Gov. Rick Perry discusses crisis at US-Mexico border.
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
Since you didn't provide the link to El Universal (although it's in the article), here it is - the translation option has to be clicked - for anyone that might be interested to read and draw their own conclusions.
El Universal - Nación - México y Guatemala protegerán a migrantes
Of course the Mexican press isn't going to present this deal from the same perspective as the US media (which doesn't seem to have picked up the story) - but note the paragraphs that point out the card is limited to 72 hours and only applies to the four states on Mexico's southern border with Guatemala and Belize. Historically, Mexico hasn't welcomed immigrants with open arms and certainly doesn't give them the same rights offered in the US. Given that backdrop, it does seem odd that Mexico offers these accommodations to children and unaccompanied minors under these circumstances at this point in time.
Individuals can read the articles and decide for themselves whether or not they are "crushed".
Several years ago, economist Milton Friedman shared his views on illegal immigration :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4
Last edited:
No doubt, there are many unpleasantries being suppressed on the issue of illegal immgration:
Report: SMALL LIFELESS, DEAD CHILDREN Found ?Washed Up Along Riverbank? of Rio Grande | The Gateway Pundit
Rupert Murdoch, owner of the media conglomerate including Fox News, is a huge advocate for liberalizing immigration policies. Can his organization be expected to report fairly on this topic?
Report: SMALL LIFELESS, DEAD CHILDREN Found ?Washed Up Along Riverbank? of Rio Grande | The Gateway Pundit
Rupert Murdoch, owner of the media conglomerate including Fox News, is a huge advocate for liberalizing immigration policies. Can his organization be expected to report fairly on this topic?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL ... Jim Hoft ?
Good one ari ...
Jim Hoft Finally Officially Designated As The Dumbest Man On The Internet With Reed Irvine AwardOUR FLOURISHING PUNDITOCRACY
12:45 PM MARCH 6, 2013
JIM HOFT FINALLY OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS THE DUMBEST MAN ON THE INTERNET WITH REED IRVINE AWARD
by STEFAN BC
If you have never heard of the group “Accuracy in the Media” (AIM), do not feel ashamed. AIM can be easily lost in the fetid open sewer that is the conservative movement’s various political groups/tax shelters. However, once a year this organization decides to rise from above the primordial soup of right wing insanity to engage in a blatant act of trolling against the forces of progressivism and the entire concept of veracity by giving some ******* an award for “outstanding achievements in investigative journalism.” This year that ******* is Jim Hoft, the man universally known as the “dumbest man on the internet.” It is certainly a huge honor for Hoft, and outside of fellow St. Louis resident/moran Josh “Randy” Sullivan we could not think of a more deserving designee.
AIM was started by a Reed Irvine, a man who once denied that the El Mozote Massacre took place based purely on Reed’s own perception that the person reporting the deaths of over 800 civilians was a filthy communist. Irvine died in 2004 after a career highlighted by his role in promoting the conservative masturbatory narrative regarding the Vince Foster conspiracy and his general existence as a complete embarrassment to any idealized notion about the benefits of a free press. Given this splendid reputation, it makes sense that the award in his name is finally being bestowed upon the Imo’s Pizza of internet punditry, Jim Hoft.
Hoft has made a name for himself in the Obama era by personifying the mindset of Real America’s insane flubby cousin who lives in the midwest and forces everyone to attend his painfully awful Thanksgiving dinner every year (WE DO NOT SERVE ANY GAY *** GREEN VEGETABLES IN THIS HOUSE BOY). His blog is the embodiment of the sort of pervasive midwestern form of passive aggressive cultural fascism. It boasts the expected pathological hatred of anything Obama, but Hoft’s work can be distinguished through his flailing attempts to exist as something more than just another angry blogger carrying the translucent white man’s burden. Hoft knows that his blog is the sole source of news about the scary brown world out there for all of America’s racist uncles (who need information to drunkenly yell at relatives during family gatherings) and boy does he deliver.
If you are the sort of person who occasionally takes a gander at the right wing portion of the internet and wonders how exactly it evolved into a place where obviously unstable folks are celebrated as demi-gods, Hoft is probably going to be your patient zero for most of the crazy **** that passes as facts over yonder. Hoft is now one of the main players in this never-ending and throughly depressing LARP of doom where any mundane news story can immediately be fashioned into PROOF of a wider conspiracy to destroy the underpinnings of exurban America. As one can imagine, he is universally incorrect in whatever assertions he draws from his RSS feed, so as a result the world is frequently treated to an ever-increasing number of blatantly stupid stories that Hoft flushes out of his laptop and out into the wider world.
