• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Says He’d Intervene in Huawei Case to Get China Deal

Granting amnesty and/or a 'path to citizenship' for those that entered or remained in the country in violation of the law is clearly not following the letter of the law. It is granting head of line privileges to those that chose to violate the law over those that did not do so.

It is not a crime to be in the US without documentation
 
I don't know, I don't support what I assume you mean by "immigration reform".

Most imagine "immigration reform" to mean forgiving past illegal immigrants, (quickly?) converting them to US citizens (getting head of line status), and greatly increasing the number of immigrants granted legal entry.
 
From Bloomberg:


Trump is willing to let people get away with crimes as long as it serves his interests. Is this really what Americans want in their president.

What someone - obviously - didn't tell Mr. Trump about is what the actual law of Canada on extradition is.

Mr. Trump's statement can easily be taken as the equivalent of "We'll use a politically motivated prosecution in order to force another country to conform with a politically motivated policy. If that works, then, as far as we are concerned, there will not be any "crime" so the prosecution goes away and if it doesn't work then we will "punish" someone for the actions of another."

Given that the root purpose of extradition law is to enable the prosecution of crimes and is NOT to enable political blackmail, Mr. Trump's statement has just upped the possibility that


will kick in by a substantial amount.
 
From Bloomberg:


Trump is willing to let people get away with crimes as long as it serves his interests. Is this really what Americans want in their president.

Didn't Obama 'negotiate' terrorists to the Taliban?
 
Most imagine "immigration reform" to mean forgiving past illegal immigrants, (quickly?) converting them to US citizens (getting head of line status), and greatly increasing the number of immigrants granted legal entry.

I support giving dreamers a road to citizenship because they didn't choose to go to the US but they shouldn't be expedited, just giving green cards and they can go through the same process as anyone else. Otherwise no.
 
We are sticking our neck out for the US and Trump is more interested in throwing us under the bus. Why should any country risk trying extradite anyone to the US ever again if this is how they are treated? Maybe we should end our extradition treaty.

We need to show a united front against the CCP but Trump is saying a long as you have ties to the CCP you can commit as many crimes you want and will never be punished. Trump is suddenly far more interested in pleasing China than supporting America's allies.

Canada was asked to detain this woman by the US and Canada complied per treaty. Are you for or against sanctions against Iran? This is, after all, the crime for which she is being held and even the story indicates that it was likely ". What else would you want taken of the table in a negotiation between the US and China?

Even the story indicates that she "she conspired to defraud banks to unwittingly violate U.S. sanctions". I'm not entirely clear what that means but I would think that it falls below spies and murderers who have been traded as part of deals.
 
Canada was asked to detain this woman by the US and Canada complied per treaty. Are you for or against sanctions against Iran? This is, after all, the crime for which she is being held and even the story indicates that it was likely ". What else would you want taken of the table in a negotiation between the US and China?

Even the story indicates that she "she conspired to defraud banks to unwittingly violate U.S. sanctions". I'm not entirely clear what that means but I would think that it falls below spies and murderers who have been traded as part of deals.

The US and China should not even be at the table. I support some sanctions on Iran.
 
Wouldn't this give the appearance that Canada and the U.S. orchestrated this just to get leverage in the trade deal? What sort of precedent does this set?

Under the Canadian Extradition Act, Canada does NOT have any option about executing an arrest warrant when validly issued.

The arrest warrant was validly issued, and the Canadian authorities complied with Canadian law by executing it.

Under Canadian law, however, the Canadian courts do NOT have to refuse to grant bail, and they have done so - despite the fact that the US government said that it didn't want bail to be granted.

Under Canadian law, the judge hearing the extradition request, is entitled to consider all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the request - one of those relevant circumstances is whether it appears that the proposed prosecution is actually a "political prosecution". That consideration will - eventually - take place.

That consideration will also take place at each stage of the extradition proceeding - all the way up to the Minister of Justice - and at each step the relevant authority can refuse to grant the request if they believe that what they are dealing with is a "political prosecution" (even if there is an actual crime underlying the charge).

At each step, up to the Minister of Justice, the decision can be appealed.

The Minister of Justice has the absolute right to deny the request for extradition - and need not even give any reason for that refusal. THAT decision is NOT subject to appeal.

If anything is being "orchestrated" it is (possibly) the Canadian government (figuratively) poking Mr. Trump in the eye with a sharp stick and a stick that it has allowed Mr. Trump to sharpen all on his little lonesome.

Think about it - if Mr. Trump (whose government does not actually have Ms. Meng) can use the prospect of the non-extradition of Ms. Meng in order to get a "good deal" out of China, exactly what is stopping Mr. Trudeau (whose government actually has Ms. Meng) to do the same thing?
 
I support giving dreamers a road to citizenship because they didn't choose to go to the US but they shouldn't be expedited, just giving green cards and they can go through the same process as anyone else. Otherwise no.

