Yeah - the Supreme Court of any country can do this, and it was thus before 2021, though turning back asylum seekers without due process violates the (international) 1951 Refugee Convention, and the 1967 Protocol, which are based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By violating the Principle of Non-Refoulement refugee law, the US shows its interest in violating the human rights of asylum seekers. This is to be expected by a country controlled by Israel.
Where did you get that idea? Serious question: is that lie circulating in MAGA social media?
Under the U.S. Constitution, immigrants — regardless of their legal status — are entitled to fundamental civil rights and protections as long as they are physically present on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court - before it was filled with corrupt party hacks - has repeatedly affirmed that the word "person" in the Constitution includes non-citizens, meaning they are shielded by all of the core rights of citizens.
Alito argued that asylum seekers not on US soil are not yet citizens and therefore don't count and have no rights. Alito's argument equals the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford. This was later addressed by the The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (Reconstruction Amendments c. 1865 and 1870). They were designed to abolish slavery and establish equal rights and protections for formerly enslaved African Americans following the Civil War.
Log in
Yeah - the Supreme Court of any country can do this, and it was thus before 2021, though turning back asylum seekers without due process violates the (international) 1951 Refugee Convention, and the 1967 Protocol, which are based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By violating the Principle of Non-Refoulement refugee law, the US shows its interest in violating the human rights of asylum seekers. This is to be expected by a country controlled by Israel.
Those all violate constitution so can be ignored
Where did you get that idea? Serious question: is that lie circulating in MAGA social media?
Under the U.S. Constitution, immigrants — regardless of their legal status — are entitled to fundamental civil rights and protections as long as they are physically present on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court - before it was filled with corrupt party hacks - has repeatedly affirmed that the word "person" in the Constitution includes non-citizens, meaning they are shielded by all of the core rights of citizens.
Alito argued that asylum seekers not on US soil are not yet citizens and therefore don't count and have no rights. Alito's argument equals the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford. This was later addressed by the The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (Reconstruction Amendments c. 1865 and 1870). They were designed to abolish slavery and establish equal rights and protections for formerly enslaved African Americans following the Civil War.
Why'd anyone think otherwise
Don't let the terrorists in the country.