I think the words you are looking for are “used to stand for” 
Thanks for the clear cites/explanations, Northern Piper and Little Nemo. It seems to me that even on a strict constructionist reading, person is different than citizen. My only remaining question in this regard is:
Is there case law that supports the assertion that it “has always been interpreted as such”?
So, if I were to make the (pseudo) legal argument, a transitory passenger can be held to the same standards as an immigrant; they are subject to, say, deportation or arrest in accordance with U.S. law. Is that right? (Note that I’m not saying “rendition” – gah, I hate political euphemisms – is legal or proper under U.S. law.)
Not quite the point I was making. Passengers transitting London never legally enter the UK, they merely (like with a ship, dock and leave again; they never receive the protection of the courts. This is the same before someone passes immigration in the States, but because the US insists that people must pass immigration, one has landed and receives the protection of the courts in the US once past immigration.
This was to point out a difference between systems brought up by Digital Stimulus.
If you pass thru London, you cannot leave the Transit Lounge; if you pass thru, say Minn St Paul you can visit Mall of the Americas before getting on to your next plane. To transit thru the States you need a full visa or be on a visa waiver; to pass thru London you need no visa at all.
Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!
Sorry, I just found the innocence of this statement shocking. Right or wrong, various bits, central or otherwise, of the constitution have always been ignored at all levels of government.
I’m not sure I understand this. Saying that “one can pass through Minn/St. Paul and visit the Mall of the Americas” seems contradictory to the statement “to transit through the States you need a full visa or be on a visa waiver”. Are you saying that every person passing through the U.S. has either a full visa or a waiver? Perhaps the visa waiver is implicit during a layover? Or do foreign nationals have to actually apply for a waiver whenever they travel (with a layover in the States), such that upon arrival they actually enter the U.S.?
If it is the case that someone can simply leave the airport, that implies (to me) that they are on U.S. soil. I’m not sure how that squares with Little Nemo’s statement that “This new finding says that somebody in an American airport in transit to from one foreign country to another, is not legally considered to be in the United States.” So, either a person is on U.S. soil and subject to U.S. laws or a person is not on U.S. soil and is outside U.S. jurisdiction. The former would preclude violations of due process, while the latter would preclude legal action in the first place.
Nope…I’m not seeing any way the position is tenable.
Not even remotely the same extent. The basis are here, though, but anyway, if you’re infringing on people’s rights, you’ll of course find parallels in third world countries or dictatorships. There’s only one way to detain someone without charges or trial, for instance. That would be detaining him without charges or trial.
Actually, i believe the case of this guy was a bit more complicated and at this time, it wasn’t possible to detain people in the airport. The problem IIRC was that he wasn’t allowed in and had no other place to go.
But indeed, more recently, laws have been passed in France allowing to keep in “administrative detention” on the airport ground people who still haven’t passed through immigration (in the airport “international area”). This wasn’t implemented originally to fight terrorim, by the way, but illegal immigration. These people indeed don’t benefit from the rights other people (french citizens or not) would have.
They can always fly bak to the place whence they came, of course, bur for instance, if they ask political asylium, they don’t get to apply in the usual way, and their request can be summarily dismissed without a decision by the courts (there are some ways around, but the authorities have severely limited the access of associations or lawyers, and since most of these people are completely ignorant of french laws…)
However, they can’t be hauled out of the airport, and subsequently arbitrarily detained, or such things…They also can’t be detained indefinitely. I believe they can be kept for 2 day, after that a judge has to allow this detention for one or two weeks more (I don’t remember). Meanwhile, the authorities are supposed to find out where to send back the detained and to do so.
You are correct and this is an important distinction. At the moment, only the current administration is displaying a contempt for the Constitution. The system as a whole won’t be corrupted unless it supports this action.
Cite? Please limit it the actual Constitution and not the way you think the Constitution should be. And bear in mind, the fact that individuals have broken the law, and in some cases gotten away with it, doesn’t prove that the law doesn’t exist.
You cannot transit thru the US without having a visa of some sort or a waiver. There is no way of transferring between terminals without being fully landed in the US.
This case probably is an attempt to try to extend the equivocality of an unlanded passenger to the case of someone who has passed thru immigration in transit.
And yes, last year I did exactly that in MinnStPaul on the way to Canada. My passport shows ‘admitted to the US for 3 months’ stamps in late May and early June as I passed thru MinnStPaul. Seven hours to waste between flights. Damn NW airlines!
My recollection is that it is not. Gonzalez wrote the memo as the legal advisor to the President; it was not a formal Justice Department position paper. The CBC article is quite deliberately misleading here.
The U.S. government has shown time and again that it has no respect for other countries or for international law. I lack the knowledge to cite any of the international laws the U.S. is happy to prosecute others with while specifically excluding itself from, but the latest Canada/US free-trade ruling I can certainly find.
A country that will not abide by laws and rulings if they’re not in it’s best interest certainly seems like a place to avoid.
For example, the interstate commerce clause has been used to give the Feds ridiculous levels of control over things which have no actual relevancy to interstate commerce. The department of aducation, privately-grown marijuana, etc.
Actually proving my point, of couse, would require vast research covering every decade of American history.
Yes. It doesn’t mean they respect it, either.
So lemme get this straight.
When I flew from Toronto to Sao Paolo, I changed planes in Miami, and I had to go through US customs/immigration there. (At least I think that’s what it was: I had to retrive and re-check my baggage, answer questions, show my passport, etc.)
Now, if I make the same trip again, and it is now the case that passing through Miami Airport means I’m never actually on US soil (which means they can detain and torture me if they want because I don’t count as a “person” under their jurisdiction), does this mean I don’t have to go through US customs there?
Thanks for the clarification.