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.