You should do some reading on international law, before you try to make arguments based in international law. You have an interesting concept of what might be able to be tried by international tribunal (and by "interesting concept" I mean "gross misunderstanding").
Given that the actions you are talking about can only possibly happen on the US-Mexico and US-Canada borders, and neither Mexico nor Canada are currently at war, no, these *aren't* wars and wartime circumstances.
And it doesn't make me cold and heartless to tell you that you're clueless about international or US law. The discussion here, and your understanding of relevant laws or lack thereof doesn't make any difference in the lives of the people who are seeking asylum. I'm not making policy, neither are you, and it's likely that no one else reading this is either. But on the off chance that you run into a policy-maker, you should have *valid* arguments available, so that you don't spew a lot of bogus garbage and have the policy maker say, "Wow, that dude was really clueless."
Getting the alphabet soup to communicate better was part of the reasoning behind DHS. Despite their overlapping functions, Customs was part of the Treasury Department, and INS was part of the Department of Labor.
What about that law do you think is not being enforced? The section you quoted says that people *in* the United States may apply for asylum. What part of it compels CBP to allow them to enter the United States to do so, and/or prohibits detention of asylum seekers while their asylum claim is evaluated?
I couldn't get past the opening paragraph without being stunned at the lack of awareness shown by the author. I haven't gotten to the meat of the article, because I had to comment on the sheer ignorance demonstrated.
"And from that atrocity [the creation of DHS] came ICE." - it's an atrocity to want to prevent future attacks of the sort that 9/11 was? And ICE didn't really come from it, since ICE wasn't *created*, it was just INS's enforcement arm with a new name and Customs investigators added in. And then the you go on to ignore the fact that the I in ICE stands for immigration and harps on how this doesn't match their idea of what "customs" is.
ICE has a lot of things to complain about, but at least educate yourself as to what you're complaining about, so you don't say ignorant things in your first paragraph and keep people from reading the rest of what you've got to say.
The first point is the most relevant, and that is that the phrase "without privilege to do so" doesn't mean that you *can't* do any of these things, just that you need some legal justification to do so. In the case of flag burning, the legal justification is the First Amendment, provided you own (or have permission to burn) the flag in question. This section of code basically provides enhanced penalties for vandalism of specific objects.
The second thing to consider is that legislatures rarely pass laws to remove unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws stay on the books but are no longer enforceable.
Which brings us to the final point, which is that the effective date doesn't necessarily mean that a separate law was passed in 1999 to create this bit of statute. The effective date can either be when this whole bit of code was created, or the last date it was modified. If it's the last date that the section was modified, A.1. could be much older than 1999, and the effective date due to something else being added or changed. While it's *possible* that the Ohio legislature passed this whole thing in 1999, it's much more likely that they just passed a modification to some part of it.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cruiserbob.
Re:
Given that the actions you are talking about can only possibly happen on the US-Mexico and US-Canada borders, and neither Mexico nor Canada are currently at war, no, these *aren't* wars and wartime circumstances.
And it doesn't make me cold and heartless to tell you that you're clueless about international or US law. The discussion here, and your understanding of relevant laws or lack thereof doesn't make any difference in the lives of the people who are seeking asylum. I'm not making policy, neither are you, and it's likely that no one else reading this is either. But on the off chance that you run into a policy-maker, you should have *valid* arguments available, so that you don't spew a lot of bogus garbage and have the policy maker say, "Wow, that dude was really clueless."
Re: The compulsion to accept asylum seekers...
Re: Re: ICE
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
"And from that atrocity [the creation of DHS] came ICE." - it's an atrocity to want to prevent future attacks of the sort that 9/11 was? And ICE didn't really come from it, since ICE wasn't *created*, it was just INS's enforcement arm with a new name and Customs investigators added in. And then the you go on to ignore the fact that the I in ICE stands for immigration and harps on how this doesn't match their idea of what "customs" is.
ICE has a lot of things to complain about, but at least educate yourself as to what you're complaining about, so you don't say ignorant things in your first paragraph and keep people from reading the rest of what you've got to say.
Re: Re: The constitutionality of laws
The first point is the most relevant, and that is that the phrase "without privilege to do so" doesn't mean that you *can't* do any of these things, just that you need some legal justification to do so. In the case of flag burning, the legal justification is the First Amendment, provided you own (or have permission to burn) the flag in question. This section of code basically provides enhanced penalties for vandalism of specific objects.
The second thing to consider is that legislatures rarely pass laws to remove unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws stay on the books but are no longer enforceable.
Which brings us to the final point, which is that the effective date doesn't necessarily mean that a separate law was passed in 1999 to create this bit of statute. The effective date can either be when this whole bit of code was created, or the last date it was modified. If it's the last date that the section was modified, A.1. could be much older than 1999, and the effective date due to something else being added or changed. While it's *possible* that the Ohio legislature passed this whole thing in 1999, it's much more likely that they just passed a modification to some part of it.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cruiserbob.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt