Guatemala court blocks immigration pact with U.S.

From United Press International


July 15 (UPI) -- A top Central American court has blocked a controversial immigration agreement with the United States that seeks to mandate migrants from other nations like Honduras and El Salvador to first stay in Guatemala.

Guatemala's Constitutional Court, the nation's top civil court, blocked the agreement late Sunday to further review the matter. The move also prompted Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales to cancel a White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump Monday.

Trump had requested Guatemala accept asylum seekers from Honduras, El Salvador and other nations who pass through en route to the United States. The deal could ease the immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, administration officials said.

A senior administration official said the meeting was "being rescheduled" and the United States "will continue to work with the government of Guatemala on concrete and immediate steps that can be taken to address the ongoing migration crisis."

COMMENT:-

TU Curmudgeon said:

From United Press International

Guatemala court blocks immigration pact with U.S.
​

July 15 (UPI) -- A top Central American court has blocked a controversial immigration agreement with the United States that seeks to mandate migrants from other nations like Honduras and El Salvador to first stay in Guatemala.

Guatemala's Constitutional Court, the nation's top civil court, blocked the agreement late Sunday to further review the matter. The move also prompted Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales to cancel a White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump Monday.

Trump had requested Guatemala accept asylum seekers from Honduras, El Salvador and other nations who pass through en route to the United States. The deal could ease the immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, administration officials said.

A senior administration official said the meeting was "being rescheduled" and the United States "will continue to work with the government of Guatemala on concrete and immediate steps that can be taken to address the ongoing migration crisis."

COMMENT:-

A cynic could read that last paragraph as "Damn, if he had only kept his mouth shut we could have slid this one past Congress without them even knowing about it happening and it would have taken MONTHS to find out that we were breaking the law. Oh well, back to the drawing board. - Hey, Bob, how does Mr. Trump signing an agreement with the President of the United States of America that anyone attempting to enter the United States of America will get sent to Guatemala sound to you?".

I will resist the temptation to do so.​

Click to expand...

1) What makes you think Congress wasn't aware? The process of this has been public knowledge for months.

2) What "law" would be "broken" with this?

3) What, in and of itself, would be wrong with this agreement if it holds?

Answers to all three questions, please.

Harshaw said:

1) What makes you think Congress wasn't aware? The process of this has been public knowledge for months.

Click to expand...

That Mr. Trump has been wildly flailing around trying to find SOME solution (preferably one that didn't cost the US taxpayers a dime and would get the plight of those people out of public view has), indeed, been public knowledge for months.

Harshaw said:

2) What "law" would be "broken" with this?

Click to expand...

If (by now) you are not yet aware that the US government has ratified the international treaty that governs how countries treat people who show up and apply for refugee/asylee status, and that the US government has passed legislation that effectuates that treaty, there really is no hope for yu=ou.

Harshaw said:

3) What, in and of itself, would be wrong with this agreement if it holds?

Click to expand...

The key element there is "if it holds".

If the courts of the United States of America uphold the "right" of the President of the United States of America to enter into agreements that violate the laws of the United States of America, that would indicate one thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Deliberately shipping people off to countries that may well be worse than the country that they originally came from simply to deny them the right to make as application for refugee/asylee status when that right is one granted to them by the laws of the United States of America would indicate another thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Having a President of the United States of America that thinks that the laws of the United States of America do not apply to them would indicate another thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Having a President of the United States of America who is so lacking in moral fibre, elementary ethics, or basic humanity that they would even consider such an agreement would indicate another thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Harshaw said:

Answers to all three questions, please.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think that you are going to like ANY of those answers.

TU Curmudgeon said:

That Mr. Trump has been wildly flailing around trying to find SOME solution (preferably one that didn't cost the US taxpayers a dime and would get the plight of those people out of public view has), indeed, been public knowledge for months.

Click to expand...

This specific agreement with Guatemala has been in process for months, and public knowledge. Nothing's being sneaked past Congress.

If (by now) you are not yet aware that the US government has ratified the international treaty that governs how countries treat people who show up and apply for refugee/asylee status, and that the US government has passed legislation that effectuates that treaty, there really is no hope for yu=ou.

Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything to do with that.

The key element there is "if it holds".

If the courts of the United States of America uphold the "right" of the President of the United States of America to enter into agreements that violate the laws of the United States of America, that would indicate one thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Deliberately shipping people off to countries that may well be worse than the country that they originally came from simply to deny them the right to make as application for refugee/asylee status when that right is one granted to them by the laws of the United States of America would indicate another thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Having a President of the United States of America that thinks that the laws of the United States of America do not apply to them would indicate another thing that "would be wrong with this agreement".

