Posted on 01/11/2004 5:36:57 PM PST by kellynla
As you've probably heard by now, President Bush has called for a major overhaul of America's immigration system, to grant legal status to millions of illegal-alien workers in the United States.
While Pres. Bush was quoted saying that, "I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship," many conservative groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (fairus.org) insist that his "proposals for a massive new 'guestworker' program" would threaten homeland security, grant amnesty for law-breakers (a step overwhelmingly opposed by the American public), establish a backdoor immigration program, and threaten the jobs and wages of American workers.
In fact, three dozen House Republicans had already sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, "strongly and unequivocally" opposing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants; this letter becomes particularly important now with Pres. Bush's announcement. Today, we're asking you to sign on to that letter to Sec. Ridge, with copies to President Bush, your two Senators and your Congressman.
As proud Americans, we must strongly and unequivocally oppose mass amnesty for people who violate our immigration laws. Mere discussion of the possibility of amnesty encourages illegal immigration. We must enforce the immigration laws currently on our books rather than dangle the prospect of citizenship in front of potential immigration lawbreakers. We must increase immigration law enforcement, not only at borders but in the interior, making it more costly for lawbreakers to disregard our immigration laws.
Since 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal aliens. Clearly this is a short-term "fix" to a long-term problem. Rewarding people who violate our immigration laws sends the wrong message, and encourages more illegal aliens to violate our borders and enter the United States illegally. Americans will have to pay increased taxes as a consequence of the burden amnesty would place on our school systems, welfare and social service systems, roads and transportation systems, the sprawl and environmental degradation, the health care system, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs.
It is unfair to reward people who break our immigrations laws with immigration status, while many potential immigrants outside the United States are waiting to be admitted to the United States lawfully. If we allow the people who break the rules by entering the United States illegally to go to the front of the immigration line, it is a slap in the face to law-abiding immigrants.
And of course, we must be concerned that amnesty by any name, be it earned amnesty or legalization, jeopardizes our national security. Mahmud Abouhalima was granted amnesty in 1986... and was subsequently one of the terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
We MUST stop this now, while we can.
ACTION ITEM: According to Newsmax.com, Pres. Bush said his proposals, IF ENACTED BY CONGRESS, "would provide a more compassionate system for those who now live in the shadows of American society." We need to let Sec. Ridge, Pres. Bush, and our legislators know how we feel on this issue, BEFORE it's too late. Click "Go!" above to send a message to ALL of them at once!
NOTE: Sec. Ridge doesn't have a public email address, and our form isn't integrated with his department's form yet, so if you want to send your comments to him directly, you'll have to go to http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus.
LOL... You know, I used that exact example- repugnant as it is- because I knew someone who feels instead of thinks would be powerless to resist: the knee-jerk liberal touchy-feely notions would kick in, instinctively. (((smirk)))
You try to say (in a wierd, round-about way) of saying that rape is a "crime against humanity."
The first of your many errors.
The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.
After World War I, the Allies, in connection with the Treaty of Versailles, established in 1919 a commission to investigate war crimes that relied on the 1907 Hague Convention as the applicable law. In addition to war crimes committed by the Germans, the commission also found that Turkish officials committed "crimes against the laws of humanity" for killing Armenian nationals and residents during the period of the war. The United States and Japan strongly opposed the criminalization of such conduct on the grounds that crimes against the laws of humanity were violations of moral and not positive law.
In 1945, the United States and other Allies developed the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6(c):
Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
The Nuremberg Charter represents the first time that crimes against humanity were established in positive international law. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, at Tokyo, followed the Nuremberg Charter, as did Control Council Law No. 10 of Germany, under which the Allies prosecuted Germans in their respective zones of occupation. Curiously, however, there has been no specialized international convention since then on crimes against humanity. Still, that category of crimes has been included in the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), as well as in the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In fact, there are eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, but they all differ slightly as to their definition of that crime and its legal elements. However, what all of these definitions have in common is: (1) they refer to specific acts of violence against persons irrespective of whether the person is a national or nonnational and irrespective of whether these acts are committed in time of war or time of peace, and (2) these acts must be the product of persecution against an identifiable group of persons irrespective of the make-up of that group or the purpose of the persecution. Such a policy can also be manifested by the "widespread or systematic" conduct of the perpetrators, which results in the commission of the specific crimes contained in the definition.
