Topic: The 14th amendment originally did not apply to people who were not legal residents/citizens.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 days ago #127,078
That was the case for the first THIRTY YEARS it was law.The original meaning of the constitutional amendment, as written, and interpreted by judges was that it was for children of residents.
Then some judges just decided to "reinterpret" it and override the meaning of the people who had written it, and those original authors were now done with their political career.
Trump decides to reinstate the original meaning, and now every propaganda outlet that makes up the mainstream media is LYING and spinning a narrative that he wants to overrule the original meaning. Not one of those networks will give the actual context and tell their viewers what the original interpretation was, an interpretation that last decades. Why not? Because they do not want viewers to consider this and make their own judgment, they want to create a false history, contrary to all court documents reflecting a view shared by Trump.
SakawaBoyGenius joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,373,659
Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
This applies to all nations.
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
This applies to all nations.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 days ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,661
@previous (SakawaBoyGenius)
That refers to imprisoning them without trial, it does not refer to deporting people.
Remember when the wife-beating MS13 member got TWO trials before being deported, both of which said he was liable to be deported, and then all the democrats whined that he didn't get due process? There's no appeasing them.
And the US hasn't imprisoned them, they've deported them to their home country. If that country then decides to imprison them without trial, that country is the one breaking this declaration of human rights.
No one is entitled to live in the US, unless they are a citizen.
That refers to imprisoning them without trial, it does not refer to deporting people.
Remember when the wife-beating MS13 member got TWO trials before being deported, both of which said he was liable to be deported, and then all the democrats whined that he didn't get due process? There's no appeasing them.
And the US hasn't imprisoned them, they've deported them to their home country. If that country then decides to imprison them without trial, that country is the one breaking this declaration of human rights.
No one is entitled to live in the US, unless they are a citizen.
SakawaBoyGenius replied with this 3 days ago, 2 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,663
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,664
"all persons"
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,666
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,667
The whole argument is:
Scary people are scary, be afraid and give up your freedom.
Nothing else to say.
Scary people are scary, be afraid and give up your freedom.
Nothing else to say.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 days ago, 22 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,669
@1,373,663 (SakawaBoyGenius)
Like I said this only applies to imprisonment? If I were arrested I would be due a trial before imprisonment, just like I said...
I don't have to worry about deportation because I'm a citizen. What point are you trying to make?
Like I said this only applies to imprisonment? If I were arrested I would be due a trial before imprisonment, just like I said...
I don't have to worry about deportation because I'm a citizen. What point are you trying to make?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,670
@1,373,664 (C)
Yes, it applies to all people, and it's referring to imprisonment. Not deportation.
Which is beside the point because the US DOES voluntarily give people in the country illegally a trial before deporting them, even though that's not part of the declaration of human rights.
Yes, it applies to all people, and it's referring to imprisonment. Not deportation.
Which is beside the point because the US DOES voluntarily give people in the country illegally a trial before deporting them, even though that's not part of the declaration of human rights.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 3 days ago, 30 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,671
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 13 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,673
Anonymous C replied with this 3 days ago, 28 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,684
@1,373,670 (A)
Ah yes, Minichan's constitutional scholar. Tell me where you graduated from again. Harvard, was it?
Ah yes, Minichan's constitutional scholar. Tell me where you graduated from again. Harvard, was it?
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 days ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,685
SakawaBoyGenius joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,687
@previous (C)
> How do you know they're illegal without due process?
I think Jospeh Stalin had a pretty good understanding of this.
> How do you know they're illegal without due process?
I think Jospeh Stalin had a pretty good understanding of this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 days ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,690
@1,373,685 (C)
Ask for their social security number, or some other proof of residency like a green card.
If they don't provide it, the US still gives them due process through a hearing.
Ask for their social security number, or some other proof of residency like a green card.
If they don't provide it, the US still gives them due process through a hearing.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 days ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,691
@previous (A)
They've been deporting people WITh green cards, moron. Also, "due process" doesn't mean some cop on the street can demand something. It means having your day in court.
They've been deporting people WITh green cards, moron. Also, "due process" doesn't mean some cop on the street can demand something. It means having your day in court.
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 days ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,694
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,695
@1,373,691 (C)
> They've been deporting people WITh green cards, moron.
No, they haven't. People may have their green cards revoked, and then subsequently be deported. You lose the privilege of being in the country if that is revoked. Only citizens have an inherent right to stay.
> Also, "due process" doesn't mean some cop on the street can demand something.
Correct, which is why you might notice that I never said that it meant that.
> It means having your day in court.
The US still provides hearings if someone wants to challenge a deportation order.
> They've been deporting people WITh green cards, moron.
No, they haven't. People may have their green cards revoked, and then subsequently be deported. You lose the privilege of being in the country if that is revoked. Only citizens have an inherent right to stay.
> Also, "due process" doesn't mean some cop on the street can demand something.
Correct, which is why you might notice that I never said that it meant that.
> It means having your day in court.
The US still provides hearings if someone wants to challenge a deportation order.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,696
@1,373,694 (C)
If you're going to keep saying this, can you provide a single case where someone has been deported without the opportunity to prove they have legal status?
That's the bare minimum to back up this claim, just ONE case.
If you're going to keep saying this, can you provide a single case where someone has been deported without the opportunity to prove they have legal status?
That's the bare minimum to back up this claim, just ONE case.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,697
Bing bing bong bong bing
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,698
Anonymous C replied with this 3 days ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,699
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 days ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,700
@1,373,696 (A)
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported-el-salvador-stories-investigation/
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported-el-salvador-stories-investigation/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 24 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,706
@previous (C)
The first person they mention is wife beater Kilmar Abrego. Why are you concerned about a violent criminal who beats women?
No one is entitled to stay in a country they broke into, a country they were not born in.
Trump has graciously ordered ICE to ignore farmers and hospitality workers if they are here illegally but are nonviolent. This country is already letting people stay when they have broken the rules, and already takes in more legal migrants than any other country.
It's all or nothing with you people. Being the most lenient country, with the highest number of approved migrants isn't enough. We have to let the violent people stay indefinitely, provide them healthcare, let them drive, and make up excuses not to send them home.
The first person they mention is wife beater Kilmar Abrego. Why are you concerned about a violent criminal who beats women?
No one is entitled to stay in a country they broke into, a country they were not born in.
Trump has graciously ordered ICE to ignore farmers and hospitality workers if they are here illegally but are nonviolent. This country is already letting people stay when they have broken the rules, and already takes in more legal migrants than any other country.
It's all or nothing with you people. Being the most lenient country, with the highest number of approved migrants isn't enough. We have to let the violent people stay indefinitely, provide them healthcare, let them drive, and make up excuses not to send them home.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,712
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,716
@previous (C)
I like that you’re trying to fight the good fight, but I think this might be a case of you can’t fix stupid. OP is a lost cause.
I like that you’re trying to fight the good fight, but I think this might be a case of you can’t fix stupid. OP is a lost cause.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,728
@OP
Look out everyone, we've got an Internet wannabe lawyer here.
Look out everyone, we've got an Internet wannabe lawyer here.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 46 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,734
@previous (I)
> Look out everyone, we've got an Internet wannabe lawyer here.
Worse. He thinks that Donald Duck Drumpf actually "thinks" or "cares" about anything other than himself.
> Look out everyone, we've got an Internet wannabe lawyer here.
Worse. He thinks that Donald Duck Drumpf actually "thinks" or "cares" about anything other than himself.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,752
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,776
@1,373,728 (I)
It was the judges that ruled this for the first 30 years it didn't apply to non-residents and non-citizens that had a career in law before becoming judges. They passed the bar, and worked in law for most of their lives before being appointed judges.
It was the judges that ruled this for the first 30 years it didn't apply to non-residents and non-citizens that had a career in law before becoming judges. They passed the bar, and worked in law for most of their lives before being appointed judges.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 21 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,783
Source
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,785
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,786
@previous (A)
The case was brought because it had never been interpreted like that before, and the courts set the new precedent in that case. In the prior decades no one had been able to get citizenship, hence the need for the suit.
The case was brought because it had never been interpreted like that before, and the courts set the new precedent in that case. In the prior decades no one had been able to get citizenship, hence the need for the suit.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 days ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,809
@1,373,785 (A)
@previous (A)
I'm familiar with Wong Kim Ark. Even if all you do is skim the wikipedia article you will see other cases that held the same or similar things to the Supreme Court prior to its ruling.
@previous (A)
I'm familiar with Wong Kim Ark. Even if all you do is skim the wikipedia article you will see other cases that held the same or similar things to the Supreme Court prior to its ruling.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,811
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You don't understand. According to super lawyer OP, legal precedent that no longer exists still technically exists in the past, so if the current law hurts your feelings you can just claim the opposite and it magically becomes true.
A legal scholar and a meta-physicist? He's a genius!
You don't understand. According to super lawyer OP, legal precedent that no longer exists still technically exists in the past, so if the current law hurts your feelings you can just claim the opposite and it magically becomes true.
