ICE detains a U.S. citizen in L.A. and charges her with obstructing an arrest

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I've got news for you.

quote

Yes, U.N. conventions can overrule a country's law. The United Nations Charter establishes that the organization aims to maintain justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law. This means that when a U.N. convention is ratified by a country, it can override national laws that conflict with those conventions, as the U.N. system is designed to promote international law and resolve disputes peacefully³

 

United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations

"

United Nations Charter (full text)

Preamble

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

______________________

We know in reality, there are superpowers in the world such as Russia, China, and the U.S. which can veto decisions that the U.N. make.  But they cannot hide from and refuse to follow the basic principles and conventions the U.N. has adopted without being seen as doing so.  When member nations who agreed to the basic principles and respect for human rights turn around and ignore them, they are disrespecting the established international order and human rights.   

So what are you trying to say here, comrade? That the US is required to open our borders and let illegals in? 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Technically, they may be breaking a U.S. law. But that law nullified or over-ridden by the U.N. Refugee Convention.    

 

That is not an accurate statement. International law cannot override a sovereign country's law. That's not how it works. If the us has signed a treaty then it can be held to that treaty unless it renounces it, but even there it's not the same as the un "Overriding us law", that would be an argument that two "laws" in the US were in conflict. 

While its true that the US can be bound by conventions it's signed at NO time does  that override or nullify US law in the slightest. The UN could theoretically condem the us or even introduce sanctions, but only AFTER  a vote and guess who's got a veto  

And have you seen any cases brought to the un over this? No? Nothing? Your argument just got fried. 

If the immigrants felt that the US was in violation of a treaty they had signed then of course they could go to court to address that even if they were in their own country at the time. But nobody is really making that allegation in court that i've heard, including the groups who oppose this.

On top of it the courts of expressly suggested that this is happening within the boundaries of US law.

It is possible to argue that a law is adjusted should be broken. I don't think anyone would suggest that it would be wrong to say that people who were ordered to gas Jews back in the war should have ignored their lawful orders or that the people who hid anne frank and her family were wrong to do so.  If a law is so reprehensible that it cannot be tolerated at all by responsible people then there's an argument for 'civil disobedience'. 

But, so far your only argument has been that you don't like that the families are being split up and that's just no argument at all. Like, zero.  Every time a criminal is punished families are impacted. 

And you have steadfastly refused to agree that the law should be changed or  to suggest how it might be improved so that these people were NOT doing anything illegal. 

So i'm afraid your argument is falling on its face and you are indeed absolutely advocating for criminal behavior and I have  a problem with that. This does not meet the bar of such inhumane behavior such that it's impossible to be tolerated. You just don't like it and that's not the same thing 

[User]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Technically, they may be breaking a U.S. law. But that law nullified or over-ridden by the U.N. Refugee Convention.    

There is no technicality about it. You just support them violating the law. 

First, the UN doesn't nulify US law. Second, that doesn't change the fact that I am no liar, you do in fact support them breaking the law. 

THIRD, this is not the only argument against immigration law enforcement you have been making. This entire line of argument of yours is still beyond dishonest as you have opposed immigration law enforcement in numerous threads far more broadly and generally than this. 

But go on... why don't you confirm this for us all. 

Do you support ICE enforcing federal immigration law against the millions of people here unlawfully IF they are not in fear for their lives from their home countries? After they have exhausted their asylum claims?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That is not an accurate statement. International law cannot override a sovereign country's law.

 

59 minutes ago, User said:

First, the UN doesn't nulify US law.

Your argument is not with me.  I am just telling you what the U.N. states.  If you don't like it, ask the U.N. to change it.  It's not my problem.  We know Trump and his MAGA admin don't respect international law on this subject.  

quote

Yes

Yes, the U.N. refugee convention does override a country's laws. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish international standards for the protection of refugees, which take precedence over national laws. These conventions define the rights of refugees, including the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that refugees cannot be returned to a country where they face persecution². Additionally, the UNHCR works to ensure that these conventions are translated into national laws to protect refugees effectively¹.

unquote

The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR

Edited July 5, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your argument is not with me.  I am just telling you what the U.N. states.  If you don't like it, ask the U.N. to change it.

So, you don't believe this then? Why are you sharing it if you don't believe it?

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

THIRD, this is not the only argument against immigration law enforcement you have been making. This entire line of argument of yours is still beyond dishonest as you have opposed immigration law enforcement in numerous threads far more broadly and generally than this. 

I have said I believe in due process and also I believe that nobody should be sent to a country that puts them at risk or breaks up a family.  I believe in the sanctity of the family structure.

I believe in humanitarianism which means protecting people from harm.  It's that simple.

The U.N. refugee conventions verifies that is the correct position to take.   

Edited July 5, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, User said:

So, you don't believe this then? Why are you sharing it if you don't believe it?

 

I never said I don't believe it.  Of course I believe what the U.N. refugee conventions say and believe it applies to all countries even if the U.N. can't enforce it. 

 

[User]

Just now, blackbird said:

I never said I don't believe it.  Of course I believe what the U.N. refugee conventions say and believe it applies to all countries even if the U.N. can't enforce it. 

 

So, why play games saying I am not arguing with you?

 

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have said I believe in due process and also I believe that nobody should be sent to a country that puts them at risk or breaks up a family.  I believe in the sanctity of the family structure.

I believe in humanitarianism which means protecting people from harm.  It's that simple.

The U.N. refugee conventions verifies that is the correct position to take.   

Now you add in "or breaks up a family" to your list of reasons why you support breaking the law, just like I said. 

So once again, I am not the liar here, you are. 

If you want to play this stupid UN refugee conventions claim, then explain how we are violating it. 

 

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, User said:

So, why play games saying I am not arguing with you?

 

It is pointless to argue over it endlessly.  You state your position and I state mine.  Time to just agree to disagree and move on.

Edited July 5, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It is pointless to argue over it endlessly.  You state your position and I state mine.  Time to just agree to disagree and move on.

LOL, sure... you call me a liar, I prove that you are the liar... you want to run away again. 

This is why you ran away last time. I caught you in a lie, you spent a week obfuscating and lying more, and then ran away. 

 

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, User said:

LOL, sure... you call me a liar, I prove that you are the liar... you want to run away again. 

This is why you ran away last time. I caught you in a lie, you spent a week obfuscating and lying more, and then ran away. 

 

I am not wasting any more time with you and your false accusations.  I didn't lie about anything.  

[User]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I am not wasting any more time with you and your false accusations.  I didn't lie about anything.  

You just lied here now. LOL

Nothing false about my accusations. 

You claimed I was a liar for saying you supported this lawlessness. Then after I dig into your positions, you confirm, you do in fact support the lawlessness. 

You are such an insufferable pathological liar. 

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I've got news for you.

quote

Yes, U.N. conventions can overrule a country's law. The United Nations Charter establishes that the organization aims to maintain justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law. This means that when a U.N. convention is ratified by a country, it can override national laws that conflict with those conventions, as the U.N. system is designed to promote international law and resolve disputes peacefully³

 

United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations

"

United Nations Charter (full text)

Preamble

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

______________________

We know in reality, there are superpowers in the world such as Russia, China, and the U.S. which can veto decisions that the U.N. make.  But they cannot hide from and refuse to follow the basic principles and conventions the U.N. has adopted without being seen as doing so.  When member nations who agreed to the basic principles and respect for human rights turn around and ignore them, they are disrespecting the established international order and human rights.   

I hate to break it to you, US Law is sovereign. Unless the Congress adopts and the President signs the law, it does not apply in the United States. 

Constition of the United States Article 1 Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Your argument is not with me.  I am just telling you what the U.N. states. 

No, you are sharing one interpretation of what one person thinks the UN regulations are because you happen to like it.

The source you posted was not "The UN" And is interpretation is not as clear as you think it is.

And if it was the case then why hasn't anyone taken it to the UN? Or fought it on that basis.?

You just plain wrong. And it's night and day obvious. Your cherry picking comments by questoinable people and cannot explain why nobody has actually gone to the un with it if true. 

Sorry Kiddo.  Lets be crystal clear - the us is acting entirely within the law, the UN has not protested at all nor do they claim any violation and YOU are ABSOLUTELY supporting criminal behavior 100 percent. 

which means in fact you were lying before when you said you were not and @User Was absolutely right to call you on it

[blackbird]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, you are sharing one interpretation of what one person thinks the UN regulations are because you happen to like it.

The source you posted was not "The UN" And is interpretation is not as clear as you think it is.

And if it was the case then why hasn't anyone taken it to the UN? Or fought it on that basis.?

You just plain wrong. And it's night and day obvious. Your cherry picking comments by questoinable people and cannot explain why nobody has actually gone to the un with it if true. 

Sorry Kiddo.  Lets be crystal clear - the us is acting entirely within the law, the UN has not protested at all nor do they claim any violation and YOU are ABSOLUTELY supporting criminal behavior 100 percent. 

which means in fact you were lying before when you said you were not and @User Was absolutely right to call you on it

"The administration continues to wield the Trump administration’s Title 42 policy to block and expel asylum seekers to life-threatening dangers in violation of U.S. refugee law and Articles 3, 31 and 33 of the Convention, failing to restart asylum processing at ports of entry over six months after taking office. Human Rights First has tracked over 3,276 kidnappings and attacks against asylum seekers and migrants expelled or stranded at the border since the Biden administration took office. Rather than restoring asylum processing in compliance with U.S. and international law, President Biden and other administration officials continue to make public statements that undermine asylum and discourage refugees from exercising their legal right to seek protection in the United States."

