this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
564 points (100.0% liked)

News

36063 readers
3585 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A third federal judge, Joseph N. Laplante, blocked Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

His ruling follows similar decisions from judges in Seattle and Maryland.

The lawsuits, led by the ACLU, argue Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil.

The Trump administration contends such children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Legal battles continue, with appeals underway and further rulings expected in other courts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If these people are not under the jurisdiction of the US then we have no legal right to deport them as they aren’t subject to our laws.

No.

Outlaws, people literally outside the law, have no legal protections at all. Taken to its limit this means that deportation is not necessary as they could simply be executed where they are found.

This is why being declared an outlaw was such a big fucking deal back when that word wasn't just a synonym for "criminal". You could be executed in broad daylight by the first person that found you and there would be no repercussions.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. "Outlawry" was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US. If these people aren't under US jurisdiction, there is no legal process to submit to because they aren't subject to US law to begin with.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Outlawry” was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US.

The concept of an "outlaw" goes at least as far back as ancient Rome and was used in England until something like 1869. It held on in Scotland as part of Civil Law until somewhere in the 1940s. It was also present in France, Germany, and several Nordic countries.

This isn't just a US thing.

there is no legal process to submit to because they aren’t subject to US law to begin with.

Yes...because they are "Outside the Law". An Outlaw is neither subject to nor protected by the law.

It's that last part that so many people in here are missing. If the Elongated Muskrat were declared an "outlaw" you could kick in his front door, drag him out of bed, load him onto a catapult and fire him into the sun and the legal apparatus would not, nay could not, do anything about it.

People need to understand how deeply that "no legal process to submit to" goes. The "outlaw" isn't subject to the law but neither is anyone else as it relates to them.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The concept as applied in Rome and modern Europe doesn't really matter in this context because we're talking about US law. It was used here 150 years ago against bandits in the west but still doesn't apply to this situation at least according to the definition written by Cornell Law:

Historically, the term “outlaw” was used to refer to a person who was outside of the protection of the law. An accused criminal who refused to submit to legal process was declared to be an outlaw through a process called “outlawry.”

The catch here is "accused criminal" and "refused to submit to legal process." Both these term first require that you're subject to the laws in question, which an "old west bandit" would have been. If you remove legal jurisdiction over these people, you can't then say they're breaking your laws and refusing to submit to the legal process because you've already defined them as being outside of the bounds of your laws and legal process by stating that they're not under your jurisdiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/outlaw