LOL libs are never bias...right?

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?

Inquiring minds want to know.

It’s a stupid ruling… how do you predict how likely or unlikely an immigrant will end up on welfare?

As the old saying goes if not for double standards…

1 Like

Who is more likely to end up on it? Hmm, maybe people with no marketable skill.

1 Like

I’m not getting the connection between the article and the thread title.

Hmm…looks like the boot strappy people in Red States fall into that category more than other states.

image

3 Likes

Do they have the skills necessary to get a job and support themselves (and possibly a family)?

Link to ruling and the Sotomayor dissent.

1 Like

Everyone is bias. When did liberals claim they are never biased?

Do you have an opinion Safiel?

Actually, was getting to that just now. :smile:

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.

How do you evaluate that? Are they going to have to fix a toilet at the border? Build a house? Lay pavement? Develop an app? Code at the border?

In her case she accuse conservatives being bias while ignoring their own biases from left side of the bench.

Is she not being hypocritical herself?

Irrelevant.

Everyone is a hypocrite too.

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.

1 Like

What she claims verses what was covered are two different things. She’s just upset that none of conservative judges side with their bias.

Stop trying to justify your own biases…

That’s why there is a LEGAL process to go through, instead of just showing up at the border and trying to cross.

It used to be they had to have a sponsor who signed a paper pledging to support them (instead of welfare) to have then come into the country.

2 Likes

So they did take the proper time to go over the evidence and argue the case in court before making a decision?

Why would I need to justify my bias?