Type to search

Supreme Court Justices Wary Of Expanded Rights For New Immigrants

National News Tribune News Service

Supreme Court Justices Wary Of Expanded Rights For New Immigrants

Share

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices gave a mostly skeptical hearing Monday to a California woman who wants the State Department to explain why it barred her Afghan husband from joining her in this country.

The government argued it has an undisputed “power to exclude aliens” from entering the United States, and “there is no right to judicial review” of a decision to deny a visa to such a person, said Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler.

During questions and comments, the court’s conservative justices appeared to agree with the government’s strict position.

They said they were wary of establishing new rights that might encourage spouses, parents or children to go to court whenever one of their close relatives is barred from entering the United States.

The case of Kerry vs. Din asks whether a U.S. citizen has a right to object after his or her spouse is turned down for a visa.

Fauzia Din, an Aghan native and a naturalized U.S. citizen, married an Afghan man in 2006 and sought to have him join her in this country.

But the State Department rejected his application for a visa in 2009, citing a provision of the law that bars foreigners connected to “terrorist activities.”

She denied her husband had any connection to terrorists, winning a partial victory from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year. Its judges said that as a married woman, she had a right to demand an explanation for the government’s decision to deny a visa to her husband.

Her position won some support during Monday’s argument. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer said they were troubled by the possibility the government had made a mistake.

“That’s what we were told after 9/11,” Sotomayor said. The government said then it had good reasons for arresting and holding foreigners, only to admit later they made a mistake in some instances, she said.

Kneedler insisted the State Department double-checked before denying a visa, and that officials need not explain their reasons for excluding someone.

“No matter what?” Breyer asked. What if the consular official denied the visa for racist reasons or because he thought husbands and wives should not live together? Kneedler denied such a possibility.

But when Los Angeles attorney Mark Haddad rose to argue Din’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts and several of his colleagues said they did not want to extend new rights to relatives to contest immigration decisions.

If wives have a constitutional right to go to court in such cases, they may also have a right to object when their imprisoned husbands are sent to a facility that is far away, said Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Anthony Kennedy also said that since such decisions involve national security and intelligence gathering, he was reluctant to air them court.

Photo: OZinOH via Flickr

Tags:

4 Comments

  1. FireBaron February 24, 2015

    Wow. Citizens asking for their rights. What a concept. Next thing you know, people will be demanding one-person = one-vote! Can you imagine the chaos then if everyone who should be able to vote had the right to do so?

    Reply
  2. Hans Ohff February 24, 2015

    Three million illegal aliens are occupying California.

    Reply
    1. paulyz February 25, 2015

      Right, and another 20 Million are occupying the other States. Why they are going broke.

      Reply
  3. imabrummie February 24, 2015

    If this woman is so anxious to be with her husband then why does she not join him in Afghanistan. Simple answer really.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.