Category Archives: Law

What The Crap Country Of Britain Did To Activist Tommy Robinson For The Crime Of … Speech

Britain, Criminal Injustice, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Islam, Law

The country from which the American Constitution makers got their inspiration is now a crap country. For reporting news—speaking, nothing more—Britain’s anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson was imprisoned in a jail with the largest Muslim population and kept in solitary confinement for 2 months.

He went to prison in a supposedly free country for expressing unpopular opinions in public and then purposefully placed in predicaments that almost got this young man killed: That’s England.

Due process? There was none. But there was a mosque in his prison.

Media? The legal profession? All formed a conga-line to attack Tommy Robinson.

Tommy’s fight is ongoing: “Tommy Robinson contempt of court hearing over Facebook video delayed.”

The latest in the annals of the crap country of Britain: “Devout Catholic ‘who used wrong pronoun to describe transgender girl’ to be interviewed by police.”

Comments Off on What The Crap Country Of Britain Did To Activist Tommy Robinson For The Crime Of … Speech

Written by on

Why We In The West Care So For Animals (Or Should)

Argument, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, Justice, Law, Morality, Reason, The West

Writes HENRY STEPHENSON, of O’Fallon, Illinois:

… Laws protecting animals are perfectly justifiable, not because [animals] have rights, but because we value their welfare and are repulsed by acts of cruelty against them. Upholding such laws does not require the cascade of nonsense that would ensue from pretending that animals have moral or legal standing.

HENRY STEPHENSON,
O’Fallon, Illinois

I would put it thus:

We care for animals and codify that care in law, not because animals have human rights, but because of our own humanity.

The Economist (Letters, Jan 12th 2019)

Or, as Schopenhauer mused:

Asylum Laws: Are Lawmakers Committing Treason Against Americans?

Ethics, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law

NEW COLUMN IS “Asylum Laws: Are Lawmakers Committing Treason Against Americans?” It’s currently on WND, the Unz Review and Townhall.com.

An excerpt:

The Wall is crucial, but it’s not everything.

Caravans of human cargo are filing into the United States because … they can. U.S. law allows it, even invites it.

Here’s how: Provided you’re not a white, South African farmer—in other words, a real refugee—you may plonk yourself at an American “port of entry,” say San Ysidro in San Diego, and simply assert your right to petition the U.S. for asylum.

Then and there you claim asylum on the grounds that your race, religion, nationality or politics expose you to persecution in the country you want to leave.

Compared to a multicultural mecca like America, where faction fighting is rising, Latin American arrivals seem rather homogeneous. Dare I say they’re largely Hispanic Catholics? Dare I ask who’s persecuting them in their homelands?

By the law’s logic, Muhammadan terrorists entering the U.S. through its southwestern border should have a far better legal case for asylum than Latin Americans: “I’m from Pakistan. I’m an LGBTQ activist, fleeing Islamic oppression. You’d better believe it.”

If you can’t quite manage to locate the legally designated gate, and a “misguided” U.S. border agent attempts deportation, you may, nevertheless, “defend” yourself against U.S. law by—you’re getting the hang of it!—lodging an asylum claim.

The American lawmakers and jurists who legislate and adjudicate immigration generally have the migrant’s back, and will right away accept the “credible fear” yarn he spins. He will thus be granted face-time with a judge. Their stupidity (and venality) is also his signal to vamoose, never to be seen again.

Children are the charm, a magic amulet. Courtesy of the Flores Settlement Agreement, unaccompanied children or adults with children must be released after a brief timeout in well-appointed detention centers. (“Cages,” as Democrat ingrates call this generous gift from the put-upon American taxpayer.)

All a single male or childless couple needs to do is grab a child. Borrow one if there isn’t an urchin handy, and drag him along for the trip. However hirsute and ink-covered your juvenile is; he cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.

Next, “the child” and his adopted Caravan “family” (or predatory parent) rest up in detention, fill in asylum applications and are subsequently cut loose in the U.S. with a nod and wink. (“Come back for your court hearing, amigos, know what I mean? Grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more,” as the old Monty Python skit goes.)

Ludicrous? American lawmakers—incontestable majorities on the Republican side included—don’t think so. Why else would they have kept these aberrant, catch-and-release, mickey-mouse laws in place?! …

…. READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “Asylum Laws: Are Lawmakers Committing Treason Against Americans?”, is currently on WND, the Unz Review and Townhall.com.

 

In His SOTU, 2019, President Trump Walks Back Promise To Reduce Legal Immigration

Donald Trump, Elections, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Law, Welfare

During their two years without serious political opposition, the Republicans floated  “The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Act.”

The Act was not exactly negotiated for with great vigor during the Republican dominance on Capitol Hill, from 2017 till 2019.

Still, in his 2019 State of the Union Address, President Trump managed to renege on the promises briefly made in the neglected RAISE Act.

Back in 2017, Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies had motivated passionately for RAISE:

Seventy percent of legal immigrants enter the US based on family reunification visas, with no consideration given to their skills and education or the needs of the US economy. Legal immigration at current levels suppresses American wages, especially at the bottom rungs of the labor market. Most legal immigrants enter the US on family visas. RAISE would have slashed the family reunification immigration by 50 percent, from 11 million people every decade to 5 or 6 million, still enormous numbers. Fully half of the legal intake into the US is lacking in skills and constitutes a fiscal drain; roughly 50% of the legal flow enters the US with less than a high-school education. Again, a fiscal drain. The same proportion of households headed by immigrants access one of more the major welfare programs. Help out the poor and let the american taxpayer breathe. … The poor are very poor. You give them a raise by lowering the levels of legal immigration.