Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 119

Thread: HHS secretary: Separating immigrant families is ‘one of the great acts of American ge

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    38,291
    Thanks
    47,977
    Thanked 19,926 Times in 13,309 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 1,601 Times in 1,518 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by United76America View Post
    The UN? lol. Go to the actual treaties that define how asylum seekers and refugees are handled. The UN is an antiquated piece of flaming garbage.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    Your opinion, how about you post these treaties, since you are offering them as evidence. Thanks
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." Thomas Jefferson

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 817 Times in 688 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 218 Times in 190 Posts

    Default

    Once again, libs are clueless.

    It's a deterrent. Once these gate crashers learn they'll be seperated from their children, they'll be less likely to head to America.

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 66 Times in 60 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Your opinion, how about you post these treaties, since you are offering them as evidence. Thanks
    The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

    The Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

    The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

    What you will find is that the people coming from Mexico, crossing the southern border, are not and cannot qualify as refugees. They are asylum seekers. There are different rules and regulations regarding them.

    If an asylum seeker goes to a US embassy or to a legal port of entry, they're kept together with their family, put up in a hotel, and reviewed.

    If a person crosses the border illegally and gets caught, and then in an attempt to save their ass they claim asylum, they've violated federal law and are detained. Per 8 U.S.C. 1229c, they're given a choice to be detained, separated, and reviewed, or to voluntarily leave the country. As it is not a deportation, they can then go to a legal port of entry an apply. If they choose to stay, they are separated because the parents have committed a federal crime and children don't get to go to jail with their parents regardless of citizenship.

    This is all very simple and straightforward law that has existed for decades.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    38,291
    Thanks
    47,977
    Thanked 19,926 Times in 13,309 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 1,601 Times in 1,518 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by United76America View Post
    The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

    The Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

    The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

    What you will find is that the people coming from Mexico, crossing the southern border, are not and cannot qualify as refugees. They are asylum seekers. There are different rules and regulations regarding them.

    If an asylum seeker goes to a US embassy or to a legal port of entry, they're kept together with their family, put up in a hotel, and reviewed.

    If a person crosses the border illegally and gets caught, and then in an attempt to save their ass they claim asylum, they've violated federal law and are detained. Per 8 U.S.C. 1229c, they're given a choice to be detained, separated, and reviewed, or to voluntarily leave the country. As it is not a deportation, they can then go to a legal port of entry an apply. If they choose to stay, they are separated because the parents have committed a federal crime and children don't get to go to jail with their parents regardless of citizenship.

    This is all very simple and straightforward law that has existed for decades.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    These are international treaties? You stated there were multiple international treaties, I don’t think these are treaties. I shall research this information before I comment further. Thank you
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." Thomas Jefferson

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    This is so wrong on multiple levels. (just common decency would dictate leaving a mother and her infant child together)
    Who made you the arbiter of common decency? Where was your faux poutrage when Obama was caging kids, separating families, and detaining asylees?

    You want children locked up with adults? In detention cells?

    What if the "mother" or "father" isn't even a blood relative? What then?

    BTW, this practice was discontinued by Executive Order last month. Maybe you didn't hear.

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    I shall research this information before I comment further. Thank you
    That may be a first for you, imbecile.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    These are international treaties? You stated there were multiple international treaties, I don’t think these are treaties.
    The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

    The Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is a 1954 United Nations multilateral treaty that aims to protect stateless individuals.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Stateless_Per sons


    The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees is a key treaty in international refugee law. It entered into force on 4 October 1967, and 146 countries are parties.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees


    You really are too stupid to be alive, aren't you?

  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    38,291
    Thanks
    47,977
    Thanked 19,926 Times in 13,309 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 1,601 Times in 1,518 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    These are international treaties? You stated there were multiple international treaties, I don’t think these are treaties. I shall research this information before I comment further. Thank you
    Okay they are indeed treaties UNITED NATION TREATIES. Didn’t you scoff at a site I provided that was related to UNITED NATIONS treaties. The post is #30. I’m laughing by too hard at you to be able to further this conversation.

    You have a great great day and when you figure out your position on the U.N., maybe we can continue this discussion.
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." Thomas Jefferson

  8. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 66 Times in 60 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    These are international treaties? You stated there were multiple international treaties, I don’t think these are treaties. I shall research this information before I comment further. Thank you
    They are unilateral international treaties. The first has 144 signatories. Second has 23 but it is a much smaller document. Was mostly aimed at south American countries due to the political unrest at the time. Third has 144 signatories.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  9. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    38,291
    Thanks
    47,977
    Thanked 19,926 Times in 13,309 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 1,601 Times in 1,518 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by United76America View Post
    They are unilateral international treaties. The first has 144 signatories. Second has 23 but it is a much smaller document. Was mostly aimed at south American countries due to the political unrest at the time. Third has 144 signatories.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    U.N. treaties, still laughing!
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." Thomas Jefferson

  10. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hvilleherb View Post
    Once again, libs are clueless.