Hoft’s long list of lunacy since 2008 has kept Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs busy, and has probably justified at least the hiring of a few interns over at Media Matters. A VERY short roll call of Hoft’s greatest hits include:
- Claiming that Obama celebrated the death of journalist Daniel Pearl.
- Publishing a story derived from a satirical website stating that a high school had rescinded its invitation to the President due to his “forged” birth certificate.
- Deciding that the Times Square bomber was a registered Democrat.
- Spreading some bull**** survivalist fantasy about the Department of Homeland Security buying thousands of tanks (he earned a Drudge link for that effort).
- Calling Desmond Tutu a “Jew Hater”.
- Decrying a logo shaped like an atom at an international summit on nuclear issues as a sign of MOOSLEM CONSPIRACY.
- Describing the nice folks from the Westboro Baptist Church as a “left wing cult”.
- Deciding that Obama was photoshopped into the situation room when Bin Laden was killed because…?
Jim Hoft has bravely defied not just truth or logic but probability as well (even the National Enquirer was right about something eventually) in his splendid career of embarrassing the city of St. Louis and the movement he represents. In a world of close to seven billion people, where the internet is exponentially becoming a greater part of people’s everyday lives, it is Hoft who deftly gazes upon the information around him and manages to shamelessly **** his pants publicly on a daily basis. If one man truly embodies the spirit of Reed Irvine by proudly disseminating ideologically driven ignorance for the purpose of making this world a somehow worse place, it is Jim Hoft, the Stupidest Man on the Internet™.
[Accuracy in the Media/Media Matters/LGF]
Thanks for sharing the "conservative" buffoonery ... it truly brightened a day that needed brightening for me ...
Murdoch isn't the only billionaire with a holier-than-thou message about immigration reform; there's also Gates, Buffett and Adelson offering their self-serving opinions:
And speaking of unpleasantries, some additional insight on the train pictured in the article on "lifeless, dead bodies" (are there any other kind?):
Mexicans blame Americans for ?Death Train?
Keep in mind, this is a NAFTA freight train; imagine seeing something like this traveling through your town. On a related note, notice that there has been a noticeable lack of photographs of these children in their US "compounds" in the American media due to a concentrated effort by govt officials to deny access by journalists and elected officials to these areas. The public responds much more forcefully to pictures than mere words, so there must be things going on they don't want to be seen on TV and the front pages of newspapers.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Cue opening theme music for The Twilight Zone ...
Not necessarily. Poke around. Some of the descriptions have been less than flattering for DHS and CBP. "Horrific" is a word that has been used. A couple of reporters from KVOA TV in Tucson, for example, have been trying to get in for weeks. They've been in, but only for a short time, and only under closely chaperoned circumstances with planned media tours. No pictures, no phones allowed - pen and paper only. Even legislators in charge of oversight are prevented from unannounced visits. They've also closed the roads leading to the facilities so reporters can't get close. Gil Kerlikowske, CBP Commissioner, who pledged greater transparency when he assumed the position in March, has informed border patrol agents they should not speak to reporters, on or off duty, without advanced permission and warned that anyone who does could be charged with a crime or disciplined administratively, because he's all about transparency, and has apparently learned from Obama what that's all about.
This is a case where they genuinely shouldn't be hiding anything if they have nothing to hide. There are things they clearly don't want to be seen on TV and the front pages of newspapers. Chaperoned tours with no pictures allowed makes that abundantly clear, as does the descriptions by those who have taken the tours. There are a few pictures, though (see the slideshow at the top, it clicks left and right, the pictures below it are unrelated). There are two problems with the conditions. One is, people will see them and be struck by how much like a prison it is. Horrified and outraged. And then they will want to show compassion, despite us not being able to afford it.
It's also interesting that the comments from most of the kids indicate that really very few are coming here to escape from harsh conditions, as much as they are here for straight up amnesty, because they have relatives in the States.
This is a case where they genuinely shouldn't be hiding anything if they have nothing to hide. There are things they clearly don't want to be seen on TV and the front pages of newspapers. Chaperoned tours with no pictures allowed makes that abundantly clear, as does the descriptions by those who have taken the tours. There are a few pictures, though (see the slideshow at the top, it clicks left and right, the pictures below it are unrelated). There are two problems with the conditions. One is, people will see them and be struck by how much like a prison it is. Horrified and outraged. And then they will want to show compassion, despite us not being able to afford it.
