Don’t worry court will write out an instruction manual worth of loopholes if they do rule against it
Not endorsing the interpretation at all, but the idea with the people in Gitmo is that they were "combatants" from a "war" and were therefore prisoners of war and subject to a different set of laws. The whole point of putting them in Gitmo was to avoid the legal complications of the domestic American justice system.
Conversely, immigrants are, by definition, inside of the United States and therefore protected by American laws. At least that has been the case historically. The court is going to determine if that is in fact the case.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
And Republicans have already tried calling this a "war" on illegal immigration so that we can treat them as enemy combatants.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The Constitution references "under the jurisdiction of the United States" so if they do rule that these people aren't entitled to Constitutional rights, I'm curious how that doesn't also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
They won't claim it outloud but they already operate under this interpretation.
Historically "not under the jurisdiction of the United States" meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called "diplomatic immunity".
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
Trans people are next. They are trying to bring back psychiatric detention and calling Trans people mentally ill.
I'm not sure if transgender people or "antifa" is next. I think "antifa" because that allows them to classify any dissent about anything as supporting terrorism (NSPM-7 executive order). That would be more efficient at removing dissent, then when there's no way to speak out, they'll go after transgender, socialists, eventually gay/lesbian, anyone who's not white.
aka the Nazi's list of enemies
If this shit happens then none of us (citizens included) have due process. ICE can just say they suspect you're an illegal immigrant and lock you up forever. A lot of people seem to think that if you just show them the documents or prove that you're a citizen this won't happen. All they have to do is snatch you up. You typically see this line of thought from folks defending the current administration, like they believe if you rationally present your argument to authority they'll always agree.
There are already enough cases of people showing their papers to ICE and discovering that ICE don't care and aren't held to account. But the people supporting it tend to be the "pay no attention until it happens to me" type.
Mom kinda thinks like this. I told her that no one should even be asked to prove their identity like that in public. She'd be more firmly on the right if my father isn't tempering her.
My parents are reversed, with my mom tempering my dad’s conservatism. But it’s the same basic idea. My mom and I will be discussing whatever Government Atrocity of the Week^TM^ is making the news cycle, and my dad will basically go “good, I hope it sucks for {victim}. If they don’t like it, they can leave.”
Gee, and you wonder why I don’t ever want to hang out…
Mate, with respect, they don't give a fuck about the constitution nor civilians nor citizenship and have proven so multiple times.
That's what all the industrial biowaste incinerators they've been buying are for.
Oh, you mean the treasonous Supreme Court?
I'm thinking we should start banning yahoo.com from this commag. All that site does is copy from another site and attribute it so that we can't see what the actual publisher is from the domain. (You can see at the top here that the OG source is Slate.)
yeah Im not a fan.
It's OK! The CONSTITUTION is CLEAR that this is Illegal and the Robert's Republican Supreme Court is KNOWN to UPHOLD the Constitution and NOT whoever gives them the BEST Vacation!
Your account on the other instance (world?) was wittier, it seems.
Time to allow the racists to do something else unethical because you could technically interpret a 250 year old document in a way that allows for that, even though everyone that's not a bigot knows what the decent decision should be and that document could be interpreted that way as well.
My prediction is that SCOTUS will defy the Constitution.
how long Immigration and Customs Enforcement can keep lawful permanent residents in immigration detention without any opportunity to post a bond.
How is this even up for discussion? If they're legal permanent residents, they shouldn't be detained at all, and should have the right to sue if they are. Fucking hell, America. Get your shit together.
Such Democracy!
Not perfect but sure is "best we can have", not.
The fun part will be treating all these MAGA politicians the way they want everyone else treated.
JD Vance? Locked the fuck up without charges forever. Clarence Thomas? Locked the fuck up without charges. John Roberts, Drunken McRapey Kavanaugh? Locked the fuck up without charges.
No Habeas Corpus, no judicial review, no one to look out for their human rights, since they have no concern for anyone else's humanity.
You get the idea.
That will not happen with a Democrat in office. Still probably worth voting for them in the general for harm reduction. But don't kid yourself. The next Democratic president will appoint a Republican as attorney general and FBI head. Their cabinet will be half centrist Democrats, 1/4 progressive, and 1/4 Republican.
Putting faith in Democrats to bring justice to Republicans is literally believing in magic. It's completely divorced from history. You might as well put your faith in a literal angel coming down from heaven and personally hauling Trump kicking and screaming into Hell. Both events are equally likely.
Want to put some money where your mouth is?
Because I have been getting people elected for longer than you've been alive, and I'm 100% certain you're wrong.
Ford and Carter let Nixon's crimes slide. Bush I and Clinton let Reagan's crimes slide. Obama let Bush II's crimes slide. And Biden appointed a Republican attorney general who initially refused to do anything, acceded only under Congressional pressure, then slow-walked things until Trump could run out the clock.
Again, Democrats are better in terms of general harm reduction, but it's like comparing two plagues. If you gave me the choice, I would vote for another big Covid pandemic over a global Ebola outbreak, but that doesn't mean Covid isn't still a plague.
We have three clear examples of cartoonishly corrupt Republicans committing crimes left and right. Dems are 0 out of 3.
I'm a scientist. I go buy the evidence observable to my eyes. I see Democrats are 0/3 for holding criminal Republican administrations accountable. That's the evidence I'm basing my conclusion on - actual historical observation.
Do you have any evidence you would like to bring up? Because all you've said so far is "trust me bro."
What you've posted are just...well, lies. Democrats can and do hold these fuckers accountable.
Reagan's administration saw 138 investigations leading to indictments, prosecutions, and yes, convictions.
Just from Iran Contra, these officials were all convicted or pleaded guilty: two different National Security Advisors, the CIA's Covert Ops lead, and 10 fucking CIA assets (including Ollie North.) We had the Sec Def dead to rights but Bush -- the family literally at the heart of the coup -- pardoned him ahead of his trial.
There was a HUD grant-rigging scandal where the Treasurer of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior and the two Assistant Secretaries and the fucking Assistant HUD secretaries all got convicted.
Reagan's Chief of Staff was convicted of lying to the Democratic Congress. Reagan's Press Secretary was convicted of illegal lobbying.
Go look now and there are like 3-4 other major investigations that led to Reagan-Bush officials getting convicted.
**How about George Bush? ** Lester Crawford (R) Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, pleaded guilty to conflict of interest and received 3 years suspended sentence and fined $90,000 (equivalent to $143,736 in 2025) (2006).
Scooter Libby (R) Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (R), convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame Affair on March 6, 2007, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 (equivalent to $388,180 in 2025).
David Safavian (R) Administrator for the Office of Management and Budget[130][131][132] After an overturned conviction and a retrial, he was found guilty of perjury,[133] and sentenced to 12 months (2008).
Robert E. Coughlin (R) Deputy Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes relating to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal (2009.)
Felipe Sixto (R) Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs, convicted of misusing money. Sentenced to 30 months (2009).[135]
Scott Bloch (R) United States Special Counsel, pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress for "willfully and unlawfully withholding pertinent information from a House Committee investigating his decision to have several government computers wiped...."
Sorry mate, but you're full of shit.
You're a scientist who can't spell or use proper grammar?
In the last months of Biden's term he opened up several new ICE facilities, every president since 2001 has increased the funding and scope of ICE and DHS. The dems may be better in that when they are in charge they detain and deport people more subtly, but the corporate-aligned Dem leaders approve of what's happening now and haven't done anything meaningful to prevent it.
Believe it or not, I've also already heard the DeMoCrAtS ArE AcTuAlLy WoRsE line. Which is one of the major reasons we are here instead of complaining about how badly a, 90% better, Clinton-led America, sucks.
If they lose power (lol) they will, without a doubt, flee the country.
Why would only Americans be worried?
In the US, they especially target immigrants and other foreigners (as well as American citizens of color), and it's not like there isn't precedent of them operating outside of the US without the consent of the host nation.
Every time ICE is given more leeway, them operating worldwide with no restrictions gets closer to becoming reality.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
Ooooh nice, so they’re effectively going to decide if they get to actually run concentration camps in an official capacity. Delightful.
Also, I don’t expect ICEatzgruppen to abide by the court order if it doesn’t go their way
save