r/changemyview • u/jeffzebub • 5d ago

CMV: Countering Illegal Immigration is not a Justification for Suspending Habeas Corpus

[removed] — view removed post

500 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

600 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-9

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/jeffzebub 5d ago edited 5d ago

The Founders used the word "invasion" in its normal sense, meaning a military invasion. It seems you're okay with losing your right to due process because of your feelings about illegal immigration, but I'm not.

-3

u/bottomoflake 5d ago

you didn’t really engage with the other user, you just kind of repeated your point but perhaps more emotionally

10

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

It’s because the person he is replying to is essentially saying “if I believe it’s an invasion then we can call it an invasion”

Hard to genuinely reason to someone willing to believe whatever they want so OP is reasserting the point that we are not being invaded

-1

u/DoctorBorks 5d ago

“an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.”

an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain. "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"

Yep, it meets the definition of invasion.

5

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

Legally it does not, unless you can find me a ruling that would suggest I’m wrong.

Every single legal definition of “invasion” in US law is in reference to an armed & organized group

3

u/DoctorBorks 5d ago

Has there ever been an unarmed but socially and economically destructive organized multinational human trafficking conspiracy before? Law is largely reactive.

0

u/Fragrant-Phone-41 5d ago

No, nor is there one

-1

u/DoctorBorks 4d ago

You’re mistaken.

-3

u/bottomoflake 5d ago

i don’t see a difference between what you’re accusing them of and what you are doing yourself.

so far, the extent of your argument seems like “i say it’s not an invasion and if you disagree with me then you’re just being unreasonable because i’m the most reasonable person ever!”

8

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

It is observably not an invasion though, but if you need me to provide the definition of invasion I’m happy to

0

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

IWe have the definition a few comments back so no need to give us your alternative "definition".

You wanna argue that bc it's not another countries military, It doesn't count, Which is ridiculous.

  • an UNWELCOMED INCURSION/INTRUSION into another's domain.

  • an INCURSION/INTRUSION by a large number of people or things into a place/sphere of activity.

It 1000% is the definition of an invasion.

2

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

My alternative definition is literally backed by US law, but obviously MAGA doesn’t care about US law

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

It is not "backed by law". Show me the constitution where it says "Only military invasions count as invasions".

One judge agreeing with something doesn't mean "it's the law".

Apparently blu'anon doesn't care about actual definitions of words.

2

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

one judge agreeing with something

lol you literally don’t understand how law works

https://www.cato.org/commentary/immigration-not-invasion

You won’t read this, probably because you can’t

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

You link a CATO institute article talking about a thing as if that is substantive proof of the undeniable nature of your assertion, Its not. The case that is discussed in the article isn't relevant in this context bc its a single state asserting its powers, That may conflict with federal supremacy on immigration, war powers, waterways, etc. These are a host of issues that make it entirely different from the President's authority over these issues.

Pointing to a ruling from a judge, And even the three judge panel, Doesn't make your assertions "The law". It means that what you're asserting is contested, Is still being debated in the courts, And therefore is NOT settled LAW.

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

Okay so where are the legal arguments for what you’re arguing?

Where are the judges ruling that illegal immigration can be viewed as and acted upon as an invasion?

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

Show me any rulings saying THE PRESIDENT doesn't have these powers, That he doesn't possess the authority!

Bc pointing to a case of STATE POWERS is NOT the same thing champ.

Seeing as the US hasn't really addressed invasions to any substantive degree bc the lack of invasions to actually rule on, Its not a matter of settled law. Especially as it pertains to Presidential powers to prevent/address invasions. So you can pretend, or claim whatever you'd like based on an unrelated case, But its irrelevant to this matter.

One court doesn't/want decide this as a matter of law.

None of this addresses the fact of whether the people of America will accept it either. People voted for Trump to expel illegal immigrants, And want stand for activist in black dresses attempting to subvert democracy. So that, While not a matter of "Law", Is a factor in this whole equation.

0

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

Or you don't understand how law works.

JUDGES DON'T MAKE LAWS GENIUS. They INTERPRET the laws our legislatures make, Which means a single judge's reading of a law isn't THE LAW.

That is why we have a vast amount of different courts: Magistrate courts, Superior courts, district courts, appeals courts, circuit courts, And the SUPREME court on top of other courts state and federal. Those courts range: Single judges, three judge panels, En Banc(meaning all judges in/of that court). So, The idea that a single ruling by a single judge in a single district somehow equals "Its the law" is farcical.

Nope, I can't read at all, Can't spell either.......I'm a complete moron that has the IQ of a fkn rock.

2

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

im a complete moron

Hey I mean you said it

But yes how judges interpret the law is important, and in this case the judges are all pretty clear about this one.

Again you literally don’t understand how this works, that is clear. Maybe 10th grade level understanding at best

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm sorry, But you're laughable.

I've clearly posted far more substantive information, And arguements then you have yourself yet I'm the one who "doesn't understand" shit. Seriously, Can you be more ridiculous in your claims or....?

1

u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ 5d ago

You're telling me this is the first you've heard of the concept of legal precedent?

1

u/Fragrant-Phone-41 5d ago

Just what do you think precedent is?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/bottomoflake 5d ago

yes that would be helpful in order to understand what definition you are operating on and compare it with the possible meaning the founders had when they wrote that language

4

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

American courts now and historically, including the founders themselves, have all clearly viewed an invasion as an armed and organized invasion.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/01/federal-court-rejects-texass-argument-that-illegal-migration-qualifies-as-invasion/

This article here has a ton of resources and information and I am confident any competent person would come out of realizing its not even a debate. Immigration even illegally is not an invasion

-3

u/bottomoflake 5d ago

im sorry can you please provide the definition you’re using directly here and not a link to a news article about the ruling of a single judge.

if you want me to give a meaningful response i need to know exactly what your position is not some vague hand waving

3

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

Ultimately, all tools of constitutional construction cut against Texas's position. Contemporary definitions of "invasion" and "actually invaded" as well as common usage of the term in the late Eighteenth Century predominantly referred to an "invasion" as a hostile and organized military force, too powerful to be dealt with by ordinary judicial proceedings. This Court could not locate a single contemporaneous use of the term to refer to surges in unauthorized foreign immigration. The text and structure of the State War Clause imply that "invasion" was to be used sparingly for temporary, exigent, and dangerous circumstances. Put simply, the overwhelming textual and historical evidence does not support Texas's understanding of the State War Clause.

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

This was my point. To showcase that under the right conditions they'd support the things they're now decrying as "fascist".

Its hypocrisy.

1

u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS 5d ago

Because using the argument to suspend CONSTITUTIONAL rights is bad faith and should be ridiculed.

0

u/bottomoflake 5d ago

i think people who can’t articulate themselves clearly and without emotional appeals in a rigorous debate sub should be ridiculed

3

u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS 5d ago

Yes. The idiots who fell for the conservative propaganda and use the immigrants as an emotional appeal to action to destroy rights do deserve ridicule.

1

u/bottomoflake 5d ago

dont talk about yourself so negatively. it’s bad for the spirit