• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Question for those in favour of deporting illegal migrants

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by TG123, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +19
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    It's commonly referred to as "extradition."

    However, soldiers are also subject to UCMJ. So, he could be prosecuted. However, if some guy went on a rampage over in Israel, he would not be subject to prosecution by the U.S. government because the actions did not occur in an area where the U.S. government has jurisdiction, barring any treaties. At least that's how I think it works.

    If a U.S. person commits a crime in Mexico, that person is subject to extradition.

    Such as...?
     
  2. Eric Hilbert

    Eric Hilbert Guest

    +0
    The US doesn't have any more jurisdiction over crimes that take place in Israel than they do crimes that take place in Mexico.

    If an American commits a crime in Mexico, then it is up to Mexico to prosecute him under Mexican law. If a Mexican commits a crime in the US, then it is up to the state in which he committed the crime to prosecute him under them laws, unless it is a federal crime, in which case it's up to the federal government to prosecute him.

    This isn't exactly rocket science, you know.

    You still haven't listed the statutes American corporations have violated. And, as I've pointed out to you many, many times already, the alleged commission of a crime by one person or corporation does not excuse the commission of a crime by another.

    How is it hypocritical to point out that the United States has no legal jurisdiction over crimes that occur in another country? For that matter, when did I ever say they should go "scotch" (sic) free? I believe Mexico has every right to prosecute criminals.
     
  3. wintermile

    wintermile Bioconservative

    +28
    Christian
    Single
    I know you directed your question to TG123. I only want to offer this source as an educative point. Luann Good Gingrich makes a case.

    Ref Sur Qtly
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2011
  4. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +19
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Do you have an article that doesn't cost money to read?
     
  5. wintermile

    wintermile Bioconservative

    +28
    Christian
    Single
    You do not have to pay for the article if you access it through an inter-library loan.
     
  6. interpreter

    interpreter Senior Member

    +129
    Anglican
    I'm in favor of deporting all illegal aliens. It would solve the unemmployment problem.
     
  7. PHenry42

    PHenry42 Newbie

    +40
    Muslim
    Employment is not a zero-sum game. If an illegal alien works, that illegal alien also spends his earnings. And so does the employer who profits from his work. That expenditure creates demand, that creates new jobs in the place of the ones taken by the illegal immigrant. Stop committing the fallacy of the seen and the unseen.
     
  8. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    You are aware that pedophiles who abuse children abroad are liable to prosecution both in the countries they committed the crimes in and their host countries, right? Are you in favour of or against such a law?
    Child Sex Tourism: It's a Crime

    Great! Then ex-presidents Bush (sr) and Clinton should be extradited to a ELZN local government in the Chiapas.

    Such as the maquiladoras, which pay people less than they can live on and where workers who advocate for better conditions get fired or murdered.
    The Cutting Edge News

    Have you read about the Johnson plant?

    The US government flooded Mexico with US corn in 1994 and destroyed the livelihoods of millions of farmers. Wintermile posted this link, have you even read it?
    NAFTA AND U.S. CORN SUBSIDIES: EXPLAINING THE DISPLACEMENT OF MEXICO’S CORN FARMERS | PROSPECT


    US policies destroyed the jobs of millions of Mexican farmers and pushed people into sweatshops close to the border where they did not have enough to survive... wanting to be able to provide for themselves they crossed into the US.

    Illegal migration skyrocketed soon after NAFTA was passed... why do you think that was?
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011
  9. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    So a skinhead who shot up a synagogue in Jerusalem and returned to the US would not face punishment if the Israelis did not catch him...

    What about sex tourists? Under Canadian law, a pedophile who rapes a kid in Thailand is to be subjected to prosecution in Canada, even if the crime did not happen there. Sadly this law has not been enforced often enough.

    Out of curiousity, if an American pedophile rapes a kid in Guatemala and escapes back to America, could he face prosecution in the US?

    Just a few weeks ago, Mexico extradited a criminal who ran down and killed an American Border Patrol agent. He is now going to be spending the rest of his miserable existence where he belongs, in prison.

