There is precedent for a World Court or tribunal. It is for people like Hitler and Milosevic, and it is appropriate for mass murder and crimes against humanity that are committed by a nation's government. Other than that, they need to butt out. The Arizona situation is about a soverign nation debating it's own internal problems, and how to solve them, so the UN can just bugger off.
We are a soverign people, and I don't intend to give up the least iota of that soverignty. We can go back and forth, arguing about Arizona, but in the end, it is our business, and nobody else's. If Arizona should ever start throwing Hispanics in ovens, and the Federal government stands behind it, then I might change my mind. But I do not see that happening, in either the near or distant future. Our damn problem - Our damn business, and nobody else's.
When we sign a tready, it's law. If we break a tready, it's law that we've broken.
What international treaty or law has been broken in this Arizona case, Boo Radley?
It seems that no laws have been broken and no crimes committed.
Or is this an end run get the UN to allow that the Southern borders be open to all? That the US will then have to follow UN rules if it finds in favor of the Feds?
I know that since this Mexico thing began Canada's borders have become more strict regarding Mexicans (a people I quite like by the way). But liking a people does not mean they can ignore sovereign law.
Perhaps Arizona should take Mexico to the UN, or their own federal government..
Good for you, Danarhea!
Disagree with each other all you want but defend your country, Constitution and culture and you'll continue to be a world force and an inspiration to billions everywhere.
Listen to those lesser nations who would make your decisions for you and you'll wind up no better than they.
Looks like this is one of those rare times we agree on something. So, this time, instead of bashing each other in the head, let's drink a beer.arty
I was discussing it generally. I wasn't asked about Arizona. That would have to be argued that they broke the law. So far, what is being argued is there is no right to even consider if a law has been broken. We can't decide concerning Arizona until we decide if it is possible. Right?
I say, good for her. It shows a modicum of maturity that Americans are stepping up and finally telling other Americans that something they're doing is wrong -- I say bravo to Clinton, and I'm rather impressed.
Brewer's response, however, was much less mature. He essentially said, "Hey, you can't turn me in for human rights violations, I'm an American! I don't have to listen to that "international law" nonsense!"
The problem with Arizona's new immigration law is not that it's anti-immigration -- that's a perfectly reasonable thing to be in a border-province where legal and illegal immigration is a problem. The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
That's not what the law states AT ALL. You would do well toe educate yourself about the law rather than listening to tabloid sensationalist propaganda.
Are you serious, Le Marteau?
Do you really expect the United States, or any sovereign democracy, to adhere to the corrupt crime syndicate we call the "United Nations"?
This is an example of why Europeans cannot always be taken seriously, They feel if they have a big bureaucracy overseeing everything , as in Brussels, a system will somehow emerge that will guarantee fairness and equality for everyone. European history is riddled with this sort of folly. Perhaps it comes from the effect royalty had on the European psyche.
Americans, at least in the past, have seen through the foolishness of this big government theory but those days may be at an end and the Europeanization of America will have begun. We can already see indications of that in their ever escalating rhetoric, where they will side with wacko foreigners rather than with each other. Many Europeans have been seeing the folly of their ways, but it seems its too late for them. Let's hope it is not too late for America.
A move toward law that isn't dependent on being acceptable to indpendent nations. That when Iran violates the law, they're held accountable. When a Saddam kills thousands, he is dealt with when he does it, but by a civiliazed world. But law is meaningless if it only applies to a few. If we enforce the law on the Iraqs of the world, who can't defend themselves, but say the law doesn't apply to the US, because no one can enforce it, and break our treadies because we feel like, then there is no law.
Now, maybe it is something we shouldn't strive for. It will be difficult, and difficult things will be open to criticism. But, if we decide, as we have in the past, that this is worth while, we have to be willing to put up, to honor our agreeements, like we expect of anyone here in any contract.
I was discussing it generally. I wasn't asked about Arizona. That would have to be argued that they broke the law. So far, what is being argued is there is no right to even consider if a law has been broken. We can't decide concerning Arizona until we decide if it is possible. Right?
What sense does this make? What about Arizona's anti-illegal legislation comes under the purvue of international law? As best as I can tell, Arizona abides by international humanitarian law and though there was one case where consular access was denied, so long as AZ does allow consular access to Mexicans apprehended, there is no international legal issue here...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?