Title 42 and Human Rights

Let me see how I can structure this. Let's start by clarify one thing that I am sure many are not aware of: human rights trump ANY law. People CANNOT vote to restrict human rights. NO government can enact laws that violate human rights. No Article in the Constitution or Amendment can go against human rights.

Human Rights come from Common Law, from the International Declaration of Human Rights (which, for the most part, the US authored), by International Human Rights Agreements, International Legislation and Human Rights Courts.

Human Rights can be suspended temporarily and ONLY due to very unique emergency situations: a war, a pandemic, a natural disaster, ... Let me underline temporarily. Judges cannot rule to reject a human right, people cannot vote to remove them, Heads of State cannot them permanently discard them.

Well, the right to seek Asylum IS a Human Right. It is illegal to deny the right to seek Asylum to ANYBODY from ANY country in the world. They have a right to due process. Foreigners have a RIGHT in this country to seek Asylum, and it's a human rights violation to deny them that right when non of the emergency situations described above exist.

Title 42 was enacted in 1944 to stop the spread of communicable diseases by temporarily suspending the human right to seek asylum. This was activated by Donald Trump in the early stages of the Covid epidemic emergency. However, once the Covid epidemic is no longer an emergency, Title 42 is not in effect anymore. Again: we are talking about a human right. So it doesn't matter whether the majority of Americans agree or disagree with deactivating Title 42. It's a violation of human rights if it's not deactivated. Congress does not have the power to make it permanent. And when a judge addresses complains, they must reference the emergency.

A Federal judge in Louisiana temporarily halted the deactivation of Title 42. But the reason for doing this CANNOT be based on whether this benefits the country or not. So it is based on the fact that the Biden Administration did not give enough time for the border states to prepare for the deactivation.

Well... very soon they will have had enough time. And there is no power in the planet that can stop Title 42 from being deactivated.

Human rights should not be taken lightly. Americans travel all over the world. We have military personnel in many countries, as well as diplomatic missions. If human rights don't exist, any country can take an American serviceperson... or even a tourist... and subject them to imprisonment or torture. So we are ESPECIALLY vulnerable and particularly eager to uphold human rights. Because we are one of the nations that have MORE citizens living or working or temporarily staying in other countries.

 

They absolutely can.

 

The act of seeking asylum is not a human right. Thread fail.

Have a nice day.

 

When seeking asylum, they are supposed to seek it in the first safe country they come to. Generally, that is not the US.

 

Then why are masks required in nursing homes and in hospitals and in other locations designated by local governments?

 

Yeah, glad the OP started out with a set of premises that were so absurd there is little else that needs to be said.

 

Those who try to defend Biden's open border policy are looking like the Information Minister of Iraq, Baghdad Bob. They are comical.

 

When did allowing illegals to run roughshod over US immigration laws become a human right?
You can always tell a Thread fail when one sentence destroys an OP with spouting paragraphs of information to make a fake point.

 

Is it? Even if your case is bullshit? Even if you were a "gotaway" (someone who crossed the border on foot and didn't get caught by border patrol)? What if that was 10 years ago? 20?

Well, my illegal alien lover, I have bad news for you. First, let's start with what your situation has to be to qualify for asylum. (Copied and pasted from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website, www.uscis.gov).

Q. What is a Credible Fear of Persecution?
A. A “significant possibility” that you can establish in a hearing before an Immigration Judge that you have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to your country.

Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?

First, you have to "have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of your"...

1. Race. Since the overwhelming majority of people who live "South of the border" are Latino, I'd say it's going to be extremely hard proving such a thing, unless you are another race which experiences such circumstances. I've never heard of a single case of that, but there may be a first someday.
2. Religion. Most of those folks are some sort of xtian, if they are religious at all. Since there are no religious wars going on in Central or South America, I'd say that's damn near impossible, too.
3. Nationality. Well, as far as I can tell, there's not a lot of strife between Central and South American countries (outside of the drug cartels, but since they are not a government organization, they don't count, and that's what the law says, not me making something up to bolster my case), so like (1) & (2), there's no real possibility of someone coming in who meets this requirement.
4. Membership in a "Particular Social Group". What's that, like a gang or cartel? Again, when speaking of people from this hemisphere, it's simply a non-issue.
5. Political Opinion. I find that funny, because it seems right now that you're more likely to be subject to persecution INSIDE the United States if you don't walk in lockstep with the woke left, than from another country. Like the other 4 valid reasons (and that's the end of the list), I do not see that being widespread, if it exists at all.

But OK, let's pretend their bogus claims deserve to be heard (they really don't, because we all know that next to nobody is going to qualify), what we should be doing is once we catch them, give them a chance to fill out the forms, and in a reasonable world, give them a hearing within a few days, and then when they're denied, they get deported. But I guess there are simply so many (I mean, it's not like dems haven't been practically sending out invitations at least since Obama if not before) that we can't do that, then we give them an NTA (Notice To Appear), and immediately put 'em on a bus back over a bridge to Mexico, where we open the door, remind them that if they get caught trying to cross the border again, it's a felony, and kick them off. That we can do in a day or three.

Then, if they show up at an actual border checkpoint for their hearing, we give it to them, and when they are denied, we stick 'em on yet another bus and lather, rinse, and repeat.

Because it is NOT a "human right" to disrespect our borders and laws and just prance right in as if they belong to be here. They don't, unless they go through the LEGAL process, and that's gonna be pretty hard to accomplish if you don't have a penny to your name, and have no skills beyond the ability to push a broom around. But that's life, and life isn't fair.

