This is just... unbelievable. Surely the courts will not allow this!

[byteware]

And how many of them were living in Arizona? How many were suspected of having stayed past their visas? How many would have been affected by the Arizona law? How many would have been affected by the border initiatives?

None? Fantastic. Why are we having this discussion?

Your statement ridiculing someone for believing that illegal immigrants could pose a danger.

Hanjour lived in Arizona.

Hanjour overstayed his Visa (never attended school at all actually).

Hanjour specifically took flight training in Arizona on an expired Visa.

None that I know of would have been affected by the border initiative.

Congressional Record - Google Books

Sure, we'd see less. If the worry is that people can sneak in because ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS R THREAT, any is a problem.

Any IS a problem. But 10 to 12 per day is a much more manageable number than 4 thousand per day.

Also, the border with Canada isn't secure.... At all. You can swim across. If illegal immigrants are a threat, why is there no concern for that border?

Why do you believe that there is no concern for that border?

There IS less concern for that border since we don't have 4000 people crossing their illegally each day.

You don't worry about the cut on your leg when you are hemorrhaging from your arm.

Oh -- because we aren't actually trying to prevent the threat of illegal immigrants as terrorists? Instead we're just trying to deny people access, and the poor people in Mexico can't fly to Canada and then cross the border to get in any more than they can afford to fly to the U.S. and get in legally (and then stay illegally)? I'm glad we cleared that up.

So, because we are foremost worried about the 4 thousand coming across each day from the Mexican border, and not so much about the trickle coming from Canada... we are racially biased? OR class biased?

Illegal immigrants are a problem because of the strain that they put on social services, but the whole to-do over it is way too overdone.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...rants-indicted-in-ohio-kidnapping-891049.html

We have illegal immigrants in the US enforcing for the Mexican Cartels. Tell me again why this isn't a problem?

Because it's not a problem for YOU yet?

 

[zauper]

Let me point you to a rather important part of your quote that you seem to have overlooked.



1) We aren't talking about foreign laws. We are talking about foreign legal decisions.

2) We aren't talking about obeying foreign legal decisions. We are talking about applying the same reasoning behind the foreign legal decisions to influence US legal decisions.

3) Being influenced by the logic behind a legal decision in another country is NOT basing your decisions on foreign laws.





None of this deals with decisions being based on foreign law. It deals with Justices being aware of the reasoning behind legal decisions made in foreign countries that deal with the same issue that they are dealing with.

Honestly, this has nothing to do with foreign law, and everything to do with listening to what other justices have thought on the topic, whether they are foreign or domestic justices.



Listening to what other countries jurists think on a particular treaty is helpful, but not binding. It CAN influence a domestic jurists decision, but domestic legal decisions CANNOT be based on foreign law.

No one said foreign decisions were binding, but that if they had examined the same/similar things in the past, they would be considered. Sounds like we're saying the same thing?

I think the confusion is the use of the word precedent -- there are two kinds of precedent, and what I've been referring to is persuasive precedent, which is from a different jurisdiction and depends on the arguments, while you've been referring to binding precedent which is higher court / lower court.

But, if you want an example: Atkins V. Virginia. The SC cites that the EU does not allow the death penalty.

re: the illegal immigration discussion -- that's not really what this thread is for. I don't particularly have a desire to continue to discussion here.

But, since we are having a legal discussion, let's talk about exactly what the Constitution promises.

1) Protect is used in two contexts: protecting the constitution, and protecting states from invasion. Is illegal immigration an invasion?
2) Secure is used in two contexts: the preamble (securing liberty), and people being secure in their own homes against search and seizure (4th amendment).
3) Border is not used.
4) Immigration is not mentioned.
5) The implied authority of the USFG to regulate immigration comes from two things; a) the implied authority of any nation to do so, and b) the reference to naturalization in Article 1 Section 8.

So, go ahead -- please tell me where the Constitution says that the USFG must protect any individual state against illegal immigrants? Since that seems to be your argument.

 

[Isthmus]

Care to back that up with proof?

Well I would have but it seems that others already replied to your snarky post before I came back around.

As an FYI, we are far from the only country that does this. Most countries do to some extent and this is especially true of those countries whose legal systems are base on common law.

 

[byteware]

No one said foreign decisions were binding, but that if they had examined the same/similar things in the past, they would be considered. Sounds like we're saying the same thing?

Actually, we are saying something slightly different, which makes a BIG difference.

Say you go to McDonald's with a friend. He makes his order...

Under what you are saying... you would consider what he ordered and let that effect your decision on what YOU ordered.

This is not what has happened and what has been discussed above.

What has happened/does happen is:

You ask him why he made his decision (or in reality the jurist writes out why he made his decision)... you consider the points that he made, and whether or not you think you would like nuts sprinkled on your Sunday, or whether you are allergic to nuts, and then you make a decision based upon your circumstances.

I think the confusion is the use of the word precedent -- there are two kinds of precedent, and what I've been referring to is persuasive precedent, which is from a different jurisdiction and depends on the arguments, while you've been referring to binding precedent which is higher court / lower court.

The confusion is coming between the what is influencing the US jurists decision.

The logic, or the actual decision of the foreign jurist.

The logic isn't precedent. It's simply seeing what others think.

But, if you want an example: Atkins V. Virginia. The SC cites that the EU does not allow the death penalty.

That's a little inaccurate don't you think?

They don't cite the European Union law. In determining whether sentencing mentally ******ed criminals to death is cruel and unusual, they reference world opinion.

Moreover, within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally ******ed offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.

The fact that it is illegal in the EU is never mentioned at all.

ATKINS V. VIRGINIA

So, go ahead -- please tell me where the Constitution says that the USFG must protect any individual state against illegal immigrants? Since that seems to be your argument.

I'm not making that argument. The Federal Government is. They are making the argument that regulating illegal immigration is THEIR job. That's their position before the court.

I'm making the position that they SHOULD do what they claim is their job.

 

[byteware]

Well I would have but it seems that others already replied to your snarky post before I came back around.

As an FYI, we are far from the only country that does this. Most countries do to some extent and this is especially true of those countries whose legal systems are base on common law.

Then you aren't following along with the conversation, because proof HASN'T been provided.

 

[zauper]

Actually, we are saying something slightly different, which makes a BIG difference.

Say you go to McDonald's with a friend. He makes his order...

Under what you are saying... you would consider what he ordered and let that effect your decision on what YOU ordered.

Comparing law and precedent to ordering at McDonald's, while amusing, is inaccurate.

This is not what has happened and what has been discussed above.

What has happened/does happen is:

You ask him why he made his decision (or in reality the jurist writes out why he made his decision)... you consider the points that he made, and whether or not you think you would like nuts sprinkled on your Sunday, or whether you are allergic to nuts, and then you make a decision based upon your circumstances.



The confusion is coming between the what is influencing the US jurists decision.

The logic, or the actual decision of the foreign jurist.

The logic isn't precedent. It's simply seeing what others think.

Again, you're missing it. There are two kinds of precedent. I defined them in my post. One of them, binding precedent is the precedent of a higher court on a lower court. The other, persuasive precedent, is the precedent of a court of another jurisdiction.
Definition of persuasive precedent
Persuasive precedent relies on the logic used in that case. Persuasive precedent is what we're both discussing here. Your issue is with calling persuasive precedent precedent, because you only view precedent as referring to binding precedent. Get it?

That's a little inaccurate don't you think?

They don't cite the European Union law. In determining whether sentencing mentally ******ed criminals to death is cruel and unusual, they reference world opinion.

The fact that it is illegal in the EU is never mentioned at all.

ATKINS V. VIRGINIA

They are referencing a brief submitted by the EU. Take a look at the dissent:

Instead, it adverts to
the fact that other countries have disapproved imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally ******ed offenders, see ante, at 11

 

[Isthmus]

Then you aren't following along with the conversation, because proof HASN'T been provided.

Since you insist, here is a nice paper on the subject which will help familiarize your with the subject and it's legality:

http://www.law.uiuc.edu/lrev/publications/2000s/2007/2007_2/Parrish.pdf

and here is a very small sampling of cases that have come before the supreme court over the years, in which the court has quite deliberately cited foreign precedent (mainly english common law) as part of the basis for their opinion:

Pennoyer v. Neff
Evans v. Eaton
Pennock & Sellers V. Dialogue
Lawrence v. Texas
Atkins v. Virginia
Washington v. Glucksburg
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri
Lowell v. Lewis

Now if you're still not convinced, I would recommend reading up on the history of real estate law in the US (try starting with the NYU real estate library which is second to none in this country regarding this particular topic). I think you'll find that not only are most of the concepts regarding real estate law in this country were inherited from the British, but most of the case law that defined American practices regarding real estate were originally defined based on... You guessed it, Foreign precedent (mainly English, but also french and Spanish).

 

[byteware]

Since you insist, here is a nice paper on the subject which will help familiarize your with the subject and it's legality:

http://www.law.uiuc.edu/lrev/publications/2000s/2007/2007_2/Parrish.pdf

and here is a very small sampling of cases that have come before the supreme court over the years, in which the court has quite deliberately cited foreign precedent (mainly english common law) as part of the basis for their opinion:

Pennoyer v. Neff
Evans v. Eaton
Pennock & Sellers V. Dialogue
Lawrence v. Texas
Atkins v. Virginia
Washington v. Glucksburg
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri
Lowell v. Lewis

Now if you're still not convinced, I would recommend reading up on the history of real estate law in the US (try starting with the NYU real estate library which is second to none in this country regarding this particular topic). I think you'll find that not only are most of the concepts regarding real estate law in this country were inherited from the British, but most of the case law that defined American practices regarding real estate were originally defined based on... You guessed it, Foreign precedent (mainly English, but also french and Spanish).

