Invaders from South Will be Met by US Troops Sent by Trump

Stretch said:
U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...


not applicable
 
Swallowin Cum said:
It's called blowback. US intervention in that part of the world goes back a good ways and this has been going on for 15 years now. It’ll continue to unless our drug policies change and we stop meddling in South/Latin America. We’ve just never had a president that picked on them before, our co-conspiratored victims. Go back to 2009; dig into US support for the overthrow/intervention that led to the conditions that set up these migrations. The US militarily supports 3/4s of the world’s military dictatorships. All part of the Pan European Capitalist Colonization Project. Some folks got the idea that they would be exempt somehow. Nationalism. That did have its day, hence the current nostalgia pitch. The Project went global, your borders were dismantled by your militarist economic system.
Click to expand...

Much of what you say is correct. US intervention in Latin America goes back much further than 15 years. It has been a staple of American foreign policy for nearly two centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_States_relations
 
Unidentified, undocumented non-citizens storming our borders is an invasion.
However entering legally with proper U.S. paperwork, credentials. immunizations, etc. is not an invasion.
 
katzgar said:
There are no invaders your drug abuse is messing with your brain
Click to expand...
what do you call foreigners who enter another country violently?......

ct-migrant-caravan-guatemala-20181019
 
Stretch said:
Unidentified, undocumented non-citizens storming our borders is an invasion.
However entering legally with proper U.S. paperwork, credentials. immunizations, etc. is not an invasion.
Click to expand...

What the fuck even is an invasion by unarmed people? How much of a coward are you?

The refugee convention of 1951 requires signatories to allow asylees to apply at the border. Or consider their case *even if they entered illegally*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

Under the constitution, a treaty ratified by the senate *is* domestic law, it is "the law of the land" that supersedes regular laws and is arguably equal in weight to the constitution itself. Thus any domestic laws Trump cites in denying them consideration, are irrelevant according to the constitution if they conflict with the 1951 convention.

You may have problems with how they are entering. For instance, many say that it shouldn't count because they have to stop in "the nearest safe country". But there is *nothing* in the 1951 convention that requires them to do so. If you disagree with the 1951 convention, you are free to seek withdrawal from it, or organize some new, more restrictive convention. But you have not done so. So please, do not act as if what you are doing is consistent with the law.
 
Stretch said:
The Constitution is not applicable??? :palm:
Click to expand...

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/
noun
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

Never in history has the term "invasion" been used to describe a group of unarmed people seeking refuge. The concept is ridiculous, laughable, and hysterical.

Also, according the constitution, treaties are "the law of the land" and essentially equal in weight to the constitution itself. Thus the 1951 refugee convention here has to be interpreted with *equal* weight as the constitution.

Article VI, Section 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

Notice how "Laws of the United States" specifically is restricted to "in Pursuance thereof" the constitution. But treaties are mentioned specifically aside this. So in terms of logic, valid laws of the US is:

The constitution

OR

Laws of the US AND pursuant to the constitution

OR

Treaties

Treaties do not have the special clause specifically rendering them an inferior form of law to the constitution. The only restriction to them, is that they be made "under the authority of the United States". This is according to the constitution itself. So if you ignore treaties, and in fact treat them as inferior in legal weight to regular law, you are violating the constitution.
 
noise said:
build the wall. change the law to immediate deportation..problem solved
Click to expand...

If the executive is given the right to deport people without due process, what is stopping the executive branch from abusing its power to remove citizens or legal resident? Do you really trust the government that much, to allow it to banish people without review? Just according to its own internal decision making process?
 
noise said:
that would be true but because there are 640 BORDER APPREHENSIONS A DAY. there is a yuge backlog-
so they get released.

I seriously wonder if you Dems get the fact that the border is overwhelmed, and a wall is needed.

I'm sure you don't, or you go into 'da resistance' mindset and block legislation -even though it hurts the country
to have all these undocumented, unskilled -possible disease carriers, possible gangs, etc.

But you all don't give a damn about that
Click to expand...

The 1951 refugee convention does not give a fuck about if there is a backlog. It does not give a fuck about the country in question hating "unskilled" people. It does not give a fuck about unproven hysteria over criminals. That is the problem of the executive in that nation. That is Trumps problem. The 1951 convention does not provide exemptions here, if an asylee with a genuine fear of returning home presents themselves at the border, their case has to be reviewed. If you disagree with that, withdraw from the convention. You are not allowed to break the law just because you predict that other laws might be broken. Especially a treaty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top