BREAKING: Migrants Breach Wall, Throw Rocks, Get Gassed Back To Mexico - Videos

a reply to: Krakatoa

Therefore, we do make a distinction until such time as the U.S. pulls out of that U.N. agreement.

As long as our laws do not violate the agreement, they are the law. Come to think of it, even if they violate the agreement they would still be the law.

America Only!

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Therefore, we do make a distinction until such time as the U.S. pulls out of that U.N. agreement.

As long as our laws do not violate the agreement, they are the law. Come to think of it, even if they violate the agreement they would still be the law.

America Only!

No, we need to abide by our international agreements. I am not advocating violating them here. So please, do not imply that, it is beneath you.

If internally the Congress does decide to pull out of an international agreement, then so be it. Until that time, we are bound by our past agreements. Just like a president cannot enter into a legal international agreement without the approval of Congress, NO president past or present.

a reply to: Phage

The U.N. Has No Legal Power in the United States to Dictate Any Policy Concerning Immigration .

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

Please, provide a valid source (not Wikipedia) stating the 1980 agreement supersedes article 1....and that the U.S. is a signatory.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

1980.....
I attended math....sometimes that is

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Phage

The U.N. Has No Legal Power in the United States to Dictate Any Policy Concerning Immigration .

Unless the U.S. has previously signed into that international agreement. In which it did in 1967. If anyone wishes to change that, then Congress needs to make that decision....not the president, and definitely not the "mob".

a reply to: Krakatoa

They're still coming here directly. It says nothing about them having to stop or accept asylum from a neighboring country

This is from 2015:

I went to Mexico last month to see the effects of the crackdown against migrants, who are being hunted down on a scale never seen before and sent back to countries where gangs and drug traffickers have taken control of whole sections of territory. More than a decade ago, I rode on top of seven freight trains up the length of Mexico with child migrants to chronicle hellish experiences at the hands of gangs, bandits and corrupt cops who preyed on youngsters as they journeyed north. Compared with today, that trip was child’s play.

Although President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico said when he announced the so-called Southern Border Plan that it was to “protect the human rights of migrants as they pass through Mexico,” the opposite has happened. By the Mexican government’s own accounting, 72,000 migrants have been rescued from kidnappers in recent years. They are often tortured and held for ransom. The survivors tell of being enslaved working in marijuana fields or forced into prostitution. Many are killed — sometimes they have organs harvested — in what’s become an invisible, silent slaughter. The government push has been interpreted as open season on migrants who have become prey to an exploding number of criminals and the police who rob, rape, beat and kill them.

Mexico isn't a safe haven. Central America is in crisis. The refugees are going to keep coming

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Krakatoa

They're still coming here directly. It says nothing about them having to stop or accept asylum from a neighboring country

This is from 2015:

I went to Mexico last month to see the effects of the crackdown against migrants, who are being hunted down on a scale never seen before and sent back to countries where gangs and drug traffickers have taken control of whole sections of territory. More than a decade ago, I rode on top of seven freight trains up the length of Mexico with child migrants to chronicle hellish experiences at the hands of gangs, bandits and corrupt cops who preyed on youngsters as they journeyed north. Compared with today, that trip was child’s play.

Although President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico said when he announced the so-called Southern Border Plan that it was to “protect the human rights of migrants as they pass through Mexico,” the opposite has happened. By the Mexican government’s own accounting, 72,000 migrants have been rescued from kidnappers in recent years. They are often tortured and held for ransom. The survivors tell of being enslaved working in marijuana fields or forced into prostitution. Many are killed — sometimes they have organs harvested — in what’s become an invisible, silent slaughter. The government push has been interpreted as open season on migrants who have become prey to an exploding number of criminals and the police who rob, rape, beat and kill them.

Mexico isn't a safe haven. Central America is in crisis. The refugees are going to keep coming

Making stops along a route is not directly. Unless you consider an airline ticket that stops at multiple airports along the route a direct flight?

Really?

And the definition of "is" is what again?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

Which came first 1967 or 1980?

The later law supersedes the earlier.

The presidential executive order must be lawful compliant with existing law otherwise a 9th circuit judge might just rule it out!

Please, provide a valid source (not Wikipedia) stating the 1980 agreement supersedes article 1....and that the U.S. is a signatory.

The US must necessarily be a signatory to its own acts and statutes.

... and the US is NOT a signatory to the 1967 UN protocol.

... and any applicable later revision of an earlier law supersedes that earlier law.

How much cognitive dissonance can you endure before comprehension rises in your eyes like the sun over a Pacific seascape?

a reply to: Krakatoa

And the definition of "is" is what again?

You're the one using language to try and determine law, along with personal preferences. As if a word should prevent us from doing the right thing

It doesn't matter. These asylum laws were put in place for a reason



Economics, politics, war, climate change - these things are not going away. We have to take some responsibility for much of it. What we have now is a conflict of philosophy and approaches to a remedy

Oh my God.

For the first time, I am grateful to be a South African.

Possible countries I'd consider for immigration:

OK, you can scratch off Germany and the United States.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Krakatoa

And the definition of "is" is what again?

You're the one using language to try and determine law, along with personal preferences. As if a word should prevent us from doing the right thing

It doesn't matter. These asylum laws were put in place for a reason

Economics, politics, war, climate change - these things are not going away. We have to take some responsibility for much of it. What we have now is a conflict of philosophy and approaches to a remedy

The lessons we should learn from history have to be repeated for every new generation.

Thanks for the reminder!

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The refugees are going to keep coming

Yeah all the male migrants you mean are going to keep coming. Article from 2015 fails to mention that all migrants are all male.

a reply to: chr0naut

More "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" allusions and comparisons.

originally posted by: halfoldman
Oh my God.

For the first time, I am grateful to be a South African.

Has it rained there yet...

a reply to: chr0naut

The lessons we should learn from history have to be repeated for every new generation.

So what your saying that Europe and America should keep its borders open for so called migrants? whom which the majority of them are all men? and criminals? yeah sounds like a great idea and what a great idea of comparing whats happening to WW.

Here's my idea for all countries re immigration

If a situation in a country is so dire that families need to flee, fair enough.
When thus families get to the border, the women and children are allowed in, they're housed, educated and given an allowance.
The Men are given basic military training and sent back to their country
The men go back to fight the oppression and to save their country
Once they have won, the women and children are sent back

Simple.. If you are a military aged/capable man - you go to fight for your country. You do not come here and live off welfare!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I get the sentiment, but that would be involving ourselves in a foreign war that does not have anything to do with us.

Providing training and then sending them back to that country constitutes an act of war on our part.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Phage

The U.N. Has No Legal Power in the United States to Dictate Any Policy Concerning Immigration .

Well for some reason the UN is now dictating Europeans to accpet the Global Migration Pact agreement. And of course Liberal leaders agree without objection.