The Supreme Court rules against California woman whose husband was denied entry to US
The Supreme Court rules against California woman whose husband was denied entry to US
The Supreme Court has ruled against a California woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way his tattoos were interpreted.
from the same comedy troupe that brought you last seasons blockbuster hit, "the sanctity of marraige" comes the sequel, "for everyone but you!".
So how is this going to play with Biden's recent immigration executive order about non-citizen spouses?
It is irrelevant. However, the next guy can walk in and do the opposite and the victims will have no recourse.
So where's the legalized January 6th governmental take over sign up sheet? I assume that's legal or can be made legal with the right bank loan? 😀😉
Tough on the couple involved, and even though the decision tastes foul, I think I agree.
While a citizen “certainly has a fundamental right to marriage” Barrett said, “it is a fallacy to leap from that premise to the conclusion that United States citizens [do not] have a fundamental right that can limit how Congress exercises the nation’s sovereign power to admit or exclude foreigners.” [Emphasis mine]
Else we could all flood Texas and marry immigrants into the country, bypassing the government's decisions and responsibility.
tl;dr: Getting a marriage license doesn't usurp Congress' power.
Marriage and immigration is such a clusterfuck. Only reason my wife is here, free and clear, is that she was married to her American ex for 2+ years. Done deal. She's not a citizen and never needs to be to stay here forever. I'm fine with that. Without that previous marriage, who knows? She'd either be going through immigration hell or already be deported back to the Philippines.
Going through immigration hell right now, trying to get her youngest over here.
Just to be clear, there is no philosophical or morally consistent principle that anyone has been able to articulate in the history of political philosophy to defend the bizarre policy of excluding people who want to immigrate unless their presence is a danger or detriment to the public good.
The supreme banana court will rule as they like, of course, and I’m not saying they’re wrong from a legal perspective; that’s just beside the point.
That's not even the ruling, though. The majority opinion states that they don't have the right to challenge the ruling on behalf of their spouse. That their status as married to a US citizen affords them no right to contest the decision. I highly suggest reading the dissenting.