Federal judge declares Biden immigration program for spouses of U.S. citizens illegal

[Crazy Cat 41,982]

Federal judge declares Biden immigration program for spouses of U.S. citizens illegal - CBS Miami

Edited November 8 by Crazy Cat

[Boiler 45,711]

It could be appealed etc but as this was a Political ploy and would be reversed anyway I am not sure what the point would be.

[Crazy Cat 41,982]

I think this just a harbinger of things to come.  I head a former Obama official say that he expects Trump to direct efforts toward:

 

illegally present criminals

Sanctuary cities

Visa overstayers

Foreign countries (specifically Mexico)

 

I also think this would be a prime time for Congress to make reforms in the INA.

Edited November 8 by Crazy Cat

[Melancholic Mage 114]

I personally think this is a good thing. Bit more in-depth article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-declares-biden-immigration-program-for-spouses-of-u-s-citizens-illegal/

For those concerned (as I initially was without details) this is aimed at illegal aliens and undocumented people who came here and broke the law. There has to be consequences. Come into the USA the right way, and you're welcome.

[Nous Eb 128]

Good! That is a good start. It's infuriating to me that illegal aliens could get away with their crime simply by marrying a USC. Not only is it unfair for all of us who are playing (and paying!) by the book, it also makes sure 99% of these marriages will be phony. Great decision, we need more of these! 

[ScarletWitch6x 66]

13 hours ago, Nous Eb said:

it also makes sure 99% of these marriages will be phony

PIP required longer-term residency (10 years w/ proof) and for the marriages to have been in place prior to the start of the program. Unless they had a crystal ball they would not have had the foresight to get married prior to the deadline. I understand it is somewhat of a moot point but wanted to call it out. They also had to pay a fee to file (which they will now presumably forfeit).  Not denying that they entered illegally or overstayed - but this post caught my eye and wanted to add some information.

[Boiler 45,711]

As it says if you overstayed you would not be covered. Well you do not need to anyway.

 

In the vast majority of cases.

 

The thing that struck me as illogical as why create a separate process for a sub group of a process there is already. Well it was political so logic not needed.

[ScarletWitch6x 66]

20 hours ago, Boiler said:

As it says if you overstayed you would not be covered

Ahh - fair point. Thank you for the correction!