Trump shits all over the Refugee Convention

1) There are legal means of withdrawing from a treaty under both domestic and international law, and those are not being observed here.
2) One branch cannot unilaterally revoke a treaty which, as specifically stated in our Constitution, is the equivalent of our Constitution. Would you be OK with one branch of government unilaterally revoking the Constitution?
3) Our founding principles recognize certain inalienable and fundamental rights, and withdrawing from or violating refugee conventions ignores our founding principles.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

"Unless we think we've got too many, then Grandtheftcow says turn out the lamp and kick 'em in the chops while they're blinking in the dark".

Yes, and #3 really makes ##1-2 moot. Treaties only shape the right to asylum. Abandoning it altogether goes way deeper than abandoning a treaty; you're abandoning that which comes directly before 'We the People', the position from which those words are spoken.

The country may have been built on the foundation of immigration but when building a house you don't make every floor your basement.

Ideally someone that is in imminent danger would be given priority for asylum claims. Not that they have to be granted asylum anyway.

I know you're a bit wrapped up in your perfervid argument but I'm not American and don't subscribe to the belief that constitutional documents are divine scripture unable to be altered. Interesting that you're arguing for static laws when it comes to immigration and refugees.

The President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if he so chooses. This has been done before as Jimmy Carter did with the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. As well as George Bush in his withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The senate has clearly relinquished it's authority in this area.

Written during the same period manifest destiny was official government policy. Needless to say the United States has changed since then and the country no longer needs new citizens to settle land recently conquered from Native Americans.

If we're so enamoured with the values of the founding fathers perhaps we should bring slavery back. Put those refugees to good use.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

You literally have no clue how our constitution operates, you un-American piece of pubic hair.

If you really think that's how it operates, I can't wait to see how you react when the next Democratic President unilaterally abolishes the 2nd Amendment, legalizes undocumented immigration, and declares war on the Vatican.

If you think that's a joke, you still haven't understood that the policy you are defending is no better. One denies another human the right to life, the other the right to liberty.

You don't get to cite the debt unless you have spent every day since Trump published his tax plans protesting them.

Asylum has nothing to do with the US Constitution. America agreed to be a part of a series treaties drawn up by the United Nations. It is under no obligation to stay a part of those treaties to the end of time.

You don't get to dictate what I post here unless you own the board.

Weak.

Thank you for proving my point:

Article VI, para. 2 of the US Constitution:
"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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

In fairness, we actually did Lebensraum before the Germans did ... we just called it "Manifest Destiny."

Although that's largely irrelevant to the obvious bullshit of claiming the United States has an overpopulation problem. If anything, it's the opposite.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-united-states-needs-more-immigrants

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...es-why-america-needs-them-now-more-than-ever/

https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/21/the-us-needs-more-immigrants

Sadly:

Executive overreach is a serious issue that will eventually need to be addressed. Too bad the other branches are more than happy to cede their powers to the President.

I specifically mentioned Jimmy Carter's termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty because it resulted in the Goldwater v. Carter case. It challenged Carters right to terminate the treaty without consent of the senate. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and it remains an unresolved constitutional issue.

So in K's world if you deny refugee claims you're the same as some whip-crackin slave driver. What a ridiculous false equivalence.

You stupid halfwit, that's just the supremacy clause. It's contents spell out that state law cannot override federal law. Treaties when active become federal law. Not part of the constitution.

dude we have been busting on each others names since forever and you know it. Yes I know you are vastly more educated and experienced on this subject....and every other subject it would seem.

You idiot, that only proves that treaties become law. It doesn't make the treaty part of the Constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

Yes. That is what is at stake here. Each is a basic, fundamental human right: life, and liberty.

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-allows-broad-enforcement-222044549.html

It is wonderful that the rule of law has been upheld and that the Supreme Court has struck down the claims of the left wing liars. Economic migrants are not refugees and never have been further more any person who travels through a safe third party country does not qualify as a refugee if they just show up at the US border. Also people illegally crossing the US border may not claim asylum as doing so violates US law.

Sanity and the rule of law is finally prevailing.

The poor “immigration lawyer” was wrong again. Just like he was wrong about which treaties the US signed on this topic, which ones they did not, and what the requirements of those treaties actually were. Hint on that last part: Crap EU court rulings and policies do not apply in the US, thank god.

Excellent points from a centrist.

Nothing like kicking a dog when he's really down eh?

Is gloating over a corpse and claiming victory when it doesn't answer really the look you're going for here?

Him being dead doesn’t change the fact that, as usual, he was wrong about his supposed area of expertise. Yes, that should be part of the record, thanks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2019/09/11/jeh-johnson-democrats-immigration

In other news even Obama’s former Secretary of Homeland Security is telling the Dems they have gone way to far to left, are ignoring the law, as well as the wishes of the people with their open borders nonsense and it very well may cost them 2020. He is right too. Dems have gone to loonytown on this issue.

So you addressed a dead guy and are claiming his being dead isn't a significant factor in his inability to respond meaningfully to your points?

What "open borders nonsense"? The only people I've heard talking about open borders is Republicans.

I quoted the dead guy and, for the benefit of the living, showed that the dead guy had indeed been wrong during his lifetime on the very subject he claimed to be an expert on.

Gloating a bit? Perhaps, but it is well worth having that bit of truth on the record.

When Dems say they want to end all immigration and customs enforcement, decriminalize illegal entry and being an illegal alien, and give every illegal alien free healthcare and welfare for life... Then that 100% means they are advocating open borders.

Every single last one of the Dem presidential candidates said they supported those things recently and most of the party congressional leadership is on the record supporting those things. That is just a fact and, yes, it makes them open borders advocates.

Centrist my ass.
You lying piece of shit.
I debunked this before, and you pretend it never happened.

But, here we go again.

Here's Tim Pool the "centrist", with his Nazi friends.



You've got a pizzagater.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brittany_Pettibone

A white nationalist.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Allsup

And a guy who thinks gas chamber cartoons of Jewish journalists are hilarious.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Baked_Alaska#Race

Link to Tim Pool, I link to this.
That's always how it's going to go down.
Lying Nazi.

Y'know why you Nazis always have to lie?
Nobody wants your shit unless you do.
And you know it.
What's that like?
Having everyone hate your fucking guts, and having to lie your way out of the corner?

Where have any Dems said they want to end all immigration and customs enforcement and give illegals free welfare?