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

[TU Curmudgeon]

I did not ask about your vision.

I will assume you cannot prove it is a crime because it is not a crime.

You have me confused.

I always thought that the definition of "crime" was

crime

/krīm/

noun
noun: crime; plural noun: crimes
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
​

and you appear to be telling me that the fact that something is an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law does NOT mean that it is a "crime".

Possibly you could clarify your thought process for me by providing YOUR definition of the word "crime"?

 

[Barnacle]

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.

When Trudeau wets his pants, I'm pretty sure a liberal judge in a ueber-liberal jurisdiction would do anything to end Trudeau's self-wetting.

 

[sangha]

You have me confused.

I always thought that the definition of "crime" was

crime

/krīm/

noun
noun: crime; plural noun: crimes
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
​

and you appear to be telling me that the fact that something is an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law does NOT mean that it is a "crime".

Possibly you could clarify your thought process for me by providing YOUR definition of the word "crime"?

I have said nothing of the sort

 

[trouble13]

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?

I have to agree with here. That was first thought when I heard he said that. It opens the possibility of taking hostages in trade disputes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Carjosse]

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.

They didn't commit a crime, I don't think they should be punished for something they had no say in, children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. Why are you framing it as an all or nothing argument?

 

[Carjosse]

That is an unexpected perspective. I think differences between countries can be worked out at a negotiating table.

There is no negotiation with China, we shouldn't be encouraging and supporting a country that wants to undermine the West.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

There is no negotiation with China, we shouldn't be encouraging and supporting a country that wants to undermine the West.

I would consider that an extreme position given the amount of trade that takes place between the China and "the West".

 

[ttwtt78640]

They didn't commit a crime, I don't think they should be punished for something they had no say in, children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. Why are you framing it as an all or nothing argument?

Children should also not be rewarded for the criminal acts of their parents (or others). Could you imagine the outrage if a program was proposed to give special perks (like VA benefits or free college) to the children of criminals?

If we are going to treat children that entered the US w/o permission differently than those who did not then how does that discourage folks from bringing (or just sending) their children here illegally? Once the 'dreamers' (now adults) get citizenship then they could (and probably would) use their chain migration perks to benefit those that helped to get them here.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Some responses here show the hypocrisy and idiocy of many right wingers.

The Haiwai executive is guilty of violating Iran sanctions. Didn't Trump and right winger rail on about how dangerous Iran is and we must break the nuclear deal and put sanctions back on them? now you arrest someone who violated the iran sanctions and are OK with letting it go? But I thought the big bad Iran was so dangerous

I get this case has foreign policy implications and its not uncommon to allow crooks to go free for foreign policy reasons. But given this administrations hypocrisy on everything, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. Just like his defense of Saudi Arabia over murdering a journalist.

 

[Carjosse]

Children should also not be rewarded for the criminal acts of their parents (or others). Could you imagine the outrage if a program was proposed to give special perks (like VA benefits or free college) to the children of criminals?

If we are going to treat children that entered the US w/o permission differently than those who did not then how does that discourage folks from bringing (or just sending) their children here illegally? Once the 'dreamers' (now adults) get citizenship then they could (and probably would) use their chain migration perks to benefit those that helped to get them here.

I am not advocating special perks.

I have lived in a country where I do not speak the language and the culture is significantly different, and it is a challenge as an adult. I could not imagine forcing that onto a child. Ultimately, I do not believe in punishing people who have not committed a crime. Why not just attach a stipulation to their citizenship that they cannot sponsor family members.

 

[ecofarm]

Why not just attach a stipulation to their citizenship that they cannot sponsor family members.

What about "family values"?

 

[Carjosse]

What about "family values"?

They bring their child illegally, that is the price they pay. The child is not punished but the parents are.

 

[ecofarm]

They bring their child illegally, that is the price they pay. The child is not punished but the parents are.

So an American citizen can't take in their orphaned niece because their parents broke the law. Repugnant.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am not advocating special perks.

I have lived in a country where I do not speak the language and the culture is significantly different, and it is a challenge as an adult. I could not imagine forcing that onto a child. Ultimately, I do not believe in punishing people who have not committed a crime. Why not just attach a stipulation to their citizenship that they cannot sponsor family members.

Why not just give them permanent resident status and leave it at that?

 

[Carjosse]

Why not just give them permanent resident status and leave it at that?

Because they are American, far more than they are wherever they came from. They should have a path to citizenship.

 

[Carjosse]

So an American citizen can't take in their orphaned niece because their parents broke the law. Repugnant.

So everyone should get American citizenship immediately and allow unlimited chain migration because they may want to adopt an orphan member? Leniency was already allowed once, it shouldn't stretched and abused.

 

[ecofarm]

So everyone should get American citizenship immediately and allow unlimited chain migration because they may want to adopt an orphan member?

How old are you? What kind of a ****ing stupid reply is that.

 

[Carjosse]

How old are you? What kind of a ****ing stupid reply is that.

Is that not what you are proposing? You want chain migration to be unlimited just in case someone wants to adopt an orphaned family member. Why should we not limit the sponsorship abilities of dreamers?

 

[ecofarm]

Is that not what you are proposing?

Ya think so, huh? That's smart.

 

[Carjosse]

Ya think so, huh? That's smart.

Then what do you support?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When Trudeau wets his pants, I'm pretty sure a liberal judge in a ueber-liberal jurisdiction would do anything to end Trudeau's self-wetting.

You appear to be confusing Canada with the United States of America.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I have to agree with here. That was first thought when I heard he said that. It opens the possibility of taking hostages in trade disputes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I don't dispute that Mr. Trump is trying to use the fact that Canadian courts obey the laws of Canada in an attempt to obtain a political hostage.

That, of course, doesn't mean that either the government or courts of Canada are going to go along with Mr. Trump's plan - especially if doing so means that they would have to ignore Canadian law and place the desires of Mr. Trump ahead of the best interests of Canada.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They didn't commit a crime, I don't think they should be punished for something they had no say in, children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. Why are you framing it as an all or nothing argument?

Actually, by REMAINING in the United States of America WITHOUT the consent of the US government they DO "commit a crime" - even if they couldn't be held criminally responsible for the manner in which they ENTERED the US.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Leniency was already allowed once, it shouldn't stretched and abused.

Indeed it was.

Unfortunately what followed was a return to the "bad old days" of sort of winking at the problem.

Had the prior leniency been coupled with a strict policy of 100% enforcement of the law, then the current problem wouldn't exist.

The problem was not the leniency, it was the (almost) total lack of subsequent enforcement.

Would your position on the current crop of "illegals" be different if you were assured that anyone arriving (outside of the approved route) AFTER "Amnesty Day" WOULD be summarily deported, without hearing or appeal?

 

[trouble13]

I don't dispute that Mr. Trump is trying to use the fact that Canadian courts obey the laws of Canada in an attempt to obtain a political hostage.

That, of course, doesn't mean that either the government or courts of Canada are going to go along with Mr. Trump's plan - especially if doing so means that they would have to ignore Canadian law and place the desires of Mr. Trump ahead of the best interests of Canada.

Am I mistaken that Canada detained this woman at the request of the American doj? Isnt it America that wants to charge her?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk