Really, illegals, (fake) asylum seekers, refugees, and lawful aliens should not be on any sort of government program

Tennessee law requires immigration review for public benefits starting this week

A Tennessee law set to take effect Wednesday will require local government agencies such as health departments to verify and report the immigration status of people applying for certain public benefits. Vivian Lozano Sterchi, chief operating officer of the Chattanooga immigrant advocacy group La Paz, said it’s unclear what the ramifications of the new law will be.

The law is broad and applies to any local government entity, including counties, cities, towns and local health departments. It applies to people 18 years or older who are applying for federal, state or local public benefits.

The law requires local governments to report to the state’s immigration agency the status of applicants so it can be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials. The new law makes an employee’s failure to report an individual’s unauthorized status a misdemeanor.

“I think what makes it so hard is the lack of clarity, which at the end of the day doesn’t matter, because this is a terrible bill that’s going to negatively impact hundreds of families in our state, and so families are afraid to receive medical care,” Lozano Sterchi said. “What does that mean for the overall health of our community, for our schools?”

It means anyone on public benefits who is not lawfully in the U.S. will have their names sent to ICE so they can be rounded up and deported. It means that illegals will be scared to apply, and legal aliens will also not apply (they are pretty much restricted in most cases for most visas from getting govt aid), leaving more money and services for actual citizens.

The law gives the Tennessee attorney general the authority to investigate allegations and complaints that a local government or employee is violating the law by not reporting someone who is an unauthorized immigrant or continuing services.

The law does not define public benefit or specify which public benefits or local government entities the law applies to.

That’s because it is all for people 18 and over. Why is this difficult to understand for the liberals?

Meanwhile

A new law could create a list of immigrants illegally living in Mississippi. Advocates are alarmed

A new Mississippi law will authorize the state’s top law enforcement agency to compile a list of all immigrants illegally living in the state.

What’s to be done with that information is a bit open-ended. But the law set to take effect Wednesday is sparking alarm among immigrant advocates, who fear it could become a new tactic to target immigrants in conjunction with President Donald Trump’s plan to deport millions of people lacking legal approval to live in the U.S.

Why fear? That’s exactly the purpose. My goodness, the Credentialed Media seems rather dense, eh?

The two AWFLs writing this screed, Maria Sacchetti and Lauren Kaori Gurley, miss the obvious conclusion that if a business depends on labor from illegals, fake asylum seekers, and TPSers who can be booted at any time they’re bad at it

Nursing homes, factory owners and immigrants brace for fallout from Supreme Court ruling

Immigrants began making plans to sell or rent their homes, secure bank accounts and figure out thorny issues like child custody arrangements. Business owners started calculating how many days they can continue to employ workers whose legal status is set to expire. And nursing home leaders warned they would have fewer beds to offer if health aides are forced to leave the country.

Panic rippled through communities from Florida to Ohio and beyond in the hours after the Supreme Court cleared the Trump administration Thursday to strip humanitarian protections from Haitians and Syrians — and potentially all 1.3 million immigrants from over a dozen countries who had been previously shielded from deportation.

“The residents will be losing caregivers that they really have become attached to,” said Colin O’Leary, executive director at Laurel Ridge Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center in Boston. Managers at the facility were racing to figure out how much longer staff members from Haiti with temporary protected status could continue taking care of patients. “That’s a lot for our residents to handle.”

Attorneys said Haitians and Syrians could lose work permits in little more than a month, but the deadline remained unclear because lower court judges must issue orders to implement the decision. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters Thursday that Haitians and others with temporary protected status should be detained and deported once they lose the benefit.

It’s always some sort sob story with these people, always forgetting that the law is, in fact, the law. It should mostly be devoid of emotion. But, um, hey, what’s this claptrap about “lower court judges”? The Mullin v. Doe ruling pretty much said the lower courts need to stay the hell out of it: Congress gave the Executive the power to grant TPS and cancel it, and courts have nothing to do with it.

Some of those immigrants have lived in the United States for decades and said they feared being sent back to conflict-ridden homelands that they barely know and whose languages some do not speak.

And that is a problem, because the T stands for temporary.

Harlaine, 38, a registered nurse in Florida, said she hasn’t been to Haiti since she left for the U.S. at age 7 and had never visited because everyone told her it was too dangerous. She spoke on condition that only her first name be used because she fears being targeted by immigration authorities.

She’s been here 31 years and hasn’t attempted to get citizenship? Or even Permanent Resident status?

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, characterized the decision as “a mistake” and said it is too dangerous to deport people to Haiti, including the more than 10,000 Haitians living and working legally in his state. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) vowed to fight the ruling, even as the path to challenging it is unclear.

Yes, let’s bring in all these people who are dangerous.