It's also interesting that the comments from most of the kids indicate that really very few are coming here to escape from harsh conditions, as much as they are here for straight up amnesty, because they have relatives in the States.
Last edited:
That is true. All kinds of stories about human trafficking only to find out it is only true in a very small amount of cases.
Looks like more people are just saying no.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-town-tries-to-protest-away-immigrant-kids/
Looks like more people are just saying no.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-town-tries-to-protest-away-immigrant-kids/
Last edited:
My aunt lives in Green Valley, not quite half way between Tucson and Nogales, right off the Interstate. Never a dull moment.
We, the US citizens, are being played for fools. By the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras; worst of all, we are being played for fools by the executive branch of our own government.
At some point, the lid comes off this thing. Some incident, somewhere, will blow this sham wide open. I don't know what Obama's game is, but the midterm elections are 3 months away.
At some point, the lid comes off this thing. Some incident, somewhere, will blow this sham wide open. I don't know what Obama's game is, but the midterm elections are 3 months away.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It's a complicated situation - one which is made more complicated by the legal obligations of our country - an aspect which many who are choosing to "opine" (aka "I'm a-gonna flap my gums ... and just remove any doubt whatsoever that I am indeed a fool ...") about the situation haven't a real clue about.
As a matter of international law, there are a couple of things which are relevant.
One is the 1951 UN Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees - which was initially aimed at protecting European refugees.
The other is the 1967 UN Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees.
The latter one is most relevant to the United States' particular situation ... since the United States is a high contracting party to The Protocol only (having acceded to it) ... and not to Convention itself.
Except for the fact that it appears The Protocol takes the Convention and removes the Convention's limitations.
LOL ...
This means that under The United States Constitution - you know: that thing we are supposed to SUPPORT ALL OF ... not just the parts we like - '67 UN Protocol - as a treaty - is, along with the US Constitution, actually (part of) THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND ...
Wanna understand our legal obligations as a nation as a consequence of being a party, and having acceded to the '67 Protocol ?
Well then, get ready for a nice long read and some nifty new terms like non-refoulement (the obligation of a nation-state NOT to send a legitimate refugee back to where they are fleeing from)
The following UN document contains both the '51 Convention (first) and the '67 Protocol (second) ...
UNHCR - Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
Or if you want to take the easy route that won't make your head hurt too much, here's the link for Wiki page on The Convention (which contains a link to the Wiki page for The Protocol - which itself is substantially less informative than the Wiki page on The Convention):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Or you can just skip all that nasty clicking around and consider the following which are several key excerpts from The Convention's Wiki page.
This, in fact, will be hilarious ... because it will have all the right-wing extremist retards' veins bulging and literally have them ready to burst a vessel:
That whole big pile of smarmy moralistic hyperbolic dookie about "criminal illegal aliens" ?
Yeah, well ... you can just chuck that one in the round file where it belongs ... they get a free "I'm innocent if I acted in good faith" card ...
Remember: Under the treaty provisions of the United States Constitution, the '67 Protocol is part of THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND ... and you should support ALL OF IT ... and not just the parts you like ...
... lol ...
Finally, let's have a little peek at that non-refoulement thingie:
Bon Appetit ... lol ...
As a matter of international law, there are a couple of things which are relevant.
One is the 1951 UN Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees - which was initially aimed at protecting European refugees.
The other is the 1967 UN Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees.
The latter one is most relevant to the United States' particular situation ... since the United States is a high contracting party to The Protocol only (having acceded to it) ... and not to Convention itself.
Except for the fact that it appears The Protocol takes the Convention and removes the Convention's limitations.
LOL ...
This means that under The United States Constitution - you know: that thing we are supposed to SUPPORT ALL OF ... not just the parts we like - '67 UN Protocol - as a treaty - is, along with the US Constitution, actually (part of) THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND ...
Wanna understand our legal obligations as a nation as a consequence of being a party, and having acceded to the '67 Protocol ?
Well then, get ready for a nice long read and some nifty new terms like non-refoulement (the obligation of a nation-state NOT to send a legitimate refugee back to where they are fleeing from)
The following UN document contains both the '51 Convention (first) and the '67 Protocol (second) ...
UNHCR - Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
Or if you want to take the easy route that won't make your head hurt too much, here's the link for Wiki page on The Convention (which contains a link to the Wiki page for The Protocol - which itself is substantially less informative than the Wiki page on The Convention):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Or you can just skip all that nasty clicking around and consider the following which are several key excerpts from The Convention's Wiki page.
