blackbird

The names of the five sent to Africa were not mentioned in the article. Therefore you are using other names to try to make a claim. That is lying. The article says the five sent to Africa completed their sentences. Therefore, the U.S. has no grounds to send them to a prison. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? You just don't get it. Who are the two you are talking about? What do they have to do with this?

What a liar you are. Those cases are not the subject at all. Nothing to do with this deportation of the five. You are a sneaky rascal twisting the discussion.

No, I never said that. It says they completed their sentences in the U.S. The U.S. doesn't have the right to send them back into a prison in Africa in solitary confinement. They did their time in prison.

Tell that to the British Broadcasting Corporation and tell it to Politico. US President Donald Trump's administration deports five migrants to Eswatini CNN reports it also. Eswatini: Outrage over arrival of foreign US deportees in tiny African nation | CNN You look like a fool if you deny something reported on all the major news outlets.

This is on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) "The US has deported five people who it described as "criminal illegal aliens" to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini. On board the flight were five deportees from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen who have been convicted of crimes ranging from child rape to murder, US Homeland Security Department Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an online post. "This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back," McLaughlin wrote on X. Eswatini, the last absolute monarchy in Africa, said it acknowledged "widespread concern" within the country regarding the deportations." US President Donald Trump's administration deports five migrants to Eswatini Yes Yes, it is true that five immigrants were deported by the United States to Eswatini. These individuals, from countries including Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos, were convicted criminals and were held in solitary confinement in Eswatini's correctional facilities. The Eswatini government plans to repatriate them to their home countries, which could take up to a year. POLITICO+4

Parties to only the 1951 Convention Parties to only the 1967 Protocol Parties to both Non-members Signed 31 January 1967 Location New York Effective 4 October 1967 Signatories 19 Parties Convention: 145[1] Protocol: 146[1] Depositary Secretary-General of the United Nations Languages English and French (Chinese, Russian and Spanish)

From what I could find, the U.S. did sign onto the 1967 U.N. protocol. "The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees is a key treaty in international refugee law. It entered into force on 4 October 1967, and 146 countries are parties. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees restricted refugee status to those whose circumstances had come about "as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951", as well as giving states party to the convention the option of interpreting this as "events occurring in Europe" or "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere". The 1967 Protocol removed both the temporal and geographic restrictions. This was needed in the historical context of refugee flows resulting from decolonisation. Madagascar and Saint Kitts and Nevis are parties only to the convention, while Cape Verde, the United States of America and Venezuela are parties only to the protocol. The protocol gave those states which had previously ratified the 1951 Convention and chosen to use the definition restricted to Europe the option to retain that restriction. Only four states actually chose that restriction: the Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Monaco, and Turkey. Congo and Monaco dropped the restriction upon ratifying the 1967 Protocol; Turkey retained it, and Madagascar has not ratified the protocol.[2] There exists a diversity of definition of refugees across the globe, where countries and even local districts have differing legal meanings and rights allocated to refugees.[3]" Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia

A western country like America has the legal responsibility to treat everyone according to the Constitution, laws as well as international conventions that are in place. " Did not agree The U.S. did not agree to the U.N. Refugee Convention. President Truman refused to sign the convention, and the U.S. government declined to ratify it. However, the U.S. did ratify the 1967 Protocol, which outlines the legal obligations of states to protect refugees. Immigration History" "The 1967 Protocol on Refugees, ratified by the United States, removes the temporal and geographic restrictions on refugee status, allowing individuals to seek asylum regardless of their location. This protocol is part of the broader 1951 Refugee Convention, which defines refugees as individuals fleeing persecution and provides a framework for their protection and rights. The U.S. adopted this protocol in 1968, which has since been integral in shaping U.S. refugee law and policy. Wikipedia+2" If the Trump admin is not following the laws and conventions with respect to the rights of migrants and refugees, then they have a problem.

A poll of Canadians taken in February found 74% of Canadians had a negative view of Trump. That's likely because of his tariffs, 51st state talk and other things he says. Could also include his false claims about Canada being a big supplier of fentanyl when only 1% comes across the border from Canada. Not to mention his claim that Canada ripped America off for hundreds of billions of dollars, which is completely false.

