More denying immigrants their basic human rights.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

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?

You're a FOOL if you believe peons in Latin America "made their nations."

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

They were sent to a place in Africa which is not their own country.  T

Not our country either, and presumably they let them in. Not our problem, not the american's problem. 

20 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.

No it's not a violation of their rights. If they're in the country illegally the only right they have is the right to get the hell out. If they fail to do so bad things might happen.

And why would a foreign government lock them up for no reason when they've committed no crime and pay for their upkeep? Let's take a look at these couple of these cases you're talking about, print the names and specific details of two or three of them and let's take a look at what really happened

 

[Shady]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

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

Yes, even the United States.  It’s funny that you recognize other countries sovereignty but not America’s.  

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No it's not a violation of their rights.

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.

[Nationalist]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope, you're entirely IGNORANT about the LAW.

Really? Sure doesn't look like it.

It looks like you're wrong again.

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yes, even the United States.  It’s funny that you recognize other countries sovereignty but not America’s.  

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

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

Tell me...what's the current quota for your refugees in the USA?

[Nationalist]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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!!!!

Lol...what a lyin' pansy.

I told you what I think "basic human rights". You still have not.

[Shady]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You appear to be ignorant of the facts.

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.

 

I don’t know what do whatever you want to turn means.  Regardless, if somebody is in your country illegally, you have every right to remove them if they will not leave on their own.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Tell me...what's the current quota for your refugees in the USA?

Irrelevant because quotas are not an escape from responsibility to follow the Constitution, laws and international convention.

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...what a lyin' pansy.

I told you what I think "basic human rights". You still have not.

I told you, Pay attention.

[Nationalist]

Just now, blackbird said:

Irrelevant because quotas are not an escape from responsibility to follow the Constitution, laws and international convention.

It's very relevant. You brought it up.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-refugee-resettlement

International convention?

Go home...

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, Shady said:

Regardless, if somebody is in your country illegally, you have every right to remove them if they will not leave on their own.

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.

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

II told you, Pay attention.

Not really, you offered an opinion, based on emotions and lacking factual example.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Not really, you offered an opinion, based on emotions and lacking factual example.

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

 

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

Not really, you offered an opinion, based on emotions and lacking factual example.

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

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You're a FOOL if you believe peons in Latin America "made their nations."

You're a fool if you dont.

[Nationalist]

49 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

Sovereignty absolutely gives a country "right" to manage and even close their borders. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Yes, even the United States.  It’s funny that you recognize other countries sovereignty but not America’s.  

Nope. There are laws in the US that require consideration of applications FOR ASYLUM because the America needs labor.

Quote

US asylum law allows individuals who are already in the United States to seek protection from persecution in their home country. To be granted asylum, an individual must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on specific grounds (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). There are two main ways to apply for asylum: affirmatively, by filing an application with USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), or defensively, when facing deportation proceedings.

 

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You're a fool if you dont.

No, I am a realist who KNOWS what happens in third world countries, despite YOUR FANTASIES.

What possible reason could you have for imagining peons in third world countries have ANY INFLUENCE THERE?

IF they did, they would NOT BE FLEEING PERSECUTION. Duh

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Sovereignty absolutely gives a country "right" to manage and even close their borders. 

US LAW says we don't enforce that "right" universally. We allow immigrants IN THIS COUNTRY to apply for ASYLUM. Duh

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No, I am a realist who KNOWS what happens in third world countries, despite YOUR FANTASIES.

What possible reason could you have for imagining peons in third world countries have ANY INFLUENCE THERE?

IF they did, they would NOT BE FLEEING PERSECUTION. Duh

US LAW says we don't enforce that "right" universally. We allow immigrants IN THIS COUNTRY to apply for ASYLUM. Duh

1. The Spanish and Portuguese colonized south America. They created...a crime ridden slump in many cases. 

2. US law does not say that. The government can shut the border as it pleases.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

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

 

There is no fray. Illegal means illegal. Any country has  right to protect it's borders, regardless of what those ineffectual nonsense people at the UN say. That is, unless it's Israel.

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. The Spanish and Portuguese colonized south America. They created...a crime ridden slump in many cases. 

2. US law does not say that. The government can shut the border as it pleases.

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.

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

There is no fray. Illegal means illegal. Any country has  right to protect it's borders, regardless of what those ineffectual nonsense people at the UN say. That is, unless it's Israel.

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.

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

Not if they enter illegally.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Of course it is. 

Of course it isn't. Where's that list of names and circumstances I asked for? Let's go through it

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, Legato said:

Not if they enter illegally.

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