Lawsuits From California Counties Over Immigration Law Expansion

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by protectionist, Aug 13, 2019.

  1. protectionist
    Offline

    protectionist Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,357
    Thanks Received:
    2,974
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Ratings:
    +15,208
    San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over its new rules, to broaden the scope of welfare programs that legal immigrants may have, while still being legal.

    Under the new rules, the Department of Homeland Security has redefined a public charge as someone who is "more likely than not" to receive public benefits for more than 12 months, within a 36-month period. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will now weigh whether applicants have received public assistance along with other factors such as education, income and health to determine whether to grant legal status.

    Without legal challenges, the rules would take effect in mid-October.

    The rules, the counties argued, would result in a "chilling effect" in which migrants forgo or disenroll from federal public assistance programs, to reduce the risk of being denied a green card. This practice would mean that the cost of services would shift from federal to state governments, the counties argued.

    Well, what do you know ? Who woulda guessed. So what's happening here is San Francisco and Santa Clara counties while welcoming immigrants in, have been sticking the bill onto all you 49 non-California states, in the form of federal government costs, and now they'll have to pay themselves, for their own love of immigration. So to their first lawsuit complaint, I say GOOD! If they want to go whole hog on immigration, including financial dependents, let them pay for it.

    The counties also said the rules undermine Congress' broader system of immigration laws, that prioritizes family unification, and that the federal government did not sufficiently offer any rationale to explain the alleged benefits of the rules or justify its costs.

    Aha! Once again, the counties' leftist attorneys come up with a complaint based on THEIR cockamamie view of what constitutes good immigration policy. They might have had a point if one were to accept the idea of family unification (aka "Chain Migration") as being a good thing.

    I don't, and I suspect most Americans don't think it's a good way to run an immigration system either.

    New Poll: Swing Voters Overwhelmingly Reject 2020 Dems Who Promise More Immigration

    Rather than continue with the looney chain migration system, undermining it is a GOOD THING, and against the lawyers have no case. Oh they may go "judge-shopping", find themselves a liberal judge to strike down the administration's rules expansion, and probably get it approved by the very liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, too, but when it hits the SCOTUS, it goes down in flames.

    As for the benefits of the new rule, as I just stated, it benefits 49 states, to not have to pay for California's love affair with immigrants, including indigent ones, so THAT is the cost justification. And the switching from family unification, to a more merit based system, is preferred by the majority of Americans, who voted for Donald Trump, and still do not welcome penniless paupers streaming into the US, with outstretched hands.

    It's about time the feds have put a stop to runaway chain migration, and sticking the whole country with the bill for looney California's immigration gone wild attitude.

    San Francisco, Santa Clara sue over new immigration rules
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. protectionist
    Offline

    protectionist Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,357
    Thanks Received:
    2,974
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Ratings:
    +15,208
    California secession anyone ?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. wamose
    Offline

    wamose Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,385
    Thanks Received:
    430
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +3,064
    I'd say we could do without the coastal stretch from just north of San Diego up to and including Santa Rosa. We'll keep the central valley and the mountains.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page