[Show all top banners]

Sexy In Sari
Replies to this thread:

More by Sexy In Sari
What people are reading
Subscribers
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST TEMPOARY PROTECTED STATUS IMMIGRANTS
[VIEWED 968 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
Posted on 06-07-21 11:15 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 


Liberal Supreme Court Judge Elena Kagan, nominated by President OBAMA, make a decision against illegal immigrants in US. That means future immigration decisions seem NOT Good. 
Good LUck!!!



So sad!!! BUT Law Is Law. Trump is Right.

Supreme Court rules against immigrants in temporary status seeking green cards

Last edited: 07-Jun-21 11:34 AM

 
Posted on 06-07-21 11:19 AM     [Snapshot: 6]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Supreme Court rules against immigrants in temporary status seeking green cards


The Supreme Court held on Monday that the government can block non-citizens who are in the US under a program that temporarily protects them from deportation in certain situations from applying for a green card if they entered the country unlawfully.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court.

“Today’s decision is not just a setback for those immigrants currently in Temporary Protected Status who did not enter the United States lawfully; it also reinforces the barriers that Dreamers would face until and unless Congress provides a statutory path to some kind of permanent lawful status,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“The Executive Branch may have some authority to confer forms of temporary legal status on those who crossed the border without permission, but the Supreme Court today reinforced, however indirectly, that only Congress can provide a permanent answer,” he added.

The case concerns Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzales, a New Jersey couple who came to the US illegally in 1997 and 1998 and now have four children. Their youngest was born in the US and is a citizen.

Following a series of earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001, they applied for and received Temporary Protected Status, which shields foreign nationals present in the US from removal if they have been subject to armed conflicts or environmental disasters in their homeland. In 2014, the couple sought to apply to “adjust” their status to become lawful permanent residents and apply for a green card.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services denied their application, noting that they were ineligible to apply because they had not entered the country legally and never been formally admitted to the US.

The case confronted two sections of immigration law: one that says that those in TPS should be considered as “maintaining lawful status,” and another that says in order to adjust status, an individual in TPS must have been admitted lawfully.

Kagan said that there was “no dispute” that Sanchez entered the US “unlawfully, without inspection.” She said that a “straightforward” application of immigration law supports the government’s decision to deny him status as a lawful permanent resident because he was not lawfully admitted.

“He therefore cannot become a permanent resident of this country,” Kagan concluded.

Currently, there are about 400,000 people with TPS status in the country and 85,000 have managed to adjust status.

Although a district court ruled in favor of the couple, an appeals court reversed. It held that TPS does not “constitute an admission.”

In court, Amy M. Saharia, a lawyer for Jose and Sonia Gonzales, argued that having been admitted is “inherent” in the TPS status. But Michael R. Huston, assistant to the US solicitor general, drew a line between status and admission, arguing against the couple.

The government said that while Congress had made some individuals eligible to adjust their status if they met certain criteria and had a sponsor, it was not available to those who had not made a lawful entry. Huston said the government had “reasonably determined” that Congress did not “establish TPS as a special pathway to permanent residents for non-citizens who are already barred from that privilege because of pre-TPS conduct.”

He urged the court to defer to the position taken by the agency in the case and he noted that there are “tens of thousands” of TPS holders who have adjusted their status, but they had been lawfully admitted as a student or an au pair or a temporary worker. He said that TPS holders know that it is a temporary form of relief from removal and that it “will not last forever.” At an early point in the case, the Trump administration had argued that those in the TPS program could never try to get green cards. The Biden administration’s position


 
Posted on 06-07-21 11:31 AM     [Snapshot: 29]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

I wonder what the is the implication for the Nepal TPS. I assume most Nepali TPS holders came lawfully on some kind on visa. Also, since most Latino TPSers came in illegally and now they cannot adjust their status, it would mean now there will be pressure on Democrats to push the legal pathway bill?
 
Posted on 06-07-21 11:44 AM     [Snapshot: 88]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

People from 11 other countries are similarly protected. They are: Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

Monday’s decision does not affect immigrants with TPS who initially entered the U.S. legally and then, say, overstayed their visa, Kagan noted. Because those people were legally admitted to the country and later were given humanitarian protections, they can seek to become permanent residents.


 
Posted on 06-07-21 11:45 AM     [Snapshot: 84]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

@Sexy in Sari. You are best copy-paste person. It sounds 6th grader argument when you say Trump is Right on this issue. It was not a partisan issue but a legal interpretation. She wrote for the unanimous court. Remember she is a left-leaning justice. It was all expected. It will in fact pressure the Senate to take action.

 


Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 7 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
What stocks to buy -- Any recommendation
Conservative discussions
Hope the immigration bill never passes
Premier League Discussions
Lots of Nepali girls married to white n black dudes
The New Proposal from Democrats !!
Moving to Nepal. What are my options?
इन्दिरा जोशीको चिन्ता लौच
Nepali guards in Afghanistan
BREAKING NEWS!NO GREEN CARD FOR DACA, TPS AND ESSENTIAL WORKERS!!
ROTH or 401K
कथा -ब्यथा
TPS late renewal
Well FCUK!! The Senate parliamentarian ruled Sunday that Democrats cannot include pathways to citizenship in the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package
रानीको दुध
Is it worth investing your money in Nepal?
Need suggestions
No path to residency via reconciliation
Democrats says if plan B fails , there is plan C
2021 Immigration Reform Memo-Green Card Through Registry
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters