4 ms·
IANAL but the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) doesn't mention "citizens", only "persons"; the US constitution should in theory protect any human being, wh
by bambax 2y ago
IANAL but the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) doesn't mention "citizens", only "persons"; the US constitution should in theory protect any human being, wherever they are and whatever country they're from, from attacks by the US government.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y agoDefinitely. But a lot of people are happy to look at what's happening with Abrego Garcia and say "it can't happen to me, I'm a US citizen." Those people need to be actively reminded that once we discard due process and rule of law, your status does not matter. If the administration chooses to target you, you'll be on the other side of the valve before anyone can meaningfully intervene on your behalf to assert your rights. There's a phrase "you can beat the time, but you can't beat the ride," meaning you can't do much about it if the police want to put you in jail for the night/weekend. They're going to subdue you, they're going to handcuff you, and they're going to book you. The validity of the charges or chance of successful prosecution does not matter, you're going to jail. You might bond out or get released as soon as you see a magistrate judge, but in the meantime you're going to jail. If the "ride" extends all the way to a facility that is beyond the jurisdiction of US courts, then the ride and the time are one and the same. The executive is not only the enforcer but also the judge and jury. It is absolutely broken from a constitutional perspective.
- soraminazuki 2y agoEven if you ignore the legal side of things, it's crazy to me to see some argue that founding principles don't apply to non-citizens. "The government shall not abduct and send people to concentration camps, as long as they're American citizens" sounds completely bonkers and immoral.