4 ms·
I've always found it odd that if we were invaded, the current 'interpretation' (because I find it really hard to believe this was the intention when it was writ
by ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
I've always found it odd that if we were invaded, the current 'interpretation' (because I find it really hard to believe this was the intention when it was written) would have rights extended to them.
It seems incredibly obvious to me that the law, at the very least, should have a clause for being here legally.
- simplicio 7y agoIt applies to all people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Members of an invading army obviously don't qualify, even if they were on US soil. when the US captured Japanese soldier occupy the Alutian islands, they were kept as POWs, not charged with "illegal invasion" or whatever.
- roywiggins 7y agoUnder international law, they have to be treated this way and not charged with crimes. As long as a soldier is acting under the laws of war, they can't be tried for violations of ordinary criminal law. They can only be held for the duration of hostilities and then must be returned to their home country. So they really aren't subject to domestic law at all.
- buckminster 7y agoSo which articles of the bill of rights do you think shouldn't apply to illegal aliens? Note that the one concerning fair trials and so on explicitly states that it doesn't apply in times of war.