“I’m telling you it’s going to cripple our health care system,” Hochul told reporters. “Who’s going to show up tomorrow to take care of grandma? Who’s doing that? Who’s stepping up?”

And here’s the thing, Democrats have been telling the kiddies that they should get highfalutin degrees, ones which sound great but have little value in the real world, that jobs like caretakers and nurses and such are beneath them (even though they can earn some good damned money). They tell even those Dem voter kiddies of lower status that jobs working with your hands are for chumps, so, they rack of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt for garbage degrees that let them feel Entitled. Because all the imports will do them.

The Credentialed Media is not taking this well, as you could expect

Supreme Court undermines TPS program, putting 147,000 immigrants in Texas at risk of deportation

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can revoke Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria. The 6-to-3 ruling puts more than 1.3 million immigrants under TPS across the United States, including roughly 147,000 in Texas, at imminent risk of arrest and deportation.

Writing the conservative majority’s opinion in Mullin v. Doe, Associate Justice Samuel Alito said TPS functions entirely at the discretion of the president and is not subject to review by the courts.

“Congress created TPS in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return to their home countries,” Alito wrote. “Although designed to afford temporary relief, TPS designations in practice have often lasted for decades,”

Alito added that Haitian immigrants had received a TPS designation after the 2010 earthquake in the Caribbean country.

“The Supreme Court is signaling that lower courts should not interfere with the executive’s authority, that when Congress grants a broad discretionary power to grant temporary status, the president should also have the same power to revoke the temporary status,” said Josh Blackman, a professor of constitutional law at South Texas College of Law Houston. “I think this is a very important case of presidential power.”

First off, they are not immigrants: they are foreign aliens who were allowed into the U.S. temporarily. That’s the whole of their legal status. Second, how quickly till a wackjob federal judge comes out with a ruling which blocks ending TPS for some group in total avoidance of the SCOTUS ruling?

Seth Chandler, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Houston Law Center, said the ruling has dramatic consequences for Texas, which hosts one of the largest concentrations of TPS holders in the U.S.

“It basically streamlines the ability of the Trump administration to revoke TPS status, not just for the Haitians and Syrians who were litigating in the case the Supreme Court decided today, but with respect to Hondurans, Nepalis, Afghans, and perhaps critically for Houston, potentially Venezuelans as well,” Chandler said.

There does come a point when TPS ends, Democrats. It is not permanent.

The decision came down immediately after another immigration-related decision, which allows the Trump administration to enforce its “wait in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers.

As to that

(AIC) U.S. law provides that any person who is physically present in the United States or who “arrives in” the United States may apply for asylum. Congress further directed that immigration officers must “inspect” any noncitizen who “arrives in” the United States to determine if they should be admitted to the country — a function U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers carry out thousands of times per day at ports of entry. (snip)

Today, the Supreme Court blessed the practice of metering, overturning a 9th Circuit decision which had found that CBP had an affirmative obligation to process people who arrive at ports of entry but who have not yet stepped on U.S. soil after CBP officers have blocked their passage. The Court found that there was a difference between “arrives in” and “arrives at” the border, and declared that only those individuals who have physically set foot in the United States have a right to be inspected and apply for asylum.

In other words, we do not have to let them in no matter how loud they yet “asylum”.

I dearly love how many Credentialed Media outlets go with this

Supreme Court sides with Trump administration in immigration case dealing with green card holders

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in an immigration case dealing with the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes.

Orange Man Bad. Oh, wait

The 6-3 decision centers on an immigration officer’s 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime.

Wait, 2012? Was Trump president back then?

Lau argued that overstepped the officer’s authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security to swiftly begin deportation proceedings after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.

The high court disagreed. “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed, writing that the decision to put Lau on immigration parole effectively sentenced him to “immigration limbo” before he’d been convicted of any crime.

“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” she wrote in a dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues.

Dumbest justice ever. She yammers about things that are not part of a legal decision.

(Cornell) In September 2007, Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national, was admitted to the U.S. as an LPR. In May 2012, Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. Before he went to trial, Lau temporarily left the country. Upon his return to the U.S. in June 2012, Lau was not admitted to the U.S. but instead was paroled due to his pending charge. Later, Lau pled guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was sentenced to two years’ probation. In 2014, DHS sought to remove Lau, alleging that since Lau had committed a crime of moral turpitude, he was ineligible to be admitted into the United States upon his return to the country. Lau challenged DHS’s removal efforts, claiming that as an LPR, he was presumptively already admitted into the United States when arriving from his time abroad.

More at that link, and, yes, the Trump DOJ did argue against Lau, as is their job. But, it started under Obama. Obviously, Sotomayor and Kagen voted in favor of the criminal alien.