Quick research shows that the Montevideo convention restated international law that was already accepted, not the other way around.
And the Constitution can be amended at any time. ANY law can change. That doesn’t mean you don’t have to obey it when it’s in force.
If my choices are “my country obeys international law” and “my country obeys international law only when it suits me,” I’d prefer the less hypocritcal of the two positions. The US is powerful enough to pick and choose without real repercussions, but I’d prefer to aim for a higher standard.
I disagree with nothing you said. Only that the US does not accept the entirety of international law, and some of it is only accepted tacitly. Only US law applies to the US. In the absence of a body that can enforce international law, this is the only way such a concept can work.
I don’t believe any administration has ever made a serious effort at it.
How about “criminal”? Do you believe that “criminal” is a noun in the vocabularies of decent people, or is “criminal” exclusively an adjective?
yet the laws are in place: e-verify, a requirement to keep employee records. When I managed a pizza place, we were fined $10,000 for every missing required document in an employee file. Yet I got the impression that they were only inspecting the companies they knew were trying to comply and actively avoiding companies they knew were using illegal labor.
E-verify should be the law of the land, with the caveat that people who claim that e-verify is wrong should be allowed to work while getting their data fixed.
“There’s nobody that’s done so much for equality” as Donald Trump.
And that research is worth the time you spent on it.
That isn’t true. The law of proportionality was established in customary international law well before it was codified in a treaty. In fact, I can’t think of a treaty at the moment where this principle is codified. But ask any lawyer, military or otherwise, and every single one of them will tell you that an order to carry out a disproportionate attack would be illegal and punishable by court martial.
Workplace raids don’t work because they’re not aimed at the employer; the whole point of such raids was to grab a whole bunch of illegal workers in one action. Significant enforcement activity against the employER rarely resulted. For example, the 2006 raids against six Swift meatpacking plants resulted in over 1300 deportations, but not a single charge ever brought against the company or its management. The raids essentially acted as theater because by the time one group of illegal workers has been processed out, the next batch was already on the way in. (And quite a number of business owners are more than happy to help make arrangements, or even to supply fake documents to help evade e-Verify.)
Actually going after the employER requires a different set of tactics: it requires proving that the employer knowingly hired and retained illegal workers. The Obama administration has largely given up this showpiece raids in favor of going after management. For example, in 2014 the owner of a roofing and siding company in Dayton, Ohio, pled guilty to conspiracy of recruiting, transporting and using illegal workers from Mexico, falsifying documents and wire fraud; he committed suicide rather than go to federal prison. In 2015, Broetje Orchards in Washington state agreed to pay $2.25 million in fines for continuing to employ illegal workers after being told they were in the country illegally. That same year, a Kansas City area hotel owner was sentenced to several years in federal prison and business forfeitures for deliberately replacing U.S. citizen employees with illegal immigrants. Those sorts of investigations rely on forensic accountants and undercover agents rather than highly-publicized raids, but a highly-publicized raid that results in no charges whatsoever to the hiring officer is not as much of a deterrent as a lower-profile case that ends with said hiring officer doing time.
This comes just months after NASCAR pulled their year-end awards banquet from a Trump-owned resort for his racist comments.
No wonder he feels powerless to stop him also, a little bit late Mr. Ryan.
Here is the context:
“I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” said Donald Trump in a response to CNN’s Jake Tapper. “So I don’t know. I don’t know – did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.”
So you’re saying that a guy running for President of the United States claims to know nothing about white supremacists, and that’s fine with you?
CNN had a good commentary about this fiasco:
The statement was classic Trump: a chopped salad made out of words … Every literate American adult, and certainly anyone running for president, must know that Duke is the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan and that white supremacists promote a violently racist ideology that plagues America.
The article goes on to observe that when Duke made his statement endorsing Trump, Trump disavowed him, then changed his mind:
Trump’s tune changed 48 hours before polls would open for Super Tuesday primaries, many of them in Southern states. Suddenly he was unable to place Duke’s name and he didn’t know a thing about the movement that keeps white racist extremism alive in America.
This from a fellow who is famous for recalling every detail of every deal he ever made and who never forgets those who offend him. If Duke was so bad that his presence drove Trump out of the Reform Party, it’s unlikely he’s forgotten him.
Duke is the former leader of a Klan group. There hasn’t been a unified Klan since the 1970s.
ETA: Paul Ryan is getting lambasted on his Facebook page for his Trump “denouncement.” I read through the top 40 comments or so and every single one was critical.
Shit is really getting real now. We will NOT be rallying around Trump. If Trump is nominated, we basically got our party stolen from under us. Not that we don’t deserve it, it’s the failures of the establishment that got us here. Still sucks though. Guys like me and George Will and Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio won’t have a home.
Just change your policy on weed and you can become large-L Libertarians.
The LP might actually get a lot bigger as a part of the coming realignment, although not big enough to be relevant.
On the subject of the military refusing to carry out Trump’s commands - what prevents them from following commands with simple wording changes? For example, if you said “Attack schools and children in and around the areas terrorists are at”, you could argue that most soldiers would refuse that order. However, we do that very thing currently but it is just “a drone strike with minimal collateral damage”. Instead of “Kill the terrorist’s families” it would be “we have it on good authority that these family members are actively involved, so attack the houses they live in.” This would of course result in the same “minimal collateral damages” as going in and mowing down the entire family.
Good point. The Bush administration was able to authorize some torture techniques by reinterpreting their understanding of the Geneva Conventions.
But especially with something like drone strikes, you don’t have to get “the military” to go along with you. You just need to get a drone operator and his chain of command to do so.