More denying immigrants their basic human rights.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

I pity the fools who live with you in Canada. Do you even have rights in your version of a Constitution? LMAO

They are clearly defined and not subject to a leader who decides them personally by the stroke of his pen.
But as you can see we have active collaborators that would like it that way. Fortunately also a Parliament not totally consisting of those and media not cowardly and beholden to such a leader.

[User]

35 minutes ago, herbie said:

They are clearly defined and not subject to a leader who decides them personally by the stroke of his pen.
 

That is not how it works here either...

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

No, they already completed their sentences for whatever previous offences they committed in their life.

And part of that is to be deported. Sorry.  Criminals who are in the country illegally get deported. 

The time they served in jail was only for the specific crime they were being sentanced for, that doesn't' mean there aren't other consequences. it's NOT for "every previous offense they committed in their life" at all. 

They're in the country legally, they're criminals, they get deported. End of story

What I'm saying is completely true. Now if you think that criminals shouldn't be deported if they are in the country illegally then you can go ahead and make that argument but you can't argue that these people have their human rights violated, because that's just not true.

Being a criminal has consequences. Being in a country illegally has consequences. If you think there should be different consequences than you have to change the law

[blackbird]

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And part of that is to be deported. Sorry.  Criminals who are in the country illegally get deported. 

The time they served in jail was only for the specific crime they were being sentanced for, that doesn't' mean there aren't other consequences. it's NOT for "every previous offense they committed in their life" at all. 

They're in the country legally, they're criminals, they get deported. End of story

What I'm saying is completely true. Now if you think that criminals shouldn't be deported if they are in the country illegally then you can go ahead and make that argument but you can't argue that these people have their human rights violated, because that's just not true.

Being a criminal has consequences. Being in a country illegally has consequences. If you think there should be different consequences than you have to change the law

There might be a case to deport someone, but in this case not to send them to be locked up in a foreign prison. That is a clear violation of their rights.

[Shady]

If you’re in the United States illegally, you have the freedom to leave on your own accord, and go to wherever country you please, including your country of origin.  I would recommend that if you’re worried about being deported to some place you’d rather not go.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, they already completed their sentences for whatever previous offences they committed in their life.  They cannot be sent to some other country and imprisoned again for past offences that they already paid for.  

What you are saying is completely false.  

Yes actually. They can.

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There might be a case to deport someone, but in this case not to send them to be locked up in a foreign prison. That is a clear violation of their rights.

What rights?

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There might be a case to deport someone, but in this case not to send them to be locked up in a foreign prison. That is a clear violation of their rights.

What rights?

"

What the Fourth Amendment Says

The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

For most people, the Fourth Amendment’s text brings to mind the illegal search and seizure of a person’s property. However, the Fourth Amendment also applies to the person themselves. In this context, an "unreasonable seizure" is any government action that illegally restrains freedom of movement.

The Fourth Amendment demands that any seizure be reasonable. It typically requires a warrant supported by probable cause.

Probable cause limits law enforcement’s power to arrest or detain individuals. Officers must have a reasonable basis to believe that a person has committed a crime before they can lawfully detain them. The Supreme Court has provided clarification on the application of probable cause through various rulings.

Evidence of a crime is crucial in establishing probable cause, which is necessary for a seizure to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers must have a reasonable belief, supported by evidence, to believe that a person has committed a crime to justify an arrest or detention. Without sufficient evidence, any seizure could be deemed unreasonable and unconstitutional.

However, the Fourth Amendment only applies to unlawful searches and seizures by the government. Indeed, if a private investigator, curious neighbor, or doubtful partner searches for your property, the Fourth Amendment does not govern their actions."

Fourth Amendment Seizure of Persons - FindLaw

Is a Warrantless Arrest an Unreasonable Seizure?

It can be. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures applies to persons and property. The courts have viewed unlawful arrests as unreasonable seizures. However, the key thing to remember is that law enforcement can arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. 

The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to be secure in their persons” as a protection against arbitrary arrests. So, an arrest without a warrant or probable cause is seen as an “unreasonable seizure” of one’s person under the Fourth Amendment.

 

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

There might be a case to deport someone, but in this case not to send them to be locked up in a foreign prison. That is a clear violation of their rights.

What foreigners do to their own citizens is not our business. You can't run your country based on what other countries are running their country like.

All you can do is run your country the way it should be run. Criminals should be locked up and then deported, that is the right way to run a country and it sounds like that's what they did so it's hard to be upset   

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

"

What the Fourth Amendment Says

The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

For most people, the Fourth Amendment’s text brings to mind the illegal search and seizure of a person’s property. However, the Fourth Amendment also applies to the person themselves. In this context, an "unreasonable seizure" is any government action that illegally restrains freedom of movement.

The Fourth Amendment demands that any seizure be reasonable. It typically requires a warrant supported by probable cause.

Probable cause limits law enforcement’s power to arrest or detain individuals. Officers must have a reasonable basis to believe that a person has committed a crime before they can lawfully detain them. The Supreme Court has provided clarification on the application of probable cause through various rulings.

