re: “Due process” for deportations is as ridiculous as squatters rights.

quote:

---

Yet you love trotting out this ridiculous red herring as if it's somehow meaningful to anything in this discussion.

---

You mean the central example of the textual-historical analysis of Wong Kim Ark?

quote:

---

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, made this remark: 'The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.' 16 Wall. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment, and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities; and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together; whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as intrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign states, or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.

---

quote:

---

He then stated, and supported by argument and illustration, the propositions that 'this full and absolute territorial jurisdiction, being alike the attribute of every sovereign, and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial power,' has 'given rise to a class of cases in which every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation,' the first of which is the exemption from arrest or detention of the person of a foreign sovereign entering its territory with its license, because 'a foreign sovereign is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction incompatible with his dignity and the dignity of his nation'; 'a second case, standing on the same principles with the first, is the immunity which all civilized nations allow to foreign ministers'; 'a third case, in which a sovereign is understood to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction, is where he allows the troops of a foreign prince to pass through his dominions'; and, in conclusion, that 'a public armed ship, in the service of a foreign sovereign, with whom the government of the United States is at peace, and having entered an American port open for her reception, on the terms on which ships of war are generally permitted to enter the ports of a friendly power, must be considered as having come into the American territory, under an implied promise that while necessarily within it, and demeaning herself in a friendly manner, she should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the country.' 7 Cranch, 137-139, 147.

70
As to the immunity of a foreign minister, he said: 'Whatever may be the principle on which this immunity is established, whether we consider him as in the place of the sovereign he represents, or by a political fiction suppose him to be extraterritorial, and therefore, in point of law, not within the jurisdiction of the sovereign at whose court he resides, still the immunity itself is granted by the governing power of the nation to which the minister is deputed. This fiction of exterritoriality could not be erected and supported against the will of the sovereign of the territory. He is supposed to assent to it.' 'The assent of the sovereign to the very important and extensive exemptions from territorial jurisdiction, which are admitted to attach to foreign ministers, is implied from h e considerations that, without such exemption, every sovereign would hazard his own dignity by employing a public minister abroad. His minister would owe temporary and local allegiance to a foreign prince, and would be less competent to the objects of his mission. A sovereign committing the interests of his nation with a foreign power to the care of a person whom he has selected for that purpose cannot intend to subject his minister in any degree to that power; and therefore a consent to receive him implies a consent that he shall possess those privileges which his principal intended he should retain,—privileges which are essential to the dignity of his sovereign, and to the duties he is bound to perform.' 7 Cranch, 138, 139.

71
The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption 'from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found' were stated as follows: 'When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.' 7 Cranch, 144.

72
In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U. S. (1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U. S. 210; Wildenhus' Case (1887) 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 385; Chae Chan Ping v. U. S. (1889) 130 U. S. 581, 603, 604, 9 Sup. Ct. 623.

---

quote:

---

This is something you made up in your head

---

No. It's how courts have interpreted the Constitution for hundreds of years. It's not my own creation. It existed as law in this country before my ancestors were present within the US.

quote:

---

It's absurd to say that the 14th establishes who is citizen and that they are under the jurisdiction but then say that the 2nd part just throws that out the window and every person in the world ("any person") is also under the jurisdiction.

---

Everyone in our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

You just don't understand what the 14A says, and are conflating terms due to this confusion.

quote:

---

It's also interesting that you single out the word "person" but leave out "person within its jurisdiction" (which matches the first sentence) because it completely undermines your contrived opinion

---

Text of 14A, Section 1:

quote:

---

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

---

quote:

---

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

quote:

---

because it completely undermines your contrived opinion

---

Update: it does not.

And it's not even "my" opinion. It's the current status of the law in the US

quote:

---

Did you miss my comment on the word "arrest?" You're being obtuse.

---

No you're just fighting with a question that eradicates your "argument".

quote:

---

2. What citizenship means juridically

---

You're very wrong, here.

quote:

---

You made this up in your head. It's not real. The military "arrests" non-citizens all the time

---

a. This isn't true. ("all the time" is wrong)

b. Law enforcement arrests non-citizens at a rate of what? 100,000x? 1Mx? Clearly the primary display of how these people are subject to our jurisdiction is not found in military action, but by state, local, and federal LEO.

quote:

---

But we absolutely can still arrest them for pretty much anything we want to.

---

Not legally

quote:

---

Arrest just means detain.

---

I'm discussing arrest and prosecution (legally, of course).

quote:

---

1. A period does not necessarily separate ideas.

---

But in terms of legal interpretation, it does.

quote:

---

2. You are overlooking "person within its jurisdiction"

---

No, I am not. That's still in the 2nd clause and you're mis interpreting what "jurisdiction" means, which is your biggest issue.

quote:

---

Arresting someone does not mean they had an a priori guarantee of rights or due process or whatever.

---

Again, you're conflating discussions. That's part of the "jurisdiction" discussion, not the "due process" discussion.

We can only arrest or prosecute (legally) a person subject to US jurisdiction. Diplomats are the primary example of a person not subject to US jurisdiction. Again, read Wong Kim Ark.

quote:

---

From your link

---

The only way the defensive asylum process gets started is if the person is referred to an immigration judge or is placed in removal proceedings, meaning, they can be deported without that process. Again, your characterization doesn't match the language of the rule. It is at the discretion of the government whether you are allowed to stay and make a case. You made it out like they can cross illegally, claim defensive asylum and they are automatically guaranteed rights and privileges. If that were the case, we could be invaded (and we were) and we would have to grant every one of them a trial if they all claimed asylum. There's no way you don't think that's absurd. That would jam up the immigration courts forever. No rational person thinks that's reasonable

You may have also missed this addendum:

Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.

quote:

---

It's how courts have interpreted the Constitution for hundreds of years

---

incorrectly. The language is clear and I've explained it. Moreover, you say that it's been interpreted that way yet, this discussion is now being taken up by the courts again. Perhaps your interpretation isn't a ironclad as you imagine. Court judgments get rescinded all the time

quote:

---

Everyone in our borders is subject to the jurisdiction of the US

---

Completely made up in your head and contradictory to the 14th, if by jurisdiction you mean they are afforded rights and privileges

quote:

---

conflating terms

---

What terms did I conflate?

quote:

---

No you're just fighting with a question that eradicates your "argument"

---

You made up a contrived opinion about the word arrest and then misapplied it to diplomats. Yes, diplomats can be arrested. You know this

quote:

---

You're very wrong, here.

---

prove it. Use your words

quote:

---

This isn't true. ("all the time" is wrong)

---

Nope. The military has arrested people all over the world. Are you not aware of this? Did you know we have military detention facilities for these people?

quote:

---

Clearly the primary display of how these people are subject to our jurisdiction is not found in military action, but by state, local, and federal LEO.

---

US representatives (both civil and military) arrest people who are not "under our jurisdiction." That's a brute fact. Moreover, we do not have to afford every single person who claims asylum a trial. That's absurd.

quote:

---

Not legally

---

you can call it whatever you want but yes, we can arrest diplomats for whatever reason we want. We have a loose, reciprocal agreement with certain countries that can be broken at any time. There's no way you don't know this

quote:

---

I'm discussing arrest and prosecution (legally, of course).

---

Of course you are. You're trying to make up something in your head that doesn't match reality. Just because we (civil, military) arrest in any sense of the word, that does not mean they had an a priori guarantee of rights from the US gov. That's an absurd characterization

quote:

---

But in terms of legal interpretation, it does

---

No it does not and that is the statement of a mentally ill person.

quote:

---

That's still in the 2nd clause and you're mis interpreting what "jurisdiction" means, which is your biggest issue

---

Jurisdiction is plainly spelled out in the first sentence. I'm not misinterpreting it. The last sentence connects "PERSON under its jurisdiction" with the usage of jurisdiction in the first sentence re: citizens. Any elementary school student can see that. Just because you need to assuage your mental illness doesn't mean your contrived division of ideas created by punctuation actually exists in reality.

