Question for those in favour of deporting illegal migrants

[Kalevalatar]

Do these vigilante "Minutemen" also patrol the Florida beaches with a loaded gun in hand and ready to shoot illegal Cubans trying to land? Do the Cubans who come to the United States of America illegally get deported, or is there a different standard for the Mexicans and for the Cubans trying to get into the United States of America in search of a better life/style?

 

[TG123]

Do these vigilante "Minutemen" also patrol the Florida beaches with a loaded gun in hand and ready to shoot illegal Cubans trying to land? Do the Cubans who come to the United States of America illegally get deported, or is there a different standard for the Mexicans and for the Cubans trying to get into the United States of America in search of a better life/style?

To be fair, to the best of my knowledge the Minutemen don't shoot at migrants, they call in the BP to arrest them... in many cases that process is filled with abuse.

I think Cuban migrants are treated better than Mexican migrants. The US is happy to shelter people fleeing from hostile dictatorships than the monsters it creates. That is why refugees fleeing from El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s were turned back over to the death squads working for US-supported juntas. I am sure if NAFTA was passed in Cuba and everyone's living standards went down, their migrants would get the same treatment.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

It does. The US is a signatory.

Was it ratified?

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

The president can sign treaties all day long, but they don't really mean anything unless the Senate ratifies them.

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

So how is working out in Africa?

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.

Let the UN enforce it then. I'm sure for a big enough bribe they'll let things slide.

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.

Then let the Mexican government enforce those laws. Oh wait! What Mexican government?

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.

Well, Mexico aids and abets people breaking U.S. laws.

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 whose problem is it if the Mexican government cannot enforce its own laws?

 

[TG123]

Was it ratified?

It was by Mexico, and the abuses are taking place on Mexican territory.

The president can sign treaties all day long, but they don't really mean anything unless the Senate ratifies them.

They don't matter if it happens in the US, but they should given that Mexico signed them.

So how is working out in Africa?

I really hate to point this out to you, but Africa is not a country but a continent, like Asia. Which country in Africa are you referring to?

Let the UN enforce it then. I'm sure for a big enough bribe they'll let things slide.

You would be supportive of UN peacekeepers arresting American maquiladora owners, your former presidents and members of Congress who signed NAFTA into action? Perhaps hauling them off to the ICC?

Then let the Mexican government enforce those laws. Oh wait! What Mexican government?

The Mexican government is not doing its job protecting its people. The Zapatistas however do have some control in Chiapas. Hand over Bush and Clinton along with the sweatshop owners and NAFTA signatories to them. I am sure they will accomodate them in some internment facilities that can quickly be built. Perhaps they could give George and Bill one year for every farmer who lost his/her home due to the deals they signed.

Well, Mexico aids and abets people breaking U.S. laws.

And the US aids and abets people in breaking Mexican labour laws and the International Convention of Human Rights.

And whose problem is it if the Mexican government cannot enforce its own laws?

Like I said, hand them over to the Zapatistas. They will know what to do with them.

Councils of Good Government
Councils of Good Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

It was by Mexico, and the abuses are taking place on Mexican territory.

Has it been ratified by the US?

They don't matter if it happens in the US, but they should given that Mexico signed them.

But treaties in the US don't have any legal force unless the Senate has supported it. Basically, unless the president gets 2/3 of the Senate to approve of the treaty, it's just his signature on a piece of paper and has no legal force.

I really hate to point this out to you, but Africa is not a country but a continent, like Asia. Which country in Africa are you referring to?

I thought that U.N. document applied everywhere regardless of whether it's a country or a continent.

You would be supportive of UN peacekeepers arresting American maquiladora owners, your former presidents and members of Congress who signed NAFTA into action? Perhaps hauling them off to the ICC?

I'd probably cheerfully take potshots at them, especially given their track record of human rights abuses.

The Mexican government is not doing its job protecting its people. The Zapatistas however do have some control in Chiapas. Hand over Bush and Clinton along with the sweatshop owners and NAFTA signatories to them. I am sure they will accomodate them in some internment facilities that can quickly be built. Perhaps they could give George and Bill one year for every farmer who lost his/her home due to the deals they signed.

The Zapatistas aren't even a government. If they can raise armed forces, mint currency, and establish foreign relations, I might listen.

And the US aids and abets people in breaking Mexican labour laws and the International Convention of Human Rights.

I don't really care about a meaningless document that the U.N. decreed. Given that Mexican military units and personnel routinely make incursions into the U.S. and accost federal agents, and that U.S. communities are directly endangered by violence that the Mexican government either cannot or will not contain, I don't feel a lot of sympathy because some Mexican peasant has to live on a dollar a day at his factory.

Like I said, hand them over to the Zapatistas. They will know what to do with them.

Are they a government or a rabble?

 

[TG123]

Has it been ratified by the US?

Irrelevant. Migrants on American soil who are being punished by American laws did not ratify or vote for the laws in the US yet they are tried by its laws. Why should Americans in Mexico be judged under American laws, not the laws of Mexico and the UN document it signed and ratified?

But treaties in the US don't have any legal force unless the Senate has supported it. Basically, unless the president gets 2/3 of the Senate to approve of the treaty, it's just his signature on a piece of paper and has no legal force.

The abuses happen in Mexico. Extradite them to the EZLN which will uphold the laws.

I thought that U.N. document applied everywhere regardless of whether it's a country or a continent.

It does. You just mentioned the US, Mexico and then... Africa... in the same sentence. Continents do not sign and ratify the treaty, countries do.

I'd probably cheerfully take potshots at them, especially given their track record of human rights abuses.

Well, the US Border Patrol and US Army have a pretty terrible record as well. Do you support the people who shoot at them?

BTW you just said the UN should enforce the human rights laws in Mexico... so would you be in favour of Americans who violate these laws being arrested?

The Zapatistas aren't even a government. If they can raise armed forces, mint currency, and establish foreign relations, I might listen.

They govern in the territories I mentioned. They do have armed forces. They do control health care and trade and crime in their parts... in fact, they punish human smugglers who take people to the US.

Why would you not take them seriously? They have support in the areas they rule, are not corrupt, and many Mexicans respect them.

I don't really care about a meaningless document that the U.N. decreed. Given that Mexican military units and personnel routinely make incursions into the U.S. and accost federal agents, and that U.S. communities are directly endangered by violence that the Mexican government either cannot or will not contain, I don't feel a lot of sympathy because some Mexican peasant has to live on a dollar a day at his factory.

That Mexican peasant has been thrown off his land because of YOUR political and trade leaders' decisions and is being exploited in a factory owned by YOUR businessmen. Compared to the massive exploitation and displacement your leaders inflicted on millions, the atrocities you describe pale in comparison. The difference is that I denounce crimes being committed by Mexicans against Americans, while you do not care about crimes being committed by your side.

Are they a government or a rabble?

They are a lot less of a rabble than the Mexican leaders you do business with, or the people running America and harming people in Mexico and other developing countries in the process.

 

[PHenry42]

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.

The fact that corn gets so massively overproduced that it spills over into Mexico suggests though that the level of production is far higher than needed to feed our domestic population. The strategic argument is valid in itself, but the scale at which corn is subsidised is way above what gives a strategic advantage.

Besides, we have the world's largest navy, hands down. It's our enemies that should worry about being cut off from vital foreign imports, not us.

And thirdly, even without subsidies, the US (along with most of the developed world) still produces way more food than is necessary to feed the population. 90% or so of all grain produced is used for animal fodder to produce meat, a conversion in which at best 20% of the caloric content of the grain is transfered over to the meat. If we instead ate the grain directly, something we would well be able to do in a hypothetical crisis, we'd be able to feed our population with a small fraction of our current agricultural production.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Irrelevant. Migrants on American soil who are being punished by American laws did not ratify or vote for the laws in the US yet they are tried by its laws. Why should Americans in Mexico be judged under American laws, not the laws of Mexico and the UN document it signed and ratified?

It's a treaty, not a Mexican law. If it's a treaty it has no legal force in the U.S. without the consent of the Senate. If it's Mexican law, then it's Mexican law.

The abuses happen in Mexico. Extradite them to the EZLN which will uphold the laws.

Is the EZLN the de facto or de jure government of Mexico? Are they party to any treaty agreements?