It's a news report. Why wouldn't I believe it? If you don't believe it, contact the Canadian Press and tell them to prove it. LOL Lawyer says he's not been allowed to see 5 immigrants deported by the US to a prison in Eswatini

The news report didn't give the individual's names. We don't need the names to read and know what happened. "MANZINI, Eswatini (AP) — Five immigrants deported by the United States to Eswatini in a secret deal last month had served their criminal sentences before they were sent to be held in a prison in the African country, a lawyer working on their cases said Friday. The Eswatini lawyer also said the men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to southern Africa under President Donald Trump's third-country deportation program have been denied access to legal representation while being held in Eswatini's main maximum-security prison." Read the OP.

What I quoted you relates to laws and conventions. We don't need names to read news reports and read about the laws and international conventions. You are just trying to be evasive.

So says you. Obviously you don't know anything about it. Ignorance is bliss.

You admit many countries in South America are crime ridden. We know that is true. They are also often controlled by gangs and their governments are next to useless to protect the people. So why would you want to arbitrarily send migrants to those countries? You need to rethink and do some studying. We are supposed to have progress from being barbaric uncivilized countries in the west to be civilized. That's why we adopted many laws and Constitutions that respect human rights and treat people with the dignity they deserve. Why would you want to go backwards and become more uncivilized and barbaric by not respecting people's dignity and human rights? That doesn't make a lot of sense. But that is what is happening in the Trump MAGA world. Not all Americans agree with that anti-migrant mindset. I don't think many Americans really understood what Trump and MAGA planned to do and how they would treat people. I don't even know if you are an American, but maybe just decided that you would agree with all the uncivilized things that are going on now for some reason. I never said a country doesn't have a right to protect its borders. But once migrants or refugees get into the country, they have human rights under the Constitution, laws, and international conventions. Why would you want to support barbarity and inhumane treatment of your fellow man? It just doesn't make sense.

Here's something to think about: "Migrants should be treated according to Constitutional rights, laws, and U.N. conventions, which include: Human Rights Protections: Migrants are entitled to the same human rights protections as all individuals, although states may limit their rights in certain areas, such as voting and political participation. U.S. Constitution Rights: In the U.S., migrants have rights under the Constitution, including equal protection under the law and due process, regardless of their immigration status. International Law: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCRMW) outlines the minimum rights afforded to migrant workers, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. State Sovereignty: States have the authority to manage migration flows, but they are obligated by international law to protect migrants' rights within their territory. Special Protections: Migrants, particularly those in vulnerable situations, are afforded special protections under international law to address risks such as exploitation and discrimination. These principles ensure that migrants are treated fairly and humanely, respecting their rights and the responsibilities of states in managing migration. 3 Sources

Nonsense. You appear to be another person who wants to jump into the fray and who has absolutely no knowledge of laws, Constitutions, and international conventions on how to treat people. Funny how people like to be ignorant. That's MAGA thinking for you... pure ignorance and no respect for human rights. International standards governing migration policy | OHCHR

I already posted the information from the U.N. international convention website. There are the country's Constitution and laws governing how everyone has rights and requires due process. Your posting shows your simpleton mind when you make the above statement. You completely ignored all the information. There is no right to simply "remove them" without regard to laws and conventions.

Irrelevant because quotas are not an escape from responsibility to follow the Constitution, laws and international convention. I told you, Pay attention.

You appear to be ignorant of the facts. Sovereignty of a country does not give a country carte blanche rights to do anything they wish with migrants or refugees. You must very ignorant if you think a country can whatever they wish. Once migrants or refugees enter your country, either legally or illegally, you are still bound by the Constitution, laws and international conventions on how you treat them. You do not have the right to do whatever you want with people. They have rights. International standards governing migration policy | OHCHR

Of course it is. The Admin and ICE are bound to follow the Constitution, and International laws and conventions for migrants and refugees which they don't follow.

You are lying again. ICE and with your agreement are the ones breaking laws and international conventions. The article I quoted tells you all about it. But you ignore it because you don't believe in law and human rights. You have proven that by even asking what are human rights!!!!

