Posted on 06/15/2022 12:25:20 PM PDT by LibertyWoman
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against allowing states to defend a change in immigration law by former President Donald Trump that would impose limits on the amount of immigrants allowed in the country who would rely on government benefits.
Republicans sought in the case Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco to uphold a rule by Trump, and rejected by President Joe Biden, that would expand the definition of 'public charge' to deny migrants entry into the country if they would primarily depend on the government for their income.
While the rule never took effect, the 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court bench officially denied this GOP request in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch concurring on Wednesday.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If you ever sponsor an immigrant you realize the individual must be able to take care of themselves or you will be financially responsible for that individual.
I did so during the Obama years. It was the same under Trump. It is US law. How can Brandon just change the law on his own?
The US has lots of money available to support illegal immigrants.
Roberts again being a coward: we shouldn’t have taken this case in the first place.
Round ‘‘em up and send ‘‘em to Washimgton DC, or quit whining.
Sounds like a narrow ruling that will be exploited and trumpeted on the Progressive Mouthpiece Media.
The LAW turns back illegals at the border, on paper, but lack of Enforcement is MANDATED by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $$$$$, and the New World Order elites who don’t want national pride, unity, or majority Races......that’s the Plan.
Funny how when my wife immigrated here she had to sign a statement saying she wouldn’t go on the dole.
“...an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch concurring”
I wonder if this decision is being described accurately.
“..sign a statement saying she wouldn’t go on the dole...”
that was a requirement for those applying for permanent residency - green card holders. Also those receiving visas had the same requirement.
Send hundreds of thousands to DC, Martha’s Vineyard, Hollywood, etc.
Unfortunately, immigration is a power granted to the feds by the constitution.
Perhaps, we citizens can sue bite me to uphold the law?
government benefits that end up in their home countries
Well, there's no need to "wonder." It's certainly easy enough to track down the brief opinion itself. You can read it for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf
The Court rarely explains why it dismisses a petition as "improvidently granted," but the Chief Justice apparently felt it appropriate to do so here.
Our immigration laws at one time restricted admittance to the country to those who would not become a financial burden to the American taxpayer. Since the Ted Kennedy immigration bill of 1965 that all changed, and the focus instead went in favor of those who WOULD become a financial burden to the American taxpayer.
The Opinion was “unsigned”.
Roberts et al had a separate concurring opinion.
I think the states will have to initiate a new suit based on state based medicaid benefits, etc..
So did all 8 of my Great Grandparents from Norway.
You want something from the Court?
Pass a law!
This is the message the Court is sending you.
Hoping someone who speaks ‘lawyer’ can interpret this. Good or bad? Whats the bottom line?
Then the STATES just need to Pass a NEW LAW mandating that ALL Public Benefits for ANY person that either entered the country or remains in the Country without proper Legal Authorization be Paid for by an Assessment on the Incomes and Assets of ALL Officers of the Court living or working in their State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.