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

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

Harshaw said:

Conspiracy Theories is elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's called history. And as usual, I know American history than most of the Americans I run into. They're just wallowing in their ignorance.

Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north | US news | The Guardian

JSTOR: Access Check


If you need some help with American history, just ask. I'll be happy to try and explain it so you can understand.

JustHanging said:

I'm sure they agree with me.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the thread, and are posting in complete ignorance of any context. Which is hilarious given the rest of your post.

You have a nice day.

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

JustHanging said:

Actually, it's called history. And as usual, I know American history than most of the Americans I run into. They're just wallowing in their ignorance.

Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north | US news | The Guardian

Click to expand...

Motivated glomming onto derogatory interpretations of events with wild speculations as to shadowy figures behind it all isn't "knowing history." FYI.

Harshaw said:

You obviously didn't read the thread, and are posting in complete ignorance of any context. Which is hilarious given the rest of your post.

Click to expand...

What are you babbling about? Just so you know, posting nonsense like the above, over and over again, does not an argument make.

Where did they say Canada doesn't take it's fair share of refugees?

You have a nice day.

Click to expand...

:2wave:

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

Harshaw said:

Motivated glomming onto derogatory interpretations of events with wild speculations as to shadowy figures behind it all isn't "knowing history." FYI.

Click to expand...

:lamo More nonsense.

I keep providing links to reputable sources to support my assertions. Why do you provide nothing but uninformed opinion?

Impacts of U.S. Foreign Policy and Intervention onGuatemala: Mid-20th Century

Look, maybe you never learned how to cite, let along figure out reputable sources. Why not start here:

Evaluating Websites - Velma Bell Hamilton Middle School - LibGuides at Madison Metropolitan School District

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

JustHanging said:

:lamo That's why you keep providing links to reputable sources to support your assertions?

Impacts of U.S. Foreign Policy and Intervention onGuatemala: Mid-20th Century



Look, maybe you never learned how to cite, let along figure out reputable sources. Why not start here:

Evaluating Websites - Velma Bell Hamilton Middle School - LibGuides at Madison Metropolitan School District

Click to expand...

"Cite." :roll: You "supported" your claim with a link to an opinion piece posted in a virulently anti-American British rag favored by hard leftists.

Bye, now.

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

Harshaw said:

"Cite."


Impacts of U.S. Foreign Policy and Intervention onGuatemala: Mid-20th Century

:roll: You "supported" your claim with a link to an opinion piece posted in a virulently anti-American British rag favored by hard leftists.

Bye, now.

Click to expand...

WTF? The link is to the University of South Florida. Jesus, do you not know how to use the internet?

Here, Boston College:

Lawless Intervention: United States Foreign Policyin El Salvador and Nicaragua

Try to use that Velma Middle School link to help you learn how to cite, and find reputable sources. That way you might learn to put together a coherent argument, rather than giving nothing but your uniformed opinion again and again. Think about it.

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

Moderator's Warning:

Enough with the personal comments. Debate the topic and knock off the personal nonsense.

Grand Mal said:

They can't do that! A newly-elected President can't renege on an agreement made by his predecessor!
Can he?

Click to expand...

Hahahahaha!

That was awesome.

Harshaw said:

Why, specifically, should they be denied entry into Canada? Do tell.

Click to expand...

Because the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement" says that:

1. people entering the US from Canada and making a claim for refugee/asylee status will have their claim dismissed because Canada is a "safe country" (which is a part of the laws of the United States of America); and
2. people entering Canada from the US and making a claim for refugee/asylee status will have their claim dismissed because the US is a "safe country" (which is a part of the laws of Canada) .

Or are you confused by the phrase "is a part of the laws of __[fill in the blank]__"?

I'm sure that the US government would be more than a little miffed if the government of Canada were to unilaterally declare that the US was NOT a "safe country" (thus beginning the termination of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement") so that it would NOT be contrary to the laws of Canada to grant those people refugee/asylee status merely because they had managed to get to the United States of America regardless of their country of origin.