    There is no honest Mexican government in charge, but the EZLN controls some parts of Chiapas and do have a sort of government... the US could extradite Clinton and Bush and the House Members who signed NAFTA into existence to the Zapatistas, I am sure they could be locked up in some prison, maybe they could even be interned along party lines so Democrats and Republicans wouldn't mingle and start fights. It has been done with several gangs and at times is effective.


    Sorry, my bad. Here we go:

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    Article 23.


    • (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
    • (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
    • (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
    • (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

    Article 24.


    • Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
    Mexican workers in maquiladoras are usually not being paid enough to provide for their families, cannot join unions, and women are often discriminated against there. Maquiladoras are owned by both Canadian and American companies, though for the most part American. I am doing my part up North to make sure our CEOs who abuse human rights in developing countries and particularly in Mexico are prosecuted and made to respect their workers and the people living there. You take care of your corporate criminals. Also, forget about vacations in these places and keep in mind that many of their labourers work for more than 8 hours a day.


    Article 17.


    • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    When NAFTA was passed, millions of Mexican farmers were forced off their land. American and Canadian corporations also in other countries (Guatelama, Honduras, Colombia, etc) have had indigenous people thrown out of their homes who refused to allow them to use their land for mining.




    Sorry, I misunderstood. Put George and Bill on a plane and send them to a Zapatista government in the Chiapas. They will know what to do with them.
     
  10. Vylo

    Vylo Stick with the King!

    +4,690
    Atheist
    US-Others
    There is a purpose to this though, which is to keep the land arable and in use. Being able to produce your own food is crucial strategically. In the even of a war, we could become isolated and need to have our own, safe food supplies.

    Look at North Korea, they can't even feed their people now. If they went to war, starvation would immediately follow as the US and China pulled aid.
     
  11. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +19
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    It depends on how the law is written whether or not I support it. If the U.S. government attempts to regulate how a citizen behaves overseas, I don't support that. If the government attempts to regulate whether or not people travel overseas for a specific reason, I have no problem with that.

    So, someone's going to twist this into "Panzer supports pedophiles."

    Do tell, what crimes did they commit?

    Which sounds like a policy failure on the part of the Mexican government. Why is the US responsible for that?

    The Mexicans have entered into bilateral agreements with the United States with unintended consequences for their economy. The policy deficiencies of the Mexican government are not the problem of the United States.
     
  12. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks for your honesty, although I disagree. If a pedophile (regardless of nationality) molests kids abroad, if he is not punished by the country where his victims were, his country should punish him. I feel the same way about other criminals.

    No one is saying you support pedophiles. But by what you said you are against the US government punishing them if they rape a kid overseas because it didn't happen in America. If I am wrong, correct me.

    Took part in implementing and signing an agreement that displaced millions of people, supported a military that is notorious for human rights abuses.

    I will use the credit card analogy again. Your neighbour offers you use of his wife's credit card, tells you you can use it whenever you want. Meanwhile at home she is beaten and abused, and you have full knowledge this is happening. Would it not be a crime to use it?


    Here is an Amnesty International report covering the situation in Mexico in 1994. It was published January 1, 1995.
    UNHCR | Refworld | Amnesty International Report 1995 - Mexico


    Mexico was flooded with AMERICAN corn. AMERICAN leaders along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts signed a trade deal that they knew was going to drive millions of Mexican farmers out of business. The AMERICAN government gave military helicopters to the Mexican military to crush the indigenous uprising in Chiapas... which was caused by NAFTA.
    U.S.-Mexico military ties: unexamined and growing


    Everyone who signed NAFTA knew very well what the effects would be on Mexican farmers. Neither Bush or Clinton or the Members of Congress who voted 'yes' were that stupid. And in case it was unknown to them, in America activists were speaking out against it, including Reverend John Fife. They were ignored by the policymakers in Canada and the US because money comes before human dignity for our leaders. And they were ignored by most Canadians and Americans because we simply couldn't care less. It wasn't ignored by Mexican indigenous people in Chiapas (the region that was hit hardest by NAFTA and from which most migrants I met come from), and the Mexican military used American supplied helicopters to crush their uprising.

