Seven Year Old Girl Dies in Custody at the Border

Was the girl in Border Patrol custody for a full week undiagnosed?

 

Too nuanced. Won't fit in a tweet or bumper sticker.

 

The UN is not a world government, the United States is a sovereign nation. Any treaties it enters into can be overridden by common act of Congress. Even through just ignoring the treaty. This was clearly established in 1884. The constitution is supreme, any treaties signed are subordinate.

And the fact is it is a crime in the United States to illegally cross the border in a remote location clearly with no intent to declare asylum. Present yourself at a port of entry.

Anything else is an end to the nation state. It launders economic migrants into refugees.

 

You tell me. Then compare that with the number of people getting food, water, shelter, and medical care for free. A single child forced to march the length of Mexico that dies, seems like these activists got lucky. But we should take them into custody and prosecute them for what they did to a child.

 

Yeah, so perhaps given the severe, pervasive infection of her vital organs we should wait for that autopsy before going to 'Border Patrol did it!'

The only evidence you have says she died of an infection and you still plead your way into it being about acute dehydration, because that's what you want to believe. The only evidence that says she had dehydration also says she had a serious infection which likely caused it.

Fever and dehydration are both complications of septic shock.

 

You just told a big whopper.

 

Again, please point out how I did or apologise.

 

Sure.....but it is a signatory to a 'deal,' ~ the UNHCR Convention. You know, an agreement...stuff that Donald expects people he deals with to adhere to. If you want out of the deal, the agreement, just repudiate it. Until that happens, that Sovereign Nation you refer to either keeps its word, or is an *******.

 

The consensus from the left here seems to be that the parent(s) share zero blame and asylum shopping, while passing a suitable country, is OK.

Not OK.

 

The Senators who passed the 67' convention are clearly not the same as the members of Congress today. Treaties are not superior to ordinary acts of Congress.

If that overrides the 67' convention then so be it. No promise was ever given to subordinate acts of Congress to the treaty, all signatories knew the US had this policy when it was signed as it had been explicitly decided by the Supreme Court 123 years before.

If not letting any economic migrant in as a "refugee" makes them a people who go back on the word of their grandparents 51 years prior, then I suppose they don't mind being designated as such by the elitist, internationalist tools over at the United Nations.

 

The Sovereign State, the US signed that UNHCR Convention, not the Senate/Congress. And I see that yet again, you seem disturbingly oblivious to the distiction between some seeking to live in a better economy, (a proposed migrant) and an asylum seeking (a likely refugee.) I agree 100% that any Country has the right to reject or accept anyone just looking for a nice place to live, but while the US is a signatory to that UNHCR Convention, it is bound by its terms, or is a dishonourable, welching signatory to it......and it either processes asylum seekers in accordonce with that UNHCR Convention, or it is an international disgrace. Or......just repudiate the Convention. Choose your poison.

 

The international community supposes so, the US has agreed no such thing. Treaties have never been superior to ordinary acts of Congress.

The President and the Senate should not be unilaterally passing legislative policy through treaties which the people's representatives in the House cannot repeal.

So, by contrast, treaties can be overridden and disobeyed by any ordinary act of Congress. It is tyranny to subordinate the legislature to executive power by making treaties superior to ordinary acts.

The US is not bound by the terms, you are mistaken. Treaties cannot restrict the power of the legislature.

 

You are laughably, embarrassingly wrong.

Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States of America

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

The part where the Supreme Court ruled:

"...that treaties do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting "its enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases

 

Irrespective of that Article 6......what you say is correct Mr Pie...generally speaking....so....how about you blokes do what you signed up to.....or formallly renege, that is, REPUDIATE, and the Planet will know that you are quite right to repel all "boarders" as you deem fit......and we will all know as well, that any deal you sign up to, you might just walk away from. Choose your poison.

 

I am Australian, presumably like you.

Acts of Congress which supersede treaties are themselves the repudiation.

It's true that any deal the US signs up to they might walk away from at any time. That's the nature of a free Republic.

Maybe it makes you annoyed that they didn't pass the right sort of repudiation, so what?

I'd also note that based on what you've said here you'd probably wildly disagree with our application of immigration law also.

__________________________________________________

I'd like to see a few simple rules implemented which would fix this issue once and for all.

1. Those applying for asylum must do so in the nearest safe country. Failure to do so makes you automatically ineligible.
2. Illegal entry for any reason will be met with a lifetime ban on entry for any reason (incl travel). Present yourself at the embassy in your own country, or at a port of entry.
3. Only political persecution and war will be justifiable causes for seeking asylum. Not because you're poor or live in a crime ridden area.

The modern internationalist "immigrant rights" movement is designed to launder economic migrants into refugees. It must be stopped by any means necessary.

 

So.....in what Act of Congress did the US specifically repudiate its signatory to that UNHCR Convention?

 

US Code...

"...provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any non-citizen who:

1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

That seems to cover crossing the New Mexico desert to avoid ports of entry.

That would seem to conflict with your interpretation of the UNHCR, would it not?

 

Do we know that? At this time I don't think we have the whole story. So, is the president at fault for every death "under his watch"? Did Obama take credit for the American's who died from diseases brought in from those south American's Obama brought in with no medical vetting?
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...1-barack-obama-is-bringing-disease-to-america

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ack-decades-after-being-wiped-out-in-the-u-s/

 

That is not a formal (or informal) repudiation of the Convention. Come on...stop this tip toeing through the tulips and choose your poison. Is the US a signatory or not. Simple as that.

 

They do not have to formally withdraw in the way you want. They are under no legal obligation to do so. As I have said over and over, treaties are not above ordinary acts of Congress.

All they have to do is pass any bill which conflicts with the treaty.

 

According to the OP Article, she was in the US. That's all I have. And here we go again with the "What about Obama/Clinton etc" rubbish. Donald is POTUS and this death occurred on his watch and while he was doing all he can to demonise people who might well be genuine asylum seekers. He knows his audience well. Just call them 'illegals" (which asylum seekers are not) and the Team Elephant cheer squad will do its thing. Really, come on Team USA.

 

So, you think the border patrol is purposely letting illegals die because of Trump? That says a lot about you.

 

Incorrect. What I want is a nothing. It is what the Law requires. If you are repudiating a Contract (i.e. Convention) you do so by stating so, unequivocally.

 

Oh, that is as cute as it is just rubbish. They are not 'illegals' if they are seeking asylum. When will that penetrate your cranium? Until it does, your comments are totally irrelevant.