PS - Those people would NOT be "denied entry to Canada" (that would be a violation of Canadian law). They would, however, have their claim for refugee/asylee status rejected and be refused permission to remain in Canada. Under Canadian law they would be returned to the "Safe First Country" that they had come from. That would be the United States of America. Under the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement" that "Safe First Country" would be required to allow their return.

PPS - The upshot of your suggested "solution" would be that the US government would be taking a person who had "entered the United States of America without complying with the formal rules for doing so" into a person who had "entered the United States of America in compliance with the laws of the United States of America". You might not realize it, but your suggested "solution" would actually make the current situation WORSE.

Harshaw said:

Not the point. He said you can't handle the entry of the refugees. You yourself say they should be turned back by Canada.

Neither of those things has to do with US law.

So why not?

Why would you turn them away? Explain.

Click to expand...

Because the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement" requires that that be done.

PS - Exactly how many times do people have to be told "Because that's the law." and given reference to the actual law itself before they stop asking really dumb questions?

Harshaw said:

What will happen?

Click to expand...

They will be returned to the United States of America, which, under the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement" is obliged to accept them.

That will convert a person who had "entered the United States of America in a manner that DID NOT fully comply with the laws of the United States of America" into a person who had "entered the United States of America in a manner that DID fully comply with the laws of the United States of America".

I'm not quite sure how you can consider that that would be an improvement on the current situation, but I am sure that you can explain it to me.

Harshaw said:

What's fascinating about this thread is that two of the most self-righteous, US-bashing Canadians on this board are getting the heebie-jeebies over the idea of Canada taking Honduran refugees.

Canadians: "You racist Americans, afraid of those brown-skinned people from the south! You should be ashamed of yourselves."

Americans: "OK, YOU take them."

Candadians? "NO WAY! We don't want 'em! YOU deal with it!"

That's really what happened in this thread.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

Your position is (essentially) "I don't want the US government to comply with the laws of the United States of America and my proposed solution is to require the Canadian government to breach the laws of Canada to assist the US government in breaching the laws of the United States of America.".

The people who you keep on asking to "spell it out" (regardless of the fact that it has been spelled out repeatedly) take the position (essentially) "We don't care that you don't want the US government to comply with the laws of the United States of America and we don't think that the government of Canada should breach the laws of Canada in order to aid and abet the US government in breaching the laws of the United States of America.".

Your response to that position appears to be "I don't care. I don't want the US government to comply with the laws of the United States of America and everyone else in the entire known universe is required to become complicit in the US government's breaching the laws of the United States of America.".

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

Harshaw said:

"Cite." :roll: You "supported" your claim with a link to an opinion piece posted in a virulently anti-American British rag favored by hard leftists.

Bye, now.

Click to expand...

The University of South Florida is "a virulently anti-American British rag favored by hard leftists"?

I didn't know that.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Because the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement" says that:

1. people entering the US from Canada and making a claim for refugee/asylee status will have their claim dismissed because Canada is a "safe country" (which is a part of the laws of the United States of America); and
2. people entering Canada from the US and making a claim for refugee/asylee status will have their claim dismissed because the US is a "safe country" (which is a part of the laws of Canada) .

Or are you confused by the phrase "is a part of the laws of __[fill in the blank]__"?

I'm sure that the US government would be more than a little miffed if the government of Canada were to unilaterally declare that the US was NOT a "safe country" (thus beginning the termination of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement") so that it would NOT be contrary to the laws of Canada to grant those people refugee/asylee status merely because they had managed to get to the United States of America regardless of their country of origin.

PS - Those people would NOT be "denied entry to Canada" (that would be a violation of Canadian law). They would, however, have their claim for refugee/asylee status rejected and be refused permission to remain in Canada. Under Canadian law they would be returned to the "Safe First Country" that they had come from. That would be the United States of America. Under the terms of the Canada/US "Safe First Country Agreement" that "Safe First Country" would be required to allow their return.

