ICE deportations ignore the promise of 'never again'

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘A new memo outlines plans by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport potentially thousands of immigrants to countries that are not their own. The Trump administration’s assiduous efforts to send people to places like Libya and South Sudan are clearly intended to scare noncitizens, both those in the U.S. and those who might contemplate coming.

To understand what’s so bad about these deportations, however, takes more than an intuitive sense that these are dangerous places. You need to go back to the Holocaust, which is the reason we have rules guiding such deportations in the first place.

In the run-up to the Final Solution, Jews fleeing the Nazis were refused entry at the gates of the U.S. Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture. (The principle is known by its French name, “non-refoulement,” which roughly means “non-return.”) The U.S. laws at issue today in the Trump deportations can be traced to international treaties that the U.S. signed, which, in different ways, give legal force to the non-return principle.

The first international treaty to mention non-refoulement is the Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, which dates to 1933, before World War II. Article 3 of the treaty said the signatories wouldn’t return refugees who were “authorised” to reside there regularly, and that they wouldn’t turn back refugees from their borders. Only nine countries agreed to the treaty, and one of them, the United Kingdom, didn’t even agree to the second principle.’

Comment: ICE deportations ignore the promise of ‘never again’ | HeraldNet.com

The lawless, criminal removal of immigrants to dangerous countries is reprehensible and wrong – typical of the Trump regime.

 

[JGalt]

‘A new memo outlines plans by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport potentially thousands of immigrants to countries that are not their own. The Trump administration’s assiduous efforts to send people to places like Libya and South Sudan are clearly intended to scare noncitizens, both those in the U.S. and those who might contemplate coming.

To understand what’s so bad about these deportations, however, takes more than an intuitive sense that these are dangerous places. You need to go back to the Holocaust, which is the reason we have rules guiding such deportations in the first place.

In the run-up to the Final Solution, Jews fleeing the Nazis were refused entry at the gates of the U.S. Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture. (The principle is known by its French name, “non-refoulement,” which roughly means “non-return.”) The U.S. laws at issue today in the Trump deportations can be traced to international treaties that the U.S. signed, which, in different ways, give legal force to the non-return principle.

The first international treaty to mention non-refoulement is the Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, which dates to 1933, before World War II. Article 3 of the treaty said the signatories wouldn’t return refugees who were “authorised” to reside there regularly, and that they wouldn’t turn back refugees from their borders. Only nine countries agreed to the treaty, and one of them, the United Kingdom, didn’t even agree to the second principle.’

Comment: ICE deportations ignore the promise of ‘never again’ | HeraldNet.com

The lawless, criminal removal of immigrants to dangerous countries is reprehensible and wrong – typical of the Trump regime.

So what's your rationale here? To bring about some kind of change? To convince Trump-supporters that they were wrong in supporting him? To get "likes" and "thumbs up" from those who agree with you?

Personally, I don't see why you waste your time on these never-ending Trump threads. Nobody except a few people really care and nothing's going to change one way or the other.

 

[1srelluc]

 

[Concerned American]

To understand what’s so bad about these deportations,

Actions have consequences. These people entered this country uninvited and illegally. They made their bed and now you're whining about the consequences they brought down on their own heads. No sympathy.

 

[Mac-7]

‘A new memo outlines plans by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport potentially thousands of immigrants to countries that are not their own. The Trump administration’s assiduous efforts to send people to places like Libya and South Sudan are clearly intended to scare noncitizens, both those in the U.S. and those who might contemplate coming.

To understand what’s so bad about these deportations, however, takes more than an intuitive sense that these are dangerous places. You need to go back to the Holocaust, which is the reason we have rules guiding such deportations in the first place.

In the run-up to the Final Solution, Jews fleeing the Nazis were refused entry at the gates of the U.S. Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture. (The principle is known by its French name, “non-refoulement,” which roughly means “non-return.”) The U.S. laws at issue today in the Trump deportations can be traced to international treaties that the U.S. signed, which, in different ways, give legal force to the non-return principle.

The first international treaty to mention non-refoulement is the Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, which dates to 1933, before World War II. Article 3 of the treaty said the signatories wouldn’t return refugees who were “authorised” to reside there regularly, and that they wouldn’t turn back refugees from their borders. Only nine countries agreed to the treaty, and one of them, the United Kingdom, didn’t even agree to the second principle.’

Comment: ICE deportations ignore the promise of ‘never again’ | HeraldNet.com

The lawless, criminal removal of immigrants to dangerous countries is reprehensible and wrong – typical of the Trump regime.

The lawlessness begins with illegal aliens invading our country

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The lawlessness begins with illegal aliens invading our country

Then send them to their countries.

 

[Auld Phart]

Then send them to their countries.

miss this part of the op?

"Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture."

 

[Rawley]

The lawless, criminal removal of immigrants to dangerous countries is reprehensible and wrong – typical of the Trump regime.

