Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

mumblethrax said:
So then you cannot possibly justify either your original claim that there is a safe third party agreement, nor the modified claim "the agreement requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they're asylum application is processed", because it's a dead letter....
Click to expand...
MPP was a real program, negotiated with Mexico.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, Biden restarted it after negotiations with Mexico to improve the program
Click to expand...
Biden was forced to restart it against his will. What was that thing about courts forcing the executive to engage in diplomacy it didn't want to do?

Hercules56 said:
Trump wants to start it for a third time but that required more negotiations with Mexico.
Click to expand...
There were no negotiations the first time Trump foisted it on Mexico. It was not a "safe third country" agreement or an agreement of any kind. Trump simply notified Mexico that according to U.S. law, it would be sending asylum seekers arriving through Mexico back to Mexico. The government of Mexico had no say in this, nor was pleased with it. It issued a statement giving its response to Trump's unilateral actions, announcing that it would have no choice under its humanitarian obligations to house asylum seekers at its expense, but against its will.
 
JayUtah said:
Biden was forced to restart it against his will. What was that thing about courts forcing the executive to engage in diplomacy it didn't want to do?...
Click to expand...
Good on Biden for complying with a Federal judge. Wish Trump would do the same.
 
Hercules56 said:
Trump will just threaten more tariffs on Mexico and they will negotiate to bring the program back.
Click to expand...
There was no negotiation the first time. Donald Trump simply told Mexico what he was going to do, and Mexico had no choice but to find some way to cope with the consequences.

Hercules56 said:
Good on Biden for complying with a Federal judge. Wish Trump would do the same.
Click to expand...
If people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, how is it any sort of agreement or negotiation? This has just been one foisted requirement after another.
 
JayUtah said:
There was no negotiation the first time. Donald Trump simply told Mexico what he was going to do, and Mexico had no choice but to find some way to cope with the consequences.


If people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, how is it any sort of agreement or negotiation? This has just been one foisted requirement after another.
Click to expand...
So you're saying Biden didn't negotiate with Mexico for the second version of MPP?

😹
 
Hercules56 said:
Yeah, we heard you the first time.
Click to expand...
The difference between what is a negotiated agreement and what is a foisted policy seems especially important.

Hercules56 said:
So you're saying Biden didn't negotiate with Mexico for the second version of MPP?

😹
Click to expand...
Fundamentally yes, that's what I'm saying. Pres. Biden did not want to have that policy at all, but the court told him he had to. He couldn't materially change the policy, because that's what violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The parameters of the policy were foisted on him by the courts. That functionally prevented Mexico from negotiating anything meaningfully different, since the Biden administration would be unable to agree to it or give ground. The second MPP was fundamentally the same as the first—even your Al Jazeera source admits as much. The only differences were in some of the screening criteria, which were purely a matter of U.S. policy.

When the policy was finally allowed to end, no one desired any sort of follow-on to it. Mexico never wanted the situation at all, but had no way to make it stop because the American government was hamstrung by its own laws. What you're proposing seems to be that Pres. Trump will simply once more foist the terms of U.S. policy on Mexico, and that Mexico will have little choice but to capitulate.
 
theprestige said:
And fundamental human rights are an open and contentious question. You can't just assert an answer out of rhetorical expediance.
Click to expand...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was co-drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt and adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The United States, along with 48 member states (out of the 58 that existed at the time), voted for its adoption. You do not get to unilaterally assert its irrelevance.
 
theprestige said:
Nobody has the right to claim a bed in someone else's house, just because things are unpleasant at home.

And fundamental human rights are an open and contentious question. You can't just assert an answer out of rhetorical expediance.
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was co-drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt and adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The United States, along with 48 member states (out of the 58 that existed at the time), voted for its adoption. You do not get to unilaterally assert its irrelevance.
Click to expand...
There was a time when Americans didn't think only of themselves. The greatest generation was followed up with the most selfish generation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom