-4

I have a minor son who is a legal us citizen but I am on h1b with valid I-140 for the last 8 years. In case of job loss where I have to leave the usa, he will have to go thru the tough choice of either to leave the usa (and go back to a India and suffer the consequesnces) or the stay at a foster home in usa without his parents. This is causing great emotional trauma and impacts access to good us facilities much needed by all citizens. This per country cap is disparately impacting minor us citizens whose parents are from india or china.

The whole argument for this law is that it promotes diversity but supreme court has already adjugated that equal protection > diversity in harvard case, especially when it impacts its citizen directly even to get basic amenities (if he has to go to india in order to be with his to his parents). So how is this law not illegal?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    You are on the Law StackExchange, so it should be based on legal arguments. But you are just making a bunch of emotional or policy arguments, e.g. that it's unfair or causes suffering, etc. Can you point to a section of law or the Constitution, that you propose would make it illegal?
    – user102008
    Commented Jan 17 at 6:42
  • I propose it is illegal because of 14th amendment equal protection of all under the law. The disparate impact it is causing the us citizens of minors of Indian or Chinese parents on the grounds of diversity is challengeable, because of similar ruling in sffa vs Harvard by supreme court.
    – GBasu
    Commented Jan 17 at 17:03

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It is not illegal because no law has made it illegal. Congress has passed various laws prohibiting discrimination, but each such law is rather specific. Congress has passed no law which across the board forbids government actions that discriminate on the bases of national origin. Congress has passed numerous laws that actually do so, viz. the Immigration and Nationality Act, where non-citizens have to have a visa to enter, unless they are LPRs or Canadian. Congress could repeal INA, the reason why it won't is political, not legal. Non-prohibited discrimination is entirely legal (by definition).

Improve this answer
8
  • The argument is about disparately impacting minor us citizens of indians and chinese parents and not about how it impacts the non-citizens. It does not affect non-citizens because they well informed about the laws before they chose to come in, but minor citizens (minors who had no say in this) should not be impacted.
    – GBasu
    Commented Jan 16 at 21:54
  • 4
    @GBasu, no sane immigration policy would allow parents to move themselves to the front of the immigration line via having children. The parents put the child in this position, not the US government.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Jan 16 at 22:21
  • Does not matter, how they achieved here they are us citizens now and cannot not be discriminated against. Also, this is not about parents but childrens rights to have a good life.
    – GBasu
    Commented Jan 16 at 22:36
  • @GBasu, you are making some type of moral argument, not a legal one. There is no law or legal right for a citizen child to have their alien parents remain in the country. Your proposal to the contrary would be a workaround to immigration policy, and would mean that anyone who wanted to immigrate just needed to have a child in the country.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Jan 17 at 14:16
  • @TigerGuy I am making a legal argument against affirmative action for immigration as it is impacting minors with indian parents disparately as it is against the equal protection act. Diversity cannot be a ground for denying equal protection to minors.
    – GBasu
    Commented Jan 17 at 16:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .