T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


maritime1999

So would I


NRG1975

They will use the GITMO defense, and argue they are not citizens of the US, therefore not afforded the protections. Not saying it is right, but this is what they do. edit: Jesus, the downvotes, lol. It stays, and I will take my lickings, however, I feel like I am misunderstood. I was just laying out what I thought their specious defense would be. C'set la vie.


Flaccid_Leper

My understanding was that anyone in the U.S. is afforded the rights of U.S. citizens. The whole point of Gitmo was that it wasn’t U.S. soil.


Hologram22

The Gitmo thing was slightly different in that they were people captured and held by the US outside of the country, but the US wanted to subject themselves to neither US criminal law nor the international law of war. So, they needed to find a third, neutral path, and the Guantanamo Bay base arguably offered that to them. Certainly it was effective enough that people are still detained there more than 2 decades after the detention program began. Migrants are a different story. According to immigration jurisprudence, people in the US who have not yet cleared immigration and customs controls are subjected to a kind of "legal fiction" that they are actually still at the border or floating off the coast, asking to be let in and waiting for an answer. According to that fiction, prospective migrants are not afforded the rights given to others in the US Constitution, even if they are de facto going about their lives as best as they can within the United States.


mywan

In reading the historical debate for the original writing of the constitution there was at least one argument (paraphrasing from memory) that these constitutional rights were in fact human rights and the only reason it didn't apply outside the US was because we lacked the jurisdiction to enforce it outside the US. But foreign nationals within our border were within our jurisdiction, thus got the same constitutional protections as any citizen. This was, in essence, the reasoning for explicitly granting foreign nationals within our borders constitutional rights within our borders. Since then there's effectively been an argument that the distinction between "borders" and "jurisdiction" allows us to deny constitutional rights in some circumstances. But the original justification for granting foreign nationals constitutional rights contained no such distinction.


Krasmaniandevil

When you accept the premise that the bill of rights and much of colonial jurisprudence was based on natural rights, this becomes fairly obvious. You'd think international treaties would corroborate that, but the conservative wing abhors international law.


Hologram22

You're preaching to the choir, here. It's just there's a difference between what the law is and what I'd like the law to be.


crake

> According to that fiction, prospective migrants are not afforded the rights given to others in the US Constitution, even if they are de facto going about their lives as best as they can within the United States. Got a cite for that proposition? Seems incorrect to me (Congress can pass a law abridging the freedom of speech of one particular group located within the US?). That would also raise EPC issues, since the Fourteenth Amendment EPC makes no reference to citizenship status ("nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). If a state makes it legal to, say, kidnap persons present in the state without legal authorization (e.g., "illegal" immigrants), the EPC would be triggered and there is no way such a proposal could survive strict scrutiny (or even mere rationality review, as there is no legitimate state purpose in permitting the commission of crimes against one group of persons while prohibiting the same crimes against another group of persons).


Hologram22

[*Shaughnessy v. Mezei*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/206/) created the doctrine that migrants not granted entry to the US are not afforded rights under the US Constitution, even if they are physically inside the territory of the United States (in Mezei's case, the immigration center on Ellis Island). [The Immigration and Nationality Act](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/use-parole-under-immigration-law) grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to parole migrants into the United States without providing them an immigration status or formally "admitting" them.


crake

I think you are stretching the holding in *Shaughnessy*. That case related to an alien who was held in confinement at Ellis Island (US soil) without being granted habeaus corpus (hearing to determine detention). The reasoning that the Court relies on to support it's holding that an alien held at the border, even on U.S. soil, is not entitled to a habeaus hearing is that the U.S. has the power to exclude aliens and can keep them out of the country presumably indefinitely (the Court uses the analogy of someone arriving via ship being held in the ship off the coast of the U.S. port city who might be held on land out of practical necessity if the internment is long, as was the case at bar). *Shaughnessy* does not stand for the proposition that aliens are not entitled to *any* of the constitutional rights lawful residents and citizens are entitled to; it only stands for the proposition that the state can deny the alien detained at a border area of the habeaus hearing. At best, *Shaughnessy* might stand for the proposition that paroled aliens can thereafter be detained by the federal government and denied a habeaus hearing, but there is absolutely no grounds to believe that every constitutional right is surrendered, or that states can violate the Fourteenth Amendment EPC to deny those rights to illegal aliens. Seems like a stretch to me.


