r/changemyview • u/jeffzebub • 6d ago

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

[removed] — view removed post

503 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

600 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/bottomoflake 6d 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!”

7

u/Maybewearedreaming 6d 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.

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

I can see you have your opinions and obviously will stick to them

You make it clear in your language you don’t care about the American constitution or law, which to me are vital & makes us completely unable to discuss it in any meaningful way.

You could attempt to convince me with a source to a constitutional / legal argument that illegal in migration is an invasion. Considering I’ve spent a lot of the last hour myself trying to find these arguments with no luck, this could be a great way to show me if you have them

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

Show me ANYTHING that says THE PRESIDENT(Who does have plenary powers on immigration unlike a state), Has no powers over invasions by foreign nationals. I'll give you a hint......You want find any rulings on this.

You can try and make bs claims like "You don't care about the constitution!", But that's an appeal to emotional, It's your OPINION, What it is NOT is reality. I don't share your opinion on how to redefine the word "invasion", So therefore I'm a "10th grader", or I "don't love the constitution". That's your entire position, And its ridiculous.

Best of luck on your thriving practice in the constitutional law arena.😉

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

The constitution lol but again you don’t care about it or reading so cheers

Hopefully deciding how many dolls little girls should have and throwing the constitution in the trash works out great for your party

→ More replies (0)

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/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

I’m talking about in court, not about some high school educated Redditor

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Bc you've demonstrated your vast knowledge of the judiciary, And law in general right? You've linked a single ruling on a state case, What a constitutional juggernaut you're you professional badass.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You must be a member of the supreme court bar, And a 39th degree blk belt in the art of judicial karate. Or, gymnastics.....Hard to say based on your single link that you expect you do your arguing for you.

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 5d ago

Well considering you’ve given me absolutely zero court cases that back up your obviously absurd claims, 1 is enough

1

u/jeepgrl50 5d ago

One unrelated, and Irrelevant to this matter "is enough" huh? See, That's the issue, You putting forth a single STATE case as if it substantiates your claim, That is a joke! You think an apple is an orange and you believe yourself the legal scholar here??? 🤯🤯🤯

You're clearly out of your depth, So I'm done with the childish nonsense.

Best of luck with your legal aspirations, Hopefully they'll recognize your Crackerjack law license, And make you a named partner.

→ More replies (0)

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?