Venezuela

[Gergar12]

So funny that you should say that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donal...peaking-out-against-maduro-venezuela-capture/

Seems the US has its own share of goons willing to inimidate and harras people speaking their minds.

To this, and all other related posts. You can get fired for wanting ICE to deport people and saiding it on LinkedIn, you can get fired for hating Trump on Facebook, don't post under your real name, and don't state politics based views near employers, and where employers can see it.

 

[thebobmaster]

What that dictators bad, and human rights are good?

Only dictatorships you don't agree with. Ask relatives and friends of those snatched up by ICE, or "ICE", since anyone can pretend to be an ICE agent due to not needing to show a badge or their face, how much the government right now cares about human rights in the US...unless you are white enough.

 

[Agema]

'If America does it, it's NOT illegal.'

Well yes.

The USA has declared that it has the right to remove foreign national leaders and try them in American courts. Meanwhile, the USA also sanctions judges of the International Criminal Court merely for putting out arrest warrants for national leaders that the ICC deems may have committed crimes.

 

[Gergar12]

Only dictatorships you don't agree with. Ask relatives and friends of those snatched up by ICE, or "ICE", since anyone can pretend to be an ICE agent due to not needing to show a badge or their face, how much the government right now cares about human rights in the US...unless you are white enough.

Every dictator will eventually be dealt with. Either they reform or justice takes them out. Also ICE < secret police of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. And ICE will eventually be reformed or destroyed when the dictatorships go, and the US looks inward for reform.

 

[Gergar12]

Well yes.

The USA has declared that it has the right to remove foreign national leaders and try them in American courts. Meanwhile, the USA also sanctions judges of the International Criminal Court merely for putting out arrest warrants for national leaders that the ICC deems may have committed crimes.

The US tries it's military lawbreakers under it's military courts. Not the ICC. We didn't sign it.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Agema]

The US tries it's military lawbreakers under it's military courts. Not the ICC. We didn't sign it.

Sure, and Venezuela didn't sign up to American jurisdiction.

 

[Gergar12]

Sure, and Venezuela didn't sign up to American jurisdiction.

Edit: Not my account.

 

[tstorm823]

"Refused to leave the country" when no notice had been given that they actually had to leave the country, and they had been given express permission to be there.

Not really, no. They were ordered deported, and in some cases, the US government in its infinite generosity decided that the place of origin was so sucky we would decline to physically carry them back. It's a bit like prosecutorial discretion, declining to send you to Venezuela is not the same as making it legal that you're here.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Every dictator will eventually be dealt with. Either they reform or justice takes them out.

Historically, that is very often not the case.

One also might remember some 20-25 years ago, when the PotUS declared an oil rich dictatorship to be a threat, went in for "regime change" (and some terrorism stuff), went on to have a long war in the country, and once US troops pulled out, the place collapsed again.

I seriously doubt that the people of Venezuela are going to be better off having a foreign power invade them to steal their resources.

 

[Gergar12]

Historically, that is very often not the case.

One also might remember some 20-25 years ago, when the PotUS declared an oil rich dictatorship to be a threat, went in for "regime change" (and some terrorism stuff), went on to have a long war in the country, and once US troops pulled out, the place collapsed again.

I seriously doubt that the people of Venezuela are going to be better off having a foreign power invade them to steal their resources.

No Iraq is relatively safe nowadays despite the loads of American tax dollars it took, and it's in the past. The poor execution was Afghanistan.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No Iraq is relatively safe nowadays despite the loads of American tax dollars it took, and it's in the past. The poor execution was Afghanistan.

Ok, for sake of argument, assuming that, why do you think that Venezuela won't turn into Afghanistan? Few people are going to complain if a US intervention leads to happiness and rainbows, it's just that there's justifiably doubt that it won't.

 

[Silvanus]

Not really, no. They were ordered deported, and in some cases, the US government in its infinite generosity decided that the place of origin was so sucky we would decline to physically carry them back. It's a bit like prosecutorial discretion, declining to send you to Venezuela is not the same as making it legal that you're here.

1. Giving legal permission is making it legal that they're here. And that's what was done. Visa, refugee status, parole, all make it legal to be present in the country.
2. They were ordered deported internally, and such a decision was not made public. You cannot describe someone as having "refused" to leave when there was no request communicated to leave.
3. The TPS designation to which you refer above was still in effect. And the government decided to send them somewhere infinitely worse: a world-renowned torture facility.

You are not going to obfuscate the fact that you are supporting the imprisonment and torture of people who have broken no rules or laws.

 

[tstorm823]

1. Giving legal permission is making it legal that they're here. And that's what was done. Visa, refugee status, parole, all make it legal to be present in the country.
2. They were ordered deported internally, and such a decision was not made public. You cannot describe someone as having "refused" to leave when there was no request communicated to leave.

