FAA grounds Fox News drones near where thousands of illegals gather

[Gondwanaland]

They don't have constitutional rights since they are not citizens and are here illegally.

Not entirely true.

https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/bl...tional-rights/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...mmigrants-have

[Sparko]

Not entirely true.

https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/bl...tional-rights/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...mmigrants-have

Well they certainly don't have the right to be in our country so deporting them to Mexico to await their interview for asylum can't be illegal.

[Cow Poke]

And I was sure I heard Fox News saying their drones are back in the air -- it hasn't been 2 weeks! I wonder if somebody blasted the FAA for such an arbitrary ruling.

[Sparko]

And I was sure I heard Fox News saying their drones are back in the air -- it hasn't been 2 weeks! I wonder if somebody blasted the FAA for such an arbitrary ruling.

yeah that's what happened. They are allowed to fly drones again.

I am surprised that Biden is shipping back all those Haitians. Reading about them and what is going on in their country, I would say they have more of a right to asylum than the central american caravan people. Murdering of their President, gang wars, earthquake, starvation, killings.

[Cow Poke]

yeah that's what happened. They are allowed to fly drones again.

I am surprised that Biden is shipping back all those Haitians. Reading about them and what is going on in their country, I would say they have more of a right to asylum than the central american caravan people. Murdering of their President, gang wars, earthquake, starvation, killings.

Peter Doocey asked Jen Psaki about that, and boy did she hem haw stutter.... I think Biden is contagious!!!

Actually he was pressing her about vaccinations - and are they asking for vaccination cards or proof when people walk into our country, and he even asked where Kamala was on this, since Biden assigned this to her.

[rogue06]

Peter Doocey asked Jen Psaki about that, and boy did she hem haw stutter.... I think Biden is contagious!!!

Actually he was pressing her about vaccinations - and are they asking for vaccination cards or proof when people walk into our country, and he even asked where Kamala was on this, since Biden assigned this to her.

Even one of the MSNBC anchors was wondering out loud where in the world Kamala is. Stephanie Ruhle asked earlier today, "How about the message from our Vice President? Where is she? She was supposed to be in charge of all of these migration issues, going to those Northern Triangle countries that's obviously not Haiti."

Looks like the answer at least for Saturday was up in Washington watching her alma mater, Howard University, play football, at a game she got to flip the coin before kick off.

I'm guessing that she overruled her advisors who cautioned against such a tone deaf move. If that isn't the case, then she needs to fire a bunch of worthless yes-men.

[Cow Poke]

Even one of the MSNBC anchors was wondering out loud where in the world Kamala is. Stephanie Ruhle asked earlier today, "How about the message from our Vice President? Where is she? She was supposed to be in charge of all of these migration issues, going to those Northern Triangle countries that's obviously not Haiti."

Looks like the answer at least for Saturday was up in Washington watching her alma mater, Howard University, play football, at a game she got to flip the coin before kick off.

I'm guessing that she overruled her advisors who cautioned against such a tone deaf move. If that isn't the case, then she needs to fire a bunch of worthless yes-men.

She's doing great - let her alone!

[rogue06]

Even one of the MSNBC anchors was wondering out loud where in the world Kamala is. Stephanie Ruhle asked earlier today, "How about the message from our Vice President? Where is she? She was supposed to be in charge of all of these migration issues, going to those Northern Triangle countries that's obviously not Haiti."

Looks like the answer at least for Saturday was up in Washington watching her alma mater, Howard University, play football, at a game she got to flip the coin before kick off.

I'm guessing that she overruled her advisors who cautioned against such a tone deaf move. If that isn't the case, then she needs to fire a bunch of worthless yes-men.

01FG1BD9KS336VVK30DTX8V0FG.jpeg

[rogue06]

She's doing great - let her alone!

She keeps providing the primary reason invoking the 25A on old Joe might not be the best option

[NorrinRadd]

Random observation: If the counts are roughly accurate, there are currently at least 1.5 times as many invaders under that bridge as there are total humans in my whole town.

[Terraceth]

They don't have constitutional rights since they are not citizens and are here illegally.

Non-citizens, even those here illegally, absolutely do have constitutional rights. They don't have as many as citizens, of course, but most of the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone in the country. It's why you don't see the word "citizen" anywhere in the Bill of Rights, for example, because they were to apply to non-citizens as well.

It looks like it wasn't just a matter of constitutional law here, though; the claim was that they were applying federal law in an unconstitutional manner. I don't know how good the argument was--the article doesn't link to the opinion, though it's 45 pages long which is a bit much to look at anyway--but to claim that non-citizens, even those here illegally, don't have constitutional rights is simply inaccurate.

[Sparko]

Non-citizens, even those here illegally, absolutely do have constitutional rights. They don't have as many as citizens, of course, but most of the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone in the country. It's why you don't see the word "citizen" anywhere in the Bill of Rights, for example, because they were to apply to non-citizens as well.

It looks like it wasn't just a matter of constitutional law here, though; the claim was that they were applying federal law in an unconstitutional manner. I don't know how good the argument was--the article doesn't link to the opinion, though it's 45 pages long which is a bit much to look at anyway--but to claim that non-citizens, even those here illegally, don't have constitutional rights is simply inaccurate.

The constitution was written for and by the citizens of the USA. "We the People of the United States" By that context, everything in it concerns and is about the citizens of the USA and our government.

If we aren't allowed to send the migrants back to Mexico to await their asylum interview, then how are we allowed to load the Haitians on to planes and fly them back to Haiti? Hmm?

The Judge overstepped their authority with that ruling. There is nothing illegal about making an illegal immigrant leave the country.

[Cow Poke]

Random observation: If the counts are roughly accurate, there are currently at least 1.5 times as many invaders under that bridge as there are total humans in my whole town.

That's exactly the point some of these South Texas border towns are making --- their own populations are less than the crowd gathering under and along the bridge.

[Cow Poke]

Bidenville

USA-IMMIGRATION_BORDER-2.jpg

[Terraceth]

The constitution was written for and by the citizens of the USA. "We the People of the United States" By that context, everything in it concerns and is about the citizens of the USA and our government.

No. The Constitution is very clear about the specific places where it only concerns citizens, because it uses the terms "citizens" in those cases. The First Amendment, for example, says Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". It does not say "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press of citizens". Similarly, the Fifth Amendment says "Nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Note that it says person, not citizen. When something was to refer only to citizens, they used "citizens." When something applied to everyone, they used either people/person or gave no limitation on who it applies to.

In regards to your claim that "We the People of the United States" somehow makes it only about citizens, there are a number of problems with that, but the most obvious one is that it says "we the people" rather than "we the citizens."

By your interpretation, slavery of non-citizens would be constitutional, as the Thirteenth Amendment doesn't apply to them. In fact, by your interpretation, the Thirteenth Amendment did essentially nothing at all, because the slaves weren't citizens and thus the Thirteenth Amendment didn't apply to them.

But let's set aside the text; what does case law say about it? It was not hard at all to find case law, even older ones, to the contrary, such as the Supreme Court saying point-blank in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) that:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

But perhaps you want a more recent case. Okay then, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001). In this case, someone was to be deported, but the US couldn't actually find a country to release them into, and they sued, saying that their rights were being violated because, with nowhere to release them to, they were being indefinitely detained. Now, there was disagreement on whether it was a violation of that (it was a 5-4 decision), but the key thing here is that no one put forward the claim that as a non-citizen, Zadvydas somehow lacked constitutional rights. The majority opinion says:
"But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

The second dissent says bluntly:
"As persons within our jurisdiction, the aliens are entitled to the protection of the Due Process Clause. Liberty under the Due Process Clause includes protection against unlawful or arbitrary personal restraint or detention."

The first dissent does not make such a clear statement, unfortunately but nevertheless clearly accepts that non-citizens are entitled to constitutional rights because if it didn't, all it would have to do is say "they aren't entitled to the constitutional rights to begin with, case closed" and move on.

But perhaps someone would say that maybe the Supreme Court just got it wrong this whole time and missed the original purpose and meaning of the Constitution. In that case, let's close this out with a quote from James Madison:

"If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens."