Summary
A third federal judge, Joseph N. Laplante, blocked Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
His ruling follows similar decisions from judges in Seattle and Maryland.
The lawsuits, led by the ACLU, argue Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil.
The Trump administration contends such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Legal battles continue, with appeals underway and further rulings expected in other courts.
No.
Outlaws, people literally outside the law, have no legal protections at all. Taken to its limit this means that deportation is not necessary as they could simply be executed where they are found.
This is why being declared an outlaw was such a big fucking deal back when that word wasn’t just a synonym for “criminal”. You could be executed in broad daylight by the first person that found you and there would be no repercussions.
No. “Outlawry” was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US. If these people aren’t under US jurisdiction, there is no legal process to submit to because they aren’t subject to US law to begin with.
The concept of an “outlaw” goes at least as far back as ancient Rome and was used in England until something like 1869. It held on in Scotland as part of Civil Law until somewhere in the 1940s. It was also present in France, Germany, and several Nordic countries.
This isn’t just a US thing.
Yes…because they are “Outside the Law”. An Outlaw is neither subject to nor protected by the law.
It’s that last part that so many people in here are missing. If the Elongated Muskrat were declared an “outlaw” you could kick in his front door, drag him out of bed, load him onto a catapult and fire him into the sun and the legal apparatus would not, nay could not, do anything about it.
People need to understand how deeply that “no legal process to submit to” goes. The “outlaw” isn’t subject to the law but neither is anyone else as it relates to them.
The concept as applied in Rome and modern Europe doesn’t really matter in this context because we’re talking about US law. It was used here 150 years ago against bandits in the west but still doesn’t apply to this situation at least according to the definition written by Cornell Law:
The catch here is “accused criminal” and “refused to submit to legal process.” Both these term first require that you’re subject to the laws in question, which an “old west bandit” would have been. If you remove legal jurisdiction over these people, you can’t then say they’re breaking your laws and refusing to submit to the legal process because you’ve already defined them as being outside of the bounds of your laws and legal process by stating that they’re not under your jurisdiction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/outlaw