JD Vance shares vid claiming migrants ate cats, but appears to show grilling poultry
JD Vance shares vid claiming migrants ate cats, but appears to show grilling poultry
The “gotcha” footage posted online by Vance may not be the slam dunk he apparently hoped it would be
You're viewing a single thread.
These people may not have the legal right to defend themselves, verbally or physically. It is entirely possible that the current SCOTUS would deny them the right to free speech; the right to bear arms; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; the right not to incriminate themselves; the rights to speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel; or the protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishment.
This is how the threatened "mass deportations" are going to happen, and it will be completely legal. Hell, deportations? They could be executed without trial, and that would still be legal.
I can speak to the 2A. My wife is a legal immigrant, not a citizen, so I checked around a good deal before getting her a pistol for Christmas.
She is 100% in the clear to own, carry and defend herself. (This is Florida, YMMV on carry laws.)
Are you confident that the 11th Circuit or SCOTUS will keep that in place? Are you confident that some fascists won't arrest and deport her on the basis that she doesn't have 2A rights, just in order to get it to SCOTUS?
Good for her and good on you for checking.
Just pointing out that one can have statutory rights - provided by law - that aren't outright in the Constitution. You are correct to add the "YMMV" caution - as in theory, it might be Florida's laws rather than the 2A which give your wife the right to carry. Florida's laws attempt to implement the 2A but in practice they might have opened the requirements wider than absolutely mandated by the 2A.
It is not a settled matter of law that the protections and rights provided by the Constitution to "the People" extend to non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are legal immgrants with long-standing ties to their community in the United States.
This is wrong. From the article you linked to,
Courts have held “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments to include noncitizens, even including illegal aliens inside the country
And note that this part of the article cites earlier US Supreme Court decisions, e.g.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) (holding that aliens receive constitutional protections when they enter the country and have “developed substantial connections”)
What the article makes clear is that gun ownership by noncitizens hasn't been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. Some district courts have ruled on legal permanent residents having this right (1)
Others have said that for temporary visa holders, they don't have the same right (2)
Of course, this is not to say that the SC cannot upend existing settled law. By reversing Roe vs Wade, they proved that they can. But that's different from saying the law hasn't been settled yet.
(1)
The District of Massachusetts, in Fletcher v. Haas, ruled a state law unconstitutional because it categorically excluded noncitizens from firearm ownership. The court found “no justification for refusing to extend the Second Amendment to lawful permanent residents” because they have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States.
(2)
In 2012, the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that a state statute barring temporary visa holders from purchasing weapons was valid. The court distinguished Fletcher on the grounds that it applied only to permanent legal residents, and an open question existed as to Second Amendment protections for temporary residents. It ruled that those protections did not extend to temporary visa holders.
Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters. Considering the current SCOTUS' "interesting" interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity, I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.
Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters.
Hence why I mentioned an SC decision, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, above. Can't get more settled than an SC decision - the only way that can be reversed is if the SC reverses itself later or if there's a constitutional amendment in response to the decision.
Considering the current SCOTUS' "interesting" interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity,
Would need to see the specific references to the rulings on this by the SC to come up with a fully informed response (and I apologize if these were actually mentioned in the article but I missed them).
If you're referring to the case that was recently decided as per https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/ then I'd argue that a) this is unrelated to the your statement below and b) is an example where the current SC has disrupted existing settled law.
I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.
And I stand by my statement that it is settled law, albeit with the significant caveat that the current SC could undo that settled law any time the right case is brought before them.