anon_
8d ago
If they can arrange, at their own expense, a first class flight to a country that will accept them, departing within the next hundred hours, I would be inclined to let them take it.
And yes, I understand this to be customary.
anon_
8d ago
You're right in your statement.
Still, the relevant metric isn't security of proper usage, it's security when used by the bottom decile of expect users.
The approved messaging service is likely much harder to fuck up.
anon_
8d ago
The whole thing is really bizarre. Like the outsider added to the chat just so happens to be a journalist? What are the odds of that?
The obvious answer is that Waltz was already leaking speaking off the record to JG using Signal prior to this incident.
anon_
8d ago
Do deportees have the right to depart to a willing country of their choosing? Should they?
A lot gets muddied in the Culture War, in recent weeks the spats over deportations have conflated a number of distinct issues of immigration law: due process, the AEA, executive discretion and so forth. And it's quite hard to get folks to separate those topics. One topic that's possibly underexplored: if the US tells you to leave, do you the right to depart to a country of your own choice that will accept you?
I had kind of always assumed yes, at least as a naive matter. Obviously deportees shouldn't be allowed to invoke the right to prevent their removal or even delay it by any appreciable amount (say, 4 days), but at the core, I don't see any sovereign right for a country to dictate where an individual goes next so long as it ain't here. If they can't or won't find such a place, then sure, then the deporting nation can decide.
Analogies and intuition aren't always the best guide when dealing a the scale of nations, but thinking about it as alike to trespass confirms this understanding. This is especially true when an individual was here lawfully and then had that status revoked or expired -- if I invite someone into my house and then rescind the invitation (as I'm absolutely entitled to do), it's required that I give them a chance to leave in an orderly fashion before forcing them out.
anon_
8d ago
"This" here refers to the status of non-citizens. It's not a criminal matter.
I think you are confusing "law" more generally with a subset of it which is "criminal law". And in this case, the law is not criminal in nature, and it vests in the Executive discretion to award and revoke different statuses within the US according to certain processes, none of which involve a criminal trial (like, with charges and a jury). Some of it involves different kinds of judicial review (a good thing).
anon_
8d ago
They would flag it, sure, but as an exporter you would do everything in your power to assuage that risk, not to throw fuel on it.
Given the astronomical fixed costs of US defense projects, without an export market they just don't pencil out appropriately.
anon_
9d ago
But this isn't talking about a criminal thing. Congress has the right to set immigration policy and has vested discretion in the Executive on who to admit and whether to revoke that admission.
It seems punitive, sure, and maybe it is in practice, but "we have a choice which foreigners we award visas" is the the same as "we punish those we don't select".
anon_
9d ago
I mean, in the US (according to our legal tradition):
-
Denaturalization of a citizen is a punishment
- This punishment is cruel and unusual and hence categorically forbidden under the 8th amendment
- Citizens, broadly, have the right to enter the country
-
Deporting a non-citizen is not a punishment
- Nevertheless, the non-citizen is due some amount of process, not a full trial or anything of the sort, but something approximating a neutral magistrate in which the government must assert under what specific congressional authority the deportation is occurring and so forth
- At the same time, the deportee can make specific claims of legality to be in the country, for example having been granted certain lawful status, against pursuant to specific congressional authority. Or maybe on the simple basis that the government has gotten the wrong individual (an order pertaining to John Smith is not applicable to Jacob Smitty).
anon_
9d ago
That would only be the second most embarrassing foreign policy blunder this week.
Third or fourth in my mind, after insinuating that purchasers of the F35 cannot trust it because the Pentagon can shut down critical systems within it.
In fact, that should probably be the #1 foreign policy blunder of the decade.
anon_
9d ago
Sure. That is the applicable standard, but it's not the right posture.
At the same time, the decision has to be made on whether she is to be allowed entry, so we don't know with confidence what she will do after being admitted. Some CBP guy has to, on the balance of available evidence, figure out if she is likely to violate the law or not.
So you're right about the line, but wrong about the tense.
anon_
10d ago
Yeah, this is about how I felt about the tattoo lady too. Charging people money to tattoo them is obviously work, it should not have been permitted.
Then again, I'm kind of a bleeding heart type and so I would probably not throw these folks in an ICE detention center if they agreed to just fly back where they came from. Certainly not for 11 days.
anon_
11d ago
The backstory here is that Skadden/Weiss and others already their competitor biglaw firms whispering to their clients (and trying to recruit their partners) on the grounds that no one wants a law firm in the White House's crosshairs.
They had no choice but to folds, because the rest of biglaw not only wouldn't back them in a fight against the admin, but would actively use it to carve up their business. No honor among thieves etc....
anon_
15d ago
The facts on the ground are very much isomorphic to the situation involving "indefinite detention" of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay pursuant to the Patriot Act and AUMF. Those sorts of detentions have been tested and mostly held up for over twenty years at this point. And that was with a somewhat less favorable Supreme Court. Thus the legality, if not the morality, has stood the test of time.
Absolutely -- but the key thing is that the GTMO fellas do get to petition for habeas in a federal court and get a hearing. It's not a full-on trial, but they do get some kind of judgment from a neutral magistrate. That's more than the alleged TDA guys got.
anon_
15d ago
It's not just the number of people on the board. Zeke is right that caselaw today also implicates the kind of power the agency has.
anon_
15d ago
We’d need some sort of mandatory national ID which would be opposed even by a significant contingent of Trump voters.
Man, I remember when "national secure ID" was a D policy and opposing it as anti-Christian was an R one.
Not that you're at all wrong, but I guess you live long enough and you see politics go through some wild arcs.
anon_
15d ago
You really don't want to burn the relationship you have with the commercial airlines, one that would be useful in a real emergency, by trying to browbeat them into supporting this. The optics are terrible.
anon_
16d ago
Eh; they were already unpopular. And it would be individual defendants invoking them not big name dems.
anon_
16d ago
But the principle is that the US is not responsible for the treatment of detainees by forces outside our control.
anon_
16d ago
Munaf v Geren directly forecloses those constitutional claims as it pertains to the actions of other governments even with respect to US citizens.
anon_
16d ago
Do legal immigrants (including green card holders - if there is an legal "invasion" then they are exempted from the Tren de Aragua proclamation as a matter of grace and not obligation on the part of the administration) have rights, like at all?
Also to be clear, the answer is in the affirmative. They have all the rights there in the Constitution.
But they don't have a right to stay in the US, except as delineated in 8USC (various, it's early I don't feel like collecting all the cites) explaining where the Executive (usually the AG) administers the legal immigration system.
anon_
16d ago
It is as fundamental as constitutional disputes get. Either legal immigrants enjoy the rights that the Constitution grants to "persons" (as opposed to "citizens of the United States") or they do not.
They absolutely do. Even illegal immigrants get those rights -- you can't go around subjecting them to cruel punishments!
because the President has the right to grab any non-citizen they want and ship them off to a foreign prison without meaningful judicial review.
I think there is going to be a compromise where there is some judicial review, that's what I wrote!
But those on the left have to understand that the process due here is not going to be some unlimited thing. It's going to be in line with what the courts ended up with after the Supreme Court laid out Boumediene, Padilla and Rasul and so forth.
Can the administration circumvent court processes (including habeas corpus) by flying detainees out of the country to a foreign prison before the judge has time to finalise an order?
Ultimately I think this is going to go in your favor. Detainees are going to have a probable cause hearing in which they can assert citizenship or other lawful status.
What is the procedure for judicial review of an executive policy which may be facially illegal and cannot or should not be litigated piecemeal by individual litigants with standing?
That's a normative judgment for which there is voluminous discussion. I don't necessarily disagree, but it's hardly an obvious claim.
I guess I would probably prioritize it with (3) first, if the person and the receiving country both consent.
I do think you’re imagining somebody apprehended proximate to the active crossing the border, not the removal of someone that’s been here for a while.
More options
Context Copy link