Federal Judge Rules For The Government: Turkmen v. Ashcroft

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Annie, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'm sure this is going to go to SCOTUS eventually, but it may well help in the illegal immigration mess. There are links:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/n...d21e78d2b66ae9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Good. Non-citizens do not enjoy the rights afforded under the Constitution.
     
  3. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    Damned activist judges! ;)

    All kidding aside, of course the law is that we can hold illegal nationals. What bothers me is this: "In the judge's view, the government has the right to detain people indefinitely as long as their eventual removal is "reasonably foreseeable.""

    What's "reasonably foreseeable" supposed to mean? We can foresee that the sun is going to collapse into itself someday... is that a reasonable amount of time? If another country held Americans indefinitely for years on end with no charges, you can be assured that Americans would be pissed off, might even vote against any President who allowed it (See the Presidential election of 1980 to see what happens to a President who doesn't fight hard enough to get back Americans held for only 444 days for reference).

    Biggest problem with holding illegal nationals indefinitely is that it encourages other countries to do the same to our citizens and leaves us with little legs to stand on to argue against it.
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    The illegals that we are holding "indefinitely" should be held until we can get them back to their home countries. Any country who complains about us imprisoning their citizens, who won't take those citizens back, has no argument.
     
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    This decision is very problomatic. Many non-citizens are here legally. Many eventually become citizens. This judge simply ignored this fact. This decision will likely be reversed on appeal, but with this SCOTUS, you never know what they'll do.

    acludem
     
  6. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    A mere technicality that can easily be reworked with a slightly reworded opinion. I have a feeling that our ability to hold people indefinitely prior to deportation or incarceration in Gitmo as prisoners of war will remain intact.
     
  7. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    I was under the impression that rights were granted by our creator, and not the constitution.
     
  8. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Those would be life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We haven't taken their lives, and their liberty and pursuit of happiness are being denied by their home countries. There is no inalienable right to U.S. residency or citizenship, so we can't let them loose on the streets to steal the American dream. However, if their home country doesn't want them or has a complicated procedure in place for taking them back, we can't send them there either. We really need to keep track of them, and if they're being detained, chances are that they have committed some crime. That being the case, we lock them up until we can find somewhere else to send them.
     
  9. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    I agree that here is no inalienable right to U.S. residency or citizenship for foriegners--but of course, that strawman is not at issue.

    What about the right to due process? What about the right to protection from unreasonable seizure? What about the right to to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation? What of the right ot legal counsel? What about the right to a speedy and public trial by jury? What of the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment? If these are rights not conferred by, but rather protected by the constitution--aren't all people who fall under U.S. jurisdiction, for whatever reason, entitled to the protection of those rights from the government formed expressly for that purpose?
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The first list described by Locke as 'inalienable rights,' Jefferson changed property to 'happiness' and added that to the Declaration, both argued the rights as being from a Creator. Your second group of 'rights' are man-made, most from English law tradition. Those were rights granted certain citizens and expanded. There is no 'inherent right to those', they are a prerequisite of living in a certain country, at a certain point in time.
     

Share This Page