• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When deportation is a death sentence

ReverendHellh0und said:
That's her ex's fault as well as her home country's failure to enforce it's own laws. nobody elses.
Click to expand...
holbritter said:
Bull****. The only one responsible is the person who killed her!
Click to expand...

If I tossed you in a cage with a lion, would I be completely blameless? I mean, I didn't kill you, the lion did. Not my problem right?

jamesrage said:
That is the fault of the man who murdered her and the fault of her government for not protecting her against that man.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it's the government's responsibility to protect us and provide for our safety?
 
Dittohead not! said:
There you go. Let someone else take them. We'll just stay here and predict disaster for the countries who do take refugees.

Oh, right. We've already done that.
Click to expand...

When you open up your home and let some live with you, let me know. Until then, you don't get to judge anyone.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If I tossed you in a cage with a lion, would I be completely blameless? I mean, I didn't kill you, the lion did. Not my problem right?
Click to expand...

Why do you pick such overly dramatic comparisons.

If the border officer locked her in a cage with her ex, and her ex killed her, yes the border officer would be culpable. That didn't happen. I'll even go as far as if her ex had been standing there over the border waiting, we could have been culpable. But that didn't even happen.

You do realize this happens too often in our own country. Is the US culpable for every woman who is killed or harmed by their ex after they obtain a protection order, and that ex violates the order?
 
holbritter said:
Why do you pick such overly dramatic comparisons.

If the border officer locked her in a cage with her ex, and her ex killed her, yes the border officer would be culpable. That didn't happen. I'll even go as far as if her ex had been standing there over the border waiting, we could have been culpable. But that didn't even happen.

You do realize this happens too often in our own country. Is the US culpable for every woman who is killed or harmed by their ex after they obtain a protection order, and that ex violates the order?
Click to expand...

Except that:
“I can’t be sent back to Mexico,” Laura told Solis, beginning to cry. “I have a protection order against my ex—please, just let me call my mom and she’ll bring you the paperwork.”
Click to expand...

She had a protection (restraining?) order against her ex, she told them he would kill her if she got sent back, they ignored her cries and sent her back anyways, and as predicted she was murdered. Yes, the border patrol agents and this cop bear partial responsibility because they knew she was in danger and didn't give a ****. One less brown mouth to feed, right?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Except that:


She had a protection (restraining?) order against her ex, she told them he would kill her if she got sent back, they ignored her cries and sent her back anyways, and as predicted she was murdered. Yes, the border patrol agents and this cop bear partial responsibility because they knew she was in danger and didn't give a ****. One less brown mouth to feed, right?
Click to expand...

And like I asked, is the US responsible for all the women who are killed or hurt by their ex, when they have protection order?

And you don't know if they "didn't give a ****" or were they just doing their job. You know how many excuses and begging and such they hear on a daily basis? They are supposed to know which are true and which are ploys to be let go?
 
holbritter said:
And like I asked, is the US responsible for all the women who are killed or hurt by their ex, when they have protection order?
And you don't know if they "didn't give a ****" or were they just doing their job. You know how many excuses and begging and such they hear on a daily basis? They are supposed to know which are true and which are ploys to be let go?
Click to expand...

As stated in the OP, no one called her mom, no one checked her story for paperwork, no hearing was had, just load her up and get her the **** out of our country. That is the mentality of ICE, they do not care if the people they're rounding up are being sent to death, it is irrelevant to them as long as they're gone. Yes I think that's negligent, heartbreaking and they do bear partial responsibility. You're probably someone who thinks it's ok to send asylum seekers back into the country they're fleeing so they can be murdered right? Would you send a religious refugee back to their country during an religious genocide? Hey, you wouldn't be responsible right?
 
Law enforcement in the US does not even have a legal responsibility to protect its own citizens......what makes anyone think its our nations responsibility to protect people in other nations?

We need to fix our own house before we get busy fixing our neighbors.

In the end, the one responsible is the murderer.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
As stated in the OP, no one called her mom, no one checked her story for paperwork, no hearing was had, just load her up and get her the **** out of our country. That is the mentality of ICE, they do not care if the people they're rounding up are being sent to death, it is irrelevant to them as long as they're gone. Yes I think that's negligent, heartbreaking and they do bear partial responsibility. You're probably someone who thinks it's ok to send asylum seekers back into the country they're fleeing so they can be murdered right? Would you send a religious refugee back to their country during an religious genocide? Hey, you wouldn't be responsible right?
Click to expand...

Now you are grouping this incident with actual asylum speakers and religious genocides?

Apples.. Oranges....
 
RabidAlpaca said:
As stated in the OP, no one called her mom, no one checked her story for paperwork, no hearing was had, just load her up and get her the **** out of our country. That is the mentality of ICE, they do not care if the people they're rounding up are being sent to death, it is irrelevant to them as long as they're gone. Yes I think that's negligent, heartbreaking and they do bear partial responsibility. You're probably someone who thinks it's ok to send asylum seekers back into the country they're fleeing so they can be murdered right? Would you send a religious refugee back to their country during an religious genocide? Hey, you wouldn't be responsible right?
Click to expand...

Why won't you answer my question?
 
jimbo said:
Speaking of leaving facts out.

The woman was here illegally. She had no papers. Her mom didn't have any papers making her legal. She didn't come here seeking asylum. She had been here at least long enough to pop out three anchor babies, at 23. During that 5 + years she had been in contact with our legal system and I see no effort to apply for asylum.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you support that from the OP article, or is that just an unfounded opinion?
 
holbritter said:
When you open up your home and let some live with you, let me know. Until then, you don't get to judge anyone.
Click to expand...