Again, if you're right, that means

1. The first idea establishes who a citizen is and their entailed jurisdiction WRT "rights"
2. The last idea throws that out the window and says that "any person" could include non-citizens and get rights limited to citizens from the first idea.

No rational, mentally healthy person would think your characterization makes sense. What's the point of the first idea if you're right about "any person?"

quote:

---

Again, you're conflating discussions. That's part of the "jurisdiction" discussion

---

It is a fact that we have arrested people who are outside of our jurisdiction, i.e. non-citizens. Your point is stupid

quote:

---

We can only arrest or prosecute (legally) a person subject to US jurisdiction

---

The military disagrees with you. Clearly, the executive branch disagrees with you. We are in the process of arresting and deporting people as we speak. Even the judicial branch hasn't issued a final say on this, not that it matters because it clearly falls under the purview of the executive

quote:

---

Diplomats are the primary example of a person not subject to US jurisdiction

---

Again, are you denying that diplomats have ever been imprisoned or executed?

quote:

---

people working in this country with a visa who are not citizens are not given any rights under the constitution?

---

Why are you throwing a visa into the equation? That means the person has undergone a very specific LEGAL procedure WRT privileges while in the country. This whole discussion is about something completely different, upstream of a visa. A visa is a carve out, wouldn't you say?

I accidentally entered too quickly so I'm supplementing with a new post.

quote:

---

Again, if you're right, that means

1. The first idea establishes who a citizen is and their entailed jurisdiction WRT "rights"

---

Wrong. You're conflating jurisdiction and rights.

The first sentence establishes who gets birthright citizenship. Jurisdiction is used to determine whose children do not get it. That's it.

quote:

---

2. The last idea throws that out the window and says that "any person" could include non-citizens and get rights limited to citizens from the first idea.

---

Again, this is based on your conflation above.

quote:

---

It is a fact that we have arrested people who are outside of our jurisdiction, i.e. non-citizens.

---

You're incorrectly stating what "outside of our jurisdiction" means.

quote:

---

Again, are you denying that diplomats have ever been imprisoned or executed?

---

Show me your examples of this. The home country has to sign off, it's not legal as a matter of course.

quote:

---

is at the discretion of the government whether you are allowed to stay and make a case

---

Yes it's based on an asylum officers validation if you have credible fears for safety based on specific circumstances that qualify for asylum.... Pass that and you pretty much go to court and have ice lawyers argue for you to leave while your lawyer argues your circumstances. Once again though my point is our process for filing for asylum requires you be in the US. Whether it's defensive asylum or affirmative asylum. The only way it's granted is to be here or at a port of entry already

You guys are having quite the argument here; I would encourage you not to miss the forest for the trees in your quibbling over interpretation.

Though both U.S. & global laws are solidly established, they are ultimately beholden to the supreme law of nature, "survival of the fittest."

Nonsensical interpretations of any country's laws will just lead to destruction of the country, and replacement with a "superior" set of laws. Unfortunately it's highly unlikely that any of us would get to define "superior. "

quote:

---

Yes it's based on an asylum officers validation if you have credible fears for safety based on specific circumstances that qualify for asylum.... Pass that and you pretty much go to court and have ice lawyers argue for you to leave while your lawyer argues your circumstances. Once again though my point is our process for filing for asylum requires you be in the US. Whether it's defensive asylum or affirmative asylum. The only way it's granted is to be here or at a port of entry already

---

Seems like the best answer is to set the limit on asylum seekers that are granted entry to the country at about an even dozen per year. We can then layoff a few thousand immigration judges and their support staff. Keep the cap at an even dozen until we can trust Democrats regain their sanity.

quote:

---

asylum officers validation if you have credible fears for safety based on specific circumstances that qualify for asylum

---

Get the frick out.

Hilarious.