More denying immigrants their basic human rights.

[blackbird]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

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.  

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

So where's that list of names and circumstances?

[CdnFox]

Just now, blackbird said:

You quoted you related laws and conventions. 

...Where....Is.... the.... list.... of..... names.....and.....Circumstances??

Are you just making this all up? Are you telling me you have no idea about the specifics of any of these cases and this is all completely bullshit? You didn't take the time to look to see if there was any truth to what was being said?

[blackbird]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So where's that list of names and circumstances?

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.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

...Where....Is.... the.... list.... of..... names.....and.....Circumstances??

Are you just making this all up? Are you telling me you have no idea about the specifics of any of these cases and this is all completely bullshit? You didn't take the time to look to see if there was any truth to what was being said?

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

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[Shady]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

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

 

America doesn’t need labour.  Regardless that’s not what asylum is for.  And they can have their applications heard remotely for consideration, as 90% of asylum applicants are found not to be eligible.

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

The United Nations has no justification over immigration of other countries.  They can do f**k themselves if they think they can for countries to accept unlimited illegal immigration.

[blackbird]

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.

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, Shady said:

America doesn’t need labour.  Regardless that’s not what asylum is for.  And they can have their applications heard remotely for consideration, as 90% of asylum applicants are found not to be eligible.

The United Nations has no justification over immigration of other countries.  They can do f**k themselves if they think they can for countries to accept unlimited illegal immigration.

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.

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

The United Nations has no justification over immigration of other countries.

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

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

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

Those ARMIES are NOT the peons of today walking to the US border. Duh 

 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

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

It says if they make it to US soil they can apply for ASYLUM. And your BULLSHIT is not going to change that.

53 minutes ago, Legato said:

Not if they enter illegally.

BULLSHIT. The law doesn't say that.

[robosmith]

24 minutes ago, Shady said:

America doesn’t need labour.  Regardless that’s not what asylum is for.  And they can have their applications heard remotely for consideration, as 90% of asylum applicants are found not to be eligible.

Really? The farmers hiring migrants say YOU'RE WRONG.

24 minutes ago, Shady said:

The United Nations has no justification over immigration of other countries.  They can do f**k themselves if they think they can for countries to accept unlimited illegal immigration.

No one said "unlimited" but YOU.

[blackbird]

 

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)

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The news report didn't give the individual's names.  We don't need the names to read and know what happened.

So you don't have any specifics at all, this is all just made up bullshit. We can't even look to see if any of it's true.

Well there you go.  

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you don't have any specifics at all, this is all just made up bullshit. We can't even look to see if any of it's true.

Well there you go.  

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

Edited August 3, 2025 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It's a news report.  Why wouldn't I believe it? 

Because the news is off and wrong. Sometimes intentionally and sometimes due to incompetence but it's almost always wrong. This is why we take the time to verify through multiple sources before we believe things

This sounds like completely made up bullshit and I'm certain it is. If you can't even produce a name and show the circumstances, then it's most likely false, and shouldn't be taken remotely seriously

Here.  A 'news story' must be true right? Hardly. 

100 Days of Fighting Fake News | Homeland Security

Genuine stories as a rule will give at least a name and some circumstances so that you can look it up and verify it. 

Instead it's just some imaginary number of people that we can't look into or verify and something supposedly bad happened to them. It's a joke

 

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

his sounds like completely made up bullshit and I'm certain it is.

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.

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

"

Yes

Yes, it is true that five immigrants were deported by the United States to Eswatini.

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"

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

 

So the truth starts to come out a little bit. 

Still no names and not even the alleged incarceration facility.  But  turns out they're not in "jail", they're just being held for final deportation to their home countries. 

And as for the people themselves....

The men, who the U.S. says were convicted of serious crimes and were in the U.S. illegally, are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said, describing them as “uniquely barbaric.”

These are the people you're claiming should be released? We should feel bad for these people and allow them to stay in the USA?

So as usual you've been dishonest with the facts, and we STILL don't know the details. 

These people were absolutely given due process, they've been sent to a country who will arrange their repatriaion, the were NOT sent to "jail", and they're the worst kind of scum and were in the country illegally. 

