Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on claims this week that ending deportation protections for Haitian migrants was racially motivated, pressing an attorney to explain how that argument works when the policy has been applied broadly to migrants from many countries.
“You have a really large — you have a really broad definition of who’s White and who’s not White,” Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said during oral arguments, challenging a claim leveled by the migrants’ lawyer that the Trump Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intentionally targeted non-White migrants when it decided to terminate their temporary protected status (TPS).
{snip}
Attorney Geoffrey Pipoly, representing the migrant plaintiffs during oral arguments, argued the courts had some authority to review the government’s TPS decisions and that the decision to end the protected status for Haitians, in particular, did not follow the law because it was driven by racial bias against “non-White immigrants.”
{snip}
Alito grilled the lawyer over the claim, noting the government’s TPS terminations applied to a range of countries.
“Do you think that if you put Syrians, Turks, Greeks and other people who live around the Mediterranean in a lineup, do you think you could say those people, that all of them, are they all non-White?” Alito asked.
“I don’t like dividing the people of the world into these groups.”
Alito began to test Pipoly on which bucket he would sort various nationalities into, White versus non-White, leading Pipoly to argue that the bar for finding racial animus was low.
{snip}
The post Alito Rips Race-Based Claim in High-Stakes Migrant Protections Case at Supreme Court appeared first on American Renaissance.
American RenaissanceRead More
T1
