Summary
A third federal judge, Joseph N. Laplante, blocked Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
His ruling follows similar decisions from judges in Seattle and Maryland.
The lawsuits, led by the ACLU, argue Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil.
The Trump administration contends such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Legal battles continue, with appeals underway and further rulings expected in other courts.
Interesting argument. If these people are not under the jurisdiction of the US then we have no legal right to deport them as they aren’t subject to our laws.
So they could commit crimes and not have anyone to convict them?
It’s a sovcits dream come true!
That’s kind of what they argue, so they’re halfway there.
But wouldn’t that also work the other way around? If so, any white supremacist or government agency could commit any atrocity and not get convicted, because the victim wasn’t protected by any laws.
The sliver of hope there is that the law isn’t usually written in terms of the one being acted on but in terms of the one doing the action. Murder is illegal regardless of the status of the victim. It doesn’t say murder is the killing of a citizen, but rather a person regardless of nationality or citizenship status. Where things get a bit rockier though is in regards to constitutional protections. Things like due process it could be argued don’t apply to non-citizens.
That is a good point. So, in this case, the non-citizen would be like a tourist. They have some rights too, don’t they?
Strictly speaking no, they don’t actually have constitutional protections, it’s just that it’s simpler for our legal system to treat everyone uniformly (also I’m not sure it’s ever actually come up before except in the highly specialized circumstances of Guantanamo Bay). Additionally tourists have their government backing them so it wouldn’t be worth the international incident that something like denying them due process would cause. In general though with a tourist causing problems it’s often easier for the government to just cancel their visa and deport them back to their home country then ban them from returning, rather than dealing with the headache of trying to prosecute a foreign national.
Whether the victim was subject to our laws or not, the perpetrator is still committing a crime in this scenario. It isn’t legal to murder tourists for example. Animals aren’t US citizens but it’s still illegal to torture or molest them.
Ding ding ding! You got it!
Sure, and also no one to protect them if / when they’re caught.
Trump hurt itself in confusion
No.
Outlaws, people literally outside the law, have no legal protections at all. Taken to its limit this means that deportation is not necessary as they could simply be executed where they are found.
This is why being declared an outlaw was such a big fucking deal back when that word wasn’t just a synonym for “criminal”. You could be executed in broad daylight by the first person that found you and there would be no repercussions.
No. “Outlawry” was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US. If these people aren’t under US jurisdiction, there is no legal process to submit to because they aren’t subject to US law to begin with.
The concept of an “outlaw” goes at least as far back as ancient Rome and was used in England until something like 1869. It held on in Scotland as part of Civil Law until somewhere in the 1940s. It was also present in France, Germany, and several Nordic countries.
This isn’t just a US thing.
Yes…because they are “Outside the Law”. An Outlaw is neither subject to nor protected by the law.
It’s that last part that so many people in here are missing. If the Elongated Muskrat were declared an “outlaw” you could kick in his front door, drag him out of bed, load him onto a catapult and fire him into the sun and the legal apparatus would not, nay could not, do anything about it.
People need to understand how deeply that “no legal process to submit to” goes. The “outlaw” isn’t subject to the law but neither is anyone else as it relates to them.
The concept as applied in Rome and modern Europe doesn’t really matter in this context because we’re talking about US law. It was used here 150 years ago against bandits in the west but still doesn’t apply to this situation at least according to the definition written by Cornell Law:
The catch here is “accused criminal” and “refused to submit to legal process.” Both these term first require that you’re subject to the laws in question, which an “old west bandit” would have been. If you remove legal jurisdiction over these people, you can’t then say they’re breaking your laws and refusing to submit to the legal process because you’ve already defined them as being outside of the bounds of your laws and legal process by stating that they’re not under your jurisdiction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/outlaw
No. According to legal eagle it applies to diplomats living in the US but not living under US jurisdiction.
Oh, and also enemy combatants. Which is probably what Trump will claim immigrants are in his bizzaro world justification…
This is effectively already what Texas has tried to claim…
Yeah - it’s just a matter of time before they’re claiming that immigrants aren’t even human.