Seven Year Old Girl Dies in Custody at the Border

This is untrue. The United States is a sovereign nation, the constitution is the highest law to which all else is subordinate, and that constitution says that treaties can be overturned by ordinary acts of Congress which conflict with them, no "formal" declaration required.

They never agreed to cease this, which would require a constitutional amendment or a contentious 144 year Supreme Court reversal.

The UN is a joke. The UNHCR is a joke. International law generally is a joke. The more it is violated with impunity and without notice, the better.

 

So.....why hesitate to just repudiate the signatory. Embarrassment? What?

 

This is not true. I provided you with evidence that it was not true and you repeated it again. I don't like to infer the intent of people often, but that looks pretty strongly like a wilful lie. Correct me if I'm wrong and you were just mistaken or disagree with my reasoning.

THE LAW:

Any alien who

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact,

shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Source: US Code Title VIII, S1325.

 

It is, that's what Lefties do, keep repeating a lie long enough....

So many on the Left are so consumed with hate that they become irrational and unreasonable.

 

I don't think it's that, seems to me he's stuck on the point of which law is predominant when there is a conflict: the constitution or international law.

I've been there, I was once a very outspoken advocate of the international order, the supremacy of multilateral agreements over national policy, free immigration here, free immigration there, stretch the definition of refugee to cover a fair chunk of the entire human race, etc. That's why I don't like calling him a liar. How are you going to convince people who you accuse of dishonesty?

PS: how does the mention function work? Then I won't have to quote him.

 

No......you are still bound by that UNHCR Convention until you clearly.....repeat.....clearly......and formally repudiate it. You candidly tell the UN and the Planet that you are out.

That US Code is dealing with immigrants....not asylum seekers.

 

According to who? The UN? At what point did the US become a vassal of the UN?

They never agreed to anything you're saying. And to do so would require a constitutional amendment, not a treaty or act of Congress.

 

No....it simply means that the US says out loud, three times if you like an Islamic analogy, 'We repudiate, we repudiate, we repudiate.' How hard is that? It tells the World what the position is and brings my point to an immediate irrelevance. The US can then deal with the international condemnation and whatever other fall-out there is when someone reneges on a deal.

All fine by me.

 

@Steady Pie

Do that @then username exactly (don't use a space between the @and user name) it will not work if the username is not exact (case sensitive) Also, there must be a space before and after, see, this one should not work@Steady Pie

 

Thanks @FatBack

 

Maybe you think they should, fair enough, so do I. The UNHCR is a venomous treaty and should be withdrawn from by all nations.

But they are under no legal obligation to do so.

 

I've just done a brief Google research of that thing , and it seems you are being quite disengenuous, Mr Pie. That Code deals specifically with immigration and related matters......not asylum seekers and refugees.

 

Any alien is any non-citizen, as defined in the US Code. Asylum seekers are aliens. Therefore.

Furthermore, my obvious interpretation that "aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers" means aliens can't enter the US except as designated by immigration officers has been upheld numerous times by the courts who have sent many "asylum seekers" to prison and deportation on this basis.

International law is subordinate to the constitution. There is no treaty which can be legally passed which restricts the power of Congress to make whatever legislation they have the authority to pass under Article I, S8.

 

Jaybuz......that Code deals with the control and management of immigration aliens......not asylum seekers (who are ipso facto, aliens) which are covered by the UN Convention which the US is a current signatory to. I am not going to keep saying it to humour you.

Go tilt at some other windmill.

 

It seems we have reached irreparable disagreement and you are unwilling or unable to change your false opinion. Fair enough, to each their own.

Until we meet again,

Good day.

 

Some light reading for you. Link.

 

Thank you, will do.

Until we meet again, good day.

EDIT: read it.

 

This reminds of the blame Europe got over the deaths of migrants trying to cross the sea.

The fault lies with the migrant. It's like me climbing a telephone pole, falling off and then blaming the government for not stopping me.

 

No...wrong. She was not at sea, she was not climbing a tree...she was passively on dry US soil, which ought to be safe. Having said that...the highest I can put it is that she died in the US and Donald was POTUS......ie.....on his watch.

That kid and her parents were NOT migrants.

 

Why should I pay for immediate medical examination and care of every person who tries to walk across our border?
They had asylum in Mexico.

 

They were migrants, offered asylum in Mexico, trying to enter the US illegally, who caused their daughters death.

 

If they aren't US citizens then they are illegal immigrants. Theoretically, those who enter the UK for example in the back of a lorry are on our land but we aren't responsible for them, the risk lies with the migrant. Let's also not forget that they were already in a safe country in Mexico. Therefore they are actually economic migrants and not refugees.

 

The bleeding hearts ignore this. Not only are most, economic refugees but illegal asylum shoppers. Not our problem.

 

Point is....she was not in Mexico. She was on US soil. UNHCR Convention kicks in.

 

This is not the fault of the USBP. This is the fault of the "parents" (if they were indeed the parents) trekking across mostly uninhabited desert for days on end, carrying a youngster whose body is not ready or trained for such environments, and for failing to properly supply themselves beforehand. Plus, as previously noted, if asylum was a legit claim, you don't jump the border in the middle of the desert in the middle of the night.