That’s the subtitle of a Wall Street Journal op-ed. The answer should be obvious, too: it would be the height of jingo-ism to assert US government jurisdiction over non-citizens outside our borders—outside, for instance, the 14th Amendment’s subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Firing into another country at a foreign national, especially one that’s a citizen of the country being fired into, could well be a violation, but that potential would be a violation of a different set of circumstances than the question before the Supremes in the present case, Hernandez v Mesa. That other set of circumstance has to do with international relations, foreign policy, the nature of casus belli, and on and on—and all purely political matters, not legal ones, and so not only a different set of circumstances, but a matter that’s outside the reach of court jurisdiction.
This is a preview of
Does a foreigner on foreign soil have Fourth Amendment rights?
. Read the full post (176 words, estimated 42 secs reading time)
There’s a new sheriff in Phoenix, the one replacing Sheriff Arpaio, who was defeated in the election last fall. The new cop has withdrawn Arpaio’s policy of holding prisoners for as long as “necessary” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to come get those flagged for deportation.
I agree. Cooperation with the Feds is a two-way street; the Feds have to work with the locals, too.
[New Sheriff Paul Penzone] won’t hold immigrants flagged for deportation by federal authorities past their release date in a major policy change.
Hundreds of people in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez gathered on the edge of the Rio Grande River on Friday to form a “human wall” to protest US President Donald Trump’s plans for a wall between the countries.
Thanks for the assist, Protestors. As we both know, the wall is necessary—metaphorically if not literally—in order to control our borders, regardless of who pays for it. Just be sure, guys, that you leave openings in it for easy, legal border crossing, just as we intend to do.
John Curtice, writing in The Guardian, in the land where John Locke was borne, seems confused on the question. His proximate piece is his missive on the nature of referenda in Great Britain. He began that piece with a false premise of very large proportion, and that—as false premises are wont to do—set the tone for the rest of his op-ed.
In the Commons debates on Brexit during the last fortnight, many MPs have found themselves voting for something they do not believe in. Instead of being their constituents’ “representative”, they now appear to be no more than the people’s “delegate”.
Some of you may have heard that Judge Robarts, of the Western District of Washington, has issued a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of Washington and Minnesota (which joined the case after its initial filing by Washington) blocking the Federal government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s Executive Order delaying entry into the US of immigrants from seven terrorist or terror-sponsoring nations in the Middle East. The EO was intended to create a pause in the flow of people from that area into the US until our vetting procedures could be examined and improved as much as might be.
The Left’s and the Democratic Party’s carefully manufactured hysteria over President Donald Trump’s Executive Order titled ROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES is at best irritating, but more likely it’s both an embarrassment and a naked continuation of their efforts to delegitimize an election they lost so…unexpectedly.
Here’s The New York Times:
[R]eflect on the cruelty of President Trump’s decision on Friday to indefinitely suspend the resettlement of Syrian refugees and temporarily ban people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States.
San Francisco has held itself out as a sanctuary city—a city that will take in and protect illegal aliens from Federal law and Federal law enforcers. Aside from the legal aspects of violating Federal law, this is in keeping with federalism and the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it does not run afoul of Article I, Section 10. Even were such a thing legal, though, it’s a foolish move, but as the motorboat skipper who currently sits in the Secretary of State’s chair has said, in the United States folks have the right to be stupid.
Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2013 told the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago at their Vanguard Luncheon that Jordan, which was (and still is) in its crisis of handling refugees from the Syrian civil war, that had no hope of effectively understanding who those refugees were and which among them actually were jihadist terrorists.
[Jordan has] hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.
President Barack Obama (D) intends to bring even more refugees into the nation, 30% more, to the tune of 110,000, of which 40,000 would be from the Middle and South Asia regions. He intends to start this in just a couple of weeks, 1 October, the start of the new fiscal year.
This time, in the Senate. The Senate tried to consider a bill that would have, among other things, denied Federal funds for sanctuary cities—cities that openly and blatantly not only accept illegal aliens but actively interfere with Federal actions taken to deal with them.
Sanctuary cities like San Francisco, where an illegal alien was protected from Federal action and who repaid the city’s forbearance by murdering a young woman. Sanctuary cities like Alexandria, VA, where illegal aliens connected to the M-13 drug cartel murdered two young men. Sanctuary cities like Los Angeles whose protected illegal alien murdered a high school boy in an LA suburb. The list goes on.