Click to expand...

You should read your own article, or at least your own post in which you quote it:

A top Central American court has blocked a controversial immigration agreement with the United States that seeks to mandate migrants from other nations like Honduras and El Salvador to first stay in Guatemala.

Click to expand...

From the WSJ:

MEXICO CITY—Guatemala’s constitutional court granted an injunction late Sunday stopping President Jimmy Morales from signing a controversial immigration proposal that would require migrants from El Salvador and Honduras to seek asylum there rather than the U.S.

Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything to do with the US "shipping off" anyone to anywhere, nor does it have a thing to do with anyone in, or even near, the United States, at all. You have no excuse not to have known that, being the subject of your own thread and all.

Now that you actually know what it is, what, on its own terms, do you find wrong with it? What is wrong with the United States arranging for asylum in other countries, closer to the migrants' homes, rather than in the United States? Why should that be controversial? Please do spell it out.

Harshaw said:

This doesn't have anything to do with the US "shipping off" anyone to anywhere, nor does it have a thing to do with anyone in, or even near, the United States, at all. You have no excuse not to have known that, being the subject of your own thread and all.

Click to expand...

I see, so your version of the agreement is that the US government will NOT automatically reject any potential refugee/asylee claims if the person's country of origin is a country other than the one that they crossed into the US from and will not, subsequently, ship those persons off to Guatemala, is it?

That is really, really, really, strange.

Harshaw said:

Now that you actually know what it is, what, on its own terms, do you find wrong with it?

Click to expand...

Do you mean "other than the fact that it violates both American and international law"?

Harshaw said:

What is wrong with the United States arranging for asylum in other countries, closer to the migrants' homes, rather than in the United States?

Click to expand...

Do you mean "other than the fact that it violates both American and international law" AND "other than the fact that the US isn't proposing to pay a dime towards the housing and care of those people"?

Harshaw said:

Why should that be controversial?

Click to expand...

Indeed, the answer to the question "Should the US government violate both American and international law in order to assist a President of the United States of America in his re-election campaign?" should NOT be in the least bit controversial.

The fact that the question "Should the US government violate both American and international law in order to assist a President of the United States of America in his re-election campaign?" IS HIGHLY controversial speaks volumes about the level of regard for the rule of law that those who say "Yes!!" to the question have.

Harshaw said:

Please do spell it out.

Click to expand...

1. I support the "Rule of law".

2. I support the things that the United States of America claims to stand for and which the children of the people of the United States of America are taught that the United States of America stands for.

3. The "Rule of Law" is one of the things that the United States of America claims to stand for and which the children of the people of the United States of America are taught that the United States of America stands for

4. Those who agree that the US government should violate both American and international law in order to assist a President of the United States of America in his re-election campaign do not support the "Rule of Law".

5. I think that those who do not support the "Rule of Law" are a "clear and present danger" to everything that the United States of America claims to stand for and which the children of the people of the United States of America are taught that the United States of America stands for.

Is that clear enough for you?

TU Curmudgeon said:

I see, so your version of the agreement is that the US government will NOT automatically reject any potential refugee/asylee claims if the person's country of origin is a country other than the one that they crossed into the US from and will not, subsequently, ship those persons off to Guatemala, is it?

That is really, really, really, strange.



Do you mean "other than the fact that it violates both American and international law"?



Do you mean "other than the fact that it violates both American and international law" AND "other than the fact that the US isn't proposing to pay a dime towards the housing and care of those people"?



Indeed, the answer to the question "Should the US government violate both American and international law in order to assist a President of the United States of America in his re-election campaign?" should NOT be in the least bit controversial.

The fact that the question "Should the US government violate both American and international law in order to assist a President of the United States of America in his re-election campaign?" IS HIGHLY controversial speaks volumes about the level of regard for the rule of law that those who say "Yes!!" to the question have.



1. I support the "Rule of law".

2. I support the things that the United States of America claims to stand for and which the children of the people of the United States of America are taught that the United States of America stands for.

3. The "Rule of Law" is one of the things that the United States of America claims to stand for and which the children of the people of the United States of America are taught that the United States of America stands for

4. Those who agree that the US government should violate both American and international law in order to assist a President of the United States of America in his re-election campaign do not support the "Rule of Law".

5. I think that those who do not support the "Rule of Law" are a "clear and present danger" to everything that the United States of America claims to stand for and which the children of the people of the United States of America are taught that the United States of America stands for.

Is that clear enough for you?

Click to expand...

You have NO idea what you're talking about. It really is as simple as that.

Looks like we need to cut off their money.