[W:58] President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

smallvoice said:

Well, that sounds similar to the situations Trump found himself. Trumps' predecessors committed the US to nonsense, clearly not in our best interests. Apparently, previous Guatemala leadership did the same thing. It looks like the new President of Guatemala is looking out for his country, not like those who proceeded him. Trump may be rubbing off on the world, in a good way.

Click to expand...

The US government wanted the Canada/US "Safe First Country" agreement in order to prevent people from entering the US from Canada in such a manner as to NOT violate US law. The odds on Canada agreeing to such an arrangement WITHOUT it being reciprocal were as close to nil as possible (because that would have violated Canadian law).

That means that the options were (essentially):

1. have a reciprocal agreement; or
2. have no agreement.

A RECIPROCAL agreement provided SOME advantages to the US government (and to the Canadian government [admittedly more advantages to the Canadian government than anyone thought about at the time]). NO agreement provided NO advantages to the US government and conferred NO disadvantages on the Canadian government.

Which would you say was MORE beneficial to the US government?

Is it "nonsense" to get "something" rather than "nothing"?

You do know that there is no such thing as a unilaterally imposed "Safe First Country" agreement, don't you?

TU Curmudgeon said:

I am saying that, in that situation, the government of Canada SHOULD comply with the laws of Canada - REGARDLESS of whether or not I agree with what the government of Canada is compelled to do by complying with the laws of Canada.

The fact that the "Bus People" would, as a result of being "returned" to the United States of America in accordance with the laws of BOTH Canada and the United States of America no longer be "illegal entrants" and that the problems facing the government of the United States of America would be compounded significantly is of secondary importance.

Now, if the government of the United States of America wants to negotiate a "trade deal" wherein it provides X number of people to Canada AND pays for the upkeep of those people for as long as they are in Canada, I think that we could well work out a deal. At last I heard the number of people that they US had which it didn't want (the "illegal entrants") was around 11,000,000. Obviously not all of those people are "single person households", so let's reduce that to 5,500,000 "households". The current average NAT household income in Canada is around CDN$59,800. Once you add in the amount of taxes, and then convert to US dollars that works out to approximately US$60,000. That would work out to a total annual payment of around US$330,000,000,000 or US$30,000 per individual. Using the per individual figure is much simpler administratively, so lets go with that one.

That means that all that would be required would be to negotiate the length of time that the US government would have to pay for the support of its "surplus people". A reasonable period of time seems to be around 10 years, so let's stick with that one.

I would be in complete agreement with modifying the current Canada/US "Safe First Country" Agreement so that anyone that the US government presented at the Canadian border accompanied with $400,000 (real Canadian dollars) AND whose good behaviour the US government guaranteed would be allowed to enter and remain in Canada for so long as they obeyed the laws of Canada.

If they breached the laws of Canada, then they would be returned to the United States of America and whatever was left of the original $400,000 (real Canadian dollars) could (at the option of the government of Canada) be forfeit as "liquidated damages".

There would be absolutely no bar on the US government re-presenting someone who had been returned under this agreement, but, to take into account the increased potential risk involved in accepting someone who has already shown that they will breach the laws of Canada, the amount that the US government would have to be increased (let's say by a factor of 10 for each time that the US government re-presents an individual

[i.e. on the first re-presentation the 400,000 would become 4,000,000

on the second re-presentation the 4,000,000 would become 40,000,000

on the third re-presentation the 40,000,000 would become 400,000,000

and so on

{naturally the balances outstanding on those amounts would be as subject to being forfeit as "liquidated damages" as the original 400,000}]).​

I mean, surely you don't expect your neighbour to solve all of your problems for you for free. Why that would be **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** - wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

You continue to ignore the actual terms of the hypothetical, which I suspect is purposeful.

And, you do it in a way which makes it clear that this is really Guatemala's problem. Or Mexico's problem. And for some reason, you wish to absolve them of the responsibility you lay on the United States.

Harshaw said:

You continue to ignore the actual terms of the hypothetical, which I suspect is purposeful.

Click to expand...

The "actual terms" (although not expressly stated) of your hypothetical are "If the US government, contrary to the laws of the United States of America, illegally detains people and then illegally transports them to the US/Canada border and then illegally pushes them out of the United States of America into Canada, should the Canadian government ignore the laws of Canada and allow those people to remain in Canada?". (slight emphasis added)

My answer to that question is
I am sorry that I cannot, in good conscience, provide you with the
that you so ardently desire me to provide.

Harshaw said:

And, you do it in a way which makes it clear that this is really Guatemala's problem. Or Mexico's problem. And for some reason, you wish to absolve them of the responsibility you lay on the United States.

Click to expand...