If a young woman came to your door saying someone was after her and wanted to kill her, would you send her away to be killed?
 
As for the "It's not our problem, the murderers and rapists are the only ones responsible" arguments I keep seeing, some of the bad guys are our bad guys:

It took a hunger strike to uncover this one:

CBS reported that the C.I.A. knew that Bámaca had been captured alive and tortured, and Harbury moved her hunger strike to the gates of the White House. On the twelfth day of her fast, the congressman Robert G. Torricelli revealed that a Guatemalan Army colonel being paid by the C.I.A. had been involved in Bámaca’s torture, as well as in the earlier killing of a U.S. citizen, in 1990. President Clinton’s Administration ordered internal investigations into the United States’ role in the murders and their coverups.
Click to expand...

as a result:

In 1995, Bill Clinton suspended covert C.I.A. funding to the Guatemalan Army after the agency admitted to making mistakes in Bámaca’s case. To Harbury, this was far from sufficient. By then, she’d learned that her husband had been killed by men on the C.I.A.’s payroll. The next year, she sued officials from the State Department, the C.I.A., and other government bodies for denying her access to information that might have helped prevent her husband’s killing.
Click to expand...

There's more, but let's not make this post too long, as no one will read it if it is.
 
Dittohead not! said:
To make a long story short, no one called her mom, she was deported without a hearing, and her ex tortured and killed her.

And, she's not alone.

Read more here

Some of them are, I assume, good people. Yes, and some of those good people are fleeing bad people.
Click to expand...

Why, exactly, is it OK for anyone to decide that laws (immigration, licensed/insured driving or staying in your lane) based on having some alleged criminal in any country after them? Would this situation have been acceptable if the one allegedly suffering from prior domestic abuse was a US citizen and driving unlicensed and uninsured?

I find it moronic to assert that anyone fearing a criminal in their homeland should be granted "sanctuary" and be excused from following any other federal, state or local laws that they find too inconvenient or too expensive. I am sure that the citizens of Texas (I being among them) would much rather have those illegal aliens (cute or not) that drive unlicensed and uninsured be deported than to pay to incarcerate them to keep them off of our roadways.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why, exactly, is it OK for anyone to decide that laws (immigration, licensed/insured driving or staying in your lane) based on having some alleged criminal in any country after them? Would this situation have been acceptable if the one allegedly suffering from prior domestic abuse was a US citizen and driving unlicensed and uninsured?

I find it moronic to assert that anyone fearing a criminal in their homeland should be granted "sanctuary" and be excused from following any other federal, state or local laws that they find too inconvenient or too expensive. I am sure that the citizens of Texas (I being among them) would much rather have those illegal aliens (cute or not) that drive unlicensed and uninsured be deported than to pay to incarcerate them to keep them off of our roadways.
Click to expand...

There is a basis for asylum seekers to have a hearing to determine whether they may or may not stay:

In the years following the Second World War, the United Nations established a principle of international law known as non-refoulement, or non-return, which forbids the removal of asylum seekers to countries where they are likely to be tortured or killed. The principle was enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, formalizing the concept of the “refugee” and insuring safe harbor for people who could show “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” No one with a credible fear of persecution could be expelled “in any manner whatsoever to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”
Click to expand...

which grew out of Jews being sent back to the death camps in Germany.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Really? Can you support that from the OP article, or is that just an unfounded opinion?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? Or possibly others on the same subject.

The woman was 23
The woman had 3 kids after she arrived.
The woman had no citizenship
papers. Not even a driver license or Visa.
The papers at her mother's home were restraining orders, not citizenship papers.
I found nothing indicating she had ever asked asylum prior to her arrest.
The article states she had called the police, and had a restraining order. Judges grant those.
 
jimbo said:
Did you read the article? Or possibly others on the same subject.

The woman was 23
The woman had 3 kids after she arrived.
The woman had no citizenship
papers. Not even a driver license or Visa.
The papers at her mother's home were restraining orders, not citizenship papers.
I found nothing indicating she had ever asked asylum prior to her arrest.
The article states she had called the police, and had a restraining order. Judges grant those.
Click to expand...

What she had was an emergency protection order. She was not allowed to get it, or ask her mother to bring it. She was summarily sent to her death without a hearing. Her case is not unique, as the article states.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is a basis for asylum seekers to have a hearing to determine whether they may or may not stay:



which grew out of Jews being sent back to the death camps in Germany.
Click to expand...

You failed to address the driving unlicensed and uninsured part entirely. My point is that "seeking asylum" does not grant one special status to violate any other laws or require the state to allow that. It is perfectly logical to deport those non-citizens that violate other laws.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You failed to address the driving unlicensed and uninsured part entirely. My point is that "seeking asylum" does not grant one special status to violate any other laws or require the state to allow that. It is perfectly logical to deport those non-citizens that violate other laws.
Click to expand...

Illegals can get a driver's license in California. Can they get one in Texas? I seriously doubt it. Anyway, the penalty for driving without a license isn't deportation and death, is it?
 
Dittohead not! said:
What she had was an emergency protection order. She was not allowed to get it, or ask her mother to bring it. She was summarily sent to her death without a hearing. Her case is not unique, as the article states.
Click to expand...

Emergency protection orders are not immigration papers.

Frankly I'm more worried about a US citizen killed by a 5 time border invader felon for the crime of sitting on a dock eating a sandwich. That too is not unique.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is a basis for asylum seekers to have a hearing to determine whether they may or may not stay:



which grew out of Jews being sent back to the death camps in Germany.
Click to expand...

Do you have some basis for your claim that she had asked for asylum? I didn't find that in my reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom