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 Trumpās broad immunity claim, remaining.
Heyo, letās go
I donāt even know what youāre talking about here. āAnnounced a keep families together campaignā is horseshit. (Edit: see below) He started a specific task force to go through all the kids still in custody, try to find their families (which given the general chaos and sloppiness level of the bureaucracies involved on both sides of the border was pretty fucking difficult) and give them back. Before that they were just in custody, basically just waiting to grow up in a lifetime of orphaned misery. Now theyāre home, when they could even find the families.
(Edit: I see it; I read more of the article. (a) What I was talking about was reuniting the confiscated kids with their families, not the more recent campaign (b) is it possible perhaps that this specific campaign a few days ago was specifically a reaction by Biden to change policies in a way so that spouses in the US would be a bigger factor in visa decisions, specifically because of actions like this example over the course of the last few years that Biden wanted to make a change to?)
Want to explain a little more what you mean by this?
The State Department can do whatever it wants with renewing or denying visas. Then, if something wrong happens, someone can challenge it in court, which is exactly what happened here ā and lawyers from both sides get to present a vigorous case; in this case the lawyers for the government side (part and parcel of a pretty racist and careless system which Biden didnāt create, the reform of which I would be 1,000% behind the idea of but which getting rid of Biden will make 10 times worse) made their argument for his MS-13 membership.
Painting this whole thing that āforget Bidenās policies, letās find something that a government lawyer argued in one particular case that many judges agreed with once they saw the details and pretend that Biden told those particular lawyers to do exactly that and that that one event represents a good representation of his whole policy, and that the outcome was definitely wrong (which ā again ā it might have been), and a huge new thing he enacted personally and not a continuation of longstanding US immigration policy of fucking up peopleās lives sometimes, and that something he actually did specifically order which I talked about up at the beginning which affected many many people in an unequivocally good way just kind of didnāt happenāā¦ and then summarize it with specific misleading words to make it sound even worse than that whole weirdly slant-on-top-of-slant constructionā¦ it doesnāt sit well with me, sir. No sir I do not like it.
Do you intentionally try to start arguments with your comments? Weāre not on reddit anymore, I donāt 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 Iām a lead mobilizer and steward in my union, so some wires got crossed trying to describe the EO. However, I donāt 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 itās far too little and way too late, but the headline and article is specifically about the court case and the majority opinion. Thatās 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 countryās 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 departmentās current process for immigrating as a spouse. That sounds like unrestricted power to separate families if you ask me. This isnāt cherry-picking statements from lawyers, this is the courtās majority opinion.
Yeah, thatās 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 isnāt that I know the article is lying; it is that itās 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 didnāt bother touching on.) Since you have been deeply involved in immigration activism, you are surely aware that this isnāt anything specific to this case or even a new Biden thing - itās 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. Itās 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. Thatās 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 wonāt 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 heās 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 heās lying and wants to hurt people (instead of trying to now change the policies to help people), seems dishonest (and again in a way thatās specifically likely to help some people who really do want to hurt migrants, very very badly). To me.
Also fair. Iām an activist that helps immigrants find working class power, not an immigration activist.
I didnāt 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.