Republican state attorneys general are increasingly turning to the courts in hopes of preserving pieces of former President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda as President Biden hurries to roll back the policies.
The emerging dynamic is something of a role reversal from when Democratic attorneys general sued Trump for immigration policies that liberals viewed as not only illegal but also cruel, xenophobic and at odds with the country's immigrant roots.
Now, as Biden rushes toward repeal, he faces potential legal roadblocks of his own. Republican attorneys general say their lawsuits aim to ensure that U.S. immigration law is strongly enforced in order to protect public safety and save billions in tax dollars.
“I think the one thing that is becoming crystal clear with the Biden administration is that they are going all in on ‘open borders,’” said Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R). “It's troublesome. And I think that in the long run this is gonna hurt America.”
Over roughly the past decade, state attorneys general — Democratic and Republican alike — have become familiar faces in the bare-knuckle fights over immigration policy, feuding alternately with both Trump, a Republican, and his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.
The deeply fraught ideological tensions between federal and state governments have spilled into courts, often with state attorneys general leading the charge in pursuit of a radically different agenda from that of the White House’s occupant at the time. --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Bob Christie / AP |
Eleven states, led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, have filed a motion to intervene in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case over challenges to a 2018 public charge rule change that required immigrants coming to the U.S. to prove they could financially support themselves.
The Biden administration removed the rule change, effective March 9. Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security announced on March 11 it will no longer apply the rule.
In a statement, it said it had “closed the book on the public charge rule and is doing the same with respect to a proposed rule regarding the affidavit of support that would have placed undue burdens on American families wishing to sponsor individuals lawfully immigrating to the U.S.” ...
[...]
... But 11 Republican attorneys general disagree. On the same day as the rule change was revoked, they filed a motion to intervene in a case on appeal related to the matter. In their brief, they argue that removing the rule change was a “reckless violation of federal law” that will create “another national crisis” and cost taxpayers and states roughly $1 billion.
Currently, the federal government funds all SNAP food expenses and roughly 50 percent of allowable administrative costs for regular operating expenses. Costs the federal government pays for Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) in some U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs like Medicaid vary, and the states share a financial burden. Since these rates vary, DHS uses the average FMAP across all states and U.S. territories of 59 percent to estimate the amount of state transfer payments, the brief notes. --->READ THE FULL STORY HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment