Or violating constitutional protections (due process rights leap to mind).
Maybe the judge who ordered the government to turn the plane around with someone they were deporting could issue contempt of court violations to the people who ignored that ruling.
Just a few ideas.
The question is, will the police follow the governor’s order to arrest such people? I am not sure they would.
Six people have been arrested around Oxnard, California over the past week, including a May 4 incident in which ICE detained a father at a gas station and left his two children in the car.
Can the ICE agents be charged with endangering a child?
Can they even be identified?
The older child was 19, so probably not. (But unable to drive, so they were both stranded.)
Actually, I meant the ICE agents.
I know. But i don’t think you can charge someone for endangering a child who is 19, nor for leaving a minor child alone with his 19 year old brother. So it’s moot.
I read that SCOTUS begins hearing arguments tomorrow, on Trumps Executive Order banning birthright citizenship.
I will be flabbergasted if Trump’s idea is upheld.
My expectation once the case is decided that birthright citizenship will be upheld by a vote of 7-2. At best. It could be narrower but I don’t see it being struck down.
If it isn’t upheld 9-0 then stare decisis, which is on life support after the overturning of Roe, is officially dead.
I predict it will be 6-3 to strike down the nationwide injunction. The suicadily strict textualists will vote to make everyone affected by this fight it out through every level of the courts to claim citizenship.
I’m pretty pessimistic that we’ll still have birthright citizenship. I guess 4-5.
I’m guessing (hoping?) 9-0
Google translate (detect language, Greek) “You are my mother, you are my pain”.
Selecting Afrikaans (sp) gives the correct translation.
Alito and Thomas have already declared stare decisis dead to them in the Dobbs decision. I’m not clear why they would change their minds in this case. They have made it clear they are Trump toadies.
Hannah Dugan has been indicted by a grand jury. Not really surprising. What is surprising is how it took two years (more?) to indict Trump and she is indicted in two weeks? Funny how that works.
A federal grand jury indicted Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan on Tuesday after she was accused of trying to help an undocumented immigrant evade arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Dugan is charged with concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings. She could face up to six years in prison and a maximum fine of $350,000 if convicted.
Protects but does not bind some, binds but does not protect the rest.
I’m so far from being a lawyer that I had to Google stare decisis (apparently it means precedent) but I don’t really see its relevance to the birthright citizenship issue, given that’s based on the Constitution.
It’s based on the Constitution, yes, but there’s an argument about the exact meaning of the clause.
It’s the opening line of s 1 of the 14th Amendment that is in issue:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It’s that phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that Trump and Co are trying to use. The traditional understanding of the phrase is that it excludes foreign diplomatic staff, friendly visiting military delegations, etc., which is a pretty small carve-out. Everyone else who is born in the US is a citizen. That was the meaning that the SCOTUS gave to it in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark, way back in 1898.
Trump and Co are likely going to argue that it only applies to people whose parents are in the US lawfully, and have a lawful right of residence. That would exclude children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US.
They may go so far as to say that it doesn’t apply to people whose parents are in the US lawfully, but on temporary visas. There were some who tried to argue that Harris wasn’t a citizen, because her parents were here on student visas when she was born.
No surprise that the Wong Kim Ark case involved someone who didn’t have the right skin colour. Mr Wong’s parents were in the US legally, but not themselves citizens, at the time of his birth. SCOTUS held that he was a citizen.
Trump and Co. will argue that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Of course, to overturn that case (which is where stare decisis comes in), they will have to argue that someone who can be detained by the US government for illegal presence in the US and forcibly deported from the US by the US government, acting under US law, is somehow not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore their child is not a citizen.
And for the broader argument, they will have to argue that someone who is lawfully in the United States by virtue of a visa granted by the United States is somehow not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
They’re not trying to end birthright citizenship entirely, it sounds like, but just trying to ensure that only the right kind of babies get it.
As I understand from the news reports, it’s unlikely that the birthright issue will get adjudicated in this particular case, as it seems to be focused on the power of a District Court judge to issue a “universal injunction” - an order that doesn’t just apply in that District, but nationwide.