Unconstitutional or not? Why?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?

     

     

    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry but that argument just doesn't make logical sense. We don't border El Salvador...right? Last time I checked anyone trying to get through to the US for asylum would have to cross through Mexico..right? Unless Mexico is going to offer them asylum..? Is that what you are suggesting?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Nice try at ignorance, but you are too smart.

     


    The issue is with El Salvador and how they are treated there. Once they are out of El Salvador, threat mitigated, right?

     

    what I am saying is that being in Mexico, they are not under threat. As far as asylum, Mexico should offer it, if needed.  Why go easy on Mexico?

     

    but, this isn't about asylum. It is about the democrats building a controlled underclass.

    [/QUOTE]


    So if a child flees El Salvador and winds up in Mexico they should stay there because their imminent danger is over? Why..are the Mexican authorities going to protect them from the people who want to harm them? We should not care what happens to these children but just leave them to their own devices in the back roads of a third world country? Yikes.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why wouldn't Mexico authorities protect these kids? Yikes back at yah.  I find it funny that progressives tend to think our country is the great oppressor of the world, insist we are not exceptional, and then, as if that is not the drum they have been banging for the past thirty years, all of a sudden think only the U.S. Is capable of being exceptional.

    Point out to me where in the constitution is says we are responsible for the world's children.

    Tell me the moral basis for Mexico shirking their responsibility and throwing it on our backs.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Legally, neither Mexico nor the US protects these kids.  We hold them for a hearing before deporting them, Mexico doesn't.  That's the only real difference.  We created that law that requires the hearing - no other country forced us to, and we can repeal it at any time.  I don't know why we would have any luck forcing Mexico to adopt a similar law.

    Mexico has shouldered its share of this burden - maybe not willingly, but it's illegal immigration has skyrocketed, along with other bordering countries like Costa Rica and Belize.  It's not a problem that's specific to the US.  

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?

     

     

    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry but that argument just doesn't make logical sense. We don't border El Salvador...right? Last time I checked anyone trying to get through to the US for asylum would have to cross through Mexico..right? Unless Mexico is going to offer them asylum..? Is that what you are suggesting?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Nice try at ignorance, but you are too smart.

     


    The issue is with El Salvador and how they are treated there. Once they are out of El Salvador, threat mitigated, right?

     

    what I am saying is that being in Mexico, they are not under threat. As far as asylum, Mexico should offer it, if needed.  Why go easy on Mexico?

     

    but, this isn't about asylum. It is about the democrats building a controlled underclass.

    [/QUOTE]


    So if a child flees El Salvador and winds up in Mexico they should stay there because their imminent danger is over? Why..are the Mexican authorities going to protect them from the people who want to harm them? We should not care what happens to these children but just leave them to their own devices in the back roads of a third world country? Yikes.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why wouldn't Mexico authorities protect these kids? Yikes back at yah.  I find it funny that progressives tend to think our country is the great oppressor of the world, insist we are not exceptional, and then, as if that is not the drum they have been banging for the past thirty years, all of a sudden think only the U.S. Is capable of being exceptional.

    Point out to me where in the constitution is says we are responsible for the world's children.

    Tell me the moral basis for Mexico shirking their responsibility and throwing it on our backs.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Legally, neither Mexico nor the US protects these kids.  We hold them for a hearing before deporting them, Mexico doesn't.  That's the only real difference.  We created that law that requires the hearing - no other country forced us to, and we can repeal it at any time.  I don't know why we would have any luck forcing Mexico to adopt a similar law.

    Mexico has shouldered its share of this burden - maybe not willingly, but it's illegal immigration has skyrocketed, along with other bordering countries like Costa Rica and Belize.  It's not a problem that's specific to the US.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, in other words, Mexico passing the problem north is ok, no responsibility on the part of Mexico to address the problem there, or for our border guards to turn these invaders away.

    got it.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    ron,

    "El Salvador is not a contiguous country. Look at a map if you don't believe me."

    Exactly. Which is why an undocumented alien child (UAC) from that country by our laws is entitled to a hearing before a judge, not just an interview with a Border Patrol Agent or anybody else.

    And after I said to 8101956 that I did consider it due process when an UAC was interviewed AND got a hearing with a judge I reconsidered. That is what the law says. It also says an immigration lawyer for that child will be provided when possible.

    To really constitute due process I believe every UAC should not only have an immigration hearing, but also have an immigration lawyer.

     

     

Share