-
-
Replying to @MorlockP
What have they been doing for 20 years? Probably working, paying taxes, buying houses, etc. Maybe started businesses and hired people. You're celebrating the end of that? But why?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @russnelson
Can they not do those things in El Salvador? Why should I prefer that they do them here?
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @russnelson
...because they're less likely to be killed here by the US-funded death squads they fled El Salvador to avoid? The US government's harms aren't limited to US citizens; so why should its benefits be?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If the idea is to change US policy and incidentally or deliberately benefit El Salvador - and I know this is nuts - how about we stop funding activities you don't like in El Salvador, instead of telling the White House it should pick and choose who it apply US laws to?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How about we BOTH change US policy toward El Salvador, AND allow refugees from death squads to stay, THEREBY complying with our treaty obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which have the force of law? Or is that nuts
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
we only signed one of the 2 conventions, the latter one it is the former one that says that you can't send refugees back
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You're right we signed only the 1967 Protocol But that still imposes obligations to not send back refugees who are already within US territory. See https://www.justice.gov/file/23326/download …, which, in the process of arguing against any rights for illegal immigrants, concedes my argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
will debate this further tomorrow; under deadline right now !
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.