Trump's 'Public Charge' Immigration Rule Upheld by Supreme Court

Citizens stage "A Day Without Immigrants" rally in front of a regional government building in Washington on Feb. 16, 2017, opposing U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial immigration policies including building a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Around 200 people participated in the rally, with similar protests taking place across the nation. (Kyodo) ==Kyodo

Donald Trump’s rule changes the so-called “public charge” rule that withholds green cards from immigrants dependent on government services. Federal immigration law says that immigrants desiring permanent legal status can be denied if they are likely to become a “public charge.”


Previously the government defined “public charge” as anyone receiving cash benefits. Those getting food stamps or housing assistance were exempt. The rule change means that green cards will only go to those who are free of dependency on government.

New York and Illinois sued the administration over the change and federal judges issued injunctions preventing the rule from being enacted. In January, the Supreme Court lifted the New York injunction and on Friday, the court lifted the Illinois order.

Washington Free Beacon:

The vote was five to four and tracked familiar ideological lines. The Court did not give an explanation for its decision, as is typical of such orders. In dissent, Sotomayor said the Trump administration has been bringing cases to the Supreme Court prematurely by exploiting procedural rules.

“Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each,” Sotomayor wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.”


Gee…maybe if liberals didn’t sue the administration for every little change they want to make in immigration or environmental law, they wouldn’t have to seek “unprecedented” numbers of emergency orders.

Besides, the final disposition of the rules has not been judged. Challenges are still working their way through the courts and liberals may yet prevail.

The “Wise Latina” wasn’t finished.

Sotomayor compared the conservative majority’s approach to the government’s stay applications with those brought by death row inmates. She accused the Court of showing greater solicitude for Trump than convicts on the brink of execution.

The government must show it will suffer irreparable harm to obtain an emergency stay. As Sotomayor saw Friday’s case, the only consequence to the government was a temporary inability to enforce its policy. The consequence facing capital convicts, on the other hand, is death, she argued.

“I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decision-making process that this Court must strive to protect,” Sotomayor added.


Comparing immigrants to death row convicts is typical liberal misdirection. One has nothing to do with the other, but it sure sounds important. Besides, a liberal can’t make an analogy without reminding us of their moral superiority—in this case, opposition to the death penalty. Just once I’d like to hear a liberal compare apples to apples and not apples to kumquats or something.

The rule could have been drawn more narrowly. It’s likely to hurt American businesses more than legal immigrants, who are usually allowed into the country because they have a job offer. But it’s still a good rule — a statement by government about the kinds of people we want to come to America.



Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member