It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New immigration scandal: Foreign nations refusing to take back criminal illegals

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
If they refuse to take their people back just shoot them because we dont want them either. If no one wants them its better to eliminate them.


So you advocate the death penalty for illegal immigration? What happens when they cross over through New Mexico which has no death penalty? What about when they live in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, or Oregon which don't have a death penalty? There's no way for the state in question to then shoot them.

Federal law only allows the death penalty for specific types of crime. Do you advocate expanding the federal governments power in order to add illegal immigration to the list of capital crimes? The average federal death penalty case currently takes 16 years to carry out. Do you want to start building jails to house illegal immigrants for 16 years before we execute them? Those 16 years cost way more than any drain on societies resources they create by living here.

What do we do if we round them all up, jail them for a decade, and then the political winds change and we give amnesty? Do you think that would be a good situation? It would be chaos on the streets.

Widespread executions are not the answer you're looking for.


I d leave them in the desert and not waste a bullet if were talking about mexican illegals. You only shoot ones who keep trying to get back in i said earlier in the thread. Why should we have to take in people who we cannot punish by sending back home?

BE glad I am not in charge because the southern border would become a DMZ and all tresspassers would be shot.
It stotally unfair to refuse to take their citizens back. We dont have to accept them either.
I dont get it why your thought process is lets take them in since they cant go home.

Technically they are entering a nation without permission and we can lergally stop invaders with lethal force in th e name of national security. o r try them as Spies and then execute them.




posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I d leave them in the desert and not waste a bullet if were talking about mexican illegals. You only shoot ones who keep trying to get back in i said earlier in the thread. Why should we have to take in people who we cannot punish by sending back home?


Cool, so you wouldn't just execute them, you would violate the Eighth Amendment in order to make sure the punishment is extra cruel.


BE glad I am not in charge because the southern border would become a DMZ and all tresspassers would be shot.


What would you do about the other borders? Like I said before, the largest chunk of illegal immigrants enter the US through airports, not through the southern border.

Would you be comfortable with a southern border that keeps American citizens in? If it's a DMZ you're going to shoot people trying to leave just as often as you're going to shoot people trying to get in. Look at how many people died on each side of the Berlin wall. And now you want to bring that to America?


It stotally unfair to refuse to take their citizens back. We dont have to accept them either.


Why is it unfair? We may not want to accept them, but we have to put them somewhere. The US has signed human rights treaties on how to handle these sorts of situations. We can't just ship them all to Liberia without changing those agreements, which would then involve changing trade agreements and no one would want to trade with us due to our human rights record. Current law says that if we can't place someone in another country we have to let them stay here due to a lack of options.


I dont get it why your thought process is lets take them in since they cant go home.


What other option is there? We can't force another nation to take them and even if we could, most nations around the world have a much larger immigration crisis they're going to be dealing with for the next 2 decades.
edit on 16-7-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: yuppa
I d leave them in the desert and not waste a bullet if were talking about mexican illegals. You only shoot ones who keep trying to get back in i said earlier in the thread. Why should we have to take in people who we cannot punish by sending back home?


Cool, so you wouldn't just execute them, you would violate the Eighth Amendment in order to make sure the punishment is extra cruel.


BE glad I am not in charge because the southern border would become a DMZ and all tresspassers would be shot.


What would you do about the other borders? Like I said before, the largest chunk of illegal immigrants enter the US through airports, not through the southern border.

Would you be comfortable with a southern border that keeps American citizens in? If it's a DMZ you're going to shoot people trying to leave just as often as you're going to shoot people trying to get in. Look at how many people died on each side of the Berlin wall. And now you want to bring that to America?


It stotally unfair to refuse to take their citizens back. We dont have to accept them either.


Why is it unfair? We may not want to accept them, but we have to put them somewhere. The US has signed human rights treaties on how to handle these sorts of situations. We can't just ship them all to Liberia without changing those agreements, which would then involve changing trade agreements and no one would want to trade with us due to our human rights record. Current law says that if we can't place someone in another country we have to let them stay here due to a lack of options.


I dont get it why your thought process is lets take them in since they cant go home.


What other option is there? We can't force another nation to take them and even if we could, most nations around the world have a much larger immigration crisis they're going to be dealing with for the next 2 decades.


Criminals do not deserve pity for their law breaking. Also those "treaties" are also made to guarantee they can be returned but if they will not accept them back the treaty dont mean crap and we need not abide by it.

Im tired of supporting Illegals. I think they are criminals and deserve to be punished for breaking the law.

MExico should be punished for allowing this as well. Stop all trade with them and cut them off from the internet and GPS satellite network. Repatriate companies or tell them to leave the US as traitors to their homeland and cut them off from the world banking if they refuse to come home. Also demand payment of all their debts or face government seizure if they decide to leave.

Also the DMZ in NK/SK had people going back n forth all the time. Im just talking bout desert crossings and people avoiding the official entry and exit points. If you ar e not using the official entry point/exit point you are most likely deserving of being shot.

Also If human rights records dictated Trade then CHina would have none. Same with Saudi arabia. MOney talks BS walks.

Norther border should be sealed except for legal traffic as well. Id's and licence plates work well but the fear of being gunned down keeps alot of people in line. See a DMZ dont have to be no entry or exit. I f you got your paperwork and your legally a citizen there should be no issues.

*8th amendment huh? Sorry that only applies to legal citizens and non criminals.(or it should be that way) the US needs to do like it used to do and kick law breakers out and only grant rights if they have a legal reason to be here. Contitutional rights not Human rights mind you.

But were done. well never agree on this subject. Illegals are criminals who do not deserve pity or mercy and should be removed by any legal means necessary.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
This is not new. It's been happening since forever. Some basic search skills might come in handy.

Just because some journalist (alleged) or some representative (alleged) decides to blow the dust off something and conflate it, doesn't mean it's new, never happened before.

Here's a search argument to get you started.

Here's an article you might (maybe) be interested in.


The INS did not always timely process IRP cases, and as a result, was forced to detain criminal aliens released into INS custody from federal, state and county incarceration to complete deportation proceedings. In our review of 151 A-files judgmentally selected from a universe of 15,653 criminal aliens in INS custody, we identified $1.1 million in detention costs due to failures in the IRP process within the INS's control, and $1.2 in detention costs arising from factors beyond the INS's immediate control for a total of $2.3 million in IRP-related detention costs. Failures in the IRP process within INS's control included (1) incomplete or inadequate casework; (2) untimely requests for travel documents; (3) failure to accommodate for delays in the hearing process; (4) failure to timely initiate and complete IRP casework; and (5) the use of inappropriate removal procedures. Factors beyond the INS's direct control, included countries that, through design or incompetence, delay the issuance of travel documents and countries that refuse to take back their citizens


Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president. Now he’s running up the score.

Lies, damned lies, and Obama’s deportation statistics


America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president.


But, hey, pardon the intrusion if this is just another excuse to rage. Carry on.



new topics

top topics
 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join