No, they're not being lawfully deported. If they are not American citizens, then they fall into the category of migrant or refugee. Thousands of migrants are just being rounded up like cattle and imprisoned and deported without proper due process. Some are being sent to places that are not even where they came from and are being illegally imprisoned. Regardless of what name you want to give them, the following is true: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act Towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth In this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as Race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, National or social origin, property, birth or other status. […] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1 and 2 UN General Assembly, 10 December 1948 Introduction Existing legal instruments provide a comprehensive legal framework for the governance of international migration. Well-defined rules address the treatment of a range of migrants including, among others: migrant women, men, children, refugees, stateless persons, migrant workers, and migrant victims of trafficking. The bodies of international law which provide the basis for national migration laws, policies and practice include: international human rights law, international labour law and standards, international refugee law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, international consular law, and international maritime law. International human rights law International human rights law (IHRL) lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. Unlike other bodies of law, which may only apply to specific groups or situations, international human rights law applies to all people at all times. This includes not only a State’s own citizens, but everyone within the State’s jurisdiction or effective control. This means that all migrants, regardless of their status, are entitled to the same international human rights as everyone else. As with all rights-holders, States have an obligation to migrants to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights. Respecting human rights means refraining from human rights violations, and in the migration context includes refraining from arbitrary detention, torture, or collective expulsion of migrants. The obligation to protect human rights requires States to prevent human rights violations by other actors. With regard to migrants, this means that States should, for example, regulate recruitment agencies, sanction abusive employers, protect migrants from violence and abuse by smugglers, and take action against xenophobia and hatred. Fulfilling human rights requires taking positive measures to ensure the realization of those rights, such as, for migrants, introducing alternatives to detention, and guaranteeing access to healthcare, education, and other social services. Realizing human rights in migration policy also means incorporating certain cross-cutting human rights principles, including: Equality and non-discrimination: The principle of non-discrimination prohibits distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive grounds such as race, colour, descent, ethnic origin, sex, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion or belief, nationality, migration or residence status or other status. States should address direct and indirect discrimination against and unequal treatment of people in laws, policies and practices, including by paying particular attention to the needs of migrants in vulnerable situations. Participation and inclusion: Everyone is entitled to active, free and meaningful participation in decisions that affect the enjoyment of their rights. All people have the right to access information, in a language and format accessible to them, regarding the decision-making processes that affect their lives and well-being. This means that migrants should be consulted and included in the development of relevant public policy. Accountability and rule of law: Everyone is entitled to claim and exercise their rights. States should ensure transparency in the design and implementation of their policies and must ensure that rights-holders have access to mechanisms of redress and to enjoy effective remedies when human rights breaches occur. The system governing migration should allow migrants full access to justice, including redress and remedies if they experience human rights violations. Through its support to States and to the various human rights mechanisms, OHCHR helps to identify good practices and policies that ensure human rights-based governance of international migration." International standards governing migration policy | OHCHR

There are National Constitutions and laws as well as International conventions for how you can treat refugees and migrants, which you think you can totally ignore. You don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

One reason why a new pipeline should go to Prince Rupert from Edmonton Alberta instead of to Vancouver is because of the already busy Vancouver Harbour and Georgia Strait. We don't want to increase the number of ships in a busy area like that. Prince Rupert is on the BC north coast and relatively light traffic in the ocean around there. A terrible accident occurred 55 years ago when a freighter ran into a BC Ferry on the BC south coast. That's an example of what can happen. "55 YEARS AGO: On August 2, 1970, three people died when Russian freighter Sergey Yesenin collided with the Queen of Victoria in Active Pass. The freighter’s steel bow sliced through the B.C. Ferry, almost cutting it in half. Story: https://evelazarus.com/bc-ferries-and-the-russian-freighter/

No, that's now how the laws and Constitution work. The U.S. violated their rights by sending them to a third country, which is not where they came from, and they were imprisoned without trial in solitary confinement. This is clearly a violation of human rights. The U.S. knew what they were doing and did it in secret.