Amy Coney Barrett issued an exhaustive 40 page dissent in June endorsing the Trump administration's anti-immigrant "public charge" rule. The effort was hardly necessary. The die was already cast. Two weeks before the February oral argument in her court the United States Supreme Court (5-4), over a powerful Sotomayor dissent, had stayed the preliminary injunction granted to Illinois by a United States District Court judge.
Barrett's dissent is evidence of powerful motivation to gain the nomination which she yesterday delightedly accepted from the President who won his position largely on his crude and bitter opposition to those who would seek refuge on our shores.
Chief Judge Diane P. Wood and her colleague Ilana Rovner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction against the Trump administration rule that bars from entry to the United States any alien it deems likely to turn to public benefits that Congress has permitted such as "subsidized health insurance, supplemental nutrition benefits (food stamps), and housing assistance". Rovner, the first woman to serve on the Seventh Circuit, as an infant fled Latvia in 1938 to escape the Nazis.
But Amy Coney Barrett was having none of that. Despite her reportedly estimable kindness she penned a vigorous and detailed 40 page defense of the Trump administration's rejection of a 1999 Guidance that barred from admission only those deemed likely to be "primarily dependent" on public benefits.
But we no longer welcome the tired, sick and poor, only those who can and surely will take care of themselves.
Justice Sotomayor was particularly alarmed that the high court has become quick to stay orders of courts below before the matter has gone through the usual appeals and briefing. With Amy Coney Barrett bringing prodigious energy to advancing her agenda Justice Sotomayor will miss her colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg more than even the Bronx born justice could have fully appreciated.
- GWC
Cook County v. Wolf, Secretary DHS, June 10, 2020
Wood, Chief Judge, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Like most people, immigrants to the United States would like greater prosperity for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, it can take time to achieve the American Dream, and the path is not always smooth. Recognizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits...
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule designed to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive public assistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from entering the country or adjusting their immigration status. The Rule purports to implement the “public-charge” provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4). States, cities, and nonprofit groups across the country have filed suits seeking to overturn the Rule.
***
DHS also never explains why it chose not to take into account the possibility that an immigrant might, at some point in the future, be able to repay the value of public benefits received. Someone who seeks to adjust status will be penalized for having previously received public benefits without being given the opportunity to refund the government the cost of those benefits. This is new: the regulations governing deportation on public-charge grounds require a demand and a failure to pay. See 64 Fed. Reg. at 28691.
All of this convinces us that this Rule is likely to fail the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. The Rule has numerous unexplained serious flaws: DHS did not adequately consider the reliance interests of state and local governments; did not acknowledge or address the significant, predictable collateral consequences of the Rule; incorporated into the term “public charge” an understanding of self-sufficiency that has no basis in the statute it supposedly interprets; and failed to address critical issues such as the relevance of the five-year waiting period for immigrant eligibility for most federal benefits...
Justice Sotomayor was particularly alarmed that the high court has become quick to stay orders of courts below before the matter has gone through the usual appeals and briefing. With Amy Coney Barrett bringing prodigious energy to advancing her agenda Justice Sotomayor will miss her colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg more than even the Bronx born justice could have fully appreciated.
- GWC
Cook County v. Wolf, Secretary DHS, June 10, 2020
Wood, Chief Judge, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Like most people, immigrants to the United States would like greater prosperity for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, it can take time to achieve the American Dream, and the path is not always smooth. Recognizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits...
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule designed to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive public assistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from entering the country or adjusting their immigration status. The Rule purports to implement the “public-charge” provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4). States, cities, and nonprofit groups across the country have filed suits seeking to overturn the Rule.
***
DHS also never explains why it chose not to take into account the possibility that an immigrant might, at some point in the future, be able to repay the value of public benefits received. Someone who seeks to adjust status will be penalized for having previously received public benefits without being given the opportunity to refund the government the cost of those benefits. This is new: the regulations governing deportation on public-charge grounds require a demand and a failure to pay. See 64 Fed. Reg. at 28691.
All of this convinces us that this Rule is likely to fail the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. The Rule has numerous unexplained serious flaws: DHS did not adequately consider the reliance interests of state and local governments; did not acknowledge or address the significant, predictable collateral consequences of the Rule; incorporated into the term “public charge” an understanding of self-sufficiency that has no basis in the statute it supposedly interprets; and failed to address critical issues such as the relevance of the five-year waiting period for immigrant eligibility for most federal benefits...
No comments:
Post a Comment