A legal scholar and a meta-physicist? He's a genius!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,894
@1,373,809 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision[2] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[3]
"Landmark case" doesn't mean that the precedent was already set, it means that it was new and significant ruling.
Since this case was 30 years after the 14th amendment was written, that clearly shows that it wasn't ruled this way beforehand.
If you think it was, why would that article call it a landmark case and use language implying over and over again that it set new precedent?
@previous (M)
I'm not saying that overruled precedent still exists, I'm stating that Trump's views are the original view, and the current precedent is not the original interpretation.
Trump is trying to revert to the original meaning, but the media continues to pretend that he's trying to overrule the original interpretation.
You can acknowledge the historical context, and still support the Wong Kim Ark ruling. The reason the media won't acknowledge it is that they don't believe they can push their narrative without leaving out that context.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision[2] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[3]
"Landmark case" doesn't mean that the precedent was already set, it means that it was new and significant ruling.
Since this case was 30 years after the 14th amendment was written, that clearly shows that it wasn't ruled this way beforehand.
If you think it was, why would that article call it a landmark case and use language implying over and over again that it set new precedent?
@previous (M)
I'm not saying that overruled precedent still exists, I'm stating that Trump's views are the original view, and the current precedent is not the original interpretation.
Trump is trying to revert to the original meaning, but the media continues to pretend that he's trying to overrule the original interpretation.
You can acknowledge the historical context, and still support the Wong Kim Ark ruling. The reason the media won't acknowledge it is that they don't believe they can push their narrative without leaving out that context.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,921
@previous (A)
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#Cases_prior_to_Wong_Kim_Ark
> If you think it was, why would that article call it a landmark case and use language implying over and over again that it set new precedent?
Because previous cases were never appealed to the Supreme Court. This case set authoritative finality.
Lots of "landmark" cases solidify things already consistently held by lower courts.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#Cases_prior_to_Wong_Kim_Ark
> If you think it was, why would that article call it a landmark case and use language implying over and over again that it set new precedent?
Because previous cases were never appealed to the Supreme Court. This case set authoritative finality.
Lots of "landmark" cases solidify things already consistently held by lower courts.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,373,941
@previous (N)
Prior to 1898 the precedent was judges tacitly turning a blind eye to lynch mobs, they were not the society you think they were.
Prior to 1898 the precedent was judges tacitly turning a blind eye to lynch mobs, they were not the society you think they were.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 day ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,028
@1,373,894 (A)
From the wiki article you didn't even both to read:
> The question of whether the Citizenship Clause applied to persons born in the United States to Chinese immigrants first came before the courts in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Sing.[40][41] Look Tin Sing was born in Mendocino, California in 1870 to Chinese immigrants. In 1879, his merchant father sent him to China; but upon returning from China in 1884 at age 14, he was barred from reentering the United States by officials who objected to his not having met the documentation requirements imposed at the time on Chinese immigrants under the Restriction Acts of 1882 or of 1884.[42] Look's case was heard in the federal circuit court for California by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field and two other federal judges.[40] Lucy E. Salyer, a history professor at the University of New Hampshire,[43] writes that Justice Field "issued an open invitation to all lawyers in the area to give their opinions on the constitutional questions involved" in the case.[44] Field focused on the meaning of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof phrase of the Citizenship Clause, held that Look was indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth irrespective of the alien status of his parents, and on this basis ordered U.S. officials to recognize Look as a citizen and allow him to enter the United States.[42][45] The Look Tin Sing ruling[42] was not appealed and was never reviewed by the Supreme Court. A similar conclusion was reached by the federal circuit court for Oregon in the 1888 cases of Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee.[46]
> In an 1892 case, Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., a federal appeals court in California for the same circuit (by this time known as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) concluded that a Chinese man would have been recognized as a United States citizen if he could have presented satisfactory evidence that he had in fact been born in the U.S.[47] This case was also never brought before the Supreme Court.
So this was probably a smaller issue at the time that had some courts ruling the same way, so when SCOTUS set a national standard it became landmark because it set the benchmark for a constitutional issue nationwide, but for example immigration from China was so limited at the time this case probably applied to very few people in total (maybe a few thousand/tens of thousands?)
