Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Lakeside

Arizona going to the UN.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 5 Nov 10, it looks like Obama is going to take Arizona to the U.N. for human rights violations. Looks like we're not going to be aloud to defend our boarders. I've been watching how the U.N. is impeding on France for dealing with their gypsy problem. Anyone heard of this or have any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will non-U.S. people start making laws here?

No. Parts of the Arizona immigration law were blocked by an American judge, and will likely ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of the US.

The UN has no say in the matter, nor will it ever have any. Whoever told you otherwise was lying to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 May 10 - A group of U.N. experts published a report on the matter.

Independent UN rights experts speak out against Arizona immigration law

11 May - A group of independent United Nations experts today expressed their serious concern over a new immigration law enacted in the state of Arizona, questioning whether the legislation is compatible with international human rights treaties which the United States has signed on to.

“A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts warned.

Migrant workers send home money to their families

The new law requires that state law enforcement officers determine the immigration status of people based solely on a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the US illegally, and arrest people without a warrant if officers have “probable cause” to believe they are illegal aliens.

“The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics,” the UN experts stressed, with those who appear to be of Mexican, Latin American or indigenous origin at heightened risk of being targeted.

In a press release issued in Geneva, the experts called into question the “vague standards and sweeping language” of the Arizona legislation, “which raise doubts about the law’s compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party.”

The law specifically targets day labourers, criminalizing both undocumented migrants’ efforts to solicit work and people’s attempts to hire them.

Under the law, being in the country illegally is punishable by up to six months in jail.

The UN experts today pointed out that countries must respect and ensure the human rights of all people under their jurisdiction without discrimination.

“Additionally,” they emphasized, “relevant international standards require that detention be used only as an exceptional measure, justified, narrowly tailored and proportional in each individual case, and that it be subject to judicial review.”

Around the same time the law was adopted, legislation was passed prohibiting Arizona school programmes “designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

The state’s school superintendent, who promoted this legislation, has repeatedly said that the law is targeted at cutting out current ethnic studies programmes featuring the history, social dynamics and cultural patterns of Mexican-Americans.

“Such law and attitude are at odds with the State’s responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life,” the UN experts underlined. “Everyone has the right to

UN News Centre • www.un.org/news

-8-

UN Daily News 11 May 2010

seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information.”

While recognizing that States have the prerogative to control immigration and take steps to protect their borders, “these actions must be taken in accordance with fundamental principles of non-discrimination and human treatment,” they said.

Further, the experts emphasized, “States are obligated to not only eradicate racial discrimination, but also to promote a social and political environment conducive to respect for ethnic and cultural diversity.”

The experts signing onto today’s press release are: Jorge Bustamante, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; Farida Shaheed, Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights; Vernor Muñoz, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; and Gay McDougall, Independent Expert on minority issues.

Based on this report, among other considerations, representatives from Arizona will be answering to the U.N. on our policies to protect our own boarders. Currently, the U.N. is dealing with France on a similar matter; Gypsies. Seeing what they are doing there, it's no small leap for them to do the same, or something to the same affect, here.

Another note to go with that. For the past 16-18 months, 36,000 or so U.N. troops have been quartered around the country following civilian riot control training. OK, for instance, is quartering round about 4,800. Their training was completed over a year ago.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have quite a few combat experienced National Guard troops who might say otherwise if the UN boys try to pull something. They have no authority here, period. They can kiss my a$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is true. But U.S. forces can, and have been in the past, detained on base for vague reasons. Though at present, my concerns lie with a small group of foreigners who are encroaching on any law making practice here. Also, for U.N. troops to come set up road blocks, do wide-scale sweeps, and "deal with" civilian riots (the Ukriane, Greece, and Canada to name a few from this year) is common place. If the U.N. decides that Arizona is violating the rights of criminals, historically speaking, they can place their own troops there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically? When have they ever done so in this country? Never. If Obama authorized such unconstitutional despotism, the Military would not sit by passively and allow it to happen. Their oath of alliegence would not allow it, and they are under no obligation to obey an unlawful order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes historically. While the U.N. had a part in WWI, it wasn't until Korea that they tested the idea of sending "international forces" into a country for any reason. Now, U.N. Peacekeepers are common place. And, in an Age of Equality, "here" doesn't matter.

The reason I posted it was because of the fact that foreign nationals are going to try and take part in the a law making and enforcing process. Or at least try and show that an individual state of the U.S. is directly subject to U.N. whims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for U.N. troops to come set up road blocks, do wide-scale sweeps, and "deal with" civilian riots (the Ukriane, Greece, and Canada to name a few from this year) is common place.

What happened in Canada that UN troops had any part in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, "historically"? I'm going to assume your reference to the UN having a role in World War One was a typo and you meant World War Two... but even there, the UN did not officially exist until October of 1945, after the war was concluded. (The conference that led to its founding did start in late April of that year, shortly before Germany surrendered.)

Edit: The term was used as early as 1942, when a large number of allied countries signed the Atlantic Charter, promising to pursue the war effort, but that wasn't the United Nations organization that we know and detest today.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the U.N. decides that Arizona is violating the rights of criminals, historically speaking, they can place their own troops there.

The United Nations does not have a military. But other than that, sure, they can invade Arizona, once the Martian Alliance decides to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, WWI, The Great War. While no, it was not called the United Nations, the same organization had it's roots in the early 1900's.

Yes, they do have a military. "Volunteer" armies from the countries that comprise the U.N. We (America), provide upwards of 70%+ of their military personnel, equipment, training, etc.

As far as Canada, when 400+ decided to protest one of the G summits, the U.N. issued a proclamation (not sure if that's the right word) to the Toronto law enforcement. In essence, if local law enforcement didn't quell the riots, they would.

I think you may be missing the point of the report. Spend an afternoon going over the UN micro-film that almost every public library carries (I've never had to wait for the projector). In the name of humanity, we're being told to sacrifice our security, accept privations (health care, increased taxes, ect.) and send our earnings to those who aren't able/willing to earn it themselves. That we have a debt to pay to every degenerate this globe can produce.

Edited by Lakeside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations. And, it was after WWI that that failed concept came about, if memory serves. Fat lot of good it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Canada, when 400+ decided to protest one of the G summits, the U.N. issued a proclamation (not sure if that's the right word) to the Toronto law enforcement. In essence, if local law enforcement didn't quell the riots, they would.

I don't think the G-8 summit is a UN function. If this is true, which I doubt, Canada should have told them to kiss their a$$.

Edit: spelling

Edited by Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as Canada, when 400+ decided to protest one of the G summits, the U.N. issued a proclamation (not sure if that's the right word) to the Toronto law enforcement. In essence, if local law enforcement didn't quell the riots, they would.
I will take the position that this is an untrue statement. Do you have a link to any such proclamation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Obama is dumb enough to let foreign troops on US soil. Could you imagine the outcry? This is just political grandstanding that has no merit. Obama just wants to point to the opposition and say; see the world agrees with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the world agrees with Obama, it doesn't matter what we think or say........we are wrong by default.

SoftwareNerd....I'm looking for it...

Edited by Lakeside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...