“Criminals they forced into the United States” = “Invasion”
“Repatriation” != “Deportation”
Repatriation is what happens when you return a POW to their country of origin. Deportation is when you return a criminal to their country of origin.
POWs are not entitled to access to the criminal justice system. They can be held indefinitely without charges, or returned to their country of origin, without judicial oversight. Since deportation is a judicial process, POWs are not subject to deportation.
POWs are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law; Trump is arguing that the children of “invader-immigrants” can’t be citizens.
POWs do not need to be charged with a crime. Indeed, under international treaties and laws governing armed conflict, POWs generally can’t be criminally charged for simply participating in hostilities.
They can be held without charge until the conclusion of hostilities. They are not entitled to the protections afforded to the accused, because they are not accused. They are not entitled to access to the criminal justice system.
By describing them as “invaders”, he is suggesting that immigrants be treated as enemy combatants.
The term repatriation is not in any way exclusive to POWs. It was, for example, used extensively during COVID when talking about voluntary repatriation of expats to their home countries.
True. I should have been more clear: Deportation requires the involvement of the judicial branch. Repatriation has no such requirement. “Repatriation” is a more generic term for returning to one’s country of origin.
I did not mean to suggest that “repatriation” was exclusive to POWs, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I meant to distinguish between judicial and non-judicial.
“Criminals they forced into the United States” = “Invasion”
“Repatriation” != “Deportation”
Repatriation is what happens when you return a POW to their country of origin. Deportation is when you return a criminal to their country of origin.
POWs are not entitled to access to the criminal justice system. They can be held indefinitely without charges, or returned to their country of origin, without judicial oversight. Since deportation is a judicial process, POWs are not subject to deportation.
POWs are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law; Trump is arguing that the children of “invader-immigrants” can’t be citizens.
That’s… Not true.
POWs do not need to be charged with a crime. Indeed, under international treaties and laws governing armed conflict, POWs generally can’t be criminally charged for simply participating in hostilities.
They can be held without charge until the conclusion of hostilities. They are not entitled to the protections afforded to the accused, because they are not accused. They are not entitled to access to the criminal justice system.
By describing them as “invaders”, he is suggesting that immigrants be treated as enemy combatants.
The term repatriation is not in any way exclusive to POWs. It was, for example, used extensively during COVID when talking about voluntary repatriation of expats to their home countries.
True. I should have been more clear: Deportation requires the involvement of the judicial branch. Repatriation has no such requirement. “Repatriation” is a more generic term for returning to one’s country of origin.
I did not mean to suggest that “repatriation” was exclusive to POWs, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I meant to distinguish between judicial and non-judicial.