PDA

View Full Version : The US has gone mad



epoxyboy
05-27-2018, 02:11 AM
They have flooded their country with legions of angry and unemployable young men, but then shoot a poor woman like this. Shame on them.


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/indigenous-guatemalan-woman-shot-dead-border-patrol-180526081614753.html

I'm expecting a good show of faux outrage here!
SB take note. I'm sure you'll see the teensy weensy difference in the treatment of these illegal immigrants, where the woman in the US gets shot in the head, but the woman in Sweden (where they are completely mad) is allowed to stay, albeit after appealing her upcoming deportation.

Pete

PeterSibley
05-27-2018, 02:35 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeEzftsUwAATMLd.jpg

If the US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention she has a right to be assessed for refugee status and is NOT an illegal. Shooting her is obscene and murder.

Peerie Maa
05-27-2018, 05:12 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeEzftsUwAATMLd.jpg

If the US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention she has a right to be assessed for refugee status and is NOT an illegal. Shooting her is obscene and murder.

No they are not

http://www.fmreview.org/sites/default//files/300px-Refugeeconvention.PNG

parties to only the 1951 Convention

parties to only the 1967 Protocol

parties to both

non-members

which does not surprise me. They tend not to sign anything that might Infringe Their Rights to behave like a rogue state.

PeterSibley
05-27-2018, 05:25 AM
I really should have realised, I thought they were.

skuthorp
05-27-2018, 05:51 AM
Even if they were they still would do whatever is advantageous for domestic politics. For the US treaties are optional.

epoxyboy
05-27-2018, 02:28 PM
And somewhat predictably, Some Body has demonstrated how full of hot air and faux outrage he was, declaring that Sweden had gone mad when challenging the immigration status of an elderly woman. Apparently the fatal shooting of a young woman in his own country doesn't even produce a postworthy blip of minor angst or concern.
I suppose it is possible that he hasn't seen this. I'd imagine that is the most likely explanation.

Pete

mmd
05-27-2018, 02:39 PM
The death of that young woman is a completely different situation. You see, she was healthy and trying to get to the USA, which is Over Here. That unfortunate elderly Syrian woman was ill and trying to enter Sweden, which is Over There. Completely different situation. Does not compare.

(How is my imitation of Ol' Blooie going, guys?)

johnw
05-27-2018, 02:39 PM
No they are not
which does not surprise me. They tend not to sign anything that might Infringe Their Rights to behave like a rogue state.
That chart shows that the U.S. joined the rest of the world on refugees, officially, in accepting the 1967 protocol. If we lived up to it, we'd be about where Britain is on refugees.

Unfortunately, some of our laws are not in sync with our treaty obligations.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1154&context=bjil

The problem isn't what treaties we belong to, it's how well our laws conform to them.

skuthorp
05-27-2018, 04:43 PM
Even if they were they still would do whatever is advantageous for domestic politics. For the US treaties are optional.
Q.E.D.