Under the laws of the United States of America, the responsibility for dealing with any person who manages to get into the United States of America and who makes a claim for refugee/asylee status is that of the government of the United States of America (and the government of the United States of America SHOULD discharge that responsibility WITHOUT violating the laws of the United States of America). No other country has any responsibility for dealing with anyone who is in the United States of America and who is making an application to the US government for refugee/asylee status.

If you don't like the laws of the United States of America, then change the laws of the United States of America to ones that you do like. This is what is known as "following the democratic process".

If you want to make "illegal immigration" an offence punishable by summary execution (carried out by the apprehending law enforcement officer [based on that law enforcement officer not believing whatever so-called "evidence" the deceased had purported to present]) you are perfectly free to do so. Believe me


will act as a REALLY strong deterrent to "illegal immigration". Of course, it wouldn't do much for the reputation of the United States of America as a "bastion of freedom, dignity, and hope for the world" - but you can't have everything, can you?

TU Curmudgeon said:

The "actual terms" (although not expressly stated) of your hypothetical are "If the US government, contrary to the laws of the United States of America, illegally detains people and then illegally transports them to the US/Canada border and then illegally pushes them out of the United States of America into Canada, should the Canadian government ignore the laws of Canada and allow those people to remain in Canada?". (slight emphasis added)

Click to expand...

No, that isn't my hypothetical.

But you've shown that you're intentionally ignoring it.

My hypothetical was that US ignores its own laws and refuses to accept the refugees, shipping them off to Canada, thus becoming an unsafe country. You say "**** them, not Canada's problem."

Which you may consider legally correct, but the refugees are then completely ****ed, and you wash your hands of it.

Obviously (OBVIOUSLY), my question was a moral hypothetical. But you're clinging to legalese to duck the moral question.

I think the incandescent answer is here is that you simply don't want the brown people in Canada. You're certainly doing everything you can to argue it.

My answer to that question is

"The Canadian government SHOULD comply with the laws of Canada. That would mean that those people which the US government had illegally forced into Canada would be allowed to APPLY for refugee/asylee status and that those APPLICATIONS would be dealt with in accordance with the laws of Canada (which laws include the Canada/US "Safe First Country" agreement. That would mean that the APPLICATIONS would NOT be approved and the people would be, under the laws of Canada, returned to the country whence they entered Canada, and that country would (under the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country" agreement) be compelled to accept the return of those people."
​

I am sorry that I cannot, in good conscience, provide you with the

"The Canadian government SHOULD completely ignore the laws of Canada and assist the US government in breaching the laws of the United States of America (so as to spare the US government any expense and to inflict 100% of the expense on the Canadian taxpayers). This is especially true when the sole motivation behind asking the government of Canada to assist the US government in breaching the laws of the United States of America (so as to spare the US government any expense and to inflict 100% of the expense on the Canadian taxpayers) is to make a single American politician look good."
​

that you so ardently desire me to provide.



Under the laws of the United States of America, the responsibility for dealing with any person who manages to get into the United States of America and who makes a claim for refugee/asylee status is that of the government of the United States of America (and the government of the United States of America SHOULD discharge that responsibility WITHOUT violating the laws of the United States of America). No other country has any responsibility for dealing with anyone who is in the United States of America and who is making an application to the US government for refugee/asylee status.

Click to expand...

Really? 'Coz Mexico has the same obligation. But I'm sure you think that's different. :roll:

Harshaw said:

No, that isn't my hypothetical.

But you've shown that you're intentionally ignoring it.

My hypothetical was that US ignores its own laws and refuses to accept the refugees, shipping them off to Canada, thus becoming an unsafe country. You say "**** them, not Canada's problem."

Click to expand...

Exactly why would that make the US an "unsafe country"? Once you have explained that then we can discuss THAT "hypothetical" (since you didn't include any "thus becoming an unsafe country" in your original hypothetical.

Restricting your hypothetical STRICTLY to "IF YOU ASSUME that US ignores its own laws and refuses to -accept- _allow_ the refugees _to apply for refugee/asylee status_, shipping them off to Canada, _THEN should Canada ignore its own laws and grant them refugee/asylee status even if such would be contrary to the laws of Canada_ (missing bits and misstatement of facts rectified) - then my answer is

Harshaw said:

Which you may consider legally correct, but the refugees are then completely ****ed, and you wash your hands of it.

Click to expand...

Since we are talking about "The Law" then that is the answer that you are going to get from anyone who thinks that the government of a country SHOULD obey the laws of their own country.

Harshaw said:

Obviously (OBVIOUSLY), my question was a moral hypothetical. But you're clinging to legalese to duck the moral question.

Click to expand...

