America’s Immigration policies are generally NOT codified by Congressional Law….
American President’s HAVEv and DO change the rules administration to administration….
Trump and his guy Stephen Miller have clamped down past policies which embraced immigration ….
The Alito court today gave Trump’s Admin two votes of support on their policies….
Asylum seekers can be turned back without the ability to tell their story BEFORE they physically cross the border INTO America…
Once IN America they must be able to pled their case IN America , which IS the Law….
In the Second case…..
The Alito court CAN cancel temporary legal protections for thousands of Haitians and Syrians and deport them….
Trump and company are reaching for cutting protections for up to 13 more countries…..
Trump & Co. have argued that absent Congress’s Laws….
The President if the United States RUNS and OWNS a large part of the American Immigration Policy…
Alito and his crew agree….
This is a 180 from the America that HAS traditionally had open arms to immigrant’s , who have helped the country Grow, and Keep it’s Uniqueness…
There is a caveat to this….
Trump’s immigration crack down has become more and MORE Unpopular….
Some of it actually has had a negitive impact on America’s Growth and Economy….
We’ll see where Trump goes with this which CAN and WILl effect the American vote going into a Midterm and 2028 Presidential Election’s voters….
Finally?
The US Congress will BE different in 6 month’s from now……
Asylum Case Ruling….
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that the government may legally turn back asylum-seekers who are attempting to reach a port of entry before they hit U.S. soil, greenlighting a now-rescinded immigration policy that the Trump administration wants the right to potentially revive.
The policy, called “metering,” began under former President Obama and ended several years ago.
It enables border officials to turn back migrants before they can physically cross the border from Mexico into the U.S., preventing them from making an asylum claim.
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city, or a country — before the person enters that place,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for himself and the five other conservative justices.
“An alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border,” he added later.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, which the justices reserve for when they want to express their strong disagreements in a case.
She said under the majority’s interpretation, the M.S. St. Louis, a boat that carried many Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi regime, would again be turned away.
“The Court’s illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘in,’” Sotomayor wrote. “Words, however, must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole.”…
Temporary Legal Protections Case Ruling…
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can cut off temporary legal protections for thousands of Haitians and Syrians, deciding that federal judges have no authority to weigh in on many of the challengers’ claims.
It hands the president a major victory on his immigration crackdown. The Trump administration has sought to terminate more than a dozen countries from Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that allows citizens of designated countries to be protected from deportation and receive a pathway to work authorization.
It’s an ominous sign for TPS recipients of the many other countries that have also sued to protect their status — cases where lower court judges have often kept TPS in place as they determined the Trump administration’s swift decisions were motivated by racial animus.
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
As for their remaining claims, Alito said they are unlikely to succeed, including on claims the efforts to end TPS is racially motivated. Alito wrote the plaintiffs were seeking “to capitalize on … heated language” from President Trump and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem….
Note…
Yes….
The Alito Court IS codifying US Immigration Policy in the absence of Congress…..
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.