From the wiki article you didn't even both to read:
> The question of whether the Citizenship Clause applied to persons born in the United States to Chinese immigrants first came before the courts in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Sing.[40][41] Look Tin Sing was born in Mendocino, California in 1870 to Chinese immigrants. In 1879, his merchant father sent him to China; but upon returning from China in 1884 at age 14, he was barred from reentering the United States by officials who objected to his not having met the documentation requirements imposed at the time on Chinese immigrants under the Restriction Acts of 1882 or of 1884.[42] Look's case was heard in the federal circuit court for California by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field and two other federal judges.[40] Lucy E. Salyer, a history professor at the University of New Hampshire,[43] writes that Justice Field "issued an open invitation to all lawyers in the area to give their opinions on the constitutional questions involved" in the case.[44] Field focused on the meaning of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof phrase of the Citizenship Clause, held that Look was indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth irrespective of the alien status of his parents, and on this basis ordered U.S. officials to recognize Look as a citizen and allow him to enter the United States.[42][45] The Look Tin Sing ruling[42] was not appealed and was never reviewed by the Supreme Court. A similar conclusion was reached by the federal circuit court for Oregon in the 1888 cases of Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee.[46]
> In an 1892 case, Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., a federal appeals court in California for the same circuit (by this time known as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) concluded that a Chinese man would have been recognized as a United States citizen if he could have presented satisfactory evidence that he had in fact been born in the U.S.[47] This case was also never brought before the Supreme Court.
So this was probably a smaller issue at the time that had some courts ruling the same way, so when SCOTUS set a national standard it became landmark because it set the benchmark for a constitutional issue nationwide, but for example immigration from China was so limited at the time this case probably applied to very few people in total (maybe a few thousand/tens of thousands?)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,033
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
And look what those dirty Chinese got us. Railroads. How disgusting! Immigration bad.
And look what those dirty Chinese got us. Railroads. How disgusting! Immigration bad.
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 day ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,034
@1,373,941 (A)
> Prior to 1898 the precedent was judges tacitly turning a blind eye to lynch mobs, they were not the society you think they were.
What a great moral argument. People in the past were evil, therefore we should be evil now. 🤪
> Prior to 1898 the precedent was judges tacitly turning a blind eye to lynch mobs, they were not the society you think they were.
What a great moral argument. People in the past were evil, therefore we should be evil now. 🤪
Anonymous C replied with this 1 day ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,063
"all persons"
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,064
@1,374,034 (O)
The Eighteenth Amendment technically still exists, so that means it wasn't repealed. We're all breaking the law!
The Eighteenth Amendment technically still exists, so that means it wasn't repealed. We're all breaking the law!
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,071
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,093
Are you stupid, malicious, or both?
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 day ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,123
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 day ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,124
@1,374,034 (O)
Another strawman. The actual argument is that the media is ignoring historical context, and lying about the original meaning of the amendment. They could tell the truth, and then make the case that Trump shouldn't do it, but they aren't.
The same people that eat this up are showing their legal understanding on social media now by insisting Baron wouldn't be legal because one of his parents wasn't a citizen. Obviously incorrect to anyone that has a cursory understanding of citizenship law.
Another strawman. The actual argument is that the media is ignoring historical context, and lying about the original meaning of the amendment. They could tell the truth, and then make the case that Trump shouldn't do it, but they aren't.
The same people that eat this up are showing their legal understanding on social media now by insisting Baron wouldn't be legal because one of his parents wasn't a citizen. Obviously incorrect to anyone that has a cursory understanding of citizenship law.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,125
Anonymous S double-posted this 1 day ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,126
@1,374,124 (A)
Dude, just say you wanna throw brown people in the gulag. Nobody with a brain is buying your argument.
Dude, just say you wanna throw brown people in the gulag. Nobody with a brain is buying your argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 day ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,127
@1,374,125 (S)
There's not such thing as international law. Laws are enforced by sovereign nations, or subjurisdictions within those nations.
There are treaties, and some countries opt-in to those treaties and copy the treaty into their own by ratifying it, but there is no actual international law.
There's not such thing as international law. Laws are enforced by sovereign nations, or subjurisdictions within those nations.
There are treaties, and some countries opt-in to those treaties and copy the treaty into their own by ratifying it, but there is no actual international law.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 day ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,128
@1,374,126 (S)
Deporting someone isn't the same thing as imprisoning them. The US is sending them back home because they don't own foreigners resources or access to our territory. That comes with sovereignty.
Deporting someone isn't the same thing as imprisoning them. The US is sending them back home because they don't own foreigners resources or access to our territory. That comes with sovereignty.
Anonymous S replied with this 1 day ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,129
@1,374,127 (A)
There is such a thing as international law. The United Nations exists. The United States was instrumental in creating it. I think we live in a better world where Russia, China, and the United States have all mutually agreed on a system by which they can address each others concerns as opposed to ending the world in a nuclear war.
There is such a thing as international law. The United Nations exists. The United States was instrumental in creating it. I think we live in a better world where Russia, China, and the United States have all mutually agreed on a system by which they can address each others concerns as opposed to ending the world in a nuclear war.