What about their neighbors, still in their homeland, that did not get 'involuntarily' taken into the US? Shouldn't they too get immediate green cards (if they happen to ask for them)? Rewards for the illegal acts of one's parents (or whoever brought them here) while offering no such rewards for those who obeyed the US immigration law is moronic.
 
The US and China should not even be at the table. I support some sanctions on Iran.

That is an unexpected perspective. I think differences between countries can be worked out at a negotiating table.
 
I am not disputing that it is illegal. I am asking for proof that it is a crime.

Do you understand the difference?

Nope, I see no difference in having been found to have violated the law and having engaged in criminal activity.
 
Oh, look, we have a bargaining chip with China and the left is upset about it! :lamo

What a shame though that the Canadian government let someone with several passports go free on bail because one of their ex diplomats got arrested in China in retaliation for Canada arresting a Chinese criminal.

Makes one wonder who really is the entity that lets people get away with crimes ...

You do realize that the Canadian government did not "let" anything of the kind happen, don't you?

Possibly in some backwards and repressive countries the government gets to tell the courts what to do, but that isn't the case in Canada. That isn't the case in the US, is it?

FYI, the President of the United States of America is NOT the "King of Canada" and the Canadian courts apply Canadian - not American - law.

BTW, aren't you one of those people who keep insisting that Mr. Trump (and a whole slew of members of "Team Trump") is NOT a "criminal" because they haven't actually been convicted (or even tried) yet?

PS - Possibly you missed Mr. Trump's announcement that he would consider not bothering to proceed with the extradition/prosecution if the Chinese government (in effect) paid a big enough bribe. Given Mr. Trump's track record for adhering to his word, I seriously doubt that the Chinese would consider the "offer" (which Mr. Trump seems to think is an "offer that they cannot refuse") UNLESS they had an executed Presidential Pardon for Ms. Meng (and anyone else [including corporate entities] they wanted to have one for) actually in their hands.

Now, if Mr. Trump is willing to "forgeddaboudit" if the Chinese (effectively) pay a big enough bribe, what would your answer to "Who really is the entity that lets people get away with crimes?".

PPS - You should also remember that the underlying principle for the granting of bail in Canadian law is that is SHOULD be granted unless a compelling case that the accused WILL flee is made out. This simply was not done here. If the US government had the evidence to show that Ms. Meng WOULD flee, then it's a pretty crappy "conspiracy" that wouldn't bring it forward (well, either that or a remarkable example of hubris combined with ignorance and NO ONE should have any doubts whether that would apply to Mr. Trump).
 
She will not have a "fair" trial; in fact I doubt she will ever see the inside of a Canadian or US trial court room ... China arrested a week ago a Canadian former diplomat, hence her being free on bail instead of being shipped over to the US.

You do know that no hearing on any request for extradition has been held you, don't you?

You do know that under Canada's extradition law, the Canadian government can refuse any request for extradition (regardless of the nature of the evidence that a crime was committed) if it appears that "the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances", don't you?

You do know that it is ONLY the Canadian government that gets to define "relevant circumstances", don't you?

Or are you under the impression that every government in the world is compelled to do whatever the US government tells them to do?
 
Do you know what bail is? She isn't being set free. There is a legal process to be followed to extradite someone to the US.

Your post is addressed to someone who appears to be of the belief that "If the US government wants another country to do something, then IT IS THE LAW that that other country MUST do it.".
 
Sure ... that's why her next court date in Canada was set for February 6th ...

It would be pretty silly to hold a court hearing in order to determine if someone was to be extradited TO the United States of America IN the United States of Canada - wouldn't it?
 
You do realize that the Canadian government did not "let" anything of the kind happen, don't you?

Possibly in some backwards and repressive countries the government gets to tell the courts what to do, but that isn't the case in Canada. That isn't the case in the US, is it?

FYI, the President of the United States of America is NOT the "King of Canada" and the Canadian courts apply Canadian - not American - law.

BTW, aren't you one of those people who keep insisting that Mr. Trump (and a whole slew of members of "Team Trump") is NOT a "criminal" because they haven't actually been convicted (or even tried) yet?

PS - Possibly you missed Mr. Trump's announcement that he would consider not bothering to proceed with the extradition/prosecution if the Chinese government (in effect) paid a big enough bribe. Given Mr. Trump's track record for adhering to his word, I seriously doubt that the Chinese would consider the "offer" (which Mr. Trump seems to think is an "offer that they cannot refuse") UNLESS they had an executed Presidential Pardon for Ms. Meng (and anyone else [including corporate entities] they wanted to have one for) actually in their hands.

Now, if Mr. Trump is willing to "forgeddaboudit" if the Chinese (effectively) pay a big enough bribe, what would your answer to "Who really is the entity that lets people get away with crimes?".

