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.

 

Mexico comes to the table

page: 8
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
"Except that mandatory e-verify is blatantly unconstitutional."

So is asking for identification to rent a house, buy beer, get a bank account unconstitutional?

Apples and orangutans...

There is simply nothing in the Constitution delegating them the awesome power to determine who can and cannot freely exchange their labor for money or other things of value.

If you disagree, by all means, point out the specific section/clause of the Constitution that delegates this immense power to them.




posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


There is simply nothing in the Constitution delegating them the awesome power to determine who can and cannot freely exchange their labor for money or other things of value.


Unfortunately with the advent of income taxes, that's no longer the case. Identification is key to that process.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: tanstaafl


There is simply nothing in the Constitution delegating them the awesome power to determine who can and cannot freely exchange their labor for money or other things of value.


Unfortunately with the advent of income taxes, that's no longer the case. Identification is key to that process.

There is nothing in the 16th amendment delegating such a power.

Suggesting that such an incredibly awesome power could be in any way 'inferred' is just total garbage.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: tanstaafl


There is simply nothing in the Constitution delegating them the awesome power to determine who can and cannot freely exchange their labor for money or other things of value.


Unfortunately with the advent of income taxes, that's no longer the case. Identification is key to that process.

There is nothing in the 16th amendment delegating such a power.

Suggesting that such an incredibly awesome power could be in any way 'inferred' is just total garbage.


Employers already require you use ID to gain employment. Many do a background check as well to protect their vested interests.

Asking that they simply verify citizenship doesn't really scream infringement of constitutional rights to me. There are other more pressing constitutional issues right now to me. Seeing as I'm a citizen, it wouldn't matter to me if they verified me or not. I'm not aware of a constitutional right for illegals to be able to seek employment here however.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Where did I suggest that?

Where did you suggest what?

The US can't apply the "first safe country" principle if they don't put it into law. You suggested something that can be interpreted as saying they can. But, while one can say the US can technically use it, they can't at this moment.

You didn't suggest that it is mexico's fault but the topic of the thread is basically, Mexico "Your BS stops now." If you are here defending that then you are kinda suggesting the OP is correct in pointing their finger at mexico.



edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Trump is the kwisatz haderach....

Deal with it libs

-Chris



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Where did I suggest that?

Where did you suggest what?

The US can't apply the "first safe country" principle if they don't put it into law. You suggested something that can be interpreted as saying they can. But, while one can say the US can technically use it, they can't at this moment.

You didn't suggest that it is mexico's fault but the topic of the thread is basically, Mexico "Your BS stops now." If you are here defending that then you are kinda suggesting the OP is correct in pointing their finger at mexico.


I think Mexico is more then happy to keep shipping Central Americans through their country and across an open border because it isn't their problem if the migrants don't stay in Mexico. I think Mexico wants to keep the border open so they can have their own citizens wire money (hard foreign currency) back across the border. I think many in Mexico (and the US) have an interest in allowing illicit trade across an open border.

Mexico is a sovereign country allowed to act in their own best interest. That doesn't mean the US has to bend over for it. The US is also a sovereign country allowed to act in its own best interests. Sometimes those interests will collide.


The only point I jumped in on was the accusation that the US trying to close its border was somehow a violation of international law or human rights. That is high-order nonsense.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
That doesn't mean the US has to bend over for it.

Who said they have to? If they choose to then that is their choice. There is nobody to blame.


The only point I jumped in on was the accusation that the US trying to close its border was somehow a violation of international law or human rights. That is high-order nonsense.

It is a violation of the convention signed into by the US and, maybe, the US laws in effect.

It is a legal matter, just like the Travel Ban, that ended with the WH writing up 3 versions until the last one was upheld, IIRC.

As for the moral argument, "Illegal is illegal" is clearly refuted by the Article you posted, and "they are fleeing a war zone", when they travel from countries that are not at war, shows both sides are wrong and just trying to pull at people's heartstrings.

ETA: Also, Mexico did offer asylum and some accepted and some refused. Again, how is refusal to accept asylum by an individual a reflection on the Mexican government?



edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Employers already require you use ID to gain employment. Many do a background check as well to protect their vested interests.

This is true for many/most, but certainly not all - but it is also irrelevant.

These are not mandated by government or required by federal law, so not sure why you bring them up.


Asking that they simply verify citizenship doesn't really scream infringement of constitutional rights to me.

