Habeas corpus was a universal right under English common law (and statute). Anybody who was detained (including in preparation to deport them) could demand a hearing to determine whether that detention was lawful. Even if the sovereign had total discretion to deport aliens, there was still a requirement to show that the person was in fact an alien. And one of the 17th century habeas acts (1679?) had severe penalties for hustling somebody out of the country as a way of avoiding the hearing.
Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done.
But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before.
Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin).
What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the due process question is. Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama).
Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".
I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
> And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read
You seem to be radically misreading a condition on conditions at birth that applies to birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as a modifier on conditions at the time of government action against them that applies to the due process clause of the same amendment, but also, the 14th Amendment has no bearing on whether people have due process rights against the federal government, in the first place, as the due process clause of the 14th applies to the states.
Due process against the federal government is provided by the 5th Amendment, so even if the misreading of the 14th was right and applicable to due process rights, it would limit only the due process applicable to certain people for actions by state governments.
> Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".
Well, yeah, but most of that legal precedent was negative for unchecked executive power (and even restrictive of legislative abuses), see Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsefeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, most notably.
The question is whether an illegal immigrant has access to due process. The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to.
The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it. Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.
> The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to.
It makes references to who birthright citizenship applies to (the part that your "jurisdiction" bit comes from): "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 separately details due process rights against the states, and who they are applicable to, which is all persons: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Due process against the federal government comes from the 5th Amendment, which was around long before the 14th, but also applies to all persons. "No person [...] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
> The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with that, when the party acting is the federal government. (OTOH, where it does apply, it says exactly the same thing as the provision that does apply to the federal government, that due process applies to every person.)
> Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.
I'm pretty sure that you are the one missing the point -- both mine and the Constitution's.
> Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read,
I missed that bit about the 14th amendment.
This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment argument is about who gets ius soli citizenship (what they call "birthright citizenship"), not about the treatment of anybody who's agreed not to be a citizen. The administration has made claims about jurisdiction limiting what they have to do for non-citizens, but not on that basis.
So far I don't think they've actually tried to deport anybody born on US soil. If they do, then the 14th Amendment comes into play.
The existing cases are about the 5th amendment, Article 1 habeas corpus, common law, immigration statutes, etc, not the 14th.
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The question is whether an illegal immigrant even has access to due process, according to a strict legal reading of the law. This was one of the arguments being thrown around - whether or not "any person" in the above applies to illegal immigrants or just US-born noncitizens (native american indians? I forget).
I think you completely missed the point of my reference to the 14th.
Edit: btw the "within its jurisdiction" phrase above is probably why the supreme court is treading so carefully around the el salvador part of this - they can't give the administration any grounds to point out that el salvador is outside US jurisdiction. That's why all they could say was 'facilitate', and why they had to slap the lower judge's wrist.
That's about extending due process requirements to the states. That's why it says "any State". It has no effect at all on anything Federal. Federal due process comes from elsewhere. And all of this is 100 percent Federal.
All of the brouhaha around the word "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment is about citizenship. Nobody other than you has "thrown around" anything like what you're suggesting.
> Edit: btw the "within its jurisdiction" phrase above is probably why the supreme court is treading so carefully around the el salvador part of this - they can't give the administration any grounds to point out that el salvador is outside US jurisdiction.
The administration has been pointing that out. Loudly and repeatedly. It has some real effects on habeas, as well as on what actions are available to the US Government generally. They're also trying to falsely claim a bunch of effects it doesn't have. But nobody has mentioned or thought about the 14th Amendment, because it's not relevant. At all.
The Government may not rely on its own failure to circumvent its own ruling that Abrego Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador. More importantly, the Government cannot be permitted to ignore the Fifth Amendment, deny due process of law, and remove anyone it wants, simply because it claims the victims of its lawlessness are members of a gang. Nor can the Government be permitted to disclaim any ability to return those it has wrongfully removed by citing their physical presence in a foreign jurisdiction.
>That's why all they could say was 'facilitate', and why they had to slap the lower judge's wrist.
That's an incomprehensible interpretation of what the Supreme Court actually wrote:
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.
> Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process
Even the current Trump-enabling Supreme Court just affirmed that they get due process. They restricted the judicial vehicle for that to habeas corpus, which sucks because the person being grabbed has to actively request it... but they were clear that there had to be actual, meaningful access to habeas.
At an absolute minimum, the claim that somebody's a non-citizen to begin with is something that has to be proven at a habeas hearing.