 

Why the hell are you sticking up for child rapists?  Big fan or something?

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

These are the people you're claiming should be released? We should feel bad for these people and allow them to stay in the USA?

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.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

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.

Civilized?

Do you call this civilized?

"On June 16, 2024, Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old American girl, was sexually assaulted and killed in North Houston, Texas, United States."

is that civilized enough for ya? Maybe this will wake you up...

"Victor Martinez Hernandez, 23, faces charges of first-degree murder and rape after police allege he attacked Rachel Morin, 37, on a trail in Bel Air, Maryland, on Aug. 5, 2023.

Morin was not his first alleged victim.

"We all suspected that Rachel was not his first victim," Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler said after the arrest. "It is my understanding that this suspect, this monster, fled to the United States illegally after committing the brutal murder of a young woman in El Salvador … in January of 2023"

That you even entertain the notion of defending these animals is disturbing. 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I never said that.  It says they completed their sentences in the U.S.

 

Well you ARE saying that.  And the fact they completed their sentence doesn't mean they don't get deported. 

Quote

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.

And they didn't send them to prison.  They are being detained until they can be repatriated.  And yes the US has every right to do that. 

Sucks to be them but bad guys will massive criminal records get detained until they're deported. That's true in the US or in the 3rd country. That's PERFECTLY legal and not a violation of human rights. 

And yes the US or a third party has EVERY RIGHT IN THE UNIVERSE to detain them until they're deported, they did their time for raping children but they still illegally entered the country and will have to go through the deportation process. 

That is the price you pay for illegally entering the country even IF you DIDN"T commit other crimes on top. SO why would it be different here? 

Bad guys need to be deported, they must be held for deportation, the us facilities are getting full, the US says to friendly third country "mind holding these guys till the process is finished if we flip you a few bucks?" and other country says sure, why not. 

Where's the problem? The us has EVERY right to do that. It's entirely appropriate.

 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Civilized?

Do you call this civilized?

"On June 16, 2024, Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old American girl, was sexually assaulted and killed in North Houston, Texas, United States."

is that civilized enough for ya? Maybe this will wake you up...

"Victor Martinez Hernandez, 23, faces charges of first-degree murder and rape after police allege he attacked Rachel Morin , 37, on a trail in Bel Air, Maryland, on Aug. 5, 2023.

Morin was not his first alleged victim.

"We all suspected that Rachel was not his first victim," Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler said after the arrest. "It is my understanding that this suspect, this monster, fled to the United States illegally after committing the brutal murder of a young woman in El Salvador … in January of 2023"

That you even entertain the notion of defending these animals is disturbing. 

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. 

[User]

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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. 

Yeah, they were worse. How about this, how about we send them to live with you in Canada instead?

"The prisoners were convicted of various crimes, including child rape, murder and robbery, she said."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/17/africa/africa-eswatini-trump-us-deportees-intl

 

[Nationalist]

44 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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. 

Oh but it very much is about those cases.

https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/cnns-harry-enten-finds-most-voters-want-all-illegal-immigrants-deported-americans-like-where-were-going-under-trump/

And do you understand why? No. Of course you dont. Nobody can rape a zucchini. These cases scare the Hell outta parents and reasonable people. 

What Brandon and Mayorkis did was treason, and insane. Did you really think you could sell the idea that millions from failed states was a good idea because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy? The level of influx was so big and fast, that what's happening now was/is inevitable. 

Now grow the fck up.

16 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, they were worse. How about this, how about we send them to live with you in Canada instead?

"The prisoners were convicted of various crimes, including child rape, murder and robbery, she said."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/17/africa/africa-eswatini-trump-us-deportees-intl

 

No!

Not here!

Edited August 3, 2025 by Nationalist

[User]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No!

Not here!

I am just about sick and tired of this madness being pushed by these bleeding-heart leftists. 

These people were here illegally, they were violent criminals, and their own damn countries refuse to take them back... so now we are supposed to just let them back out on the streets? 

Nope. Send them to the middle of the desert for all I care in Africa. Good riddance.  

 

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What Brandon and Mayorkis did was treason, and insane.

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?