JUST IN: SCOTUS Hears Spousal Immigration Case Of Man Denied Visa Due To Suspected Gang Affiliation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 апр 2024
- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Department of State v. Muñoz.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
If he was in a gang and didn’t disclose it then he should be denied just because he didn’t disclose it.
She can give up her US residency and move to his country of origin.
She can give up her citizenship at any time. Easy. He's a gang member- a criminal. He doesn't have the legal right to stay.
That comes with a price tag these days, it is nearly as hard to get out of the country and no longer be a citizen of the US, as it is to get into this country. Even dual citizenships is being made harder in the US.
She should already know the reason why her husband isn’t admitted to the U.S. sounds like being in a gang.
The wife is talking about her right to be able to live with her husband. Why are they in two different countries in the first place? If she wants to live with her husband and he can't get into this country then she can move to whatever country he is in so she has no right to petition. That being said, if there really was an identity mistake with the husband then HE should have a right to appeal the decision and prove he has no gang affiliation or other reason why he shouldn't be allowed to come here.Were they married here or in another country? If he can't get in here I assume they got married elsewhere. Why did she come here without him if marriage is that important to her? Did she marry him as an attempt to get him into the country? Too many unknowns that have to be figured out first.
That's why courts exist.
Where is the court case against those involved with allowing 300 vulnerable American deaths a day due to just fentanyl coming over the wide open border?!
What are you going to do about people selling their prescriptions? You know that happens right? All they have to do is make fentanyl a schedule one drug, as we do not need a synthetic opiate that is more addictive and deadly then natural opiates.
A case about marriage? Is it her Constitutional right to bring him here if in fact he's a gang member?
when did we find a "RIGHT TO MARRIAGE "? What part of the Constitution was that hidden in, and how do I sue for it since no one agreed to marry me willingly, I want to sue for my right to a spouse! SMH these are our wisest making these statements!
Apparently foundation of the right to marry is: "in the 14th Amendment. Due process and equal protection cases, the Supreme Court has identified the right to marry as a fundamental interest that necessitates critical examination of governmental restrictions that interfere directly and substantially with the right." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1978) (citing Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967)). See also, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 664 (2015) (collecting cases).
Why don't this dude just cross the southern border, hell it wide open?
There is no open border, your information is propaganda and not based on facts.
Again Sotomayor proves to be the worst justice on the SC. Trying to create a law from the bench and complicating the issue far beyond what this case is meant. She gets trapped by her own logic.
Well stated ! 🎯
all great examples. BEFORE ypu overturned DOMA, now it's just a contract with the state and the couple.
if He DIDNT make it to the US wow must be horrible
Why is it foreigners can get around the constitutional laws or any law in that matter
The answer is no. She may go with him and be a family Problem solved.
9:38 Oh no he didn't just try to speak over a justice of the Supreme Court smh 😂
This is too broad, they aren't supposed to argue these facts, but the current laws. They are trying to determine if one, whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen. And two, whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.
#1 Do the "liberal" justices imply that spouses should have to automatically get citizenship?
#2 Do the "liberal" justices imply that non citizens deserve due process.
Kagan is a good case for term limits on justices. She she have a one year limit.
Good grief these justice’s talking over the attorneys is bad
This is how Voire Dire works. SCOTUS is different than other courts and the Justices control the flow. They don't allow the solicitors to get off track with frivolous questions and hypotheticals. The solicitors know this and defer to the justices. Everyone on both sides is prepared for this.
We don't care about other countries law's are just ours here.
Sotomayor wants all illegals and gangs here... but does not want Pres. Trump to have Immunity! I'm done!
This peopl is not in this problem so don't wzch them and but them in my problem with goverment