Paived roads, political stability, economy, social…,capital, sympathetic of migrants from Nicaragua because of political ties
Journal #6: Explain the Supreme Court’s decision to deny Verdugo-Urquidez the right to a 4th Amendment? Should aliens kidnapped by U.S. authority be entitled to the 4th Amendment? The supreme court decided held that the “Fourth amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country.” Many in the court believe that there is no legal use of a search warrant if it is being used outside of U.S. borders. A US magistrate simply does not have the legal power to authorize such a warrant. The court felt that the fourth amendment secured only the members of the US community (“the people”). They don't consider Uraquidez to have a legitimate connection to this country. Thus, Uraquidez is not a part of “the people” and should only be afforded fifth and Sixth Amendment rights for criminal procedures. They held that the framers of the constitution designed the fourth amendment with no connections to aliens residing outside US borders. The federal governments actions shouldn't be restrained by the fourth amendment when conducting foreign operations. Aliens that are kidnapped by us authority should be entitled to the fourth amendment. The dissent believed that Uraquidez would have a fourth amendment worthy connection to this country for he was placed, “among those governed by federal criminal laws and investigating him for violations of those laws.” It would only make sense that the laws of the country that he initially broke them in would be used in his criminal judgment. Another view spoke about the significance for obtaining a search warrant in all investigating procedures. The warrant assures that investigating officers wont consider the land beyond US borders as the lawless Wild West. “As a matter of United States constitutional law, a warrant serves the same primary function overseas as it does domestically: it assures that a neutral magistrate has authorized the search and limited its scope. The need to protect those suspected of criminal activity from the unbridled discretion of investigating officers is no less important abroad than at home.” I believe that fourth amendment rights should protect every human. Federal officers cannot have the power to initiate raids without receiving legal authorization. When every person isn’t believed to have equal protection an enormous grey area is created. That grey area has consisted of the kidnapping, torturing, and murdering of innocent people.
The court held that the text, “the people” meant that the fourth amendment only protected a specific class of individuals. The dissent states that, “Throughout that entire drafting process, no speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term "the people" as a limitation. “The People” refers to every person on earth.
given protection Nor is the Warrant Clause inapplicable merely because a warrant from a United States magistrate could not "author- ize" a search in a foreign country. Although this may be true as a matter of international law, it is irrelevant to our interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of United States constitutional law, a warrant serves the same primary function overseas as it does domestically: it assures that a neutral magistrate has authorized the search and lim- ited its scope. The need to protect those suspected of crim- inal activity from the unbridled discretion of investigating officers is no less important abroad than at home.14
The conditions and considerations of this case would make adherence to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement impracticable and anomalous. Just as the