Again, that is irrelevant to whether or not it is Constitutional.

Our federal government operates on a system of delegated powers. If the power is not delegated, they do not have it.

PERIOD.


There are other more pressing constitutional issues right now to me. Seeing as I'm a citizen, it wouldn't matter to me if they verified me or not. I'm not aware of a constitutional right for illegals to be able to seek employment here however.

Illegals are people, and have unalienable Rights, just as you and I do.

They do not have the right to come into our country in violation of our laws, and we absoilutely have the right to evict them as soon as they are discovered.

But this is, again, irrelevant to suggesting that the federal government has the power to dictate private contractual behavior, and/or require me to ask permission from them to work.

PERIOD.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Funny how the last few admins have created work arounds for the constitution, yet people raise hell when E-verify is proposed as a plausible way to address the root problem. Voter ID's aren't mandated in the constitution, you cool with those? I am.

Maybe both sides actually like illegal immigrants in the country because it's an energizer to their base. If the problem is solved, that would take away a "key issue".



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




It is a violation of the convention signed into by the US and, maybe, the US laws in effect. 


It is not necessarily a violation of the Convention to return refugees to the safe countries they are entering from, as I have already demonstrated to you by citing the organization created by the Convention to enforce it... Canada, the UK, Denmark, and the EU have all done that in various ways.

The US is free to amend it's own laws and policies as it wishes.




Also, Mexico did offer asylum and some accepted and some refused. Again, how is refusal to accept asylum by an individual a reflection on the Mexican government? 


If they refuse asylum, then they are no longer asylum seekers by definition...







B. Safe Country of Asylum

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

..

13. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee have also variously given credence to the notion. In this connection, Conclusion 15 (XXX) (1979), para. (h) (vi) is noteworthy:

“Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation”.

Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
Can enter and remain there,
is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty,
has access to a durable solution.




Not only is that the UNHCR position, it has been held by European Union Courts as well, as the several other countries I listed.

Example: European Union handling of "First Country of Asylum"

Canada's policy on "First Country of Asylum"


So no, it would not be a violation of the Convention...

I would support money going to Mexico to help improve their ability to take in and process those "refugees". I will always support taking in actual refugees in real danger and who are not simply economic migrants looking to take advantage of our social support programs. We are free to accept people who are actual refugees even after they have been granted asylum in Mexico.

But we absolutely need to close our border to unlawful traffic. And we should stop allowing defensive seekers who do not "immediately" come and apply for asylum in Mexico ( or the US!) until after they are apprehended for being here illegally. None of that is a violation of international law or human rights.
edit on 3-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Both political parties are beholden to corporations who enjoy exploiting vulnerable people for labour. Which is why nothing substantial is ever done about border security or enforcement of the relevant labour laws.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

What you demonstrated was that if they enter from a third "safe" country they can be penalized. That is all.

The EU and Canada are not the US.

From your article on Canada: "Under a Canada-US agreement, asylum seekers travelling through the United States would be turned away at Canadian border checkpoints, and told to file a refugee claim in the United States."

Again, the US chose to enter into that agreement and it isn't part of the convention. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't something similar written into some agreement with Mexico.


But we absolutely need to close our border to unlawful traffic.

Sure because the war on drugs and gun control totally eliminated drugs and illegal guns. /s
edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

There is no violation of international law or human rights by sending Central American "asylum-seekers" who enter from Mexico back into Mexico. Mexico is a signatory country.
The end.

Saying we currently do not do this, or that our own laws and policies do not allow this is correct. I was addressing the person saying the US was ignoring human rights and international law.




Sure because the war on drugs and gun control totally eliminated drugs and illegal guns


Police departments don't stop all theft, rape, or murder either, but not many reasonable people are advocating the abolition of law enforcement. Locking your car door doesn't mean it won't be stolen or looted, but we still generally lock the doors to our cars. People can still illegally enter your house through a window, but most of us take the precaution of locking up before we turn in for the night.
edit on 3-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
There is no violation of international law or human rights by sending Central American "asylum-seekers" who enter from Mexico back into Mexico. Mexico is a signatory country.
The end.

But it may be in violation of other treaties the US has entered into. Another end.


Saying we currently do not do this, or that our own laws and policies do not allow this is correct. I was addressing the person saying the US was ignoring human rights and international law.

