The Supreme Court rules against California woman whose husband was denied entry to US - eviltoast
  • qprimed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    from the same comedy troupe that brought you last seasons blockbuster hit, “the sanctity of marraige” comes the sequel, “for everyone but you!”.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    So how is this going to play with Biden’s recent immigration executive order about non-citizen spouses?

    • ApexHunter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is irrelevant. However, the next guy can walk in and do the opposite and the victims will have no recourse.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    So where’s the legalized January 6th governmental take over sign up sheet? I assume that’s legal or can be made legal with the right bank loan? 😀😉

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

    Tough on the couple involved, and even though the decision tastes foul, I think I agree.

    While a citizen “certainly has a fundamental right to marriage” Barrett said, “it is a fallacy to leap from that premise to the conclusion that United States citizens [do not] have a fundamental right that can limit how Congress exercises the nation’s sovereign power to admit or exclude foreigners.” [Emphasis mine]

    Else we could all flood Texas and marry immigrants into the country, bypassing the government’s decisions and responsibility.

    tl;dr: Getting a marriage license doesn’t usurp Congress’ power.

    Marriage and immigration is such a clusterfuck. Only reason my wife is here, free and clear, is that she was married to her American ex for 2+ years. Done deal. She’s not a citizen and never needs to be to stay here forever. I’m fine with that. Without that previous marriage, who knows? She’d either be going through immigration hell or already be deported back to the Philippines.

    Going through immigration hell right now, trying to get her youngest over here.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Just to be clear, there is no philosophical or morally consistent principle that anyone has been able to articulate in the history of political philosophy to defend the bizarre policy of excluding people who want to immigrate unless their presence is a danger or detriment to the public good.

      The supreme banana court will rule as they like, of course, and I’m not saying they’re wrong from a legal perspective; that’s just beside the point.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s not even the ruling, though. The majority opinion states that they don’t have the right to challenge the ruling on behalf of their spouse. That their status as married to a US citizen affords them no right to contest the decision. I highly suggest reading the dissenting.