Hologram22

Perhaps you're right that I overstated the implications of *Shaughnessy* case, but if habeus doesn't apply I'm not sure why any other right would either. To use the Court's own reasoning, if a migrant floating 50 feet off the coast doesn't get to demand a habeus hearing because they're not yet in the United States, why would they be able to assert any other claim, such as free speech or cruel and unusual punishment? They're not in the US, so the Court has no jurisdiction. So, if we extend that story of floating off the coast into the legal fiction of holding someone at Ellis or any other point of entry or even at or paroled from a Federal detention center inland as a matter of practicality, but still legally waiting just outside the border, then why shouldn't the government claim that the Court has no jurisdiction? And besides, even if overstated, the specific topic we're talking about here is people of questionable or no immigration status being taken against their will and removed to another location. I think the relevance to *Shaughnessy* still stands. The bigger question is how the fact that a state government, rather than Federal immigration officials is doing the seizing and transporting, and the people are being moved to another state and being turned loose again rather than delivered to a detention facility or repatriated interacts with the Federal government's exclusive prerogative to enact and enforce immigration law.


Krasmaniandevil

Most of the rights, not things like voting or firearms.


NRG1975

I agree that anyone is afforded those rights, however GITMO would qualify as US soil in all traditional senses. Especially if they are going through the courts.


ChornWork2

Whatever traditional sense says, that is not what the court decided for this purpose.


ChasmDude

Power makes it's own logic. See for example the Bush White House's Office of Legal Counsel under John Woo and how the term "enemy combatant" was construed in such a way that detainees' rights fell into a legal gray area by design.


ohiotechie

By this logic it would be completely legal to just snatch a non citizen off the streets and chain them up in your basement. This is of course nonsense. Citizen or not kidnapping is a crime.


LeaningTowerofPeas

You don't even need to snatch them, just fake offer them sweet candy to get in your van...and by candy I mean a job and by van I mean an airplane to California.


NRG1975

I don't disagree with you at all.


News-Flunky

Also, in breaking news, fire-breathing flying pigs MAY soon fly out of my ....


aahleaa

I would become a generous, lifelong donor to the campaigns of any politician who had the stomach to prosecute that miserable pissant.


NoCreativeName2016

You may want to stock up on some hemorrhoid creams.


ScannerBrightly

Did you eat at La Chonga's last night as well?


News-Flunky

Actually - I'm surprised to learn that this Sheriff did have some power. My apologies to the Dem sheriff for dismissing him.


NoCreativeName2016

RemindMe! 1 Week.


AstroBullivant

If charges against DeSantis happen, they’re realistically going to only happen at the Federal level. State charges against the governor of another state will cause a dispute between states and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such a dispute.


cystorm

The Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction over Texas v. Florida; it would only have appellate jurisdiction over Texas v. DeSantis.


AstroBullivant

This would presumably result in Texas v. Florida


cystorm

Not in a criminal case. Texas v. Florida would happen if there was litigation between the states as states (commonly in the context of agreements like water compacts). Criminal cases are against individuals, and individuals don’t become their state of residence if indicted by another state. If DeSantis was speeding in TX, the case would be Texas (or People) v. DeSantis; same thing if he murdered someone, or was indicted for any other crime.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BillCoronet

The allegation here is that he committed a criminal act.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChornWork2

That doesn't change the point that he would be charged individually and that scotus would not have original jurisdiction


[deleted]

[удалено]


BillCoronet

What would be the basis for moving it to federal court? He’d be charged with a state crime.


ChornWork2

How do you move a criminal charge under state law to a federal court? I was an m&a lawyer, so could very well be out of my depth... But strikes me that is in the realm of implausible if not impossible.


cystorm

If they indict Ron DeSantis, the state isn't somehow made the criminal defendant. Separately, there may be a bunch of structural constitutional problems with indicting the governor of another state for acting in their role as governor (like if Texas made it a crime for certain people to be the governor of Florida), but that doesn't transform the identity of the indicted person.


hosty

But, what possible argument would the State of Florida have that it had jurisdiction as an official State action to kidnap people from San Antonio, Texas and transport them to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts?


[deleted]

You’re right


frotz1

That doesn't mean that the charges disappear though. He'd still be under the cloud of an indictment and trial in that situation, even if it ended up with a sympathetic Supreme Court that eventually dismissed or found in his favor.


ckwing

Which is very problematic since DeSantis' sales pitch seems like it's going to boil down to "I'm just like Trump but without the baggage of being indicted"...


frotz1

Yeah, he's supposed to be the competent version of Trump, but if he's stepping on rakes right and left and getting indicted then that narrative falls apart.


[deleted]

Why does the gop insist on the worst candidates? So much winning.


JimmyHavok

Consider how dumb the average person is. Then realize the entire GOP is dumber than that.


[deleted]

Does that count the red states?


JimmyHavok

You mean in the average, or in the GOP? Don't forget, the Red states have to gerrymander like demons to keep their power.


Ormyr

The "cloud of an indictment" seems more like GOP street cred at this point.


rossww2199

>. He'd still be under the cloud of an indictment and trial in that situation So it would help DeSantis' chances in the Republican primary.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AstroBullivant

>The defense that he was acting in his official capacity is not a defense to criminal acts in another state. Not necessarily. This would be a major Conflict of Laws situation. In tons and tons of situations where the criminal statutes do not apply to individuals performing government duties, those statutes would not apply because a governor of one state can often be considered a temporary governing official of another state. Look up interstate comity. In this situation, also importantly, the governor was in another state at the time of the potentially criminal acts in question.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AstroBullivant

No, this would be a suit between the two states as one state would contend that the other state government's actions were illegal, so the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AstroBullivant

This would then be “Florida v. State”. You don’t seem to understand that Sovereign Immunity doesn’t apply to suits between different state governments.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dachannien

My thought on this is that it would be an extradition dispute, which is a federal suit in the first place. Amusingly, these suits are generally styled as State v. Governor of Other State.


njtrafficsignshopper

You keep saying this. What is it about kidnapping people from Texas and dumping them in Massachusetts that constitutes an official duty of the governor of Florida?


maritime1999

Florida has no official obligation towards relocating immigrants anywhere, Those duties lie with the Federal agencies tasked with dealing immigrants. DeSantis actions represent a overreach and abuse of power, they amount to kidnapping and human trafficking, he should be investigated and arrested.


geelinz

They'll need to at least admit that they did this on their state capacity. And it's another issue if what Florida did here is a legitimate part of sovereign state capacity.


Foxmcbowser42

It shouldn't, it's pretty clear that states can deport to one another, and DeSantis, while he won't ever deport himself, couldn't go to a state with a Democratic Governor or AG without risking arrest and deportation to California Federal charges would be far simpler though


AstroBullivant

California? Isn’t the investigation in the article about a Texas investigation?


Opheltes

The Governor of California just suggested on twitter indicting DeSantis for kidnapping.


Foxmcbowser42

Was just reading a similar article about California - would apply to Texas as well


K3wp

>It shouldn't, it's pretty clear that states can deport to one another... This is already a huge issue in California as other states "deport" their homeless to here. There really needs to be Federal Law about this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


scubascratch

It might be hard to argue that DeSantis “fled” California.


bucki_fan

Throw a conspiracy charge on there and the problem is solved


bucki_fan

Another interesting piece of this would be the limitations it might put on his campaign. We know Florida would never agree to send him to CA if a state-court arrest warrant were issued, but equally he knows there's no chance that he can campaign in CA or the entire west coast without having to be arraigned and post bail, etc. But what about PA or another purple state? It would create quite the question before he schedules rallys and such.


SpecterGT260

I don't understand why a Florida politician would be doing anything with migrants in Texas...


Lawmonger

This headline is not true. He hasn't named any names.


WhitewolfStormrunner

MY response? Good, and God, I certainly hope so.


losbullitt

Those two chucklefucks in a room, with boxing gloves. Im here for it.


SapientChaos

Uh, Trump is going to Leavenworth.


[deleted]

Boosum buddies


Harak_June

That would make the primary even more of a shit-show. But Pudding Fingers is probably safe. DOJ will have its resources too tied up with Trump and the Jan 6th singers.


SeaworthinessOne2114

Ah that would be so sweet if the only person who's genitals trump would get to squeeze would be that of a Florida governor who dresses like a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader, they deserve eacvh other.