2
2
0
Does anyone else have a problem with this ruling?
Under federal law for the most part to include immigration law, grandparents are not immediate (close) family members unless they are "in loco parentis" or "dependent," usually confirmed by a pre-existing legal declaration or court action.
Does it appear that the US judiciary is creating a special class of citizens and non-citizens, that have more rights than others?
Think about it this way - What does it take to have you get military dependent benefits for your grandparents due to your military status?
Under federal law for the most part to include immigration law, grandparents are not immediate (close) family members unless they are "in loco parentis" or "dependent," usually confirmed by a pre-existing legal declaration or court action.
Does it appear that the US judiciary is creating a special class of citizens and non-citizens, that have more rights than others?
Think about it this way - What does it take to have you get military dependent benefits for your grandparents due to your military status?
us-usa-immigration-ruling-idUSKBN19Z0A5
Posted from reuters.com
Immigration
Donald Trump
Refugees
Supreme Court
Family
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
What I have a real problem with is a judge in a lower court thinking that he can disregard or change a SCOTUS ruling.
(6)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
He did neither. Simply expanded on it. It was not the Supreme Court that decided who is considered a 'immediate family member'.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT Edward Wilcox - Actually the judge did do this. IAW the INA, immediate family is spouse, parents, parents of spouse, and children.
You need to read page 9 of the SCOTUS document lifting the injunctions, under Per Curiam, Section B. You should note that the only part of the injunctions that they left in place applied specifically to a spouse and in a separate case as listed a spouse's parent. So yes the lower court did disregard the ruling.
You need to read page 9 of the SCOTUS document lifting the injunctions, under Per Curiam, Section B. You should note that the only part of the injunctions that they left in place applied specifically to a spouse and in a separate case as listed a spouse's parent. So yes the lower court did disregard the ruling.
(2)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SSG Robert Webster - I stand corrected. However, I think the INA is unnecessarily restrictive, and gives no allowance for cultural norms in other societies.
So, to answer your original question, as far as grandparents are concerned, no I have no problem with this ruling.
So, to answer your original question, as far as grandparents are concerned, no I have no problem with this ruling.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I view this as people playing word games. One can argue either way. The bottom line for me is that we are discussing "rights" being extended to non-citizens. In my opinion the our courts have no standing to make a ruling on this. That being said: I'me not a lawyer.
(3)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SFC (Join to see) - Go ask a judge, any judge. Or maybe, just sit in a courtroom, they're open to the public. Watch how many non-citizens are brought in for different reasons. Owning a gun is about the only constitutional right not afforded to non-citizens.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT Edward Wilcox - That’s exactly what I’m talking about: judges legislating from the bench… Unconstitutionally stealing authority from the Congress. Actually I am looking for a law, lawfully passed by Congress and signed by the president; no Executive Action, or interpretation of an existing law twisting its meaning as a devil quotes Scripture.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SFC (Join to see) - Obviously you have never heard of a little concept called "Case Law" This involves interpreting and applying the law in a specific way. IT is not "legislating from the bench". They are not creating new laws, which is impossible for a judge to do. They are applying current law, in this case, the Constitution, in specific ways. Nothing wrong with that.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
One of the things that people fail to understand it that one of the goals of immigration law is to preserve the character of the nation. I do not know where the trip point exists, but at some point a locations ability to assimilate immigrants is surpassed. At a regulated slow rate that may be a good thing. At a rapid rate, that may be a bad thing.
There is a reason America is supposed to be a "melting pot;" and not a compartmentalized cafeteria tray. Can a community smoothly assimilate a 0.5% change in the cultural and ethnic population change, certainly; 50% probably not; 100% most assuredly not.
Ask the native American population how it worked out for them when the population growth rate far exceeded their ability to assimilate the European immigration rates, with little desire to assimilate.
There is a reason America is supposed to be a "melting pot;" and not a compartmentalized cafeteria tray. Can a community smoothly assimilate a 0.5% change in the cultural and ethnic population change, certainly; 50% probably not; 100% most assuredly not.
Ask the native American population how it worked out for them when the population growth rate far exceeded their ability to assimilate the European immigration rates, with little desire to assimilate.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google