It does. You just mentioned the US, Mexico and then... Africa... in the same sentence. Continents do not sign and ratify the treaty, countries do.

So how come the U.N. doesn't act to uphold it's useless declaration of human rights in areas most afflicted by poverty? Or does it only mean anything when it's something that can be used against the United States?

Well, the US Border Patrol and US Army have a pretty terrible record as well. Do you support the people who shoot at them?

With the U.S Army, people who perpetuate the atrocities are generally prosecuted. In my admittedly limited experience, people who complain about law enforcement are generally liars.

BTW you just said the UN should enforce the human rights laws in Mexico... so would you be in favour of Americans who violate these laws being arrested?

If they are in Mexico, yes. Or if there is an extradition treaty, and the Mexican government follows the extradition process.

They govern in the territories I mentioned. They do have armed forces. They do control health care and trade and crime in their parts... in fact, they punish human smugglers who take people to the US.

Why would you not take them seriously? They have support in the areas they rule, are not corrupt, and many Mexicans respect them.

I don't really take anything that purports itself to be a government in Mexico very seriously.

That Mexican peasant has been thrown off his land because of YOUR political and trade leaders' decisions and is being exploited in a factory owned by YOUR businessmen. Compared to the massive exploitation and displacement your leaders inflicted on millions, the atrocities you describe pale in comparison. The difference is that I denounce crimes being committed by Mexicans against Americans, while you do not care about crimes being committed by your side.

So the decisions of the trade leaders of Mexico who are also party to the agreements had nothing to do with it?

 

[TG123]

It's a treaty, not a Mexican law. If it's a treaty it has no legal force in the U.S. without the consent of the Senate. If it's Mexican law, then it's Mexican law.

The Declaration has been ratified in Mexico and the labour laws are Mexican laws.

Is the EZLN the de facto or de jure government of Mexico? Are they party to any treaty agreements?

They have autonomous government in some parts of Chiapas.

So how come the U.N. doesn't act to uphold it's useless declaration of human rights in areas most afflicted by poverty? Or does it only mean anything when it's something that can be used against the United States?

I'm not actually a fan of the UN and they do not do enough, although I don't see why you are trying to deflect the issue from the US-Mexico border to parts of Africa.
Here are some peacekeeping actions the UN is currently involved in.
Current peacekeeping operations. United Nations Peacekeeping

With the U.S Army, people who perpetuate the atrocities are generally prosecuted.

If they are relatively low ranked. The generals who gave the green light to have US pilots drop cluster bombs on Baghdad were never prosecuted. I am unaware of anyone being arrested over the assault on Fallujah in spring 2004 which killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians and destroyed a whole city in retaliation for the killing of several American contractors.

In my admittedly limited experience, people who complain about law enforcement are generally liars.

Glad you weren't around in the 60s when police were hosing down black kids and setting dogs on peaceful protesters... I'm sure that MLK was a liar for condemning what was happening to his people.

I have spoken to NMD volunteers who personally witnessed Border Patrol abusing their detainees and to a man in Nogales who watched his friend kicked in a detention cell. The report that is due to come out in September contains testimonies from 12,000 people who experienced abuse at the hands of BP agents. They were compiled in several different locations, the people do not know each other. Do you think all of them are lying? Also, many migrants report that BP treated them well, there is no pressure on them to say they were abused.

If they are in Mexico, yes.

I'm sure there must be at least a few maquiladora owners in Mexico at any given time. The arrests can start today.

Or if there is an extradition treaty, and the Mexican government follows the extradition process.

We both agree the Mexican government is corrupt and useless. Set up a treaty with the Zapatistas. They would love to get their hands on George and Bill.

I don't really take anything that purports itself to be a government in Mexico very seriously.

Many Mexicans don't take your immigration laws seriously either, but we have to start somewhere.

So the decisions of the trade leaders of Mexico who are also party to the agreements had nothing to do with it?

As I pointed out, they are corrupt jerks. Cut off military aid to them and cancel NAFTA. Their own people will overthrow them. By you extraditing Americans and us extraditing Canadians who are responsible for helping create the whole mess, we will be setting a good role model. They will fall like a stack of cards.