If it would be "morally required" for Canada to take in those people (regardless of what the laws of Canada are), would it not be "morally required" for the United States of America to take in those people (and be morally repugnant to refuse to do so)?

Harshaw said:

I think the incandescent answer is here is that you simply don't want the brown people in Canada. You're certainly doing everything you can to argue it.

Click to expand...

Anyone who arrives in Canada and says that they want to make a claim for refugee/asylee status SHOULD have that claim dealt with in accordance with the laws of Canada. Those laws include certain requirements that the claimant must fulfill before the application is granted. One of those requirement is that the claimant NOT have arrived in Canada from the United States of America. That requirement applies REGARDLESS of skin pigmentation.

The laws of the United States of America require that anyone who arrives in the United States of America and says that they want to make a claim for refugee/asylee status MUST have that claim dealt with in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. Those laws include certain requirements that the claimant must fulfill before the application is granted. One of those requirement is that the claimant NOT have arrived in the United States of America from Canada. It is NOT a requirement that the claimant NOT have arrived in the United States of America from Mexico. The requirement applies REGARDLESS of skin pigmentation.

Harshaw said:

Really? 'Coz Mexico has the same obligation. But I'm sure you think that's different. :roll:

Click to expand...

Indeed, the laws of Mexico state quite clearly "All foreigners in national territory have the right to apply for refugee status,..." (emphasis added)

The laws of the United States of America clearly state "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title. (emphasis added)" (8 U.S. Code § 1158. (a)(1))

In short, NEITHER the US nor Mexico (nor any other country that I know of) has any legal obligation to "grant asylum" to someone who doesn't apply to the government of that country for asylum.

However, I am well aware that you want everyone to think that you honestly believe that the Mexican government is legally bound to grant asylum to anyone who manages to get into Mexico (regardless of whether or not they apply for asylum) and that the US government has absolutely no legal requirement to allow anyone (regardless of any factors whatsoever) to APPLY for asylum - especially if those people are "brown people".

TU Curmudgeon said:

Exactly why would that make the US an "unsafe country"? Once you have explained that then we can discuss THAT "hypothetical" (since you didn't include any "thus becoming an unsafe country" in your original hypothetical.

Restricting your hypothetical STRICTLY to "IF YOU ASSUME that US ignores its own laws and refuses to -accept- _allow_ the refugees _to apply for refugee/asylee status_, shipping them off to Canada, _THEN should Canada ignore its own laws and grant them refugee/asylee status even if such would be contrary to the laws of Canada_ (missing bits and misstatement of facts rectified) - then my answer is

"No. The Canadian government SHOULD comply with the laws of Canada. That would mean that those people which the US government had illegally forced into Canada would be allowed to APPLY for refugee/asylee status and that those APPLICATIONS would be dealt with in accordance with the laws of Canada (which laws include the Canada/US "Safe First Country" agreement. That would mean that the APPLICATIONS would NOT be approved and the people would be, under the laws of Canada, returned to the country whence they entered Canada, and that country would (under the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country" agreement) be compelled to accept the return of those people."
​

Since we are talking about "The Law" then that is the answer that you are going to get from anyone who thinks that the government of a country SHOULD obey the laws of their own country.



If it would be "morally required" for Canada to take in those people (regardless of what the laws of Canada are), would it not be "morally required" for the United States of America to take in those people (and be morally repugnant to refuse to do so)?



Anyone who arrives in Canada and says that they want to make a claim for refugee/asylee status SHOULD have that claim dealt with in accordance with the laws of Canada. Those laws include certain requirements that the claimant must fulfill before the application is granted. One of those requirement is that the claimant NOT have arrived in Canada from the United States of America. That requirement applies REGARDLESS of skin pigmentation.

The laws of the United States of America require that anyone who arrives in the United States of America and says that they want to make a claim for refugee/asylee status MUST have that claim dealt with in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. Those laws include certain requirements that the claimant must fulfill before the application is granted. One of those requirement is that the claimant NOT have arrived in the United States of America from Canada. It is NOT a requirement that the claimant NOT have arrived in the United States of America from Mexico. The requirement applies REGARDLESS of skin pigmentation.

Click to expand...

No. As I said flat out, I wasn't talking about the law. You were clinging to the law to avoid the moral question.

I said that plain as day. As you continue to pretend I'm talking about the law, I can safely conclude it's intentional dishonesty.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Indeed, the laws of Mexico state quite clearly "All foreigners in national territory have the right to apply for refugee status,..." (emphasis added)

The laws of the United States of America clearly state "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title. (emphasis added)" (8 U.S. Code § 1158. (a)(1))

In short, NEITHER the US nor Mexico (nor any other country that I know of) has any legal obligation to "grant asylum" to someone who doesn't apply to the government of that country for asylum.