The list of the specific crimes contained within the meaning of crimes against humanity has been expanded since Article 6(c) of the IMT to include, in the ICTY and the ICTR, rape and torture. The statute of the ICC also expands the list of specific acts. In particular, the ICC statute adds the crimes of enforced disappearance of persons and apartheid. Further, the ICC statute contains clarifying language with respect to the specific crimes of extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, torture, and forced pregnancy.
To some extent, crimes against humanity overlap with genocide and war crimes. But crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to "destroy in whole or in part," as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of "widespread or systematic" violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war-they apply in times of war and peace.
Crimes against humanity have existed in customary international law for over half a century and are also evidenced in prosecutions before some national courts. The most notable of these trials include those of Paul Touvier, Klaus Barbie, and Maurice Papon in France, and Imre Finta in Canada. But crimes against humanity are also deemed to be part of jus cogens-the highest standing in international legal norms. Thus, they constitute a non-derogable rule of international law. The implication of this standing is that they are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that all States can exercise their jurisdiction in prosecuting a perpetrator irrespective of where the crime was committed. It also means that all States have the duty to prosecute or extradite, that no person charged with that crime can claim the "political offense exception" to extradition, and that States have the duty to assist each other in securing evidence needed to prosecute. But of greater importance is the fact that no perpetrator can claim the "defense of obedience to superior orders" and that no statute of limitation contained in the laws of any State can apply. Lastly, no one is immune from prosecution for such crimes, even a head of State.
Now that you have been corrected on this issue, I would point out that such sentiments as dismissing the illegal entrance into a different country as something less than criminal, is absurd. By such logic, you would consider a burglar coming into your house- robbing you, stealing your money or other personal possessions and stealing your sense of security to be what? Like pilfering a pack of gum from the local grocer???
Every forum has its bad apples and hair-on-fire idealogues. Its the nature of the beast - the trick is to put them in the correct list when you run across them and post/reply accordingly.
Now the is a large group that wants all the mexicans kicked out. There is another group that wants all chinese goods kicked out.
There seem to be a subset that wants to be the independent tail wagging the two-party system dog. They're fun to watch - kind of like watching squirrels trying to rob one of those motorized bird feeders.
There is nothing in your observation worth responding to. Initially, you attempt to put words in my mouth- a puerile and transparent attempt to bait me into nothingness.
Continued attempts- still childish, and still feckless, change things not at all.
Nice try, though.
So, we're apparently starting fresh. Did you have any on-topic statements or comments relevant to the topic of this thread to make today? I'm all ... ears.
How many tens of millions of Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Nigerians etc will be willing to take jobs in the USA for $5.15 an hour? Jobs such as carpenter, machinist, IT worker, you name it? This is insanity.
In California, what drove the wave that swept Gray Davis was his last and worst act of Hispanderins, promising Cali drivers' licenses to illegals.
Our pols, both Repubs and Dems, had better keep that in mind. They are winding up a mainspring of anger to the breaking point among the middle class.
You're welcome. I had to stop, last night- apparently the mods thought I was having way too much fun slapping you around... And from the FReepmails I've received, several others also enjoyed it (but not as much as I).
But I don't like leaving loose-ends, even from someone as, how shall we politely say, "reality challenged," as yourself...?
So, we're apparently starting fresh.
Nope. Another wrong assumption. Just finishing things as they should have been done last night.
I'm now done. You're finally dismissed.
That's the Bush plan. It's national suicide.
"Lurkers support me in Freepmail." Good one, almost Steve Boursy-esque in nature (Google search the name if you're interested). Completely irrelevant to the discussion, but you can't have everything.
I personally think that Bush and his advisors are showing a lot of political courage in trying to find a solution to the illegal immigration problem. Don't you agree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.