US Supreme Court lets hardline Trump immigration policy take effect

US Supreme Court lets hardline Trump immigration policy take effect
US Supreme Court lets hardline Trump immigration policy take effect

Hello and welcome to the details of US Supreme Court lets hardline immigration policy take effect and now with the details

Nevin Al Sukari - Sana'a - Demonstrators gather to protest against MPP (Migrant Protection Protocols), outside of US Customs and Border Protection building in Brownsville, Texas January 12, 2020. — Reuters pic

WASHINGTON, Jan 28 — The US Supreme Court gave the go-ahead yesterday for one of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.

The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted the administration's request to lift a lower court's injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy while litigation over its legality continues. The rule has been criticised by immigrant rights advocates as a “wealth test” that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.

The court's five conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and two justices appointed by Trump, carried the day. The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the administration's request. The action was announced even as Roberts sat as the presiding officer in Trump's impeachment trial in the US Senate.

Lawsuits aiming to block the policy were filed against the administration by the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont as well as by New York City and several nonprofit organisations.

In imposing an injunction blocking it, Manhattan-based US District Judge George Daniels on Oct. 11 called the rule “repugnant to the American Dream” and a “policy of exclusion in search of a justification.”

The administration asked the high court to let the rule go into effect even before the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump's appeal of the injunction. The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis, with legal papers to be submitted by February 14 and arguments expected soon afterward.

The administration can now enforce the rule nationwide except in Illinois, where a lower court has blocked its implementation.

Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), praised the high court.

“It is very clear the US. Supreme Court is fed up with these national injunctions by judges who are trying to impose their policy preferences instead of enforcing the law,” Cuccinelli told reporters.

Green cards

At issue is which immigrants will be granted legal permanent residency, known as a “green card.” Under Trump's policy, immigration officers would consider factors such as age, educational level and English proficiency to decide whether an immigrant would likely become a “public charge” who would receive government benefits such as the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.

The administration has said the new rule is necessary to better ensure that immigrants will be self-sufficient. Critics have said the rule would disproportionately bar low-income people from developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia from permanent residency.

“Limiting legal immigration based on an applicant's wealth is shameful and entirely un-American,” Democratic Senator Dick Durbin wrote on Twitter.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the implementation timeline.

Trump has made his tough immigration stance a hallmark of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.

US immigration law has long required officials to exclude people likely to become a “public charge” from permanent residency. US guidelines in place for the past two decades had said immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalisation, in a nursing home for example, at public expense would be barred.

The new rule expands the "public charge" bar to anyone deemed likely to receive a much wider range of public benefits for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period including healthcare, housing and food assistance.

The vast majority of people seeking permanent residency are not eligible for public benefits themselves. A 2019 Urban Institute survey found that the administration's rule was already deterring people from seeking benefits for US citizen children for fear of harming their own future immigration status. Benefits for family members are not considered under the rule.

Claudia Center, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the rule targets disabled people applying for green cards and “enshrines the false stereotype that people with disabilities do not contribute to our society.”

The high court could give Trump more victories on immigration policy. The conservative justices signaled support in November for Trump's bid to kill a program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants — dubbed “Dreamers” — who entered the United States illegally as children. A ruling is due by the end of June.

The court in 2018 upheld Trump's “travel ban” targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who voted to lift the injunction, issued an opinion criticising lower courts' “increasingly common” use of nationwide injunctions to halt government policies. Gorsuch urged the court to confront the issue.

“What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?” Gorsuch asked.

Two other federal appeals courts previously lifted nationwide injunctions ordered by lower courts blocking the rule. — Reuters

These were the details of the news US Supreme Court lets hardline Trump immigration policy take effect for this day. We hope that we have succeeded by giving you the full details and information. To follow all our news, you can subscribe to the alerts system or to one of our different systems to provide you with all that is new.

It is also worth noting that the original news has been published and is available at Malay Mail and the editorial team at AlKhaleej Today has confirmed it and it has been modified, and it may have been completely transferred or quoted from it and you can read and follow this news from its main source.

PREV S. Korean Christians facing ‘unprecedented challenge’ over virus spread claims: Church cleric
NEXT China bans two Australian 'anti-China' scholars, reports Global Times