Bailey, Andrew (Attorney General)

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares55 Views

    Judge Tosses Out Biden Program For Undocumented Spouses

    by

    The ruling issued by a federal judge in Texas struck down a new initiative aimed at helping undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens stay in the country.A federal judge in Texas on Thursday struck down a new Biden administration program that sought to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to American citizens.The ruling, issued by Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, came months after 16 Republican-led states, led by Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, filed a lawsuit claiming that the administration lacked the legal authority to enact the program. In August, Judge Barker temporarily blocked the initiative, just days after it had gone into place.On Thursday, in a 74-page decision, he explained that the Biden administration did not have the authority to create the program, which would have been unlikely to remain in place after President-elect Trump took office in January.The Biden administration started the initiative, known as Keeping Families Together, in August, allowing undocumented immigrants who were married to U.S. citizens and had been in the United States for 10 years or more a chance to gain a green card without leaving the country.Read the Judge’s RulingA federal judge in Texas struck down a new Biden administration program that sought to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to American citizens.Read Document 74 pagesGenerally, immigrants who have entered the United States illegally must leave the country to complete the green card process, which can take years. The Biden program, which was in place for a week, allowed those who were married to U.S. citizens to remain in the country by granting them what the immigration system refers to as “parole,” a status that also protected them from deportation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 50 Shares85 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Judge’s Ruling

      by

      Case 6:24-cv-00306-JCB Document 120 Filed 11/07/24 Page 6 of 74 PageID #: 2962
      a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession.” Id.
      § 101(a)(13), 66 Stat. at 167.³
      c. Obtaining LPR status. – As today, status as an alien law-
      fully admitted for permanent residence (LPR or “green card” sta-
      tus) enabled an alien’s eventual naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Id.
      § 318, 66 Stat. at 244 (“no person shall be naturalized unless he
      has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent res-
      idence”), codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1429. The INA of 1952
      defined two processes for obtaining LPR status.
      First, an alien could apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. con-
      sulate or embassy abroad, wait for one to become available and to
      issue, and then travel to a U.S. port of entry and be admitted for
      permanent residence under that visa. Id. §§ 101(a)(9) (consular
      officer), 203 (numerical limits), 211 (admission), 221 (consular is-
      suance), 66 Stat. at 166-67, 178–79, 181-82, 191–92. Aliens often
      had to wait their turn for immigrant visas to become available be-
      cause of annual limits on visa issuance. See id. § 201, 66 Stat. at
      175-76, codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1151.4
      Second, an alien lawfully admitted to the United States in one
      status could, while here, adjust to LPR status. Under INA
      § 245(a), an alien “lawfully admitted to the United States as a
      bona fide nonimmigrant,” and who so entered the country, could
      petition for adjustment to LPR status upon certain showings re-
      lated to immigrant visas. Id. § 245(a), 66 Stat. at 217. But an alien’s
      parole from detention pending exclusion proceedings was not “an
      admission of the alien,” id. § 212(d)(5), 66 Stat. at 188, and thus
      did not allow the alien to petition to adjust to LPR status.
      ³ One exception was made, providing that LPR aliens were not “regarded”
      as “making an entry into the United States for purposes of the immigration
      laws” if they did not intend or reasonably expect to depart from the United
      States in the first place. Id.; see Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963) (inter-
      preting that clause). The need for that exception confirms that the term “en-
      try” itself refers to a physical movement into the country.
      4 Certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, however, have been ex-
      empted from immigrant-visa quotas. E.g., id. § 101(a)(27)(A), 66 Stat. at 169
      (“nonquota immigrants”); id. § 201(c), 66 Stat. at 176.
      -6- More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Incumbent Andrew Bailey Wins Republican Primary for Missouri A.G.

      by

      The Missouri attorney general, Andrew Bailey, won the primary election on Tuesday to be Republican Party’s candidate for attorney general in the November general election, The Associated Press said.Mr. Bailey, who was appointed by Gov. Mike Parson in 2022, now seeks a full four-year term in a post has been a steppingstone for his predecessors, Eric Schmitt and Josh Hawley, both of whom are sitting U.S. senators.In his 19 months as the state’s attorney general, Mr. Bailey has plunged the office into heated legal and political fights. He has sought to keep prisoners locked up after their exonerations, withheld approval of a ballot initiative to restore abortion rights, and tried to restrict gender-affirming health care for adults and children. He also tried to sue New York State over its criminal prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump and mounted legal challenges to President Biden’s policies on student loan forgiveness, immigration, gun regulation and other issues.Even so, Mr. Bailey spent much of the primary race jockeying with his opponent, Will Scharf, over who was more loyal to Mr. Trump. Mr. Scharf is one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, appearing before the Supreme Court on his behalf in the presidential immunity case that was decided in Mr. Trump’s favor last month. Mr. Trump endorsed both candidates, saying on his social media platform, Truth Social, “Both have fearlessly confronted the Radical Left’s destructive Lawfare and Weaponization of ‘Justice’ with Great Wisdom, Courage, and Strength!”Mr. Bailey, who Mr. Scharf has accused of being soft on crime, routinely opposed efforts by prisoners to prove their innocence or to leave prison once they had done so. This summer he delayed the release of two exonerated prisoners, Sandra Hemme and Christopher Dunn, and sought unsuccessfully to block a hearing on DNA evidence that pointed to the innocence of a death row prisoner, Marcellus Williams, who is scheduled for execution in September.Mr. Bailey, 43, grew up in Missouri and earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Missouri. Mr. Scharf, 38, is from New York and is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School. A clerkship for a federal judge brought him to Missouri.Neither candidate had previously run for office.Mr. Bailey will face Elad Gross, a Democrat, who ran unopposed in his party’s primary. More