You can both be wrong.

I was addressing the fact that the paper you posted on the article about penalties didn't say what you think it said.


Police departments don't stop all theft, rape, or murder either...

So now you are refuting your claim that closing the border will stop illegal immigration?

ETA: The US is already trying to stop unlawful traffic. Also, who is we? You got a politician in your pocket?



edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: RadioRobert
There is no violation of international law or human rights by sending Central American "asylum-seekers" who enter from Mexico back into Mexico. Mexico is a signatory country.
The end.

But it may be in violation of other treaties the US has entered into. Another end.


This is the part of an informed conversation where the person or people making such an accusation would cite the treaty which they believe would be violated by the UNHCR recognized practice of country of first asylum policies instead of using weasel words.

I mean, you just spent a couple pages trying to convince me that the organization created specifically to oversee the Refugee Convention is in violation of the Convention in some unnamed manner, so I doubt we are having an informed discussion, but feel free to cite the treaty which the US is signatory to which would be violated by such a policy...





I was addressing the fact that the paper you posted on the article about penalties didn't say what you think it said. 

And yet it does, which is the legal justification for several countries' own "country of first asylum" policies... Which are recognized and validated by the organization created to enforce said convention... Which I have provided you both original source material from said organization and of several real world examples of this policy in action around the world.




So now you are refuting your claim that closing the border will stop illegal immigration? 


Why are you being deliberately obtuse? If you cannot have an informed conversation, could we settle for an intellectually honest one, or is that too much to ask of open borders advocates?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JAY1980

That's just a a remarkably uniformed comment. US Auto makers lost $18 Billion in value today because of this. Most all US car makers source parts in Mexico, and many cars sold in the US are built in Mexico. And the parts supply situation is using that "just in time" sourcing so the US plants will run out of parts in 3 days when the trucks get stacked up at the border because of the tarriff's. Car and Truck prices will necessarily increase and as the situation worsens, US production plants will close.

This is nothing short of a disaster.


Great news. The manufacturers will need to move their plants back to the US....or...
...Consumers don't need new cars every couple of years. It will not matter one jot to a consumer to carry on with the car they have for 10 years, 15 years. The car industry will shrink, car makers will take massive hits. Good.
Consolidate the industry and rebuild it - in the US.
Their choice.
Consumers will spend their money on something else.
edit on 3/6/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I know. It is an opinion piece. Things have changed since the signing of the convention and since it doesn't specify one way or the other it should be OK, but what does that have to do with agreements entered between sovereign states? Did I mention you could both be wrong?


And yet it does, which is the legal justification for several countries' own "country of first asylum" policies...

I don't think it does. The Canadian thing is a private agreement between two countries. The EU thing is particular to the countries in the union. If their union was more like the US then I'm sure they would have decided differently.

The truth is that "first country of transit" doesn't appear in the original document. Maybe later guidelines or agreements modified/tweaked things. You didn't bring those to the table.


Why are you being deliberately obtuse? If you cannot have an informed conversation, could we settle for an intellectually honest one, or is that too much to ask of open borders advocates?

I don't know. I'm not an open border advocate.

It is a pet peeve of mine when people say "we" need to do this, that or the other when it has been obvious for decades that those making the choices don't care what "you" think you need.

If someone sneaks into the US and they are found deportable, give them the boot. Just stop being dishonest with yourself and trying to blame anyone other than the US government itself when people use the loopholes made available by said government.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




when it has been obvious for decades that those making the choices don't care what "you" think you need. 


Well, that much is true.

But for this brief window someone is making active proposals for comprehensive reform and border security, and somehow that has now devolved into accusations of violating or ignoring international law and basic human rights. Since that is not true, I'm probably going to mention it again everytime I see it.




posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You might want to find another document to cite when bringing it up because it says right in there:

103. Refugees are not required to have come directly from their country of origin. Article 31 was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries, who are unable to find protection Article 31 of the 1951 Convention 34 from persecution in the first country or countries to which they flee, or who have ‘good cause’ for not applying in such country or countries. The drafters only intended that immunity from penalty should not apply to refugees who had settled, temporarily or permanently, in another country.


Reposting link: www.unhcr.org...

'Good cause' is pretty broad and I don't think anyone here is in a position to decide what does and does not constitute it.

In the end both side can be sorta right and wrong at the same time. Gray areas being what they are.







 
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join