BOOM: Supreme Court’s UNANIMOUS ruling rejects illegal immigration loophole being pushed by Democrats


The Supreme Court unanimously ruled this morning that illegals, who are under the protection of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), are not eligible to get a green card and thus become permanent residents because if they first entered the country illegally. This is a major blow to Democrats who were trying to create a legal loophole in the immigration law which would have allowed hundreds of thousands of illegals to become permanent residents. And the unanimous opinion was written by none other than Elena Kagan herself:



PJ Media explains:

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an illegal immigrant’s attempt to twist immigration law and create a loophole that would allow thousands of illegal immigrants to become lawful permanent residents. Democratic senators and attorneys general advocated for this loophole, but a liberal justice wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

“Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez entered this country unlawfully from El Salvador. Years later, because of unsafe living conditions in that country, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS), entitling him to stay and work in the United States for as long as those conditions persist. Sanchez now wishes to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in the opinion.

In Sanchez v. Mayorkas, Kagan noted that U.S. immigration law, “applied according to its plain terms, prevents Sanchez from becoming an LPR. There is no dispute that Sanchez ‘entered the United States in the late 1990s unlawfully, without inspection.’”

Yet Democrats and immigration activists twist the law to argue that if an illegal immigrant obtains temporary protected status due to violence or bad conditions in his or her home country, he or she can be considered “admitted” for the purposes of obtaining LPR status. While TPS does protect illegal immigrants from removal and authorizes them to work in the U.S. as long as the TPS designation lasts, the Court rightly ruled that this provision does not erase a person’s unlawful entry into the U.S. for permanent residency status.

Kagan’s conclusion is blunt: U.S. law “generally requires a lawful admission before a person can obtain LPR status. Sanchez was not lawfully admitted, and his TPS does not alter that fact. He therefore cannot become a permanent resident of this country.”

This decision will come as a blow to many Democrats. Sens. Mazi Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) joined Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in supporting Sanchez’s claim. Democrat attorneys general for Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, California, and 17 other states also backed the illegal immigration loophole.

Kagan’s opinion represents a blunt refutation of this sleight-of-hand attempt to undermine immigration law. Jonathan Turley has suggested that the Court’s recent string of unanimous decisions like this one may be a subtle message to Democrats, warning them against packing the Supreme Court. While Turley has a point, the Supreme Court often hands down unanimous decisions — yet these decisions do not often gain the same coverage as 5-4 rulings on controversial issues.

To be honest, I’m pretty shocked that this ruling was unanimous. I would have not have expected the liberal justices to come down so squarely on the side of the law, especially on an immigration case.

But even more surprised must be these Democrats who were twisting the law to try and create this loophole. They might have known this case would fail, but they probably weren’t expecting the liberal justices to side against them. And this likely harangues their efforts to argue for packing the court, which I suspect was their backup plan when this case failed with a split decision.


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.