PPS - The upshot of your suggested "solution" would be that the US government would be taking a person who had "entered the United States of America without complying with the formal rules for doing so" into a person who had "entered the United States of America in compliance with the laws of the United States of America". You might not realize it, but your suggested "solution" would actually make the current situation WORSE.

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest any "solution." It was you and Grand Mal who said Canada should turn back the refugees when others said they should be sent to Canada. I asked you to justify turning refugees back from Canada on its own merits, which, contrary to what you say here now, you did say should happen.

You can't seem to answer the question without criticizing the United States. But my question was never about the United States and what it should or shouldn't do. My question was entirely about what you and Grand Mal said Canada should do.

Are you saying Canada doesn't have any agency of its own, and it can only act according to what the United States does, and that it can't decide to take in refugees without referencing the United States? You certainly seem to be. And here I thought it was an independent country and not just a vassal state of the US.

Re: President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

TU Curmudgeon said:

The University of South Florida is "a virulently anti-American British rag favored by hard leftists"?

I didn't know that.

Click to expand...

Um, no. He attempted to support his statement with a link to an opinion piece in the Guardian, and THEN tried to lecture me about appropriate citations.

But, even more deeply, I never actually needed to cite anything, because I made no claims to support. He was the one making all the claims, so he's the one who has to do all the citing. At no point am I obliged to prove him wrong. It's he who is 100% responsible for proving himself right.

Which is part of the irony of what he posted, which should have been obvious to anyone familiar with epistemology or the rules of debate.

Never mind the continual barrage of direct insults. As such, there was no reason at all to take him seriously, so I started ignoring him. :shrug:

TU Curmudgeon said:

Not quite.

Your position is (essentially) "I don't want the US government to comply with the laws of the United States of America and my proposed solution is to require the Canadian government to breach the laws of Canada to assist the US government in breaching the laws of the United States of America.".

The people who you keep on asking to "spell it out" (regardless of the fact that it has been spelled out repeatedly) take the position (essentially) "We don't care that you don't want the US government to comply with the laws of the United States of America and we don't think that the government of Canada should breach the laws of Canada in order to aid and abet the US government in breaching the laws of the United States of America.".

Your response to that position appears to be "I don't care. I don't want the US government to comply with the laws of the United States of America and everyone else in the entire known universe is required to become complicit in the US government's breaching the laws of the United States of America.".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't suggest the US do anything. I asked you justify what you said Canada should do. Which, again, you can't seem to do without referencing the US.

Obviously, the US isn't actually going to be sending anyone to Canada. The US is going to end up taking everyone and granting them amnesty. It's simply what's going to happen.

So obviously, the whole thing is a hypothetical anyway.

But if the US did send the refugees to Canada, in violation of its own laws and treaties, which is the hypothetical, those people still have to go somewhere. And the whole point is, you and Grand Mal are saying "not Canada."

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Associated Press

President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US
​

GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — A Guatemalan immigration agreement signed with the Trump administration won’t work because the Central American nation does not have the resources, the country’s new president-elect says.

Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who was chosen overwhelmingly by voters in a weekend runoff election, said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that Guatemala is too poor to tend to its own people, let alone those from other countries.

The agreement signed in July by the outgoing administration of President Jimmy Morales would require migrants from other countries who cross into Guatemala to apply for asylum here rather than in the U.S.

“In order to be a safe country, one has to be certified as such by an international body, and I do not think Guatemala fulfills the requirements to be a third safe country. That definition doesn’t fit us,” said Giammattei, a 63-year-old doctor.

COMMENT:-

It looks like this is yet another "deal" that has absolutely no substance (and never was intended to have any), BUT since negotiations over the "secret protocols" are still ongoing, I rather suspect that it is possible that one of the things that is under discussion is how much money the US government will be paying to the Guatemalan government every month to cover the costs of dealing with the people who are being "retained" in Guatemala (and how soon after the first missed payment "the deal" expires).