Assessment: U.S. Compliance with the Refugee Convention at its 70th Anniversary - Human Rights First

That report was from 2021.  Things are much worse for refugees now under the Trump admin.  Trump admin plans to deport millions of undocumented migrants.

"The Time article says, “The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. ‘People need to be deported,’ says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ‘No one should be off the table,’ use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Let’s look at them more closely. More than 60 percent of the 10 million undocumented immigrants, or some six million people, have lived in the United States for at least a decade. That’s a long time. We are talking about immigrants who, apart from their immigration status, live normal, decent lives and who have families and jobs in the United States and who, for 10 years, have been contributing to America through their work and taxes. Roughly 50 percent are Mexicans, many with close family or social and cultural ties to America. Some four million of them are parents of children born in the United States. These are the cold, hard facts about them. Do all such immigrants merit wholesale deportations?"

Trump’s Plan To Deport 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants Impossible

 

[User]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That’s a long time.

So... yet another group of folks you are OK with breaking the law...

 

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"The administration continues to wield the Trump administration’s Title 42 policy to block and expel asylum seekers to life-threatening dangers in violation of U.S. refugee law and Articles 3, 31 and 33 of the Convention, failing to restart asylum processing at ports of entry over six months after taking office. Human Rights First has tracked over 3,276 kidnappings and attacks against asylum seekers and migrants expelled or stranded at the border since the Biden administration took office. Rather than restoring asylum processing in compliance with U.S. and international law, President Biden and other administration officials continue to make public statements that undermine asylum and discourage refugees from exercising their legal right to seek protection in the United States."

Assessment: U.S. Compliance with the Refugee Convention at its 70th Anniversary - Human Rights First

 

Utterly irrelevant. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current deportation strategy in the slightest.

So you have realized that you were wrong and now you're trying to change the channel? How disingenuous.

 

Quote

"The Time article says,...

More opinion pieces that are useless. Time said there was Russian collusion and it turned out that wasn't true.

If you're trying to cite a un convention then the only people that would be in a position to complain would be the UN. Has the UN launched any kind of Investigation or laid any charges? No? None?

Well there you go

He's arguments are always trite and childish. We've seen it a million times, remember when it was all about how the members on the left here were insisting that it was perfectly valid to remove trump from the ballot and that in fact the law demanded that they do so etc etc only to have the supreme court rule that it was actually a travesty of justice and the court was entirely wrong to do so.

If there's a problem with the UN then the UN would pipe up. And your previous article was wrong about the UN overriding American law, largely because America has a veto and no enforcement or declaration that they're wrong will pass that

Which brings us back to the end result again that you are 100% supporting the violation of laws offered no reasonable explanation as to why that should be considered anything other than criminal on your part

[blackbird]

On 7/5/2025 at 1:37 PM, CdnFox said:

If there's a problem with the UN then the UN would pipe up.

That's now how the U.N. operates and you know that.  You know the U.S. is a superpower and dominates the U.N. with money and power.  The U.N. is scared stiff the U.S. will cut off funding, which they can do.  

You deceitfully whine about me supporting illegal migrants but in fact I support due process and humanitarian treatment of everyone.  By your comments you supported sending the hundreds of undocumented migrants to the torture - death prison CECOT which is illegal under the U.N. refugee convention and by any humanitarian standard.

So on one hand you and Useless criticize me for supporting "illegal migrants" when I am just defending them from inhumane and illegal treatment by deportation to places that put them in serious danger of torture and death, like El Salvador or Sudan and LIbya.

On the other hand it is the Trump admin that is breaking international U.N. refugee conventions.  Yet you say nothing about that law-breaking,  That is hyprocrisy of the worst kind.

We also see how money talks in the prison system where the very rich can receive special treatment and live in luxury while in prison in some place including in the U.S. in some cases.  The world is not a fair place and people are often not treated humanely by the rich and powerful.

 

Edited July 7, 2025 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

Just now, blackbird said:

That's now how the U.N. operates and you know that. 

 

It absolutely is.

Quote

You know the U.S. is a superpower and dominates the U.N. with money and power.  The U.N. is scared stiff the U.S. will cut off funding, which they can do.  

So what you're saying is that the UN doesn't override US law.

Quote

You deceitfully whine about me supporting illegal migrants but in fact I support due process

It has already been proven Beyond any reasonable doubt that that statement that you just made is a lie. In fact you do not support due process.

You only support the migrants and are willing to Advocate for them breaking any law necessary to achieve an end that you think is desirable even though it's illegal. You have no interest in the due process of law or law at all. You only care about results you think are pleasing, just like any criminal.

If you did care about due process in the law, the very first thing you would be doing is talking about changes that needed to happen to the law. But despite the fact that I brought that up a number of times you insist that there doesn't need to be changes to the law people just need to break it.

