trump administration mull ending Habeas Corpus.

rjs330 said:

Ours? No. A nationwide suspension of habeas corpus for every citizen is not justified.

Click to expand...

Is a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus for any citizen justified? Is a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus for any person justified?

DaisyDay said:

a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus for any citizen justified?

Click to expand...

No

DaisyDay said:

Is a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus for any person justified?

Click to expand...

For illegals, yes. I would argue that millions of people pouring over our border is an invasion and justifies it. If tgey want to come here, apply to be a citizen in a legal manner like millions are doing right now.

rjs330 said:

No

For illegals, yes. I would argue that millions of people pouring over our border is an invasion and justifies it. If tgey want to come here, apply to be a citizen in a legal manner like millions are doing right now.

Click to expand...

How do you determine is a person is here illegally if you don't give them due process?

Citizens have been "erroneously" rounded up without warrants even when they have valid id in their possession.

DaisyDay said:

How do you determine is a person is here illegally if you don't give them due process?

Click to expand...

I dont think its that difficult. Due process does not mean you HAVE to have a court proceeding. Due process in this case is diligence determining that someone is an illegal.

And as you pointed out they absolutely did that with the citizen. The citizen disnt need a court proceeding to prove he was a citizen.

So you believe there just is no way to determine if someone is illegal outside of a court proceeding? I think there is. And under an invasion I believe it will work.

rjs330 said:

I dont think its that difficult. Due process does not mean you HAVE to have a court proceeding. Due process in this case is diligence determining that someone is an illegal.

Click to expand...

Due process is not disappearing people off the streets by masked men with guns and vans. Due process in these cases also means determining if there are extenuating circumstances. And yet, citizens have been deported.

rjs330 said:

And as you pointed out they absolutely did that with the citizen. The citizen disnt need a court proceeding to prove he was a citizen.

Click to expand...

That citizen - from a different thread - should never have been arrested without cause, but he was. Any person has the right to contest their arrest under habeas corpus. This is written into the Constitution as a basic human right. Suspending basic human rights ought not to be the American way, but it has become so.

rjs330 said:

So you believe there just is no way to determine if someone is illegal outside of a court proceeding? I think there is. And under an invasion I believe it will work.

Click to expand...

Great, So's Law. I did not say that.

And people entering a country on their own initiative rather than under orders from an authority is NOT an invasion under common or international law - well, maybe a metaphorical invasion, but not an actual one.

DaisyDay said:

Due process is not disappearing people off the streets by masked men with guns and vans. Due process in these cases also means determining if there are extenuating circumstances.

Click to expand...

Due process happens AFTER you've been picked up, not before. The officers show people their badges and announce themselves. You know why they were masks? To protect themselves and their families from leftists who threaten them and their families.

DaisyDay said:

And yet, citizens have been deported.

Click to expand...

Who?

DaisyDay said:

That citizen - from a different thread - should never have been arrested without cause, but he was. Any person has the right to contest their arrest under habeas corpus. This is written into the Constitution as a basic human right. Suspending basic human rights ought not to be the American way, but it has become so.

Click to expand...

And he was released. He got his due process. He was picked up LEGALLY in an ICE raid. Those are legal under US law. He was let go after ICE did their job.

DaisyDay said:

Great, So's Law. I did not say that.

Click to expand...

It was a logical conclusion to your points.

Let's test this. Do you believe there is a way to decide whether or not a person is an illegal without a court proceeding?

DaisyDay said:

And people entering a country on their own initiative rather than under orders from an authority is NOT an invasion under common or international law - well, maybe a metaphorical invasion, but not an actual one.

Click to expand...

An invasion is an invasion. One person is not an invasion. Millions is.

rjs330 said:

Due process happens AFTER you've been picked up, not before.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, sometimes not. Picking people up without an articulable reason and without a warrant violates due process.

rjs330 said:

The officers show people their badges and announce themselves.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, sometimes not these days which is a problem.

rjs330 said:

You know why they were masks? To protect themselves and their families from leftists who threaten them and their families.

