14 states ask Supreme Court to enforce public charge rule for immigrants

 Epoch Times:

Texas and 13 other states have filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court asking to be allowed to defend the so-called public charge rule in court proceedings after the Biden administration decided not to defend it in court.

The public charge rule, which requires prospective immigrants to be able to support themselves financially, has been very heavily litigated in federal courts. The Supreme Court stayed a lower court’s injunction against the rule in January 2020, allowing it to be enforced, pending disposition of the government’s appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Over vigorous left-wing opposition the Trump administration revived the rule which had largely fallen into disuse in recent years. Critics say the pro-taxpayer rule is xenophobic and discriminates against poor aliens.

The public-charge principle, that is, the idea that immigrants should have to demonstrate they can get by without becoming wards of the government, has been part of the American experience for centuries.

Public charge provisions have been part of U.S. immigration law since at least 1882. One of the earliest known public charge laws in colonial Massachusetts was enacted in 1645. By the end of the 1600s, many American colonies screened would-be immigrants and required bonds for those believed likely to become public charges.

The Supreme Court case is Texas v. Cook County, Illinois, court file 20A150. The 308-page application for leave to intervene and to stay a Nov. 2, 2020 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was filed with the Supreme Court late March 26.

Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered the respondents, including the federal government, to file a response to the application with the Supreme Court by April 9.

The Republican state attorneys general who filed the application with the Supreme Court say the Biden administration is remiss in its duties and decided to let a ruling adverse to the rule stand without considering the interests of their states.

...

It looks like the states would be stuck having to pay for the welfare of the people Biden is wrongfully allowing into the country.  That is blatantly unfair.  Biden's dereliction of duty will be costly to the states.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more