Posted on 12/10/2019 4:57:33 PM PST by cotton1706
A second appeals court has lifted an injunction blocking the Trump administration from implementing its immigration rule relating to “public charges,” mirroring an order in the Ninth Circuit Court several days before.
“Public charge” refers to an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, by receiving assistance such as food stamps or Medicaid.
The cases stem from a new rule the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted in August that expanded the definition of “public charges” in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The rule provides clarification about what factors would be considered when determining whether someone is likely at any time in the future to become a public charge.
The rule was challenged in several states leading to injunctions that prevented the rule from going into effect on Oct. 15.
A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to grant a stay on a preliminary injunction on a lower court decision to halt the Trump administration rule. Despite this ruling, the DHS’ rule will still not be able to go in effect because of a separate nationwide injunction ordered by a district court in New York on the same issue.
In the short order (pdf), Judge Harvie Wilkinson and Judge Paul Niemeyer, both Reagan appointees, voted to grant the motion while Judge Pamela Harris, an Obama appointee, voted to deny.
(Excerpt) Read more at clarion.causeaction.com ...
New rule?! That’s how it always was. Winning!
Inb4someotherstupidjudgeblocksitagai!
These injunctions are nothing less than treasonous acts.
Bad enough we have people who are citizens going from state to state to collect welfare, don’t need foreigners coming in to get on the US dole.
So much winning!
Unless it has changed in the last couple of, Canada will only let someone emigrate if they have a good income and/or a marketable skill.
Taken from Senator Grassley’s opposition to then Nominee Harris. The Senate and President Obama rammed through judges especially onto the Wash DC Circuit Court.
Professor Harris is on the record that extra-legal considerations should influence how a judge rules. But she’s also expressed her belief that the personal characteristics of the judge should matter, too. I think it’s fair to say that she is acutely concerned with the personal characteristics of the judge.
In 2010, she even told the Los Angeles Times that the President should consider a judicial nominee’s religious beliefs when filling Supreme Court vacancies. She said: “It’s hard for me to see religion as especially different than all other things that presidents take into account.”
I don’t even know where to start with that, and perhaps the less said about it the better. But I’d be interested to know which religions the nominee thinks are suitable or unsuitable for representation on the federal bench.
I’ll leave you with another example of just how out of the mainstream this nominee is. Professor Harris is an outspoken advocate for abortion rights. Over the years, she has made a number of controversial statements about abortion and the Supreme Court’s abortion precedents.
Shockingly, on one occasion last year, she described partial-birth abortion as a merely “late-ish” kind of abortion. The nominee also suggested that States “gin up medical controversies” intentionally and in bad faith in order to justify restrictions on late-term abortion. She denigrated restrictions on partial-birth abortion because, in her view, “you could find one guy to say ‘I don’t know it’s safe’ to create medical uncertainty that will allow state regulation.”
Canada will only let someone emigrate if they have a good income and/or a marketable skill.<<
Like Cab drivers?
We need to follow the democrat model and begin impeachment proceedings against Federal Judges for “Abuse of power”.
Don’t celebrate yet ,
“Despite this ruling, the DHS’ rule will still not be able to go into effect because of a separate nationwide injunction ordered by a district court in New York on the same issue. “
The country which transformed itself from a mediocre South-East Asian country as a British colony, to become the country boasting more millionaires based on population size, than any country on earth, and has near ZERO unemployment rate, has ZERO welfare for able bodied people! No food stamps, no unemployment checks, no free phones, no nothing!
For the radical 4th to change to a more sane position is a major win for American justice. Some of the leftist judges on this Circuit were judicially insane.
Are. The Obama Judges on this Court (and one of the G.W. Bush Judges) are hardcore leftists. The 4th is probably more radical than the 9th at this point, and one of the most radically leftist courts in the nation. President Trump was able to close the gap a little with his three appointees.
Someone added “helping Trudeau virtue-signal on the world-stage” to the list of marketable skills — but, you’re right, our (Canada’s) system was largely merit-based, compared to what I’ve heard about the U.S. rules.
The Canada immigration website states that refugees can immigrate and request asylum even after entering the country (presumably illegally).
So Canada is set up to become as bad as the US for failing to protect the country.
Not sure why you posted to answer my comment,
But if you’re talking about India there (?), most of the country is the 3rd world dump full of poverty it has always been. Very poor populace.
I don’t know why that was posted to you either, but why would you guess India instead of Singapore?
Reagan appointees!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.