Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

  1. #81
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,982

    Re: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Really? 'Coz Mexico has the same obligation. But I'm sure you think that's different.
    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 alienís 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 ß 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".
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't _DESERVE_ the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)



  2. #82
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    36,728

    Re: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    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.
    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.
    The only reason to be anti-libertarian is there are people you want to control that you wouldn't be able to.

  3. #83
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    36,728

    Re: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    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 ß 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".
    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.
    The only reason to be anti-libertarian is there are people you want to control that you wouldn't be able to.

  4. #84
    Educator MauiMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Washington, Minnesota, Hawaii
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    991

    Re: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

    Another inane negotiation from the king of deal making.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  5. #85
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,982

    Re: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    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?
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't _DESERVE_ the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)



  6. #86
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,982

    Re: [W:58] President-elect says Guatemala canít do migrant deal with US

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No. Again, you're being intentionally dishonest. The point is that Mexico has the same obligations we do. That, too, was plain.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    As you have demonstrated you cannot conduct yourself honestly, there's no reason to pay any further attention to you here.
    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.
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't _DESERVE_ the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)



Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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