WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.
The designation applies to people who come from countries ravaged by war or disaster. It protects them from deportation and allows them to work legally. There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with TPS status.
The outcome in a case involving a couple from El Salvador who have been in the U.S. since the early 1990s turned on whether people who entered the country illegally and were given humanitarian protections were ever “admitted” into the United States under immigration law.
Kagan wrote that they were not. “The TPS program gives foreign nationals nonimmigrant status, but it does not admit them. So the conferral of TPS does not make an unlawful entrant…eligible” for a green card, she wrote.
Related Story: Kagan Writes 9-0 Supreme Court Opinion Rejecting Liz Warren’s Subversion of Immigration Law
The House of Representatives already has passed legislation that would make it possible for TPS recipients to become permanent residents, Kagan noted. The bill faces uncertain prospects in the Senate.
The case pitted the Biden administration against immigrant groups that argued many people who came to the U.S. for humanitarian reasons have lived in the country for many years, given birth to American citizens and put down roots in the U.S.
In 2001, the U.S. gave Salvadoran migrants legal protection to remain in the U.S. after a series of earthquakes in their home country.
People from 11 other countries are similarly protected. They are: Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
Monday’s decision does not affect immigrants with TPS who initially entered the U.S. legally and then, say, overstayed their visa, Kagan noted. Because those people were legally admitted to the country and later were given humanitarian protections, they can seek to become permanent residents.
© 2021 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
A nine to nothing decision by the Supreme Court. I am in total shock!
I just wonder if the last paragraph applies to those born here to illegals.
IMO IT damn well should..
AND THEY Should have also ruled on HOW LONG that “Temporary protected status” can last for.. IMO FOR MANY of those aslyum seekers etc, they’ve been here 20+ YEARS.
That to me, certainly doesn’t SOUND LIKE TEMPORARY….
The argument to be made here is that people who are here illegally are subjects of another authority (i.e., citizens of their country of origin), and therefore their children should not be granted citizenship by virtue of birth within our borders.
Hecne why i wish to DO AWAY with birthright citizenship, UNLESS AT LEAST ONE (preferably both) parents are already citizens themselves..
This will flip the Dems out, time to pack the court!
Now, if we can just stem the tide from the sheer number crossing the border.
Somebody by the name of Trump was doing a great job on that.
There have been a few 9-0 decisions recently, maybe we really DO have a Supreme Court. It would be difficult to be more bi-partisan than 9-zip.
PITY the decisions they REALLY NEED TO make, they have cowarded away from!!!
GOOD. So sick of this country putting the illegal over the citizen.
Am a mod Dem who taught adult migrants English near L.A. for years. Although I really liked most of my students, there were a select few whose lack of personal accountability was appalling, not only to me but more importantly to classmates who’d sacrificed having kids and buying houses and cars to pay for attorneys to fix their immigration problems. This SC ruling is encouraging. Right is right. I had a mother-daughter pair from Mexico who provide an example of what should be expected of migrants. When their temporary visas expired, they went back to Mexico for a few months, took care of getting a new travel visa, then returned to class. They weren’t wealthy by any means. They simply chose to do the right thing. That should be expected of all migrants.
“In 2001, the U.S. gave Salvadoran migrants legal protection to remain in the U.S. after a series of earthquakes in their home country.”
My question is are they now residing in California?
AND since the quakes are long gone, WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN sent the hell back!
Sorry, there is no such thing as a “moderate dem.” If you vote for ANY democrap, you are voting for communism.
So far that’s been proven true. You’re either a radical dem, or a Not-so radical dem. NO MODERATES amongst them that i am seeing..
Should also be ineligible for any form of financial assistance which includes schools. We cut the pay to military families and give it to illegals.
AND i’d include cutting the pay of THOSE WHO ADVOCATE for the “Rights of illegals” over the rights of US citizens!
now we need a victory on getting rid of the other approx. 30 million illegals
a little bit late for this ruling.