Dude, their own countries refuse to take these particular type of scum back. We're open to any other suggestions where else to send them?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Prove that, goober. You can't. They have to take them back.

 

[Mac-7]

Then send them to their countries.

We are

 

[EvilCat Breath]

miss this part of the op?

"Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture."

This does not mean we cannot return criminals to home countries where they are wanted for crimes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are not. You are sending some to countries not theirs.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

‘A new memo outlines plans by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport potentially thousands of immigrants to countries that are not their own. The Trump administration’s assiduous efforts to send people to places like Libya and South Sudan are clearly intended to scare noncitizens, both those in the U.S. and those who might contemplate coming.

To understand what’s so bad about these deportations, however, takes more than an intuitive sense that these are dangerous places. You need to go back to the Holocaust, which is the reason we have rules guiding such deportations in the first place.

In the run-up to the Final Solution, Jews fleeing the Nazis were refused entry at the gates of the U.S. Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture. (The principle is known by its French name, “non-refoulement,” which roughly means “non-return.”) The U.S. laws at issue today in the Trump deportations can be traced to international treaties that the U.S. signed, which, in different ways, give legal force to the non-return principle.

The first international treaty to mention non-refoulement is the Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, which dates to 1933, before World War II. Article 3 of the treaty said the signatories wouldn’t return refugees who were “authorised” to reside there regularly, and that they wouldn’t turn back refugees from their borders. Only nine countries agreed to the treaty, and one of them, the United Kingdom, didn’t even agree to the second principle.’

Comment: ICE deportations ignore the promise of ‘never again’ | HeraldNet.com

The lawless, criminal removal of immigrants to dangerous countries is reprehensible and wrong – typical of the Trump regime.

Is your stupid ass really comparing Holocaust victims to illegal aliens? How stupid can you fuckers get?...lol

 

[Mac-7]

You are not. You are sending some to countries not theirs.

If the old country meant so much to them they should have stayed there

 

[Unkotare]

Prove that, goober. You can't. They have to take them back.

Ok, prove they're going to be tortured.

 

[fncceo]

These people entered this country uninvited and illegally.

Illegally, yes.

But we all know who invited them.

 

[Concerned American]

Prove that, goober. You can't. They have to take them back.

Nope! You and the other goober, Hunter Biden, can whine and disagree and throw tantrums all you want. SCOTUS says YOU'RE wrong.

 

[Concerned American]

Then send them to their countries.

We are and when their own countries refuse to repatriate them, SCOTUS says we can send them to any third country who will take them.

 

[BackAgain]

‘A new memo outlines plans by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport potentially thousands of immigrants to countries that are not their own. The Trump administration’s assiduous efforts to send people to places like Libya and South Sudan are clearly intended to scare noncitizens, both those in the U.S. and those who might contemplate coming.

To understand what’s so bad about these deportations, however, takes more than an intuitive sense that these are dangerous places. You need to go back to the Holocaust, which is the reason we have rules guiding such deportations in the first place.

In the run-up to the Final Solution, Jews fleeing the Nazis were refused entry at the gates of the U.S. Postwar horror at what had happened helped lead to the adoption of the international law principle that refugees cannot be sent back to places where they may be subject to persecution and torture. (The principle is known by its French name, “non-refoulement,” which roughly means “non-return.”) The U.S. laws at issue today in the Trump deportations can be traced to international treaties that the U.S. signed, which, in different ways, give legal force to the non-return principle.

The first international treaty to mention non-refoulement is the Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, which dates to 1933, before World War II. Article 3 of the treaty said the signatories wouldn’t return refugees who were “authorised” to reside there regularly, and that they wouldn’t turn back refugees from their borders. Only nine countries agreed to the treaty, and one of them, the United Kingdom, didn’t even agree to the second principle.’

Comment: ICE deportations ignore the promise of ‘never again’ | HeraldNet.com

The lawless, criminal removal of immigrants to dangerous countries is reprehensible and wrong – typical of the Trump regime.

Another ridiculous post with an absurd premise by one of the usual-suspect propagandists.

Listen up, you mental case. If you come to our country by violating our immigration laws or regulations, or come in legally yet then violate our laws or regulations you don’t then have any particular right to remain here in almost all cases.

So we have the right to kick you out. Normally that’s back to wherever you’re from. But we also recognize that it can be dangerous for you to send you back to your own land. Ok. Fair enough. But we can still kick you out.

Next question is: “to where shall we send you?” But the fact that you may not like that choice is a you problem. It doesn’t give you the right to claim (stupidly) that “therefore” you cannot be deported. No no.

Get your head out of your ass, Adam_Clayton_Joke.

And stop with your tired and pitiably dishonest Nazi analogies. You don’t persuade anybody with such bullshit. And I don’t care what silly sources you cite.

 

[Concerned American]

Illegally, yes.

But we all know who invited them.

Granted, but he did not have the authority to overstep US immigration law.