Anonymous S double-posted this 1 day ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,131
@1,374,128 (A)
You need to re-read article 11, because it doesn’t contain the word "imprisoned" it says "penalty." A penalty is not necessarily imprisonment.
You need to re-read article 11, because it doesn’t contain the word "imprisoned" it says "penalty." A penalty is not necessarily imprisonment.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,132
It’s also not true that laws are necessarily enforced by nations. There is an international criminal court that has tried war criminals. There are also plenty of organizations that exist that enforce laws that aren’t nations. For example, the European Union has laws, it’s not a nation.
Anonymous T double-posted this 1 day ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,133
It’s also not true that organizations which have more power than nations is a new concept. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was more powerful than individual kingdoms and often settled disputes between separate nations.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 hours ago, 14 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,199
@1,374,129 (S)
> There is such a thing as international law. The United Nations exists.
The UN is a forum to help nations cooperate. It is not a sovereign body capable of creating laws.
> The United States was instrumental in creating it.
The US has never recognized the UN as a sovereign body capable of making laws. The US participates, and sometimes voluntarily ratifies treaties but that does not mean it is forced to comply with any UN decision it doesn't sign itself.
> I think we live in a better world where Russia, China, and the United States have all mutually agreed on a system by which they can address each others concerns as opposed to ending the world in a nuclear war.
All 3 of those cooperate on the UN security council, and have signed the NPT. That's a voluntary decision, they are not subject to UN decisions unless they choose to agree to them. Each is sovereign and free to stay out of any treaty they wish. Each of those 3 can veto any security decision if they don't like it, unilaterally, and so are not forced to comply with any enforcement of any UN treaty.
@1,374,131 (S)
Article 11 doesn't force the US to open it's borders to anyone, and it's not a penalty to enforce those borders. If the US wanted to seize property or imprison someone for breaking that rule it would be a penalty. No one is entitled to access US land except US citizens.
> There is such a thing as international law. The United Nations exists.
The UN is a forum to help nations cooperate. It is not a sovereign body capable of creating laws.
> The United States was instrumental in creating it.
The US has never recognized the UN as a sovereign body capable of making laws. The US participates, and sometimes voluntarily ratifies treaties but that does not mean it is forced to comply with any UN decision it doesn't sign itself.
> I think we live in a better world where Russia, China, and the United States have all mutually agreed on a system by which they can address each others concerns as opposed to ending the world in a nuclear war.
All 3 of those cooperate on the UN security council, and have signed the NPT. That's a voluntary decision, they are not subject to UN decisions unless they choose to agree to them. Each is sovereign and free to stay out of any treaty they wish. Each of those 3 can veto any security decision if they don't like it, unilaterally, and so are not forced to comply with any enforcement of any UN treaty.
@1,374,131 (S)
Article 11 doesn't force the US to open it's borders to anyone, and it's not a penalty to enforce those borders. If the US wanted to seize property or imprison someone for breaking that rule it would be a penalty. No one is entitled to access US land except US citizens.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 12 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,202
@1,374,132 (T)
The International Criminal Court only applies to those who have signed the Rome Statute.
In order to be tried in that court you would have to be in a signatory country, and that country would then send you to the Hague.
The US has not ratified the treaty, and would not send someone there if a warrant was issued, because the US, not the UN, is sovereign. If the UN tried to enforce the Rome Statute on non-signatory countries that decision would have to go through the security council, where the US could use its veto to stop such an act.
You completely misunderstand what that court is. It's composed and enforced entirely through voluntary signatories.
The International Criminal Court only applies to those who have signed the Rome Statute.
In order to be tried in that court you would have to be in a signatory country, and that country would then send you to the Hague.
The US has not ratified the treaty, and would not send someone there if a warrant was issued, because the US, not the UN, is sovereign. If the UN tried to enforce the Rome Statute on non-signatory countries that decision would have to go through the security council, where the US could use its veto to stop such an act.
You completely misunderstand what that court is. It's composed and enforced entirely through voluntary signatories.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 12 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,203
@previous (A)
To add to this, the US has passed a law saying they would invade the Netherlands if someone tried enforcing the Rome Statute by arresting any US soldiers or staff.
So even if you were in a signatory country, it would start a war if you tried arresting an American under the treaty.
To add to this, the US has passed a law saying they would invade the Netherlands if someone tried enforcing the Rome Statute by arresting any US soldiers or staff.
So even if you were in a signatory country, it would start a war if you tried arresting an American under the treaty.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 hours ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,374,212
"all persons" is pretty fucking clear