Sorry. You do not believe in the rule of law, you do not believe in the court or legal system, and it's obvious you don't believe in the UN. Like every narcissistic criminal in the world, all you care about is what you think the results should be everything else can go to hell

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It absolutely is.

So what you're saying is that the UN doesn't override US law.

It has already been proven Beyond any reasonable doubt that that statement that you just made is a lie. In fact you do not support due process.

You only support the migrants and are willing to Advocate for them breaking any law necessary to achieve an end that you think is desirable even though it's illegal. You have no interest in the due process of law or law at all. You only care about results you think are pleasing, just like any criminal.

If you did care about due process in the law, the very first thing you would be doing is talking about changes that needed to happen to the law. But despite the fact that I brought that up a number of times you insist that there doesn't need to be changes to the law people just need to break it.

Sorry. You do not believe in the rule of law, you do not believe in the court or legal system, and it's obvious you don't believe in the UN. Like every narcissistic criminal in the world, all you care about is what you think the results should be everything else can go to hell

Endless lies.

[CdnFox]

Just now, blackbird said:

Endless lies.

Truths that you can't cope with. Sorry but this is been absolutely proven through the course of this conversation. Everybody can see it, it's not in dispute for any rational person, it's obvious.

And to this very moment you're not advocating for changes to the law, just breaking it

[User]

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's now how the U.N. operates and you know that.  You know the U.S. is a superpower and dominates the U.N. with money and power.  The U.N. is scared stiff the U.S. will cut off funding, which they can do.  

The UN is dominated by 5 "Super Powers", with each of them having veto power and no, the US does not dominate the UN unilaterally as you sit here trying to absurdly claim.

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So on one hand you and Useless criticize me for supporting "illegal migrants" when I am just defending them from inhumane and illegal treatment by deportation to places that put them in serious danger of torture and death, like El Salvador or Sudan and LIbya.

This is another lie. You are not on here only supporting humane treatment of them, you dishonestly conflate humane treatment with not deporting illegal immigrants. 

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

On the other hand it is the Trump admin that is breaking international U.N. refugee conventions.  Yet you say nothing about that law-breaking,  That is hyprocrisy of the worst kind.

You assert this, but offer no argument of any kind to show how. 

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Endless lies.

This is rich coming from the person who has been caught lying numerous times and then runs like a coward after lying over and over again about lying. 

[Deluge]

On 7/5/2025 at 11:15 AM, blackbird said:

 

Your argument is not with me.  I am just telling you what the U.N. states.  If you don't like it, ask the U.N. to change it.  It's not my problem.  We know Trump and his MAGA admin don't respect international law on this subject.  

quote

Yes

Yes, the U.N. refugee convention does override a country's laws. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish international standards for the protection of refugees, which take precedence over national laws. These conventions define the rights of refugees, including the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that refugees cannot be returned to a country where they face persecution². Additionally, the UNHCR works to ensure that these conventions are translated into national laws to protect refugees effectively¹.

unquote

The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR

We don't have to ask the UN to change anything. We just tell them to f*ck off.  

On 7/5/2025 at 11:32 AM, blackbird said:

I have said I believe in due process and also I believe that nobody should be sent to a country that puts them at risk or breaks up a family.  I believe in the sanctity of the family structure.

I believe in humanitarianism which means protecting people from harm.  It's that simple.

The U.N. refugee conventions verifies that is the correct position to take.   

We believe in the sanctity of the family structure too, which is why deporting the entire family together is the best option. 

[Deluge]

On 7/3/2025 at 12:59 PM, Deluge said:

Well, there you have it. Velez thought she could take the law into her own hands, and found out. 

They need to prosecute that stoopid b*tch to the fullest extent of the law. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-detained-us-citizen-l-charged-obstructing-arrest-rcna215481

They're charging this America hating b*tch with obstruction. 

Good for them. 

 

[Nationalist]

On 7/5/2025 at 1:15 PM, blackbird said:

 

Your argument is not with me.  I am just telling you what the U.N. states.  If you don't like it, ask the U.N. to change it.  It's not my problem.  We know Trump and his MAGA admin don't respect international law on this subject.  

quote

Yes

Yes, the U.N. refugee convention does override a country's laws. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish international standards for the protection of refugees, which take precedence over national laws. These conventions define the rights of refugees, including the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that refugees cannot be returned to a country where they face persecution². Additionally, the UNHCR works to ensure that these conventions are translated into national laws to protect refugees effectively¹.

unquote

The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR

Oh no you don't!

The USA...as with pretty much every nation...has "refugee quotas" set yearly. To side-step that, Brandon and that bald-headed criminal Mayorkis, labeled them all "asylum seekers".

Fck you and your word games. This is why nobody can trust Libbies anymore.