Title 42 and Human Rights

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, May 21, 2022.

  1. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And where did I express such feelings about foreigners? Answer: I haven't. I have expressed dismay about illegal aliens invading our country, but my dismay is directed every bit as much to the leftist politicians (and citizens) who have made it possible, as it is to those who try to break our existing laws. After all, they're both conspiring together to break the same laws, just in different ways. The politicians do it for votes, the immigrants do it for money.

    Take note, please, that I said "existing laws". Everything I've ever advocated for when it comes to illegals entering and/or staying here, though it's sometimes been labeled as extremist or mean-spirited, or even "hating foreigners", which is a new one, is what our laws already are. I would change them to be harsher, but to get the results I want, which is much, much fewer people trying, and even much, much fewer getting away with border busting, we only need enforce our current laws as written.

    What the laws say is always on topic in any thread whose very subject is to try to mansplain to us xenophobes why we are wrong and you are right.

    Well, then, dontcha think it's about time to start coming up with some new measures to keep them out, temporary or otherwise? It's a shame it took Title 42 to be enforced in the first place to even stem the flow a little bit, especially considering how hard you folks were on say a certain Governor of my State who didn't force people to wear ridiculous masks for no reason, you seem pretty happy to let in just any diseased person S. America can send our way.
     
  2. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    People giveth. People taketh away. People is too arbitrary an answer.
     
    ShadowX likes this.
  3. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would not be a natural right. Those right people grant they may also take away. A natural right is one that exists regardless of what people think is popular at the moment.
     
    ShadowX likes this.
  4. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No such thing.
     
  5. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bruh do you know democracy is? It has NOTHING to do with natural rights. NOTHING. WHATSOEVER.

    True democracy means that laws and policies are determined by, AND SOLELY by, what the majority votes for. There are no rights unless voted on by the populous and a majority agrees. If the majority does not agree with those rights they can strip them COMPLETELY with, again, a SIMPLE majority 50%+1 and there’s absolutely nothing that the minority can do about it outside of violent resistance.
     
  6. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im going to ignore the fact that the DOI has no legal standing and point out to you that the Declaration of Independence predicated those natural rights upon a CREATOR and what that CREATOR provided as natural rights.

    So unless you believe in a creator then the DOI doesn’t really mean anything to you except pretty words.

    And human moral principles differ depending upon who you ask. For instance the vast majority of the world still considers homosexuality abhorrent.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  7. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you only have rights people gave you. In which case they have every right to take them away from you whenever they please.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not explicitly. What you did was complain because you claim I "heart" aliens. If you are going to think binarily, I have a license to do so too.

    "Invading"? Ok... there you go. Now you DID express such feelings.

    In any case, this discussion is not about foreigners. It's about US. We either respect human rights, or we don't. And allowing Title 42 to remain active beyond what the policy itself was intended for would be a violation of human rights.

    Title 42 doesn't stem the flow of illegal aliens. In fact, it encourages it. They stem the flow of aliens who are seeking asylum. But it just creates a backlog which will grow and grow and will "explode" when it's deactivated. That means we won't have the resources to quickly process them and, therefore, more of them will have to be released awaiting a court date.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  9. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are fed this baloney by the cayotes and drug runners. It is a dangerous journey from Mexico into the US, especially during the summer. The asylum excuse does not hold water.

    When the bypass Mexico, they are no longer seeking asylum. They are using it as an excuse to get a better life.
     
  10. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This country has a immigration and naturalization system designed to deal with issues like these. Biden has allowed it to be a mockery of the first order. Allowing people to enter while waiting to be vetted for entry is insanity of the first order. Amnesty is a special saturation where the individual is in immediate and personal danger of death or imprisonment; it is NOT a "get in free" pass for people living in **** hole countries. There's a process to apply for immigration.
     
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a silly argument.
     
  12. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    pretending laws do not exist by playing the "human rights" card is hilariously 3rd grade.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What nonsense! Biden didn't invent "catch and release". It has been in place since... I think since the Bush Administration. And INCLUDING during the Trump administration.

    Except during Trump it got worse. And Trump refused to include enough Immigration judges in the budget to process them at the border. Trump received about 550 thousand cases pending from the Obama administration. He left Biden almost 1.3 million.
     
  14. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How many cases has Biden added to it in less than a year and a half.
     
  15. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is how it works.
     
  16. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are on record saying that separating children from parents is "torture" and also suggested that we throw parents in prison (Separating them from their children) for refusing to consume a pharma product. You are all over the place on this issue.

    No one is buying this.
     
    Lil Mike and Buri like this.
  17. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember that when the pendulum swings in a direction you don’t like.
     
  18. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,505
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The left thinks anything that can be classified as General Welfare or Human Right suddenly everybody else's responsibilty to sacrifice to provide using the strong arm of government to mandate it.

    The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
     
    Buri likes this.
  19. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then I will move the pendulum.
     
  20. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We shall see about that.
     
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes! And Title 42 temporarily halted that process. Now it's time to bring it back.

    I don't think you're understanding the issue. Maybe you should find out what we're talking about before digging yourself even deeper in the argumentative hole you got yourself into.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  22. Le Chef

    Le Chef Banned at members request Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    10,688
    Likes Received:
    3,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is true that refugees have the right to seek asylum. But put a star by the word "refugee" before you chain yourself to the White House gates and go on a hunger strike and label every one else a racist.

    The Trump administration was probably being disingenuous in formulating the emergency regulation that implemented sec. 256 of Title 42, though President Trump himself, as a notorious germaphobe, likely subjectively believed that unrestricted mass migration during the Covid pandemic presented "a danger" to public health. Because it did. And it does. Pandemic or not. That's why the ports have always and still ask arriving migrants armed with visas (remember those?) whether they have symptoms of Covid or TB. This is one reason that "entry without inspection" is a ground for deportation. (Asylum is relief from deportation, a kind of affirmative defense.)

    But it is also true that President Trump preferred a merit based and serious immigration system, not the chaos we have now. Hence his disingenuousness in drafting the emergency regulation.

    My own view is that every single person entering the country from abroad potentially presents "a health danger," if potential, so it is legal and prudent to require inspection before entry. Covid is one justification, AIDS another, TB another, Ebola another.

    But back to "refugee". A refugee, as noted elsewhere above, is not an economic migrant. Face it, that's what most migrants are. It is also not a person who fears private gangs not acting under the aegis of government. It is also not a person who just prefers our system of government. It is dishonest to pretend that every person claiming asylum is a "refugee". Many of them (if they bother to show up) will admit as much under cross examination at their asylum hearings. Guess why many do not show up? Only a credulous fool recommends that this reality be ignored.

    So yes, refugee, you have a right to seek asylum if you really are, or honestly believe yourself to be, such. The government has the right to decide whether you qualify. I think frivolous claims to asylum -- and some of them are, hence the high denial rate -- should carry a sanction of some kind. There is a legal doctrine called "abuse of right" that would validate such sanctions in appropriate cases.

    Have we gone completely insane in our war against racism? Yes, obviously, we have.
     
  23. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. Still makes sense to not allow unscreened people in until they're screened.
    I live within 20 miles of the border, I see more in-depth reporting and dialog on this issue on the evening news that you've seen in a year.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  24. Le Chef

    Le Chef Banned at members request Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    10,688
    Likes Received:
    3,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like most people, especially in the media, you don't understand the issue either, or alternatively, you are expressing yourself poorly.

    You claimed: "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."

    Title 42 itself is an Act of Congress, not some mean-spirited, racist tweet by President Trump. It is already "permanent" and remains "in effect" until repealed or until a giant meteor hits the Earth. President Biden cannot repeal it, thank God. There is no "deactivating it," except by Congress.

    What I think you are trying to complain about is the continued enforcement of a CDC order, issued pursuant to Title 42 and its regulations, restricting entry from Mexico due to detailed fact finding of a then-prevailing and outsize danger of aliens spreading covid across state lines.

    That said, I agree that continuing the restriction on that basis alone, given the CDC's current determination of current risks, is without legal basis. How you lift it get us into the swamp of administrative law. Boring.

    It would just be nice if people would stop throwing around "Title 42!" without knowing what they are talking about.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No clue where you got that idea. Read the OP!!!!
     

Share This Page