Supreme Court rules AGAINST a bid by Republican states to defend a Trump policy that would have put limits on migrants who would likely be dependent on government benefits

Daily Mail ^ | 06/15/2022 | KATELYN CARALLE

[LibertyWoman]

clever. Would be declared unconstitutional post-haste

[eyeamok]

Then you SEIZE their Assets using the Supreme Court KELO decision as justification, Ecomomic Gain is all you need to say, the Court has Spoken and NOBODY can Stop them from doing this.

[LibertyWoman]

I’m fully on-board

[Svartalfiar]

that would expand the definition of 'public charge' to deny migrants entry into the country if they would primarily depend on the government for their income.

Um, isn't that pretty much the exact definition already..?

[central_va]

I don’t get this. Smells fishy to me.

[Cboldt]

This reinforces the point that if the constitution and laws are followed, it is Congress who sets immigration policy.

It is obvious that Congress wants open border with minimal limits on who can enter illegally. Any compliants from Congress are phony. It knows what to do if it wants a change, and it has the power to remove POTUS as well as the agencies.

[Cboldt]

-- Perhaps, we citizens can sue bite me to uphold the law? --

Waste of time. The law has what is known as enforcement discretion.

Selective enforcement is the rule, not the exception.

Pot is a federal offense, not prosecuted, while at the same time the states say it is legal. Literally legal and illegal at the same time.

On top of that, government has no legally enforcible duty AT ALL. None.

[OneVike]

I agree. Something is amiss here.

I refuse to go to Daily Mails website, too much crap on it.

I will await for more information, because I am guessing that there is something that is being left out of the Daily News’s report.

[PghBaldy]

SCOTUS added two more opinion days on calendar:

Tuesday 21 June
Thursday 23 June

https://www.scotusblog.com/