... and permanent residents, at least, are statutorily entitled to have the government show cause before removing them. It can be pretty shitty half-assed cause. And it can be shown in a shitty half-assed administrative immigration "court". But it has to be shown. And if it's not shown properly, that can be appealed to a real court.
> You’re never going to find a binary function that tells you if something is legal or not, in the end it’s up to a human judge to decide.
... but the whole point of cryptocurrency, or at least of smart contracts and "DeFi", is to reject that and try to build a parallel system. That's presumably based on a belief that you can write code that behaves the way you intend, regardless of whether you really can do that or not.
So perhaps the judge should decide "Well, you signed up for that when you tried to opt out of having human judgement govern your deals. Have a nice day.".
And in fact perhaps there should be formal statutory law that makes it clear that's what the judge is supposed to decide in any case that isn't itself "borderline" somehow. Which the case at hand shouldn't be.
That's neat, but the bitcoin whitepaper opens with:
> Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?
If I put up a sign „trespassers will be enslaved“ on my property and then force people who trespass to work for me, would that be fine because they knew what they were getting into? You can’t just create your own justice system which contradicts the real one by making contracts.
The intent of the whole underlying system is that the intent of all the parties be described by code of the smart contracts. Which are intended to be composable, intended to be used in unanticipated ways, and intended to operate independent of any human oversight. The system is also intended to avoid all ambiguity by enforcing the contracts exactly as described by the code... and to provide certainty of transactions and prevent them from being undone after the fact.
Everybody involved knows all of that, and claims it as a positive feature of the system. At least until they find out that it's actually hard to write bug-free code.
There may indeed not be a legal "meeting of minds" (although there very well also may)... but from an ethical point of view, everybody involved knowingly signed up for exactly that kind of risk. And honestly it would be good public policy if the law held them to it. Otherwise you get people trying to opt out of the regular legal system up until it's inconvenient.
There'd be more of a case if he'd exploited the underlying EVM implementation. But he didn't. He just relied on the "letter" of a contract, in an environment that everybody had sought out because of unambiguous to-the-letter enforcement.
Exactly this. If what is written on the blockchain is not the law in the context of anything involving blockchains and DeFi, then the whole idea of blockchains and decentralized finance is pointless.
You’re assigning a set of beliefs to an entity that doesn’t hold them. The authors of the code are pursuing the matter in court i.e. they see smart contracts as an efficient decentralised solution to a complex problem within the existing legal framework.
I assume OP means it in the sense that the system intends novel uses that the designers didn't necessarily consider. Same with programming languages (or language in general), for example.
They seem to be the ones who pride themselves on being independent, real adults, salt of the earth and look down on supposedly overly dependent young people.
Your parents have had one shot at deciding how to save for retirement, at one time. They've had an extremely limited number of shots at choosing health plans. Maybe they have a couple of friends with weird, memorable stories about those things... probably memorable because they're outliers.
Their experience is approximately useless.
... whereas there's a huge amount of well-supported expert advice out there. You don't even need to take a course. Search the damned Internet.
... and don't give me any "cocky youth" bullshit. I'm old enough to be the parent of a large fraction of people on Hacker News.
The usual reflexive secrecy. Nobody gives out any information about what's in any product if they can avoid it. This has really bad economic and environmental effects.
I don't know that this particular retardant is a big deal, but the rule really ought to be that the maker of every product must disclose to the public (not just actual buyers) (a) what they put into it, (b) where they got it, (c) how they assured that it was what they thought it was, (e) how they processed it, (e) exactly what analyses or characterizations they've ever done on the product or anything that went into it, and (f) the complete results of those.
Trade secrets not only shouldn't get any legal protection, but in many cases they should be illegal.
I really hate that companies are allowed to use "natural flavors" and I refuse to buy any products that say that unless they are able to specifically tell me what's not in it.
Lots of people don't realize that "natural" can mean pretty much anything that's not produced in a lab.
There is a trend though where some companies include in the nutrition facts the sources of their ingredients. That's how it should be.
In the US you can write "modified food starch" and that can mean a million different things. In Europe they have specific numbers for different types of "modified food starch."
The characteristic flavor of cinnamon is almost entirely due cinnamic aldehyde.
There's a lot of it in various species of Cinnamomum. My guess is that they are using a mix of true cinnamon and its close relatives.
It occurs rarely and in small amounts in other plants, so small that I don't think it would be economical.
The only other shortcut to "natural" flavor that I can think of would be GMO bacteria or something.
It's very likely that the natural flavors include other things unrelated to cinnamon, like vanillin or eugenol (cloves, carnation). Flavoring is an art closely related to perfumery, by the way.
reply