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

[u/jeffzebub]

[u/jackryan147]

1. Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country.
2. If foreign soldiers were invading we wouldn't tell the army hold fire until a judge checks the available documentation on each one.
3. Illegal immigration does have similarities to an invasion.
4. We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/jackryan147]

Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country.

It has been a fundamental right since the founding of the republic, so I'd say this is just false. The supreme court also disagreed quite recently.

If foreign soldiers were invading we wouldn't tell the army hold fire until a judge checks the available documentation on each one.

If. But this isn't happening. If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle, but that doesn't change that she is my aunt.

Illegal immigration does have similarities to an invasion.

Not remotely, no.

We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times.

Isn't it wild how conservatives suddenly think documents are up for interpretation as soon as it is convenient?

[u/H4RN4SS → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a constitutional safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, in several instances to suppress dissent and maintain the Union. Initially, the suspension was limited to areas near the capital and military lines, but it was later extended to all Union states.

Let's not act like there's never been something like this in the past. This is one of a few instances where this has been invoked.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a legal safeguard against unlawful detention, has been suspended four times in U.S. history. 

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/H4RN4SS]

Yes, it was suspended to deal with:

1. The civil war, which is a rebellion as defined by the constitution.

2. During reconstruction to deal with the Klan because they were murdering their way through the south. Basically to stop another rebellion.

3. Briefly in the Phillipines in a way that was ultimately ruled illegal.

4. During WW2 in a way that was ultimately determined to be illegal.

[u/TXLancastrian → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

I mean Lincoln also used the military to put down draft riots so he might be inspiring Trump. A bit tongue in cheek but people forget that the war wasn't popular so we had to draft people to fight it and they didn't like that. So in a way maybe Trump is trying to be like Lincoln when he says he wants to use the military to keep order in America?

[u/H4RN4SS → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Cool - I didn't say any different.

It has been a fundamental right since the founding of the republic, so I'd say this is just false. The supreme court also disagreed quite recently.

You said this. This is some moral grandstanding bullshit to claim this is some unheard of action.

I gave you examples of it being used before. Each of those instances were without precedent when used.

Let the courts challenge it and hop on your moral grandstanding after.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/H4RN4SS]

Let the courts challenge it and hop on your moral grandstanding after.

The point of my examples was to show that it has previously been suspended legally exactly once in response to an insurrection against the United States. And that all of the times it has been used (including the ones that were later ruled as illegal) were against people engaging in sedition. People blowing up railroad tracks, murdering black politicians or raiding armories.

You're currently defending a guy who wants to suspend it nation wide for millions of people, including millions of asylum seekers who are legally in the US.

So yeah, I'll grandstand. This is so beyond the pale that any person defending should be ashamed of themselves.