from the same comedy troupe that brought you last seasons blockbuster hit, "the sanctity of marraige" comes the sequel, "for everyone but you!".
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
102 points (100.0% liked)
News
22876 readers
4099 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So how is this going to play with Biden's recent immigration executive order about non-citizen spouses?
It is irrelevant. However, the next guy can walk in and do the opposite and the victims will have no recourse.
So where's the legalized January 6th governmental take over sign up sheet? I assume that's legal or can be made legal with the right bank loan? 😀😉
Tough on the couple involved, and even though the decision tastes foul, I think I agree.
While a citizen “certainly has a fundamental right to marriage” Barrett said, “it is a fallacy to leap from that premise to the conclusion that United States citizens [do not] have a fundamental right that can limit how Congress exercises the nation’s sovereign power to admit or exclude foreigners.” [Emphasis mine]
Else we could all flood Texas and marry immigrants into the country, bypassing the government's decisions and responsibility.
tl;dr: Getting a marriage license doesn't usurp Congress' power.
Marriage and immigration is such a clusterfuck. Only reason my wife is here, free and clear, is that she was married to her American ex for 2+ years. Done deal. She's not a citizen and never needs to be to stay here forever. I'm fine with that. Without that previous marriage, who knows? She'd either be going through immigration hell or already be deported back to the Philippines.
Going through immigration hell right now, trying to get her youngest over here.
Just to be clear, there is no philosophical or morally consistent principle that anyone has been able to articulate in the history of political philosophy to defend the bizarre policy of excluding people who want to immigrate unless their presence is a danger or detriment to the public good.
The supreme banana court will rule as they like, of course, and I’m not saying they’re wrong from a legal perspective; that’s just beside the point.
That's not even the ruling, though. The majority opinion states that they don't have the right to challenge the ruling on behalf of their spouse. That their status as married to a US citizen affords them no right to contest the decision. I highly suggest reading the dissenting.