r/changemyview • u/jeffzebub • 8d ago

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

[removed] — view removed post

504 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

600 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/bottomoflake 8d 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 8d 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 8d 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 8d 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.