5 ms·

Believe it or not, immigration authorities (like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) have the power to enforce immigration laws. The author isn'

Believe it or not, immigration authorities (like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) have the power to enforce immigration laws. The author isn't American. Edit - wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws...

rootusrootus 6mo ago
Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?
- mothballed 6mo ago
  The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not. Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing. For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely. Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  - Planktonne 6mo ago
    If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - traderj0e 6mo ago
      It's not that they aren't people, they aren't the people that the Constitution refers to. There are many rights that visitors don't have.
      - Planktonne 6mo ago
        That is one possible (specious and self-serving) interpretation of a document that pre-dates the concepts and laws it's being used to prop up. How many of the Pilgrims had a valid modern visa?
        traderj0e 6mo ago
        USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance.
        Planktonne 6mo ago
        Who else didn't they think should have the right to vote in 1776, and was that the right call in your opinion? As I said above, a law you have to tie yourself in knots to justify might be a bad law.
        traderj0e 6mo ago
        What are you saying, the US Constitution is bogus because people were racist in 1776? It's undergone amendments and clarifications by the Judicial branch. It's been consistently obvious that foreigners don't have the same rights as citizens here, and tourism or immigration law wouldn't really work otherwise.
- pjc50 6mo ago
  > And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US? I thought it was settled constitutional law that it doesn't? Moreover, during the war on terror, it was established that the president can freely order the murder of non Americans outside the US.
  - FireBeyond 6mo ago
    Not even remotely. Citizens may be granted additional protections from some things, but the Constitution applies to all persons inside the US.
    - oceansky 6mo ago
      Might apply to people outside of US too, given that Maduro is being tried in NY for drug and firearm charges while never having set foot in US before.
  - rootusrootus 6mo ago
    The courts, all the way to the top, have consistently interpreted the Constitution as a document that circumscribes the behavior of the government, not as a document that grants privileges to "the people" or a subset of that (e.g. citizens only).
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
rdiddly 6mo ago
Apparently they have the power to murder and kidnap American citizens too, or violate their rights if they happen to freely speak or assemble in ways they don't like.
ramon156 6mo ago
Did you completely miss the news in January? ICE killed an innocent american citizen. The person responsible never got arrested or jailed. This isn't about enforcing the law, its the book definition of fascism, and we're letting it happen. > wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws... Legal citizens are being arrested based on no evidence. where in your law book says this is legal?

rootusrootus 6mo ago

Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?

mothballed 6mo ago
The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not. Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing. For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely. Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- Planktonne 6mo ago
  If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - traderj0e 6mo ago
    It's not that they aren't people, they aren't the people that the Constitution refers to. There are many rights that visitors don't have.
    - Planktonne 6mo ago
      That is one possible (specious and self-serving) interpretation of a document that pre-dates the concepts and laws it's being used to prop up. How many of the Pilgrims had a valid modern visa?
      - traderj0e 6mo ago
        USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance.
        Planktonne 6mo ago
        Who else didn't they think should have the right to vote in 1776, and was that the right call in your opinion? As I said above, a law you have to tie yourself in knots to justify might be a bad law.
        traderj0e 6mo ago
        What are you saying, the US Constitution is bogus because people were racist in 1776? It's undergone amendments and clarifications by the Judicial branch. It's been consistently obvious that foreigners don't have the same rights as citizens here, and tourism or immigration law wouldn't really work otherwise.
pjc50 6mo ago
> And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US? I thought it was settled constitutional law that it doesn't? Moreover, during the war on terror, it was established that the president can freely order the murder of non Americans outside the US.
- FireBeyond 6mo ago
  Not even remotely. Citizens may be granted additional protections from some things, but the Constitution applies to all persons inside the US.
  - oceansky 6mo ago
    Might apply to people outside of US too, given that Maduro is being tried in NY for drug and firearm charges while never having set foot in US before.
- rootusrootus 6mo ago
  The courts, all the way to the top, have consistently interpreted the Constitution as a document that circumscribes the behavior of the government, not as a document that grants privileges to "the people" or a subset of that (e.g. citizens only).
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

rdiddly 6mo ago

Apparently they have the power to murder and kidnap American citizens too, or violate their rights if they happen to freely speak or assemble in ways they don't like.

ramon156 6mo ago

Did you completely miss the news in January? ICE killed an innocent american citizen. The person responsible never got arrested or jailed. This isn't about enforcing the law, its the book definition of fascism, and we're letting it happen. > wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws... Legal citizens are being arrested based on no evidence. where in your law book says this is legal?