But, then again, everyone knows that I'm a cynic.
​

Click to expand...

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.

Harshaw said:

I didn't suggest any "solution."

Click to expand...

Really? You mean that

wasn't one of your posts?

Harshaw said:

It was you and Grand Mal who said Canada should turn back the refugees when others said they should be sent to Canada.

Click to expand...

I never said "should". What I pointed out was that the laws of Canada were such that the applicants WOULD have their applications denied and WOULD be returned to the United States of America (which return would be in accordance with the laws of both Canada and the United States of America [and would also rectify any irregularity in the person's original entry into the United States of America]).

Harshaw said:

I asked you to justify turning refugees back from Canada on its own merits, ...

Click to expand...

Actually that isn't what you asked at all.

Harshaw said:

... which, contrary to what you say here now, you did say should happen.

Click to expand...

Once again, there is a difference between "should" and "would".

However, I do believe "in order to comply with the law as it is actually written" comes exceedingly (say around 99.999999999%) close to being a "justification on the merits". Obviously you hold that "Because I don't want to." is a sufficient justification of not complying with the law as it is actually written".

Harshaw said:

You can't seem to answer the question without criticizing the United States. But my question was never about the United States and what it should or shouldn't do. My question was entirely about what you and Grand Mal said Canada should do.

Click to expand...

I believe that

Your position appears to be that

Harshaw said:

Are you saying Canada doesn't have any agency of its own, and it can only act according to what the United States does, and that it can't decide to take in refugees without referencing the United States?

Click to expand...

No. What I am saying is that the laws of Canada are what the laws of Canada are (and are not whatever I want them to be on any given day).

I also believe that the laws of the United States of America are what the laws of the United States of America actually are and are not whatever I want them to be on any given day. Obviously we disagree on this poing.

Harshaw said:

You certainly seem to be. And here I thought it was an independent country and not just a vassal state of the US.

Click to expand...

I suppose that, if you want to ignore reality you could come to that conclusion.

Harshaw said:

No. I didn't suggest the US do anything. I asked you justify what you said Canada should do. Which, again, you can't seem to do without referencing the US.

Obviously, the US isn't actually going to be sending anyone to Canada. The US is going to end up taking everyone and granting them amnesty. It's simply what's going to happen.

So obviously, the whole thing is a hypothetical anyway.

But if the US did send the refugees to Canada, in violation of its own laws and treaties, which is the hypothetical, those people still have to go somewhere. And the whole point is, you and Grand Mal are saying "not Canada."

Click to expand...

Quite right.

I can see no reason why the government of Canada should breach the laws of Canada in order to aid and abet the government of the United States of America in breaching the laws of the United States of America.

The "Bus People" would be returned to the United States of America (and this time their entry would be 100% in accord with the laws of the United States of America [which laws require the government of the United States of America to permit the people re-entry into the United States of America]).

TU Curmudgeon said:

Really? You mean that

​

wasn't one of your posts?

Click to expand...

Of course it was one of my posts. But I wasn't suggesting a solution; someone else did. I was asking Grand Mal why he reached his conclusion.

I never said "should". What I pointed out was that the laws of Canada were such that the applicants WOULD have their applications denied and WOULD be returned to the United States of America (which return would be in accordance with the laws of both Canada and the United States of America [and would also rectify any irregularity in the person's original entry into the United States of America]).

Click to expand...

Actually that isn't what you asked at all.



Once again, there is a difference between "should" and "would".

However, I do believe "in order to comply with the law as it is actually written" comes exceedingly (say around 99.999999999%) close to being a "justification on the merits". Obviously you hold that "Because I don't want to." is a sufficient justification of not complying with the law as it is actually written".[/quote]


OK, fine; you were saying what would happen.

Do you not also believe that it's what SHOULD happen? Please clarify.