However, I am well aware that you want everyone to think that you honestly believe that the Mexican government is legally bound to grant asylum to anyone who manages to get into Mexico (regardless of whether or not they apply for asylum) and that the US government has absolutely no legal requirement to allow anyone (regardless of any factors whatsoever) to APPLY for asylum - especially if those people are "brown people".

Click to expand...

No. Again, you're being intentionally dishonest. The point is that Mexico has the same obligations we do. That, too, was plain.

As you have demonstrated you cannot conduct yourself honestly, there's no reason to pay any further attention to you here.

Another inane negotiation from the king of deal making.

Harshaw said:

No. As I said flat out, I wasn't talking about the law. You were clinging to the law to avoid the moral question.

I said that plain as day. As you continue to pretend I'm talking about the law, I can safely conclude it's intentional dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Morality doesn't enter into it at all - at least not when you are discussing whether or not a government SHOULD obey the laws of its own country.

All three of Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America have both a moral and legal responsibility to let anyone who reaches their territory APPLY for refugee/asylee status.

All three of Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America have the legal authority to set whatever standards they feel are in the best interests of their own country as to which APPLICATIONS for refugee/asylee status they will grant and which APPLICATIONS they will reject. Considering that Canada already approves more applications for refugee/asylee status than the United States of America does, it's pretty hypocritical to advance any proposition that Canada is being "immoral" simply because it doesn't approve even more applications for refugee/asylee status than it already does. It's even more hypocritical when that claim is based on the proposition "The government of the United States of America is 100% free to disregard the laws of the United States of America and dump (illegally) hundreds of thousands of people that it has illegally detained into another country.".

You may think that a belief in "The Rule of Law" is the same thing as "intentional dishonesty", I don't.

You may think that it is perfectly proper for the government of any country to ignore the laws of its own country so that it can do what you want done (in this case it is "Keep the 'Brown People' out.") - I don't.

You may think that the governments of other countries have some sort of "moral obligation" to aid and abet the government of the United States of America in breaching the laws of the United States of America - I don't.

Personally I am in favour of granting 100% of the people (Including "Black People", "White People", "Red People", "Yellow People", "Brown People", and even "Stripped People" or "Polka-dot People") who manage to reach _[fill in the blank]_ whom the laws of _[fill in the blank]_ say are entitled to refugee/asylee status that status and I am also in favour of having those applications adjudicated upon according to the laws of _[fill in the blank]_ - you aren't.

I trust that that makes our relative positions somewhat clearer.

PS - Is it "immoral" to refuse to assist someone to commit an immoral act? If you consider that it would be "immoral" for Canada not to admit hundreds of thousands of refugee/asylee claimants REGARDLESS of the law, how can you say that it is NOT "immoral" for the United States of America to do the same thing and then advance the proposition that it is "immoral" for the government of Canada NOT to assist the government of the United States of America in carrying out an "immoral" act?

PPS - You do realize that your original question was "SHOULD Canada admit (hundreds of thousands of) refugees if the US government simply trucked them to the US/Canada border?" (or words to that effect), don't you and that your original question was NOT "Would it be IMMORAL for Canada NOT to admit (hundreds of thousands of) refugees if the US government simply trucked them to the US/Canada border?" don't you?

Harshaw said:

No. Again, you're being intentionally dishonest. The point is that Mexico has the same obligations we do. That, too, was plain.

Click to expand...

Indeed Mexico does have the legal obligation to ALLOW people to APPLY for refugee/asylee status IF they manage to reach Mexican territory AND IF those people CHOSE to make such an application and it is also true that the United States of America does have the legal obligation to ALLOW people to APPLY for refugee/asylee status IF they manage to reach US territory AND IF those people CHOSE to make such an application.

It is also true that NEITHER Mexico NOR the United States of America has any obligation to GRANT the APPLICATION if the person does not meet the criteria set by the respective governments under the laws of the respective country. It is also true that NEITHER Mexico NOR the United States of America has any obligation to grant refugee/asylee status to any person who does not apply for it. It is also true that NEITHER Mexico NOR the United States of America has any obligation to FORCE someone to apply for refugee/asylee status.

Harshaw said:

As you have demonstrated you cannot conduct yourself honestly, there's no reason to pay any further attention to you here.

Click to expand...

That will be a relief as then I will not have to deal with someone who thinks that

1. "MAY apply" and "MUST apply" mean the same thing;
2. "MUST ALLOW an application" and "MUST GRANT an application" mean the same thing; and
3. it is "immoral" to refuse to aid and abet another country to breach its own laws.

At least that will be the case if you honestly believe what you have been posting.