Not endorsing the interpretation at all, but the idea with the people in Gitmo is that they were “combatants” from a “war” and were therefore prisoners of war and subject to a different set of laws. The whole point of putting them in Gitmo was to avoid the legal complications of the domestic American justice system.
Conversely, immigrants are, by definition, inside of the United States and therefore protected by American laws. At least that has been the case historically. The court is going to determine if that is in fact the case.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The difference that still matters (for now) is that the US justice system applies in the United States, regardless of citizenship, war, or anything else.
Gitmo detainees were strategically never brought into the US. NSGB is a naval base that’s leased from Cuba and is explicitly not territorial ground of the US, so detainees there are not protected by US laws, but the adversarial relationship with Cuba also keeps the host country’s laws from applying.
It’s pretty much the only place the US permanently controls where there are no civil protections at all for detainees.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The Constitution references “under the jurisdiction of the United States” so if they do rule that these people aren’t entitled to Constitutional rights, I’m curious how that doesn’t also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Historically “not under the jurisdiction of the United States” meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called “diplomatic immunity”.
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
Not endorsing the interpretation at all, but the idea with the people in Gitmo is that they were “combatants” from a “war” and were therefore prisoners of war and subject to a different set of laws. The whole point of putting them in Gitmo was to avoid the legal complications of the domestic American justice system.
Conversely, immigrants are, by definition, inside of the United States and therefore protected by American laws. At least that has been the case historically. The court is going to determine if that is in fact the case.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
No, they purposefully avoided actual prisoner of war status, as that has legal consequences.
And Republicans have already tried calling this a “war” on illegal immigration so that we can treat them as enemy combatants.
The difference that still matters (for now) is that the US justice system applies in the United States, regardless of citizenship, war, or anything else.
Gitmo detainees were strategically never brought into the US. NSGB is a naval base that’s leased from Cuba and is explicitly not territorial ground of the US, so detainees there are not protected by US laws, but the adversarial relationship with Cuba also keeps the host country’s laws from applying.
It’s pretty much the only place the US permanently controls where there are no civil protections at all for detainees.
The Constitution references “under the jurisdiction of the United States” so if they do rule that these people aren’t entitled to Constitutional rights, I’m curious how that doesn’t also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Historically “not under the jurisdiction of the United States” meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called “diplomatic immunity”.
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
They won’t claim it outloud but they already operate under this interpretation.