US Supreme Court upholds Biden administration’s claim of unrestricted power to separate families
US Supreme Court upholds Biden administration’s claim of unrestricted power to separate families
The Supreme Court ruled that a US citizen does not have a constitutional right to challenge the State Department summary denial of a visa for her husband, one of several cases decided over the last two days as the current term approaches its end, with more than a dozen major decisions, including Tru...
Well, that's an impressively misleading headline.
If you mean denying a visa to the spouse of someone who's in the United States, say so. "Separate families" in this context is very obviously an attempt to imply he's doing something much darker which he isn't doing. Biden actually started the task force to find and reunite those separated families, although the policy itself had already been abandoned, being too evil to continue for all that long under even the Trump administration.
As with a lot of these stories, I am interested to know why someone who is supposedly deeply concerned with the plight of migrant families is specifically attacking one of the parts of the US government equation that is trying to do something good for them, and instead creating (with quite a bit of success) a whole Goebbels-style reality where he's doing the exact opposite, partly by blaming him and specifically him for anything any part of the fairly racist and unreasonable US immigration apparatus ever does even down to the individual level, and ignoring the question of what the Biden administration itself is doing to shape policy, to the benefit of the team that actually is thirsting and sharpening their knives for what terribly overly malicious things they might get to do to migrants as an affirmative goal of theirs (and not a minor one) under a second Trump administration.
This decision deeply undermines precedent and established law. Sure, he might have announced a "keep families together" campaign, but his administration pushed the issue and has granted the state department the ability to deny visas to people legally married to US citizens.
Heyo, let's go
announced a "keep families together" campaign
I don't even know what you're talking about here. "Announced a keep families together campaign" is horseshit. (Edit: see below) He started a specific task force to go through all the kids still in custody, try to find their families (which given the general chaos and sloppiness level of the bureaucracies involved on both sides of the border was pretty fucking difficult) and give them back. Before that they were just in custody, basically just waiting to grow up in a lifetime of orphaned misery. Now they're home, when they could even find the families.
(Edit: I see it; I read more of the article. (a) What I was talking about was reuniting the confiscated kids with their families, not the more recent campaign (b) is it possible perhaps that this specific campaign a few days ago was specifically a reaction by Biden to change policies in a way so that spouses in the US would be a bigger factor in visa decisions, specifically because of actions like this example over the course of the last few years that Biden wanted to make a change to?)
his administration pushed the issue
Want to explain a little more what you mean by this?
granted the state department the ability to deny visas to people legally married to US citizens.
The State Department can do whatever it wants with renewing or denying visas. Then, if something wrong happens, someone can challenge it in court, which is exactly what happened here -- and lawyers from both sides get to present a vigorous case; in this case the lawyers for the government side (part and parcel of a pretty racist and careless system which Biden didn't create, the reform of which I would be 1,000% behind the idea of but which getting rid of Biden will make 10 times worse) made their argument for his MS-13 membership.
Painting this whole thing that "forget Biden's policies, let's find something that a government lawyer argued in one particular case that many judges agreed with once they saw the details and pretend that Biden told those particular lawyers to do exactly that and that that one event represents a good representation of his whole policy, and that the outcome was definitely wrong (which -- again -- it might have been), and a huge new thing he enacted personally and not a continuation of longstanding US immigration policy of fucking up people's lives sometimes, and that something he actually did specifically order which I talked about up at the beginning which affected many many people in an unequivocally good way just kind of didn't happen"... and then summarize it with specific misleading words to make it sound even worse than that whole weirdly slant-on-top-of-slant construction... it doesn't sit well with me, sir. No sir I do not like it.
If you read past the headline, it's pretty clear.
Yeah, but a big part of the Goebbels game is to create an overall picture of separate events that paint the larger falsehood you want to create. For anyone other than the single-digit percent of people who decide to click on the article, the headline forms one more little thing they're scrolling past that paints an overall picture of "Biden is malicious on immigration and trying to hurt people," which I think is actually one of the most successful totally-made-up realities they've managed to get into the public consciousness to try to depress support for him among people that would otherwise be inclined to.
I'm a little suspicious of the meat of the article, too -- like how much connection is there between these particular lawyers who made this filing, and Biden (presumably he didn't weigh in on this particular case, but are they even State Dept lawyers? The article says so, but I thought usually the lawyers for this kind of thing would be rank and file DOJ immigration lawyers, maybe I am mistaken)
Are the tattoos that they said justified non renewal really totally innocent non MS13 tattoos that the racist immigration apparatus freaked out about, as his lawyers are claiming? (easily possible but also not guaranteed to me simply because his lawyers are claiming it)
But the meat of the article is maybe at the "IDK I have some questions" level, whereas the headline is what'll have honestly most of the impact on the public consciousness, and it's well up into "get the fuck out of here with that explicit propaganda" level.