The Supreme Court ruled that a US citizen does not have a constitutional right to challenge the State Department summary denial of a visa for her husband, one of several cases decided over the last two days as the current term approaches its end, with more than a dozen major decisions, including Trump’s broad immunity claim, remaining.
Do you intentionally try to start arguments with your comments? We’re not on reddit anymore, I don’t engage with bait. Consider it a warning, because I do want to have this conversation.
Biden issued an executive order days before this decision. You even referenced it in your own comment. I called it a campaign because I’m a lead mobilizer and steward in my union, so some wires got crossed trying to describe the EO. However, I don’t think the comparison of an EO to a mobilizing campaign is far off. The taskforce trying to reconnect families is good. This article does take a passing swing at that taskforce, mostly to say that it’s far too little and way too late, but the headline and article is specifically about the court case and the majority opinion. That’s really all I have to say about this for the time being unless we get into border policies.
I said that the administration pushed the issue, because they did. They intentionally baited the spouse of a US citizen to leave the country to strip the person of due process, and then denied the visa without a legitimate cause. When the appellate court reversed the trial decision, the Biden administration could have let the issue rest, gave an apology, and issued the visa. Instead they appealed it to the most fascist SCOTUS in the country’s history. Biden, or at least the lawyers representing the state, wanted the government to have this power.
This is how things will work now. If a non-citizen gets married in the US and has to leave the country for any reason, their visa can get denied, the spouse cannot sue in the US on their behalf, and the person trying to immigrate cannot complete the paperwork based on the state department’s current process for immigrating as a spouse. That sounds like unrestricted power to separate families if you ask me. This isn’t cherry-picking statements from lawyers, this is the court’s majority opinion.
Yeah, that’s fair. This issue is somewhat personal for me and so I get more short tempered or rude about it than I really should. I apologize about being inflammatory about it.
That said, let me try again more polite: I think I was pretty explicit that the issue isn’t that I know the article is lying; it is that it’s presenting true facts in an engineered and wildly misleading fashion.
This is another very misleading construction (and one that echoes another one in the article that I didn’t bother touching on.) Since you have been deeply involved in immigration activism, you are surely aware that this isn’t anything specific to this case or even a new Biden thing - it’s just always how it works; to renew your visa you have to leave the US, apply for renewal at the embassy, and then if they approve it you can come back in. It’s a heart-stopping and somewhat punitive process but pretending that the State Department somehow decided to apply it in only this case is flat out wrong. That’s how it works for everyone. The fact that the article pretends that they somehow singled out this guy and tricked him into going through that same process is another example of its open dishonesty.
Again, if you want to tell me that US immigration is vindictive and racist, I definitely won’t disagree. Going from there to implying they asked Biden what to do about this specific immigration case and had him decide, seems unlikely to me. Choosing to ignore things that we do know that he definitely did do to change policy seems partisan. Choosing to pick out ways in which he’s now trying to change policy to undo some of the maybe unjust things that happened in this case starting back a few years ago, at a systemic level, and trying to pretend that means he’s lying and wants to hurt people (instead of trying to now change the policies to help people), seems dishonest (and again in a way that’s specifically likely to help some people who really do want to hurt migrants, very very badly). To me.
Also fair. I’m an activist that helps immigrants find working class power, not an immigration activist.
I didn’t know that was a requirement for getting a visa. When it comes to heads of government, I think about what my CEO would do and work off that. It works most of the time, but clearly not every time. It does recontextualize things for me a bit, but not enough to stop me from being absolutely pissed at the current administration or the ruling. I think we can both reach the agreement that the way immigration is about to change is total bullshit and needs a complete overhaul.