PPS - You should also remember that the underlying principle for the granting of bail in Canadian law is that is SHOULD be granted unless a compelling case that the accused WILL flee is made out. This simply was not done here. If the US government had the evidence to show that Ms. Meng WOULD flee, then it's a pretty crappy "conspiracy" that wouldn't bring it forward (well, either that or a remarkable example of hubris combined with ignorance and NO ONE should have any doubts whether that would apply to Mr. Trump).


Lots of waffle on your part but none of it disputes the fact that she has multiple passports, is extremely wealthy and she's been freed on bail ... the day after China arrested a former Canadian diplomat.


TORONTO — A former Canadian diplomat has been detained while visiting Beijing amid a dispute between the two counties over Canada’s arrest of a Chinese executive at the request of the United States.

Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale on Tuesday confirmed the detention and said Canada is very concerned.

Michael Kovrig, who previously worked as a diplomat in Beijing, Hong Kong and the United Nations, was taken into custody Monday night during one of his regular visits to Beijing, said the International Crisis Group, for which Kovrig now works as North East Asia adviser based in Hong Kong.

The detention came after China warned Canada of consequences for its recent arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver’s airport. A Canadian judge granted Meng bail Tuesday while she awaits possible extradition to the U.S. ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...62b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.9a620a201320
 
Yes, because you can't just extradite someone, there are legal procedures to be followed. The Crown has to make the case that she committed an act illegal in both countries while her defense can argue against it, essentially she has to go through a mini-trial in Canada first.

The standard of proof to be met with respect to a REQUEST for extradition is "Is there ANY case to be met?".

Meeting that standard enables the courts to RECOMMEND that the Canadian Minister of Justice CONSIDER granting the REQUEST.

The Canadian Minister of Justice is NOT REQUIRED to grant the REQUEST and the courts can not make the order themselves.
 
Nope, I see no difference in having been found to have violated the law and having engaged in criminal activity.

I did not ask about your vision.

I will assume you cannot prove it is a crime because it is not a crime.
 
Since you are from the pawn in this game (Canada), what is your perspective?

My perspective is:

  1. the Canadian Courts will follow the laws of Canada when considering the request of the US government;
  2. in line with the laws of Canada, the Canadian courts will make the recommendation regarding extradition that they consider proper;
  3. in line with the laws of Canada, the Minister of Justice will consider the recommendation of the Canadian courts;
  4. in making that consideration, the Minister of Justice will take into consideration the factors which are outside the purview of the Canadian courts;
  5. one of the factors which the Minister of Justice will take into consideration (and which is outside of the purview of the Canadian courts) is whether the request for extradition is politically motivated (and especially if that political motivation is to induce a third party government to take a particular action);
  6. one of the other factors that the Minister of Justice will also take into consideration (and which is outside of the purview of the Canadian courts) is whether granting the request for extradition (assuming that the Canadian courts have found that there is "a case to be met") is in the best interests of Canada;
  7. the Minister of Justice does NOT have to reveal the reasons why he considers that granting the request for extradition would "be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances"; and
  8. the government of China has a better idea of what the laws of Canada (and Canada's obligations under those laws) are than Mr. Trump does.

Since Mr. Trump appears to be willing to offer the Chinese Ms. Meng in return for a "good deal on trade", the possibility that the Chinese might be willing to offer Canada an even better "good deal on trade" in return for Ms. Meng shouldn't be discounted.

In fact, once you take a look at the law that actually governs the situation, "pawn" doesn't appear to be all that accurate (since it sure appears that Mr. Trump's actions have resulted in "P K7 - K8".
 
Didn't Obama 'negotiate' terrorists to the Taliban?

Indeed he did.

Not only that but the US government is currently negotiating with those same people in an attempt to extricate American forces from Afghanistan.
 
Lots of waffle on your part but none of it disputes the fact that she has multiple passports, is extremely wealthy and she's been freed on bail ... the day after China arrested a former Canadian diplomat.


TORONTO — A former Canadian diplomat has been detained while visiting Beijing amid a dispute between the two counties over Canada’s arrest of a Chinese executive at the request of the United States.

Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale on Tuesday confirmed the detention and said Canada is very concerned.

Michael Kovrig, who previously worked as a diplomat in Beijing, Hong Kong and the United Nations, was taken into custody Monday night during one of his regular visits to Beijing, said the International Crisis Group, for which Kovrig now works as North East Asia adviser based in Hong Kong.

The detention came after China warned Canada of consequences for its recent arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver’s airport. A Canadian judge granted Meng bail Tuesday while she awaits possible extradition to the U.S. ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...62b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.9a620a201320

So?

Would you be saying something different if there was no extraneous matter like the one you imply was the reason why Ms. Meng was granted bail?

Exactly where in the bail hearing was the fact that someone else had been arrested for a different crime introduced?

Your belief that the courts of all countries do what they are ordered to do, regardless of the law of the country, when ordered to do what the government tells them to do is really pushing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom