Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/20/2026 5:25:45 AM PDT by CFW
The U.S. Supreme Court will begin its final oral arguments sitting of the current term on Monday. The justices will hear several high profile arguments on various issues before the term ends in June.
On Wednesday, justices will hear arguments in Blanche v. Lau, a case to determine how immigrants are admitted into the United States. The case focuses on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a lawful permanent resident in the United States in 2007. In 2012, Lau was convicted of trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey and fled the country.
However, once Lau returned, immigration officers admitted him under parole, a status that allowed him to be brought into the United States but not to remain permanently.
“It’s kind of a catch-all way that DHS officers can allow someone into the country,” said James Rogers, senior counsel at America First Legal.
Once Lau returned to the country on parole, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings to take Lau out of the country. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant admitted on parole is required to prove that they are admissible into the United States.
“It’s a lot easier to remove an alien in that sort of situation,” Rogers said.
The justices will hear arguements over whether the government had to establish clear evidence when Lau returned to the United States that he had committed a crime or if his later conviction proved that point. The justices will also likely decide how much authority federal courts have when reviewing parole determinations.
Lawyers for Lau argued that the United States cannot use charges of a crime to make a determination on how an immigrant can enter the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
And if,after having gotten citizenship,you're found to have engaged in *any* kind of immigration fraud (lying,concealing anything,etc) your citizenship will be revoked and you'll be put on a plane.
Lawyers for Lau argued that the United States cannot use charges of a crime to make a determination on how an immigrant can enter the United States.
Lawyers = Human Traffickers $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
“convicted of trademark counterfeiting”
“immigration officers admitted him under parole, a status that allowed him to be brought into the United States but not to remain permanently”
Time’s up!
Hopefully the Court tells us what’s up with Trump v. Barbara soon.
I didn’t see in this article when he came back and was readmitted under parole. It may not be particularly relevant, but I wondered.
Perhaps it’s a little relevant.
Oh, I see. He returned in June 2012, and instead of being admitted as a lawful resident, he was paroled because of the pending charge. He subsequently pled guilty.
I know the attorney of someone who was deported after coming to the US to get married, but on a visitor’s visa and not a fiancé visa. They actually had their family and friends come over for that wedding.
When Immigration (USCIS) found out, he was banned from the US for a minimum of ten years. His now wife, a US citizen, left the US and lived and worked in his country.
The man was from England and, aside from getting married in the US, he had no criminal history in either country.
The problem there is he committed immigration fraud by overstaying his visa.
It's more difficult to get the fiancé visa, but there's a reason for that. He just jumped the line.
Lawyers argument failed no money for the bad lawyers today.
Actually, he did not overstay, at all. He misrepresented the purpose of the visit.
I honestly think that US citizens should not have to deal with such a concern with a spouse that does not divorce. The US should not care if the immigrant a US citizen wants to marry is here for a work, visitor, or fiancé visa, as long as the person was already found legally able to come and signs with that citizen that no welfare will be taken in ten years, etc.
Illegals get more respect.
What threat is there from a law-abiding, employed white guy from England, marrying a US lady?
signs with that citizen that no welfare will be taken in ten years, etc.
Well that would be great if welfare departments across the country paid any attention to it. They don’t. I know because I worked for our county welfare department. Was actually told....oh we don’t pay any attention to that, sign them up.
I think his attorney is trying to make it relevant. Being admitted under parole doesn’t allow you to stay permanently.
In other SCOTUS news from today....
“Supreme Court to hear Catholic parish’s challenge after Colorado barred schools from universal pre-K program”
“The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Catholic parish’s argument after Colorado excluded its schools from the state’s program that pays for families to send their children to the preschool of their choice, public or private.
The oral arguments in the case of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy are expected to take place this fall.
The case could redefine how states balance anti-discrimination laws with religious freedom.”
There is also a non-trivial problem with American citizens selling a "marriage" to prospective immigrants that makes telling a real marriage apart from a sham one very difficult.
I fell in love with Australia on my first visit in 1979. Not long ago I went to Australia's immigration website to apply for permission to reside...just out of curiosity. They have a points system (as many countries do) and I didn't even come close to having enough points...mainly because of my age (I'm old enough to have had a draft card) and the fact that I don't have a skill that's in short supply. However,I suspect that I might be able to get away with living there illegally...but I'd *never* do so. Australia,like the US and every other sovereign state,has the right to regulate its borders and regulate non-citizens in their territory.
I want *all* illegals out. Every last one of them!
I want *all* illegals out. Every last one of them!
Me too, I am tired of freepers getting wishy washy on this...
To be in the US is a Privilege; not a RIGHT.
Removing a person from the US is removing a PRIVILEGE. His RIGHTS are not touched.
The question is did the immigrant have a CONTRACT that guaranteed the PRIVILEGE regardless of past or present conduct.
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.