Seems like Sonia Sotomayor got her panties up in bunch…OK gross but you get the picture has accused Conservative justices of biasism. in their 5 to 4 decision for “wealth test” for legal immigrants.
The policy in question, the Immigration and Nationality Act, makes immigrants who are “likely at any time to become a public charge” ineligible for green cards. The policy virtually bars legal immigrants from using public assistance, including Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps. The five conservative justices ruled in favor of the stay, while the liberal justices — including Sotomayor — opposed it.
So how can you accuse other side of being bias when your side displayed the exact some bias as well?
Can only one side be bias while other side is not?
I have quoted below from the applicable portion of the United States Statutes.
Clearly, this rule is in accordance with United States Statute and should be upheld. Legally and Constitutionally, the Trump administration is in the right on this.
As for my personal opinion of the rule, I am in support. It does conform to statute and we should only be taking potentially public charges in cases asylum requests.
The following is from 8 USC 1182:
(4) Public charge
(A) In general
Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.
(B) Factors to be taken into account
(i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-
(I) age;
(II) health;
(III) family status;
(IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and
(V) education and skills.
(ii) In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.
But specific to this case, what was she being bias towards? If I am understanding the situation correctly they are biased because of the White House and she’s saying they haven’t properly gone over the evidence of the case. So does that mean her bias is towards the evidence?
It’s not hard to figure out that’s why Australia has a point based system. As much as I want them to curb all the Indian IT workers chances are they won’t go on welfare.
Clearly we should give preference to those who didn’t cross at official border crossings because they show initiative and that they have the physical ability to do hard labor.