5 ms·

So if non-citizens are entitled to warrants after entering a country illegally, how does this fare to the warrant-less five-eyes surveillance against non-citize

So if non-citizens are entitled to warrants after entering a country illegally, how does this fare to the warrant-less five-eyes surveillance against non-citizens that have not committed any crimes?

reaperman 3y ago
I think it should be that rights from the US Constitution should apply to: - anyone inside the USA borders/waters - and any citizens of the USA no matter where they currently are (obviously only affecting the actions of US Government, government of Thailand of course wouldn't be bound by US Constitution). But the Supreme Court disagrees with me on parts of that. So I think the answer to your question is "whatever the Supreme Court says."
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  > But the Supreme Court disagrees with me on parts of that. To be fair, I think SCOTUS disagrees with itself on some parts of that.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  >I think it should be that rights from the US Constitution should apply to >- anyone inside the USA borders/waters They do. At least all bill of rights except the 2A do. "In theory" anyway.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  as far as I'm concerned the entire EEZ would be covered. If the government assert it's their territory to profit from, the same rights go along with it
halJordan 3y ago
They're actually completely separate topics handled by different areas of the law. It's like seeing a case about whether an officer can pull over a speeder and the questioning the legality of titling fees.
lesuorac 3y ago
Uh pretty well? In the first half of your question you clearly show that non-citizens outside the US aren't protected by the constitution. And the vast majority of the world are non-US citizens outside of the US. So you can pretty much spy on anybody and be consistent with this decision.
jameshart 3y ago
The case concerns a resident US citizen reentering the United States at a normal port of entry. The judgement explicitly doesn’t address whether the same arguments it makes apply to non citizens or non residents. This says absolutely nothing about the rights of noncitizens detained after illegal entry.
- heyyyouu 3y ago
  Yup. This is pretty darn narrow. Still important. But it won't mean much until it works it way up.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Entering the US illegally is not a crime unless you were previously subject to US jurisdiction; technically it's an administrative violation.

So if non-citizens are entitled to warrants after entering a country illegally, how does this fare to the warrant-less five-eyes surveillance against non-citizens that have not committed any crimes?

reaperman 3y ago

I think it should be that rights from the US Constitution should apply to: - anyone inside the USA borders/waters - and any citizens of the USA no matter where they currently are (obviously only affecting the actions of US Government, government of Thailand of course wouldn't be bound by US Constitution). But the Supreme Court disagrees with me on parts of that. So I think the answer to your question is "whatever the Supreme Court says."

ComputerGuru 3y ago
> But the Supreme Court disagrees with me on parts of that. To be fair, I think SCOTUS disagrees with itself on some parts of that.
lannisterstark 3y ago
>I think it should be that rights from the US Constitution should apply to >- anyone inside the USA borders/waters They do. At least all bill of rights except the 2A do. "In theory" anyway.
sidewndr46 3y ago
as far as I'm concerned the entire EEZ would be covered. If the government assert it's their territory to profit from, the same rights go along with it

halJordan 3y ago

They're actually completely separate topics handled by different areas of the law. It's like seeing a case about whether an officer can pull over a speeder and the questioning the legality of titling fees.

lesuorac 3y ago

Uh pretty well? In the first half of your question you clearly show that non-citizens outside the US aren't protected by the constitution. And the vast majority of the world are non-US citizens outside of the US. So you can pretty much spy on anybody and be consistent with this decision.

jameshart 3y ago

The case concerns a resident US citizen reentering the United States at a normal port of entry. The judgement explicitly doesn’t address whether the same arguments it makes apply to non citizens or non residents. This says absolutely nothing about the rights of noncitizens detained after illegal entry.

heyyyouu 3y ago
Yup. This is pretty darn narrow. Still important. But it won't mean much until it works it way up.

anigbrowl 3y ago

Entering the US illegally is not a crime unless you were previously subject to US jurisdiction; technically it's an administrative violation.