How many times do we have to have this conversation before you understand, the people being deported all fall in one of two groups, every single one, without exception:
1. People who were never given a legal status in the country, who never had a visa, a refugee status, parole, green card... none of those at all.
2. People who had a deportation order signed by an immigration judge

The people in group one, as far as the law is concerned, are effectively being turned away at the border.
The people in group two have been through the process and are well informed that they no longer have a right to live here.
There is not a single person we know about being deported who had a standing right to be here just ignored while they were spirited away by ICE.

 

[Silvanus]

How many times do we have to have this conversation before you understand, the people being deported all fall in one of two groups, every single one, without exception:
1. People who were never given a legal status in the country, who never had a visa, a refugee status, parole, green card... none of those at all.
2. People who had a deportation order signed by an immigration judge

The people in group one, as far as the law is concerned, are effectively being turned away at the border.
The people in group two have been through the process and are well informed that they no longer have a right to live here.
There is not a single person we know about being deported who had a standing right to be here just ignored while they were spirited away by ICE.

How many times? We'll go over it until you either stop repeating falsehoods, or else substantiate what you've been saying-- which contradicts federal courts, the CATO institute, and just about every other legal observer.

We know that one had a visa, several had refugee status, and others had been paroled. So based on what you're saying above, you believe they all definitely had active deportation orders against them, which had already been publicly communicated to them. You say this with conviction, even though the US government relied on the AEA, which does not rest on active deportation orders, and didn't invoke active deportation orders in its rationale. It's odd to insist on a legal framework even the US government didn't invoke in its own pursuit, but you do you.

So, let's see them, then, or else evidence they exist.

 

[tstorm823]

We know that one had a visa,

That was revoked in March, he wasn't given a deportation order until September, and the legal appeals are still ongoing. To my knowledge, he's still here, nearly a year later.

So, let's see them, then, or else evidence they exist.

What evidence are you expecting that something isn't happening? Pick literally any person we know about, they will also be recent entrants not legally processed yet or people who a judge signed off on their deportation. No matter how many of those we go through, it won't constitute evidence that it's literally every case. However, I'm making the firm statement that it's every one, all it would take to dispute me is a single example. I'm not omniscient, I can't know every case, but it is a perfectly reasonable inference based on the fact that every example the news gets riled up over fits those criteria that there aren't any heinously illegal cases for them to report. That's my whole reasoning. You find one lawful permanent resident deported without going through the whole court process to be deported, you win.

 

[Chimpzy]

Another great day for President Trump and its pockets

 

[Satinavian]

Every dictator will eventually be dealt with. Either they reform or justice takes them out. Also ICE < secret police of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. And ICE will eventually be reformed or destroyed when the dictatorships go, and the US looks inward for reform.

We were talking about BRICS. Traditional BRICS is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Officially it is now significantly more, but the likes of North Korea don't even belong to it.

And i said, that BRICS is worse on average. But i also said not that much and that the US might fit right in. Do you really ICE is so much better than the police in India, Brazil or Indonesia ? Sure, it is bad there compared to western Europe. But does it look significantly better in the US ? I don't think so.

No Iraq is relatively safe nowadays despite the loads of American tax dollars it took, and it's in the past.

Iraq got ISIS running all over it thanks to the US invasion. Yes, ending ISIS in Iraq did benefit from help by primarily the US, Iran and Russia, sure. But that is just cleaning up the mess America made.

Of course after ISIS Iraq had fighting with the Kurdish separatists, several years of violent protests, an assassination attempt on the prime minister and a government crisis that also had violence but things have finally calmed down it seems. And no, that is not thanks to the US or its money. It took two decades to recover from the US invasion.

We know that one had a visa, several had refugee status, and others had been paroled. So based on what you're saying above, you believe they all definitely had active deportation orders against them, which had already been publicly communicated to them. You say this with conviction, even though the US government relied on the AEA, which does not rest on active deportation orders, and didn't invoke active deportation orders in its rationale. It's odd to insist on a legal framework even the US government didn't invoke in its own pursuit, but you do you.

Nothing wrong ever happened based on the reports of the WH and the executive brach. Exactly as nothing wrong happens in China based on the reports of the CCP.

 

[dreng3]

To this, and all other related posts. You can get fired for wanting ICE to deport people and saiding it on LinkedIn, you can get fired for hating Trump on Facebook, don't post under your real name, and don't state politics based views near employers, and where employers can see it.

I don't know if you actually checked out what I posted, but I believe the context has somewhat eluded you.

You claimed that in the US you wouldn't face government retribution for speaking out against the government. I posted an article about someone who spoke out against the goverment and faced retribution from the government.

 

[dreng3]

The US tries it's military lawbreakers under it's military courts. Not the ICC. We didn't sign it.

The sanctions against the ICC judges came about because of the warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu who is is not american and thus your point about the US trying their own criminals is pointless and deflection.