315
JD Vance shares vid claiming migrants ate cats, but appears to show grilling poultry
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
315 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4442 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is not a settled matter of law that the protections and rights provided by the Constitution to "the People" extend to non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are legal immgrants with long-standing ties to their community in the United States.
These people may not have the legal right to defend themselves, verbally or physically. It is entirely possible that the current SCOTUS would deny them the right to free speech; the right to bear arms; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; the right not to incriminate themselves; the rights to speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel; or the protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishment.
This is how the threatened "mass deportations" are going to happen, and it will be completely legal. Hell, deportations? They could be executed without trial, and that would still be legal.
I can speak to the 2A. My wife is a legal immigrant, not a citizen, so I checked around a good deal before getting her a pistol for Christmas.
She is 100% in the clear to own, carry and defend herself. (This is Florida, YMMV on carry laws.)
Are you confident that the 11th Circuit or SCOTUS will keep that in place? Are you confident that some fascists won't arrest and deport her on the basis that she doesn't have 2A rights, just in order to get it to SCOTUS?
Good for her and good on you for checking.
Just pointing out that one can have statutory rights - provided by law - that aren't outright in the Constitution. You are correct to add the "YMMV" caution - as in theory, it might be Florida's laws rather than the 2A which give your wife the right to carry. Florida's laws attempt to implement the 2A but in practice they might have opened the requirements wider than absolutely mandated by the 2A.
This is wrong. From the article you linked to,
And note that this part of the article cites earlier US Supreme Court decisions, e.g.
What the article makes clear is that gun ownership by noncitizens hasn't been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. Some district courts have ruled on legal permanent residents having this right (1)
Others have said that for temporary visa holders, they don't have the same right (2)
Of course, this is not to say that the SC cannot upend existing settled law. By reversing Roe vs Wade, they proved that they can. But that's different from saying the law hasn't been settled yet.
(1)
(2)
Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters. Considering the current SCOTUS' "interesting" interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity, I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.
Hence why I mentioned an SC decision, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, above. Can't get more settled than an SC decision - the only way that can be reversed is if the SC reverses itself later or if there's a constitutional amendment in response to the decision.
Would need to see the specific references to the rulings on this by the SC to come up with a fully informed response (and I apologize if these were actually mentioned in the article but I missed them).
If you're referring to the case that was recently decided as per https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/ then I'd argue that a) this is unrelated to the your statement below and b) is an example where the current SC has disrupted existing settled law.
And I stand by my statement that it is settled law, albeit with the significant caveat that the current SC could undo that settled law any time the right case is brought before them.