Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whether the government can do that is being litigated, but why would they even want to? It costs no more money to deport them to their countries of origin.
But nobody endered the U.S. by way of (or, AFAIK, from) South Sudan.1. Some countries don't want their people back.
2. Sometimes the correct place to send someone is to the first country they landed on when seeking asylum. For instance if someone is an asylum seeker from Venezuela and they travel across Colombia on their journey to the USA then their correct destination under international law is Colombia.
Asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first place they land, not in their desired destination.
But nobody endered the U.S. by way of (or, AFAIK, from) South Sudan.
The point is to get rid of them no matter what...Seriously, what's the point?
The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.Right. As I said here: 1. Some countries don't want their people back.
If Venezuela refuses to take back their people and South Sudan will take them then off to South Sudan they go.
Which comports with international law:
https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/overview/1951-refugee-convention
Thing is chump doesn't care about any of that that's how pig culture lovers are...The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
How is it any different to send them to a different country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom?
We are not discussing the law. We are discussing policy.SCOTUS ended this discussion before it ever started. This thread is a waste of time and bandwidth.
SCOTUS ended this discussion before it ever started. This thread is a waste of time and bandwidth.
We are not discussing the law. We are discussing policy.
Not just anywhere, I hope.My policy is that uninvited guests get kicked the fuck out.
Valid point.No immigrants are deported anywhere
Illegals are immigrants.No immigrants are deported anywhere
Who's being deported to Canada?Nah, we want Canada for the beer. (Although our craft houses are turning out some seriously tasty stuff.)
Whether the government can do that is being litigated, but why would they even want to? It costs no more money to deport them to their countries of origin.
Illegals are immigrants.
Immigrants are by definition never invaders, however they enter, and in whatever numbers.No. By definition they are invaders when they enter a country without permission to do so.
Immigrants are by definition never invaders, however they enter, and in whatever numbers.
Invaders come as armies. They are not smuggled by coyotes.Then by your measure the Russians in Ukraine are just immigrants.
Invaders come as armies. They are not smuggled by coyotes.
Immigrants are by definition never invaders, however they enter, and in whatever numbers.