    It's a deterrent. Once these gate crashers learn they'll be seperated from their children, they'll be less likely to head to America.
    It's ironic that they pretend not to know that the Obama Administration was slapped down in court for using the same "deterrent".

    As I've mentioned before, Trump got slapped the same way Obama did - by the Flores settlement.

    A two-decade-old court settlement, the Flores settlement, and a law called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act both specify how the government must treat migrant children. They require that migrant children be placed in "the least restrictive environment" or sent to live with family members. They also limit how long families with children can be detained; courts have interpreted that limit as 20 days.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border

    What the liberals either don't realizes (or are lying about) is that the practice was ended by Executive Order almost a month ago.

    Now the "families" are being released as quickly as possible in accordance with Flores.

    “Parents of children under the age of five are being reunified with their children, then released and enrolled into an alternative to detention (ATD) program, meaning they will be placed on an ankle monitor and released into the community,” said Matthew Albence, a senior official with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The administration was left with few options after a series of court orders. A federal judge last month ordered the reunification of children under five by 10 July. That deadline was not met, officials acknowledged, while noting plans were under way on Tuesday to reunite up to 54 migrant children under five with their parents. There are an estimated 102 migrant children under five in federal custody, with a limited number of cases not qualifying for reunification due to the parents’ criminal background or signs of child abuse.

    The administration additionally lost in an attempt to overturn a 1997 court precedent that says minors cannot be held for more than 20 days. In preserving the decades-old Flores settlement, Judge Dolly Gee also denied a DoJ request to suspend requirements that immigrant children be held only in facilities that meet state child welfare licensing regulations.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/11/trump-forced-to-reinstate-catch-and-release-after-court-defeats

  11. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    Okay they are indeed treaties UNITED NATION TREATIES. Didn’t you scoff at a site I provided that was related to UNITED NATIONS treaties. The post is #30. I’m laughing by too hard at you to be able to further this conversation. You have a great great day and when you figure out your position on the U.N., maybe we can continue this discussion.
    You were just humiliated, imbecile. Your pretense fools nobody.

  12. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 66 Times in 60 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Okay they are indeed treaties UNITED NATION TREATIES. Didn’t you scoff at a site I provided that was related to UNITED NATIONS treaties. The post is #30. I’m laughing by too hard at you to be able to further this conversation.

    You have a great great day and when you figure out your position on the U.N., maybe we can continue this discussion.
    You don't know the difference between the UN as an organization and a treaty?

    The UN as an organization is garbage. They have committees made up of 10-20 countries that make announcements and decisions for all countries.

    A treaty, even if facilitated by the UN, is subject to the negotiation of every single country that signs said treaty. So it's a negotiation between 144 countries. Not the representatives from a few countries making shit up to benefit them.

    Think about this, the UN council for women's rights includes Saudi Arabia on the panel. Members include Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkmenistan. Countries where women have no rights.

    The UN as an organization is a political organization that serves only to further the interests of whatever country serves on whatever panel at a certain time.

    A treaty facilitated by the UN is negotiated by 100-200 countries and is not subject to the politicization of individual panels or countries.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  13. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 66 Times in 60 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    U.N. treaties, still laughing!
    You shouldn't be laughing. You don't know the difference between the UN organizational structure and how a treaty is made.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  14. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    U.N. treaties, still laughing!
    Die, imbecile. The world will be a better place.

    International human rights instruments are treaties and other international documents relevant to international human rights law and the protection of human rights in general. They can be classified into two categories: declarations, adopted by bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, which are not legally binding although they may be politically so as soft law; and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law.

    There are 9 core international human rights instruments. One example is the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_instruments#Global_2

  15. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by United76America View Post
    You shouldn't be laughing. You don't know the difference between the UN organizational structure and how a treaty is made.
    She's a notorious imbecile. PM me and I will tell you things that would seem incredible if they weren't true.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2018, 06:57 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-20-2018, 07:19 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-20-2018, 06:17 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-17-2018, 08:41 AM
  5. 'The separating families" argument. Against Deportation
    By Irish in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 04:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •