"Federal law enables migrants to apply for asylum in the United States."

First of all, they can ONLY apply at an official U.S. port of entry. An illegal can't swim across the river and claim asylum.

Second, and more importantly, only Mexican citizens can claim asylum at our southern border. According to the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, refugees can only seek asylum in the first country they reach.

Mexico has granted asylum to the refugees in the caravan from countries south of them. The U.S. has no legal obligation to hear the claim of any non-Mexican citizen.

A recent PBS report cited former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled in 1993 case that "it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in a deportation proceeding."

What bullshit. The source is PBS and Fox failed to fact check.

The unidentified case is Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511 (1993). The opinion of the Court is by STEVENS, not SCALIA. As such, Scalia did not "rule" anything, and did not establish anything as law or precedent. The Scalia quote is accurate, but it is from his opinion concurring in the judgment, at 507 U.S. 519. It is Scalia's comment, and not a ruling of the Court.

A dozen migrants traveling by foot from Honduras to the U.S. to seek asylum filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others, claiming a violation of their due process under the Fifth Amendment.

This will be dismissed for lack of standing.

They are aliens, not in the United States.

But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. In the pioneer case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court said of the Fourteenth Amendment, "These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; . . . ." (Italics supplied.) 118 U.S. 356, 369. And in The Japanese Immigrant Case, the Court held its processes available to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." 189 U.S. 86, 101.

Those stopped at a checkpoint and detained, are not considered to have entered the United States. Until they enter, they lack standing to sue in Federal court.

Once in the United States, they would need to show a particularized injury.

COMPLAINT at page 7:

JURISDICTION

6. This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, inter alia. The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. Personal Jurisdiction is proper because Defendants transact business in this District and thus are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.

It seems to be missing how the Plaintiffs, aliens outside the United States with no current address, have standing to bring an action in Federal court.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pineda v Trump, DCDC, 1-18-cv-02534 (1 Nov 2018)

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2018cv02534/201373

DOCKET REPORT

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/392223376/Pineda-v-Trump-DCDC-1-18-Cv-02534-1-Nov-2018-Doc-1-COMPLAINT

This will be dismissed for lack of standing.

They are aliens, not in the United States.

This is exactly why we need a USSC ruling that dictates the only humans on this rock, that are afforded “constitutional rights”, ARE LEGAL AMERICANS. PERIOD.

Everyone else should be guaranteed BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS only.

This is exactly why we need a USSC ruling that dictates the only humans on this rock, that are afforded “constitutional rights”, ARE LEGAL AMERICANS. PERIOD.

Everyone else should be guaranteed BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS only.

That ain't never gonna happen, even by Amendment. Reciprocity would result in Americans overseas being stripped of legal rights.

For the USSC, it would be impossible to ignore such clear words as, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...."

"No person" defies interpretation as "No citizen."

Why have American borders or laws at all, if every human on earth treated as an American.

I honestly doubt that every founding forefather intended to give the same rights that they just died to form, to “persons” like the English... that just killed thousands of Americans, to keep us repressed.

Nobody ratified any intent. But the Framers were quite able to write what they meant, and they did know the difference between "all citizens" and "all persons," and where they wrote "all persons," that is what they meant. Regardless of what one may presume they meant, that is certainly what they wrote. The words control, not alleged intent.

Why have American borders or laws at all, if every human on earth treated as an American.

This is an argument from a false premise. Not every human is treated like an American. Not every human is born in the United States.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the question squarely presented to the Court, by the brief of the U.S. Government, was:

Brief on Behalf of the Appellant (U.S. Government)

At page 1-2: [boldface addded]

The Government, while conceding the fact of birth, denied the conclusion of citizenship in that respect, contending that as the respondent was born of alien parents, to wit, subjects of the Emperor of China, he was at his birth a subject of China, claimed by that nation to be such, and therefore was not when born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning and intent of the Constitution.

At page 39: [boldface added]

To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrares its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation — a right of all aliens — yet he was not born subject to the "political jurisdiction" thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector,

Respectfully submitted.

GEORGE D. COLLINS, Of Counsel for Appellant

HOLMES CONRAD, Solicitor-General.

Remember, that was the argument of the LOSING side. That birther argument has continued LOSING for over a century. It did not work before or against Wong Kim Ark at the Supreme Court, it did not work against Obama, and it will not work now.

Nobody ratified any intent.

You are one fucking lamer if you don't realize the Revolution was NOT by intent.

Words are meaningless, actions are pact.

You are one fucking lamer if you don't realize the Revolution was NOT by intent.

You are one fucking idiot.

Go fuck yourself.

Oh sure, you have made a dent within any political parameters because you copy SCRIBD.

I don't "copy SCRIBD" idiot, I upload stuff onto SCRIBD.

Go fuck yourself.

Run along back to Belize.

But the Framers were quite able to write what they meant, and they did know the difference between "all citizens" and "all persons,"

When you craft a document FOR AMERICANS, it’s not unreasonable to think when you meant Americans, you refer to them as persons, as you craft that document, since all Americans are “persons”.

When you craft a document FOR AMERICANS, it’s not unreasonable to think when you meant Americans, you refer to them as persons, as you craft that document, since all Americans are “persons”.

Of course, you just made this amazing discovery. As a NYC cop, you had many opportunities over two or three decades to arrest aliens, and you took care to inform them of their 5th Amendment rights. You did it over, and over and over again.

Never once were you so silly as to testify in court that you do not read 5th Amendment rights to aliens because, by your interpretation of the 5th Amendment, "person" refers only to Americans.

You joking me?

They got cuffed, stuffed and turned over to the feds. If I arrested them on local or state charges, their crimes were based on DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. I didn’t give a shit, what they had to say.

and you took care to inform them of their 5th Amendment rights. You did it over, and over and over again.

You know, the more I read that bullshit, the more I think you watch too much TV. You sound like the simpletons I’ve arrested, where they are screaming (while handcuffed in the back of the patrol car)... “I’ll beat this charge in court, you didn’t read me my Rights”.

Most criminal arrest don’t need or require the assholes to incriminate themselves... most especially, non English speaking illegal wetbacks.

lol

It seems you never asked a suspect a question after taking him into custody, you read him his rights, or you violated his rights.

Whether or not Miranda could be convicted without his confession, at a second trial, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that ALL persons taken persons taken into custody, including aliens, have 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Held:

1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.

(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.

(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466.

(d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.

(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.

(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.

(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.

(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.

2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 479-491.

3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 491-499.

98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721; 15 N.Y.2d 970, 207 N.E.2d 527; 16 N.Y.2d 614, 209 N.E.2d 110; 342 F.2d 684, reversed; 62 Cal.2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, affirmed.

Whether or not Miranda could be convicted without his confession, at a second trial, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that ALL persons taken persons taken into custody, including aliens, have 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights.

Ha... you have watched too much TV.

Miranda doesn’t need to be read, unless YOU ARE IN CUSTODY, and I plan on using your answers, from my questions, against you in court.

This excludes booking questions, such as height, weight... arrest report shit.

Most arrests are based on direct knowledge... no questions needed. I read more people Miranda, as a major crimes detective. Even then, I never read rights unless the person I was questioning was in custody. IOW’s, not allowed to leave.

Now... shut the fuck up, defense council.

I thought even the dumbest cop had to be familiar with it. I am sorry if I was mistaken.

No need to take it personal. No biggie. You think our forefathers felt that anyone could sneak in our new country, push out a child... and the rest of the populace had to raise it. You know, back in 1776.

That must have been their intent after the revolutionary war. lol

Laughing at reading illegal aliens, Miranda.

You joking me?

No. My #13 made no mention of or reference to illegal aliens.

When you craft a document FOR AMERICANS, it’s not unreasonable to think when you meant Americans, you refer to them as persons, as you craft that document, since all Americans are “persons”.

Your #12 mistakenly indicate that the Constitution was written for Americas, and applied only to Americans. It was written to be the organic law of the United States and applied to all persons within the territorial jurisidiction of the United States, minus those with immunity. If aliens were not within the jurisdiction of the United States, you would not have had the authority to arrest them, any more than you could arrest an ambassador.

I read more people Miranda, as a major crimes detective. Even then, I never read rights unless the person I was questioning was in custody.

I did specify arrest. A suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes when placed under arrest.

You would not inform people of their constitutional rights unless they have constitutional rights. Legal and illegal aliens, present within the United States, are equally subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Some provisions of the Constitution apply to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction, minus only those with immunity.

How fucking dense are you?

No need to take it personal. No biggie. You think our forefathers felt that anyone could sneak in our new country, push out a child... and the rest of the populace had to raise it. You know, back in 1776.

You know, the Constitution was written back in 1787 and went into effect in 1789.

Back in 1776, there was no nation and no national law. The Articles of Confederation did not come along until 1781.

Until something replaced it, the law was the English common law.

Try again.