I believe that

the government of Canada should comply with the laws of Canada and I believe that the government of the United States of America should comply with the laws of the United States of America.
​

Your position appears to be that

the government of Canada should breach the laws of Canada in order to aid and abet the government of the United States of America in breaching the laws of the United States of America.
​

No. What I am saying is that the laws of Canada are what the laws of Canada are (and are not whatever I want them to be on any given day).

I also believe that the laws of the United States of America are what the laws of the United States of America actually are and are not whatever I want them to be on any given day. Obviously we disagree on this poing.

Click to expand...

We disagree on which point?

Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
You certainly seem to be. And here I thought it was an independent country and not just a vassal state of the US.

Click to expand...

I suppose that, if you want to ignore reality you could come to that conclusion.[/QUOTE]

If I "ignore reality," I could come to the conclusion that Canada is an independent country and not just a vassal state of the US? Really?

TU Curmudgeon said:

Quite right.

I can see no reason why the government of Canada should breach the laws of Canada in order to aid and abet the government of the United States of America in breaching the laws of the United States of America.

The "Bus People" would be returned to the United States of America (and this time their entry would be 100% in accord with the laws of the United States of America [which laws require the government of the United States of America to permit the people re-entry into the United States of America]).

Click to expand...

OK, now here you ARE saying that IF the US disregarded its own laws and treaty obligations and sent the refugees to Canada, then Canada SHOULD turn them back.

Harshaw said:

Of course it was one of my posts. But I wasn't suggesting a solution; someone else did. I was asking Grand Mal why he reached his conclusion.






Actually that isn't what you asked at all.



Once again, there is a difference between "should" and "would".

However, I do believe "in order to comply with the law as it is actually written" comes exceedingly (say around 99.999999999%) close to being a "justification on the merits". Obviously you hold that "Because I don't want to." is a sufficient justification of not complying with the law as it is actually written".

Click to expand...

OK, fine; you were saying what would happen.

Do you not also believe that it's what SHOULD happen? Please clarify.[/quote]

I believe that the government of a country SHOULD comply with the laws of the country. I believe that, if the people of the country do not like what the government of the country is compelled to do because the government is complying with the laws of the country then the people of the country should elect a government that will change the laws of the country so that the government is no longer compelled to do what the people of the country think that it should not be compelled to do if it complies with the laws of the country.

Harshaw said:

We disagree on which point?

Click to expand...

My position is that the government of __[fill in the blank]__ should do whatever the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ say it should do and should not simply ignore the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ REGARDLESS of whether or not I agree with what that action is. If I don't like the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ which compel the government of __[fill in the blank]__ to do something that I don't agree with, then it is up t me to get off my butt and do what I can to get the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ changed so that the government of __[fill in the blank]__ is NOT compelled (by the laws of __[fill in the blank]__) to take actions that I do not agree with.

Your position most certainly appears to be that the government of __[fill in the blank]__ should simply ignore the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ whenever you feel that you don't like what the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ say that the government of __[fill in the blank]__ is supposed to be doing and that, because the government of __[fill in the blank]__ is, thus, free to ignore the laws of __[fill in the blank]__ there is no need to actually do anything about the laws of __[fill in the blank]__.

I may be wrong, but I see those as slightly different positions.

Harshaw said:

I suppose that, if you want to ignore reality you could come to that conclusion.

If I "ignore reality," I could come to the conclusion that Canada is an independent country and not just a vassal state of the US? Really?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately your post was so chopped up in formatting, I'm not actually sure what you are saying so you will, naturally, forgive me for not "replying" to those parts that don't appear to make any sense whatsoever.

Harshaw said:

OK, now here you ARE saying that IF the US disregarded its own laws and treaty obligations and sent the refugees to Canada, then Canada SHOULD turn them back.

Click to expand...

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 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?

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...

Pfft. They're all corrupt. Trump is just as corrupt if not more so as Obama was, and Giammattei sounds like an extremist from the Bolsonaro-wing of Latin America. And Trump, nor Giammattei, will do a damn thing about any of these problems.