Evidence of a crime is crucial in establishing probable cause, which is necessary for a seizure to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers must have a reasonable belief, supported by evidence, to believe that a person has committed a crime to justify an arrest or detention. Without sufficient evidence, any seizure could be deemed unreasonable and unconstitutional.

However, the Fourth Amendment only applies to unlawful searches and seizures by the government. Indeed, if a private investigator, curious neighbor, or doubtful partner searches for your property, the Fourth Amendment does not govern their actions."

Fourth Amendment Seizure of Persons - FindLaw

Is a Warrantless Arrest an Unreasonable Seizure?

It can be. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures applies to persons and property. The courts have viewed unlawful arrests as unreasonable seizures. However, the key thing to remember is that law enforcement can arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. 

The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to be secure in their persons” as a protection against arbitrary arrests. So, an arrest without a warrant or probable cause is seen as an “unreasonable seizure” of one’s person under the Fourth Amendment.

 

 

It's my understanding that those person or people you're all worked up about, were in the states illegally and broke the law.

Libbie judges allowed them...improperly and indeed against the law...to stay in the States.

Thus this deportation simply corrected an illegal judgement by a crooked judge or judges.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What foreigners do to their own citizens is not our business.

They were sent to a place in Africa which is not their own country.  They originally came from latin America or the Caribean.  They were sent to Africa by the U.S. government where they were locked up in solitary confinement without due process, without legal representation and without trial.  They committed no crime to deserve that.  The U.S. knew what they were doing.  The U.S. is entirely responsible for violating their human rights.

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It's my understanding that those person or people you're all worked up about, were in the states illegally and broke the law.

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.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

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.

Clearly? Hardly. 

What's clear is you will warp anything you can, to justify allowing the USA...and every country...to be flooded with illegal aliens. You clearly dont care for the citizens or the law. 

The POTUS can and will continue to capture and deport illegal aliens. And when you feel upset about it all, here's a picture you can put as your screen saver to spit on.

 

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, Shady said:

If you’re in the United States illegally, you have the freedom to leave on your own accord, and go to wherever country you please, including your country of origin.  I would recommend that if you’re worried about being deported to some place you’d rather not go.

You are a FOOL if you believe the bolded. No other country HAS to let you enter.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It's my understanding that those person or people you're all worked up about, were in the states illegally and broke the law.

Libbie judges allowed them...improperly and indeed against the law...to stay in the States.

Thus this deportation simply corrected an illegal judgement by a crooked judge or judges.

Your amateur legal "understanding" means NOTHING, except that you are ILLEGALLY practicing law without a license.

You didn't even use the LEGALLY REQUIRED CAVEAT "I am not a lawyer."

🤮

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Clearly? Hardly. 

What's clear is you will warp anything you can, to justify allowing the USA...and every country...to be flooded with illegal aliens. You clearly dont care for the citizens or the law. 

The POTUS can and will continue to capture and deport illegal aliens. And when you feel upset about it all, here's a picture you can put as your screen saver to spit on.

 

What's clear is you will warp anything you can, to justify your HATRED of brown people seeking to escape from their GANG DOMINATED homes.

[User]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What's clear is you will warp anything you can, to justify your HATRED of brown people seeking to escape from their GANG DOMINATED homes.

There are some 8 billion people in this world, and over a billion of them live in some form of extreme poverty or under poorly ran governments... 

The US is not a never-ending life raft for over a billion people. 

 

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

What "rights" were violated under what law?

Under American law and the American Constitution, their rights were not violated. 

 

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, User said:

The US is not a never-ending life raft for over a billion people. 

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.

[User]

Just now, blackbird said:

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.

They are not a refugee or mere migrant, they are here illegally and being lawfully deported. 

 

[blackbird]

16 minutes ago, User said:

They are not a refugee or mere migrant, they are here illegally and being lawfully deported. 

 

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

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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. 

This is simply not true. They are being lawfully deported. They are getting due process. 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

Of course you KNOW Trump doesn't give a CRAP about UN declarations NOR the law in general.

With Trump it's all about what HE CAN GET AWAY WITH that stokes the MAGA BASE. 🤮

[Nationalist]

53 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your amateur legal "understanding" means NOTHING, except that you are ILLEGALLY practicing law without a license.

You didn't even use the LEGALLY REQUIRED CAVEAT "I am not a lawyer."

🤮

Lol...so I take it I'm right.

Good.

[Nationalist]

51 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What's clear is you will warp anything you can, to justify your HATRED of brown people seeking to escape from their GANG DOMINATED homes.

Sweetie...they made their nations. Now you think it's a good idea to let them make ours in that image.

Is that what they taught you in university?

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...so I take it I'm right.

Good.

Nope, you're entirely IGNORANT about the LAW.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What's clear is you will warp anything you can, to justify allowing the USA...and every country...to be flooded with illegal aliens. You clearly dont care for the citizens or the law. 

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!!!!