Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"LA Times: "High deportation figures are misleading""

21 Comments -

1 – 21 of 21
Blogger Aaron Gross said...

Why not?

Probably because criminalizing it would put the US in violation of international law: article 31 of the UN Convention Relating to Status of Refugees.

4/1/14, 10:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. "Probably because criminalizing it would put the US in violation of international law: article 31 of the UN Convention Relating to Status of Refugees"

I doubt that's it, considering the lax in international law.

2. The LA Times is defending the shield here. See, no real deportations.

3. Has their been any argument from the Republicans? Where's e-verify at these days? Where's the Visa over-stay checking? Hmm?

The only enforcement there ever was was during a brief period after 9/11. Bush chose to invade other countries instead of protect his own country.

Message received.

4/1/14, 10:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Probably because criminalizing it would put the US in violation of international law: article 31 of the UN Convention Relating to Status of Refugees.

Article 31

Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides as follows:

1.The Contracting States shall not impose penalties,on account of their illegal entry or presence,on refugees who,coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.


I don't think Mexicans flooding across the border to pick up some extra money would qualify for refugee status. And I don't seem to recall that they get around to presenting themselves to US authorities without delay.

4/1/14, 11:08 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only enforcement there ever was was during a brief period after 9/11. Bush chose to invade other countries instead of protect his own country.

As Pat Buchanan so eloquently put it, while Bush was out to save Al Anbar province, he was losing Arizona.

4/1/14, 11:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Napoleon said that God was on the side of the bigger battalions.

In a civil war ("social war"?), the side with bigger foederati wins.

4/1/14, 11:48 PM

Blogger Aaron Gross said...

@Anonymous, sure, I was just answering the question of why crossing the border without authorization can't be criminalized. The point is that when someone crosses, his status as a refugee or not hasn't yet been determined. Of course if he doesn't present himself immediately to authorities, he can be penalized for his presence.

4/1/14, 11:53 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Anonymous, sure, I was just answering the question of why crossing the border without authorization can't be criminalized. The point is that when someone crosses, his status as a refugee or not hasn't yet been determined. Of course if he doesn't present himself immediately to authorities, he can be penalized for his presence.

In other words, what you said has no relevance to the topic at hand. The people we're talking about aren't fleeing persecution and they definitely don't present themselves to the authorities after crossing the border, as stipulated by the Convention.

(Strictly speaking, the US is not a party to the 1951 Convention, but only the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, although in practice this appears to mean that the Convention applies.)

4/2/14, 12:48 AM

Blogger Aaron Gross said...

Dear Stupid Person,

The "relevance to the topic at hand" is as follows.

LA Times: "Entering the country without legal authorization is not a crime."

Steve Sailer: "Why not?"

Me: "Probably because criminalizing it would put the US in violation of international law."

So my answer is irrelevant? OK, I give up, you guys win, you're just...invincible. Bye, congratulations.

4/2/14, 5:07 AM

Anonymous Paulus said...

Who the hell ever thought Obama was deporting illegals in the first place? Is this more chicanery from the MSM?

4/2/14, 5:11 AM

Anonymous ben tillman said...

A growing number of people caught trying to cross the border now have a formal deportation order on their records. Entering the country without legal authorization is not a crime.

Yes, it is a crime: 8 USC 1325.

"Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325#sthash.IgBgkQwL.dpuf

4/2/14, 6:35 AM

Anonymous Mr. Anon said...

"Aaron Gross said...

Why not?

Probably because criminalizing it would put the US in violation of international law: article 31 of the UN Convention Relating to Status of Refugees."

1.) They aren't refugees.

2.) International law does not supercede US law.

3.) Who cares about international law? We violate international law all the time.

4/2/14, 6:50 AM

Anonymous Harry Baldwin said...

No factual information will prevent Democrat supporters like Juan Williams from claiming "this president has deported more undocumented workers than any previous president" when the subject of lax border enforcement comes up. I've noticed that politicians don't worry about whether what they say is true, only whether it works as a rhetorical point. For example, the statistic that women only earn 70% of what men earn for the same job has been convincingly debunked, but since it arouses the female base so effectively politicians are never going to stop saying it. The press is on the side of the Democrats and won't ridicule a Democrat politician who presents false information, so the average voter has no reason to doubt him.

4/2/14, 7:46 AM

Blogger Truth said...

Gays? Knee-Grow presidents, Commies? Broads with the right to vote?

Brothers be strong, our Halcyon days will return!

http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/359966/spring-break-florida/

4/2/14, 8:00 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

ICE rebranded itself as HSI in order to move away from its mission of depirti g aliens and get into prosecuting people for counterfeit handbags and child porn.

Back before Bush II gutted INS and replaced it with the fucked DHS, the Border Patrol was responsible for interior enforcement and had its own investigative/prosecutorial arm, INS Investigations. Much like every other agency out there, in the law enforcement world, it'd be common practice for an investigator to start their career in the Patrol and then move over to Investigations later on.

Post 9/11 a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Border Patrol and ICE in after the dissolution of the INS said that the Border Patrol would leave interior enforcement to ICE, who promptly disregarded that mission.

4/2/14, 8:07 AM

Anonymous Discard said...

Should any country complain of our violation of Article 31 or whatever, dump the "refugees" on their soil. We'll be hated no matter what we do, so we may as well look out for ourselves, by any means necessary.

4/2/14, 9:47 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would anyone designing a system they wanted to work design it this way?

Say there was a large conspiracy of criminals who were targeting congtessmen and Forbes 400 members for robbery and rape, and the criminals were getting away with it. Ya think Congress might bother to try to fix the criminal justice system so that they weren't?

4/2/14, 10:49 AM

Blogger Marcelo Gilli said...

What @Aaron Gross said is totally relevant. Not only that, he has been kind enough to explain it with a second post, in no less than crystal-clear English.

4/2/14, 2:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[Not deporting anyone from the interior] just can't be the policy..."

Well Jeff, it is the policy. Now what? What are you gonna do about it?

4/2/14, 5:16 PM

Anonymous Cogswell said...

What Aaron Gross posted is still irrelevant. We're under no obligation to obey "international law." We can freely disregard it. Boatloads of other countries do so with impunity.

4/2/14, 5:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Furthermore, any country that refuses to take its citizens is supposed to lose all consular relations (no visas to the USA) and the US stops accepting any flights from their country.

Guess how often that happens.

4/2/14, 5:34 PM

Anonymous ben tillman said...

What @Aaron Gross said is totally relevant. Not only that, he has been kind enough to explain it with a second post, in no less than crystal-clear English.

Relevant to what?

He offered it to explain a phenomenon that does not exist. But even if he were right that unauthorized entry weren't a crime, the refugee provision would be irrelevant because it would authorize refugees to enter the country. A law criminalizing unauthorized entry obviously would not apply to refugees and therefore would not conflict with the international law provision.

That's pretty straightforward.

4/2/14, 6:11 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL