Congrats GOP, this is who you now are

Displaced Bama Fan said:

SMH. What a tired argument.

So, if you are arrested for breaking the law (robbery, prostitution, assault, money laundering, etc.) are you allowed to take your children to prison with you? Follow the process, immigrate legally and you won't have your kids taken away. In many cases, they did actually find that the kids were being trafficked and we not actually with relatives.

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

Just for the record, not all families who had their children separated were crossing illegally. Many were attempting to seek asylum, which is not automatically a crime.

What the law says should happen to asylum seekers at the US border

Click to expand...

92tide said:

unfortunately, nuance is not very effective these days.

Click to expand...

CharminTide said:

Folks said Obama was "nuanced," so I'm pretty sure that's bad.

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

Just for the record, not all families who had their children separated were crossing illegally. Many were attempting to seek asylum, which is not automatically a crime.

What the law says should happen to asylum seekers at the US border

Click to expand...

techster79 said:

They should have sought that in Mexico but that’s inconvenient to your point.

Click to expand...

Link I posted above said:

The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention.(2) The 1951 Convention, as a post-Second World War instrument, was originally limited in scope to persons fleeing events occurring before 1 January 1951 and within Europe. The 1967 Protocol removed these limitations and thus gave the Convention universal coverage. It has since been supplemented by refu- gee and subsidiary protection regimes in several regions,(3) as well as via the progressive development of international human rights law.

The 1951 Convention consolidates previous international instruments relat- ing to refugees and provides the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees at the international level. In contrast to earlier internation- al refugee instruments, which applied to specific groups of refugees, the 1951 Convention endorses a single definition of the term “refugee” in Article 1. The emphasis of this definition is on the protection of persons from politi- cal or other forms of persecution. A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

The Convention is both a status and rights-based instrument and is under- pinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrim- ination, non-penalization and non-refoulement. Convention provisions, for example, are to be applied without discrimination as to race, religion or coun- try of origin. Developments in international human rights law also reinforce the principle that the Convention be applied without discrimination as to sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refu- gees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or crim- inal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of non- refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.

Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treat- ment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treat- ment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form. Most States parties to the Convention issue this document, which has become as widely accepted as the former “Nansen passport”, an identity document for refugees devised by the first Commissioner for Refu- gees, Fridtjof Nansen, in 1922.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia article linked above said:

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) is an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy.[2] The main objectives of the act were to create a new definition of refugee based on the one created at the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, raise the limitation from 17,400 to 50,000 refugees admitted each fiscal year, provide emergency procedures for when that number exceeds 50,000, and to establish the Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Most importantly, it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

How is stating a fact inconvenient to my point? Sure, many from countries other than Mexico, could have sought asylum in Mexico. It doesn't negate the fact that they didn't choose to seek asylum in Mexico. I didn't find anywhere in the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (that is an aggregate containing the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, and Resolution 2198 text regarding refugee status) does it say that a refugee must attempt to seek asylum only from their countries nearest neighbor.

Since we are so big on law, and the above have all been adopted by the UN and ostensibly the US adheres to them, how exactly is understanding the rights agreed upon by the UN when it comes to refugees actually not important? Or is it just more convenient to parrot back the hard line on immigration being spoon fed by the Trump administration and Fox News?



Now, you may not appreciate the above as binding terms of treatment for refugees as they aren't actually codified laws in the US. However I have more links! Refugee Act



So essentially that law takes what the UN Convention declared, and codified it in US law. Granted there is a cap of 50,000 refugees per year, but no where in the law does it say that the protected status provided by the UN convention or the US Refugee Act of 1980 are removed for refugees numbered 50,001+.

The only inconvenient thing about all of this was doing the actual research instead of just randomly spouting off on a message board.

Click to expand...

Displaced Bama Fan said:

When did America first become a racist issue? So because you support America First policies you're automatically lumped in with the Klan? LOL! This is too rich. That's quite a stretch.

Click to expand...

techster79 said:

They should have sought that in Mexico but that’s inconvenient to your point.

Click to expand...

2003TIDE said:

Bless your heart. Hopefully as you sit in church on Sunday and stare down at your WWJD braclet, you’ll contemplate your hypocracy in it’s full glory. Praise White Jesus and to hell with sinners (Democrats) and brown people. Amirite?

Click to expand...

GrayTide said:

News flash WWJD doesn't stand for WHO WOULD JESUS DEPORT

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

Just for the record, not all families who had their children separated were crossing illegally. Many were attempting to seek asylum, which is not automatically a crime.

What the law says should happen to asylum seekers at the US border

Click to expand...

twofbyc said:

It is a crime to them; refugees are the same as illegal immigrants in their eyes.
And it’s not about, and never has been about, preserving anyone’s “heritage”. It’s about making sure that “heritage” is and remains superior and in control, no matter the cost.
More specifically, “white” heritage is not something any white person with an IQ higher than their waist size should be proud of; it’s history is littered with centuries of killing anyone (and everyone almost to the point of genocide) who disagrees with, doesn’t live like or doesn’t look like them. (Native Americans come to mind.)
Racism is racism - put it in whatever flavor koolaid you like to drink, but that won’t change what it is.
I’m sure Jesus is on board with it, though.
SMDH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Five-term [Republican] Washington state Rep. Matt Shea has been circulating a manual for holy war in the United States, the Seattle Times reported.

The four-page document, titled “Biblical Basis for War,” goes point-by-point over how a Christian theocratic movement could – and should – exterminate its opposition in a battle to win a hypothetical holy war. At the outset, Shea’s holy army would issue terms of surrender to its enemies. The demands include “stop all abortions,” “no same-sex marriage,” “no idolatry or occultism,” “no communism,” and “must obey Biblical law.”

If the rest of the country refuses to “yield” to these terms, the document advocates a final solution: “kill all males.”

Click to expand...

CharminTide said:

State Rep’s Outline For Killing Non-Believers In Holy War Is Referred To FBI



Link to article that contains said document.

Click to expand...

uafanataum said:

I wonder if he will be re-elected for a 6th term?

Click to expand...