    If you are going to engage in policies that destroy the livelihoods of tens of millions of people, expect consequences.

    Whitewashing the US for signing this agreement is like whitewashing the Taleban for sheltering Al Qaeda. It would be like Mullah Omar saying the hostility between The United States and Osama bin Laden is not the problem of the Islamic Government of Afghanistan.
     
  13. Eric Hilbert

    Eric Hilbert Guest

    +0
    As I and several others have pointed out to you, he would be extridited to Israel, where he would be prosecuted under Israel's law. We would have no jurisdiction in such a case.

    No. The United States has no jurisdiction in Mexico, Israel, or Guatamala.

    Still waiting for you to name the statutes they've broken.

    ...none of which have any legal merit in the United States.
     
  14. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    Fair enough. Then American leaders should be extradited to a Zapatista government in the Chiapas.

    I just did.

    Are you saying that the United States of America does not abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Was it not a signatory?

    Actually American does not even matter in this case- since the crimes were committed not in the US but Mexico. Why should American law be even an issue in extraditing Americans who commit crimes in another country?

    BTW the maquiladoras ran by American and Canadian companies do violate Mexican labour law. I will bold the ones that our companies violate.


    • "Labour standards provide a balance and social justice in the relations between employees and employers;
    • Work is a right and a social duty;
    • Work is not an article of commerce;
    • Work must be performed under a system of freedom and dignity for the persons providing it;
    • Work must guarantee life, health, and a decent economic level of living for employees and their families;
    • There may not be differences among employees on the basis of race, sex, age, religious or political beliefs, or social standing;
    • There is freedom to work in legal activities;
    • Labour standards are mandatory in nature and workers' rights are irrevocable;
    • The scope of a labour standard is construed in favour of the employee when there is doubt;
    • It is presumed that a work relationship exists between the person providing a personal service and the person receiving it;
    • There is no time limit on the length of the work relationship, unless it is explicitly defined as being for a set time or for a specific job."2
    4. Mexican Labour Law


    These criminals have violated international and Mexican laws in Mexico. Put them on a plane and fly them to Chiapas. The Zapatistas would be more than willing to lock them away for a long time.
     
  15. Eric Hilbert

    Eric Hilbert Guest

    +0
    Based on...?

    No you didn't. You named some silly international human rights nonsense. I asked you for statutes that are legally valid in the United States.

    I'm saying that it is not legally valid in the United States.

    Then how can they be prosecuted in the United States?

    I'm sure they would. Thank God American citizens are protected from such nonsense.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2011
  16. wintermile

    wintermile Bioconservative

    +28
    Christian
    Single


    Please correct me if I am wrong, but the law protecting individuals from gender discrimination has also been violated repeatedly. (There may not be difference among employees on the basis of race, sex, age, religious or political beliefs, or social standing.)

    Global Exchange published an essay in Child Labor and Sweatshops addressing this issue amongst other issues. On focus Free Trade Agreements and a Global Economy Increase Sweatshops the writers credit HRW with knowledge of factory managers forcing women to prove they are menstruating; they are terminated if they are pregnant.

    Since women are often the targets of sexual abuse, since both sexes are physically abused at sites and working conditions are violent and unsafe (Nike/Reebok), backing a code of ethics that honors legal statures need to be implemented by the multinational corporations that declare legal responsibility.
     
  17. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


    I just did.


    If the US is a signatory, it abides by it.

    Legal effect

    While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that it "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Don`t. Deport them to Chiapas and hand them over to the Zapatistas for violating human rights in Mexico.


    You mean you are happy that American politicians can pass treaties that disenfranchise tens of millions of Mexican farmers and their families, and that the American military can supply Mexico`s air force with helicopters to crush indigenous uprisings, and that American big business owners can pay their Mexican labourers pitiable wages amidst dangerous working conditions and punish union leaders... and can do all that without having to worry about the `nonsense` of justice. Basically they can do whatever the hell they want and will never be held to account. Meanwhile Mexican migrants whose families are in poverty will be arrested, jailed and deported for looking for work in the US.

    Be grateful if you truly support such things, but not to God. He hates injustice and one day the people who are doing these things will stand in front of Him. Read the book of James to see what He has to say about people who exploit others. Pretty scary stuff, and no amount of money will be able to pay Him off or the retribution that is coming for the injustices meted out against these people.
     
  18. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    Thank you, Wintermile, for pointing that out. Such a code should be implemented, I am sure some do adhere to such rules but others don't. Maquiladoras in Mexico are notorious for discrimination against women, it is something I should have brought up.

    The people sitting in prisons should be maquiladora owners and trade politicians, not the millions who are fleeing from the hell they wreaked on their homeland.
     
  19. Eric Hilbert

    Eric Hilbert Guest

    +0
    Which has no legal validity in the United States.

    No, you cited some dopey UN document that has no legal validity in the United States.

    The federal government is governed by the Constitution, not a UN document.

    That's swell. It still has no legal validity in the United States.

    On what grounds?

    Straw man. This is not what you said. It's dishonest of you to take an answer I gave to one question and then apply it to a different, unrelated question.

    What I said was that I am happy that American citizens are protected by the Constitution and cannot be dragged out of their beds at night and shipped off to some banana republic to be prosecuted on trumped up charges.

    If it's legal, yes.

    If they break the law, then yes, they should be arrested, jailed, and deported for breaking our laws.

    What's more exploitative than breaking a law and then claiming to be a victim? What's more exploitative than wanting to kill people because they don't submit to your political ideology?
     
  20. TG123

    TG123 Regular Member

    +170
    Christian
    Married
    It does. The US is a signatory.

    1) The US is a signatory so it is legally valid
    2) It is a lot less "dopey" than your immigration laws.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies everywhere... especially in countries that helped create it and signed it... like the US and Canada.

    See above.

    Violating Article 17, Article 23, Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As well as the labour laws of Mexico, the country in which the maquiladoras operate.

    It is not at all unrelated. The Americans I was referring to are the signatories to NAFTA, maquiladora owners and military leaders who gave weapons to the Mexican army. Their actions have led to human rights of Mexicans being violated and have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles I have posted above. The charges are not trumped up, read what the Declaration has to say and then read what they did and are doing. You said you are grateful to God they cannot be prosecuted in Mexico for the suffering they helped inflict on its people.

    I continue to believe that is hypocritical since you are willing to punish illegal Mexican migrants for breaking American laws in America but not your trade and military and political leaders for violating human rights laws in Mexico.

    It may be legal according to American law but not according to human rights conventions which apply in both Mexico and the US. BTW Mexico signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which makes it obligatory for employers to pay their workers a living wage, to allow union activity, not discriminate in the workplace (maquiladoras violate all these rights); also for everyone to have adequate food and housing (people lost their farms due to NAFTA). The American military members who gave weapons to the Mexican army can be tried under American laws for being accomplices to murder... if I gave an Uzi to an MS-13 gang member and he used it to blast away a family in L.A. I would surely face these charges.

    And if Americans break laws abroad they should also be extradited to the country they committed the crime in; tried, arrested, given prison time and eventually deported for breaking laws that apply in another country... and your leaders and business owners broke the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which Mexico signed and ratified... as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which you both signed.

    You mean the migrants who illegally come across the border in order to work and support hungry families back home and then get arrested and deported? Or American politicians who allow US companies to violate human rights in Mexico and carry on implementing a treaty that is making life impossible for millions of farmers and then cry that America is a "victim" of illegal immigration?

    Who is advocating killing anyone? I am advocating turning over your former presidents and NAFTA signatories as well as maquiladora owners to Chiapas to face justice for violating the human rights of its people. I said they should face prison time, not death.

    Speaking of killing people for not submitting to one's politics, how many Iraqis have died in your country's attempt to bring "democracy" to their country? How many El Salvadorans and Guatemalans have been murdered because your country backed dictatorships in their homelands to get rid of "communism"?
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2011
Loading...