Click to expand...

If they have to identify themselves and show their badges then covering their faces wouldn't really help with that, would it? Are the families of ICE agents as endangered as the families of judges?

rjs330 said:

Who?

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

And he was released. He got his due process. He was picked up LEGALLY in an ICE raid. Those are legal under US law. He was let go after ICE did their job.

Click to expand...

No, his detainment was not legal. He is a citizen with proper identification on him. This was a 4th Amendment violation.

rjs330 said:

It was a logical conclusion to your points.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't; it's an illogical jump to a conclusion of yours based on your own points, not mine. Please don't try to tell me what I believe or, even worse, what I must believe.

rjs330 said:

Let's test this. Do you believe there is a way to decide whether or not a person is an illegal without a court proceeding?

Click to expand...

Yes.

rjs330 said:

An invasion is an invasion. One person is not an invasion. Millions is.

Click to expand...

Under the meanings and provisions of that law, millions of people from all over deciding on their own to cross a border does not constitute an invasion. Donald's proclamation stated that Venezuela specifically, through the gang Tren de Aragua is invading and has invaded the US. There are not millions of Venezuelans, let alone millions of Tren de Aragua gang members in the US.

It is unsurprising that the specific "invasion" of Tren de Aragua gangs members from Venezuela is conflated so wrongly with all undocumented immigrants as justification for suspending the human right of habeas corpus for every non-citizen. Unsurprising but deeply concerning that the founding principles of our nation are so callously disregarded.

An interesting conundrum. An invasion is when foreigners enter the country against resistance. So the immigrants are blamed for invasion, and at the same time Biden is blamed for letting them in, which means it wasn't an invasion.

rjs330 said:

An invasion is an invasion. One person is not an invasion. Millions is.

Click to expand...

District courts (two at last count) disagree with you. Ultimately, the USSC will rule on the matter.

rjs330 said:

An invasion is an invasion. One person is not an invasion. Millions is.

Click to expand...

The meaning of "invasion" in the Constitution does not simply turn on the quantity of people; it turns far more on intent.

Although focused on the Compact Clause rather than the Habeas Corpus Clause, this explains well why illegal immigration, even massive amounts of it, hardly constitutes an "invasion" under the Constitution:

As this well argues, illegal entry alone--even on a large scale--does not constitute an invasion under the Constitution. It requires actual enmity and desire to do harm. As it notes:

On the other hand, the intent to enter a jurisdiction unlawfully does not, standing alone, bespeak the enmity necessary to qualify as an invasion. We are aware of no early American sources that use the word “invade” to refer to unlawful ingress but that does not involve the intent to engage in hostile conduct within the jurisdiction. Nor is there reason to believe that, in the Founding era, there existed a widespread view that the breaking of some of the laws of a community necessarily makes one an enemy of that community, such that the intent to violate the law would be enough to create the enmity necessary for an ingress to qualify as an invasion.

Colonial- and Revolutionary-era Americans had a word other than “invasion” for unlawful entry without enmity: “trespass.” That word was defined in Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language as “to enter unlawfully on another’s ground” and similarly in Webster’s 1806 Compendious Dictionary of the English Language as “to enter or go unlawfully.” The word “trespass” was regularly used in early American correspondence (see Letter from James Madison to Hobohoilthle, 1809) and statutes (First Congress, stat. II, ch. 34, § 5) to refer to unlawful entry of the domain of another. The distinction between trespass and invasion appears in a letter from General Nathanael Greene to George Washington about the difficulties of finding accommodations for the officers of the Continental Army (Letter from Nathaniel Greene to George Washington, 1779). General Greene uses the word “invaded” twice, both times in reference to the intrusion of a hostile military force into the invaded jurisdiction. He also uses the word “trespass” twice, both times to refer to the intrusion of the invaded jurisdiction’s own soldiers upon the property of its citizens. Both types of intrusion are unlawful, but only the former is an invasion.