The states—led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—then sought relief in the courts and argued DHS prevented enforcement of the rule and insulated the lower court decision. Specifically, the officials earlier this year tried to intervene in a case in Illinois, where a district court judge had vacated the rule U.S.-wide, coming after the Biden administration had dropped its appeal of the ruling, which essentially allowed the “public charge” rule to expire.

“The States also contend that DHS has rescinded the rule without following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,” according to the Supreme Court’s unsigned order. “We deny the application, without prejudice to the States raising these and other arguments before the District Court, whether in a motion for intervention or otherwise.”

In March, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that when the 2019 rule was rescinded, it “closed the book on the public charge rule.”

Mayorkas said it would “have placed undue burdens on American families wishing to sponsor individuals lawfully immigrating to the U.S.,” adding that it’s part of a plan to implement reforms “that improve our immigration system and reduce unnecessary barriers to legal immigration.”

Biden’s move to rescind the rule—among other rules, including halting construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and eliminating the “remain in Mexico” policy—has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. They have argued that the orders and White House messaging on immigration has triggered a surge in illegal immigrants and created a humanitarian crisis.

Biden and other top administration officials, however, said they are attempting to create more humane immigration policies and alleged that Trump left them with a broken system.

The Epoch Times has contacted the Texas Attorney General’s office for comment.

The case is: TEXAS, ET AL. V. COOK COUNTY, IL, ET AL

https://www.theepochtimes.com/suprem...e_3791339.html

.
Just for the record, as far back as our colonial period, public charge laws were enacted to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become a public charge. One such law forbid ”… the admission of indigent migrants. This law was followed in the 18th century by other laws prohibiting the landing of “Sick, Lame, or Otherwise Infirm Persons,” and calling for bonds that were forfeited if immigrants of questionable means became public charges.” See: Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background


Additionally, see: An act in amendment to the various acts relative to immigration and the importation of aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor


And in more recent times, during the early 1900s when there were great numbers immigrating to the United States and had to be cleared for entry at Elis Island, many were not granted entry into the United States for a number of reasons. One reason to be rejected was the likelihood of becoming a ward of the state and a “public charge”, and on this ground alone some were refused entry!


Also, "Unescorted women and children were detained until their safety was assured through the arrival of a telegram, letter, or a pre-paid ticket from a waiting relative. Immigration officials refused to send single women into the streets alone, nor could they leave with a man not related to them. LINK


The law also required a medical inspection of all immigrants, and if an inspection officer detected an applicant with a disease, especially contagious diseases (TB, venereal disease, etc.) and even mental illness, they were rejected.


So, the remaining question is: why is our federal government, including our Supreme Court, ignoring common sense public charge rules, and allowing the United states to be filled with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal populations of Central America? And how does this promote the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and especially so when American Citizens pay federal taxes so our federal government will “repel invasions” and promote the general welfare of the United States and her citizens?

Why are our constitutionally guaranteed protections being ignored?

JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story