This, in fact, will be hilarious ... because it will have all the right-wing extremist retards' veins bulging and literally have them ready to burst a vessel:
This one above has me rolling on the floor in stitches ...
That whole big pile of smarmy moralistic hyperbolic dookie about "criminal illegal aliens" ?
Yeah, well ... you can just chuck that one in the round file where it belongs ... they get a free "I'm innocent if I acted in good faith" card ...
Remember: Under the treaty provisions of the United States Constitution, the '67 Protocol is part of THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND ... and you should support ALL OF IT ... and not just the parts you like ...
... lol ...
Finally, let's have a little peek at that non-refoulement thingie:
Just think of all this as ... Montezuma's Revenge ...
Bon Appetit ... lol ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
A little legal analysis and historical background re: refugees and the US that seems like a fairly easy read, courtesy of a 1994 paper from a couple folks (Tang Thi Thanh & Trai Le) on faculty scholarship at Notre Dame Law School:
The Legal Status of the Refugee in the United States
The Legal Status of the Refugee in the United States
Last edited:
In order for any of that to matter, these kids have to be actual refugees as defined by the definitive of refugee. There is certainly a concerted effort by some to redefine these immigrants as refugees, but that effort is largely the rhetoric of pro immigration reform folks who basically want an open border to begin with.
Would not calling them "immigrants" be misleading at best? Calling them "illegal immigrants" would be more accurate, so would be calling them invaders.
I believe that is the case. The Feds say they don't meet that definition even though as you say, some of the pro immigration people want them defined as such. Doesn't look like they have any interest in wanting to change it at this point or you wouldn't see them sending 40 of them back.
Hondurans deported from new U.S. facility - CNN.com
Yeah, some want to classify them as refugees because it's a hard life back where they come from, with all the violence and drug activity, that the US is a better place to live, therefore they are thus refugees. If that's the criteria, then 90 percent of the wold's population can claim refugee status in fleeing from a harder place to live.
There was, of course, the Cartegena Treaty Declaration back in the 80s that Latin American countries adopted, which added if their lives, safety or freedom were being threatened by violence in general, internal conflicts, violations of human rights or other circumstances which disturbed the public order and safety, they should be considered refugees under the UN conventions and definitions. But that was done specifically to try and come up with a legal means of enabling easier emigration from Latin America to the US. It was an attempt to literally say, "We're refugees because we say we are, it's really hard down here, so you gotta take us." The US ain't buyin' it.
If we were going to do that, then all of these "refugees" fleeing from a hard life and general violence should be forced to live in Chicago where they would learn an important greener grass life lesson.
There was, of course, the Cartegena Treaty Declaration back in the 80s that Latin American countries adopted, which added if their lives, safety or freedom were being threatened by violence in general, internal conflicts, violations of human rights or other circumstances which disturbed the public order and safety, they should be considered refugees under the UN conventions and definitions. But that was done specifically to try and come up with a legal means of enabling easier emigration from Latin America to the US. It was an attempt to literally say, "We're refugees because we say we are, it's really hard down here, so you gotta take us." The US ain't buyin' it.
If we were going to do that, then all of these "refugees" fleeing from a hard life and general violence should be forced to live in Chicago where they would learn an important greener grass life lesson.
"If we were going to do that, then all of these "refugees" fleeing from a hard life and general violence should be forced to live in Chicago where they would learn an important greener grass life lesson."
If things don't change, and soon, they will find out about violence LONG before they get to Chicago.
There is a leadership vacuum and that ALWAYS leads to serious trouble.
That kind of "action" is NEVER good, BUT, it will take place, unless the government cleans up it's act and closes and controls the borders. BOTH of them. What is going on on our northern border, while not as bad as it is in the south, is NOT pretty.
If things don't change, and soon, they will find out about violence LONG before they get to Chicago.
There is a leadership vacuum and that ALWAYS leads to serious trouble.
That kind of "action" is NEVER good, BUT, it will take place, unless the government cleans up it's act and closes and controls the borders. BOTH of them. What is going on on our northern border, while not as bad as it is in the south, is NOT pretty.
Are the children refugees of a drug war we created. ???
http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014...u-s-are-refugees-of-the-drug-war-we-created#1
In the end, Reich said that it was wrong to “make children pay the price for the intolerable social destruction that Central American elites and militaries, as well as successive US governments, had a hand in creating.”
Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app