I don't know what it is with you and your frankly unnatural craving to essentially have open borders, but it's highly disrespectful of your Country and fellow Countrymen. I mean I get you want the votes, and it's just as easy for an illegal to vote as it is one of us citizens, unfortunately, but with you especially I think it goes far beyond that.

@kriman had an excellent point, too, that you can't go through a safe country to get somewhere else, and as far as the legal definition of asylum goes, Mexico is a safe country. Which also means that there's no need for a single Mexican to even try to play the asylum card, which they only do if they get caught. The getaways don't bother. Don't you find that interesting?

One last thing, on the topic of those getaways, they have one year to submit their application for asylum, or else they've lost their chance. According to federal law, any illegal who has any sort of contact with law enforcement after that year should be detained and deported, without passing go or collecting $200. That law is routinely ignored, and in some places outright and intentionally broken by State and Local officials, but federal law trumps State law, so those folks should be arrested as well.

 

So now all of a sudden no covid worries?
I guess it’s worth the risk for the illegal votes huh?

 

I don’t think you understand how democracy works. Aren’t you the one on here clamoring that republicans are killing democracy?

You do understand that in a true democracy there is no such thing as “natural rights”. In a true democracy the ONLY thing that matters is 50%+1 voted a certain way.

So in a democracy (you know that thing you seem to be such a fan of) if 50%+1 vote to remove all protections from a group of people… say blacks or whites or Mexicans or homosexuals or whomever… there’s absolutely nothing those people can do about it (outside of violent resistance) because the majority has spoken.

 

Btw without a god… on what grounds do you assert there are any “natural rights” at all?

Who came up with these “natural rights” and who decided what should be included and what shouldn’t?

 

Golem has been destroyed in this thread and he is even trying to defend it. Lets keep it going.

Hilary has not even commented on this subject that I can find. Maybe she thinks the shooting was OK. She had some very strange ideas about what was legal, like her server.

 

They can "vote", but the results would have no validity.

 

If you see a lack of response on my part to your posts, it's only because I skip most of them because I know the majority contain nonsense like this that you make up.

 

Yes! Even if my case were "bullshit", the right to seek Asylum would STILL be a human right. It's a right that is not only in the International Declaration of Human Rights, but also in our own laws.

That's right. But that's beyond the scope of my post. If you want to learn about legislation regarding Asylum check the U.S. Code. And if you want to discuss that legislation, open a thread.

I'm sorry you wasted your time on who qualifies or doesn't qualify for Asylum. But this thread is simply to explain why keeping Title 42 active after the reason why it was first invoked no longer exists would make us a country that violates human rights. And that, even though nobody can send us to "jail" for violations, respect for human rights is in our best interest. Only that.

Everybody has a right to seek asylum. Whether they qualify or don't qualify, that's up to the courts on a case by case basis. And, obviously, beyond the scope of this thread.

BTW, this thread is not even to discuss whether or not the conditions still exist or not. Only that Title 42 WILL have to go away (be deactivated). And there is nothing any law, any court, or any referendum can do about it.

 

"True" democracy? What nonsense! "Natural rights" exist in EVERY political system. The fact that totalitarian systems violate them doesn't mean they don't exist. And a democracy that doesn't protect them is no longer a democracy. This is why any vote to tell you who you can marry. Or which gender or ethnic group or religious group.... can or can't vote, or speak, or work, or own private property... Or ANYTHING that would remove human rights from ANY particular group, is nullified by courts.

 

The Declaration of Independence.

And human moral principles, of course.... But if you need a document: DoI will do just fine.

 

You can mansplain to me all you want about how my responses to your posts are not topical, but every time I notice you posting another "I heart illegals" post, I'm going to call you out, and explain what the actual laws are for at least two reasons. First, it's obvious that it is you who needs an education on what the laws regarding asylum are, and second for those who may read your anti-American screeds who need the same, whether they would tend to be on your side of this debate or not.

If preventing a bunch of gubmint teat suckers (or anyone else, for that matter, but most of them are that) from illegally crossing our borders is a violation of human rights (it's not), then we need to be violating some more human rights. Hopefully, when the dems get scorched in November they'll be so shell-shocked that they might actually cooperate on passing some better laws, or here's an idea... Just enforcing the ones we already have, which do not call for people to be released into the USA if they don't belong here.

Your problem is you seem to think just by being human you have a right to enter our country (but strangely, I'm seeing no concern about countries that actually enforce their immigration laws and don't allow what we do), but they do not. If you're not born here, or elsewhere to US Citizens who happen to be abroad, you don't have a right to be on US soil until we say you do.

 

The DoI, as brilliant as it is, and it's one of my favorite political screeds ever, has no more legal authority than does a NY Times editorial.

 

Oh... I see. So your post was just a rant about how you hate foreigners and to demand that I hate them as much as you do.

What the actual laws say is a great topic. But it's not the topic of this thread. In fact, the topic of this thread is that it makes no difference what the laws are. We are STILL obligated to give due process to Asylum seekers.

As for the rest of your post, all I can say I don't agree with xenophobia. And there are multiple threads where I show that the cost-benefit analysis of illegal aliens turns out to be positive for the country. But this one is not one of them.

 

Human Rights don't NEED legal authority. The DoI makes it clear that Human Rights exist above and beyond any legal authority. And that if they are consistently violated and the laws and the Constitution does not protect them, it's the law and the Constitution, not the Human Rights, that should be abolished.

Which is exactly my point: Human Rights trump any laws, any amendments, any voter referendum... And this is why Title 42 can only be temporary.

 

Suffice it to say that what's in the declaration of independence has nothing to do with immigration.

 

If they don't seek asylum in the first safe country, then their motives are very
questionable.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I was not commenting on your failure to respond to my comments, I was referring to your failure to respond to any comments.

 

People did.