rpjs

Court: Spouse can't protest husband's visa denial

TL;DR: 5-4 decision upholding the existing situation whereby the State Department has the discretion to refuse a spousal visa, doesn't need to give a specific reason, and the USC spouse can't appeal on the grounds of being denied the right to have their spouse with them in the US.

sir_eccles

Is Scalia saying marriage is a constitutionally protected right then? Or is he just saying if he has to let gay marriage go through then he's going to screw this one couple instead.

Noorah101

To my knowledge, there is no "right to have your spouse with you in the USA". Immigration is a privilege, not a right.

Rene

rpjs

I read it as "irrespective of whether marriage is a fundamental right, the visa denial doesn't stop them from being married and apart or married and together but outside the US."

sir_eccles

I guess I'm just getting impatient waiting for their ruling.

Michael

Surprisingly I tend to agree more with the conservative ruling on this issue. If USCIS had to give detailed information about the refusal for possible terrorists connections, then that would seem to open a can of worms possibly requiring the government to "prove" those claims beyond a reasonable doubt. As we've seen about Quitmo detainees, it is nearly impossible for the government to prove terrorists activities beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suspect that following WWII, Germans were denied marriage immigration visas based on an association with the Gestapo even if there was no proof that they were directly involved in atrocities.

sir_eccles

Absolutely, as much as it must suck for the couple in question the ruling does seem correct.

rpjs

Indeed, it was still a question on the DS-160 when I got my IV, whether I'd been involved in any Nazi persecutions, plus some more up-to-date ones about being a Colombian drug-trafficker or oppressing the Haitian people. Presumably these odd questions get added from time to time because someone in Congress gets a rider added to satisfy some lobbying group or other.

Pulaski

I suspect that the "odd" country- or activity-specific questions are added as a spin-off of the OFAC sanctions program.

Michael

Although the article is marriage related, I believe this thread should be moved to the Trailer Park forum since I can see the thread possibly moving into different directions.

For instance, I wonder how big the problem will become in Europe with all the people fleeing Africa by boat. How many of those are terrorists that want to infiltrate Europe to setup terrorists cells to later attack Europe and what can Europe do if a person on the boat is suspected of terrorism?

We know that during the Mariel boatlift (Cuban refugees) of the late 1970s, Castro emptied his jails and put them on the boats. This created a major crime problem in the US due to the large number of criminals on the boats but I suspect that was nothing compared the problems that Europe could possibly have if a large number entering on the boats are terrorists.

username.exe

I seem to recall there being one about membership to the communist party, also.

ian-mstm

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it anyway... I knew a number of Mariel Cubans when I worked for 2.5 years at a US federal prison. Even though they had served their time for whatever they did, they had to remain in prison. Why? Because the US government mandates that non-USC prisoners must be returned to their country of origin... and that was impossible for the Mariels since they'd be executed if returned. So, they remain in prison.

Ian

Michael

From 2005.

Last week the Supreme Court changed that, ruling that open-ended detention of Mariel Cubans was illegal. This may seem like the mere correction of an anachronism, affecting only the 750 people still in detention, but for Mariel Cubans it was a hugely important and emotional event: The highest court of the land they have chosen as their own has validated the status not only of those convicted of crimes but of all Cubans who in 1980 set sail for the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/we...ends.html?_r=0

scrubbedexpat099

Presumably a temporary issue as they will be able to be repatriated in the near future.