Seriously. You actually haven't been paying attention, and/or pasted this from another website.

I've already addressed Atkins v Virigina. At no point does the Supreme Court reference laws in any other nation or the European Union.

Since, I've already disproven Atkins v Virginia, and looked through "Pennoyer v. Neff", and been unable to find any reference at all to ANY foreign law...

why don't you buck up and tell us, which foreign laws are referenced by these case judgments?

 

[byteware]

Comparing law and precedent to ordering at McDonald's, while amusing, is inaccurate.

Then I suggest you "RE-READ it".

Persuasive precedent is what we're both discussing here. Your issue is with calling persuasive precedent precedent, because you only view precedent as referring to binding precedent. Get it?

Yes I do.

They are referencing a brief submitted by the EU. Take a look at the dissent:

A brief about world opinion in regards to executing the mentally ******ed. Not about EU law. EU law cannot influence the court, but world opinion CAN in regards to what they determine is CRUEL and UNUSUAL.

You're right it doesn't explicitly refer to the EU law, but it's close enough that the HoR passed a bill stating that we are sovereign and don't look to others.

It's not close enough. Politicians do what they do to get attention and re-elected.

As I've said, Foreign law doesn't determine our judgments. But logic presented by foreign governments or jurists can.

You said in a prior post:

So I'll ask it this way instead: where does it say that?

You can choose "common defense, or protection from invasion". Either or.

 

[Isthmus]

Seriously. You actually haven't been paying attention, and/or pasted this from another website.

I've already addressed Atkins v Virigina. At no point does the Supreme Court reference laws in any other nation or the European Union.

Since, I've already disproven Atkins v Virginia, and looked through "Pennoyer v. Neff", and been unable to find any reference at all to ANY foreign law...

why don't you buck up and tell us, which foreign laws are referenced by these case judgments?

Dude, is your underwear on too tight? what do you get from being so nasty. we're just having a discussion, this is not a competition, so please cool it.

As for the references, in the atkins case, Justice stevens specifically addressed part of his opinion on evolving standards of decency and equated them to opinions of the international community in which the execution of the mentally ******ed is generally not approved of. While he didn't quote specific international law, he did specifically base his opinion on the general practice (legal and practical) of countries other than the United states.

As for the Neff case, IIRC it was in part a personal jurisdiction case, in which the court applied concepts of national and international jurisdiction and sovereignty and applied them to states (and more specifically state courts), thus limiting the jurisdictions of state courts beyond their states.

Now please, lets have a nice argument like adults and stop with the nasty remarks.

 

[OfTheDamned]

Let's keep things civil boys and girls. We are all friends here, if you feel your blood starting to boil take a break and reply back later. Also, try to keep in mind that your intended tone does not always show through in text. The way you phrase things can easily be taken wrong with a single misused word. This is an interesting discussion and it would be a shame to have to close it because a few can't play nice.

 

[byteware]

Let's keep things civil boys and girls. We are all friends here, if you feel your blood starting to boil take a break and reply back later. Also, try to keep in mind that your intended tone does not always show through in text. The way you phrase things can easily be taken wrong with a single misused word. This is an interesting discussion and it would be a shame to have to close it because a few can't play nice.

I apologize if I come across as offensive.

 

[byteware]

As for the references, in the atkins case, Justice stevens specifically addressed part of his opinion on evolving standards of decency and equated them to opinions of the international community in which the execution of the mentally ******ed is generally not approved of. While he didn't quote specific international law, he did specifically base his opinion on the general practice (legal and practical) of countries other than the United states.

Stevens quoted the Brief submitted to the court by the EU with the following quote:

Moreover, within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally ******ed offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.

So, please provide YOUR quote.

As for the Neff case, IIRC it was in part a personal jurisdiction case, in which the court applied concepts of national and international jurisdiction and sovereignty and applied them to states (and more specifically state courts), thus limiting the jurisdictions of state courts beyond their states..

Please state which International laws were quoted. You have made the claim that in this case international law was used to determine the outcome.

Please state which law.

As I see no reference to ANY international law, or ANY foreign law. It will be helpful if you stated something specific so that I could clearly refute it.



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

I apologize for coming off as harsh.

Please provide specific proof to back up your claims, so that I can more clearly refute them and prove your claims wrong.