New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[Bajo_cero2]

It does no such thing. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights it states that those rights are restricted to American citizens. The United States was founded under the principle that our basic rights are inherent to all humans, granted to us by our creator (whomever or whatever that might be) and exists independently of the government.
Now, has this been enforced in practice? From slavery to the CIA tortures and Guantanamo, that is obviously not the case. Rights are brought up and forgotten at the convenience of whomever is in charge at the time. But the letter of the law, ignored or not, makes no distinction between the basic rights being only for US citizens.

With all my respect, do not forget I´m a professional specialized in Constitutional Law.

Look that the preamble of the Bill of Rights use the word "us" and "our posterity", it means citizens (Tiffany, Joel, A Treasie on Government and Constitutional Law) with full political rights while out preamble states "for us and for all the men of the world who wish to inhabit our soil":



Here you have the link of the original version in English. Check it out at the preamble chapter.
https://archive.org/...eongovern00tiff

Slaves were not included, foreigners neither.

Besides that, I think you are on the right on this one. The decree being good or bad is irrelevant. It is a decree and it undermines the Republic. It is wrong.

If they use a DNU, then it means that they want to derogate the law 346 instead of the decree 3213/84. This is insane!!!!

But would you feel the same if Cristina had issued a decree that you agreed with? I think the credibility issue you are having on this case is that most of us feel that you would be nowhere near as vocal, if Cristina had issued a decreed that aligned with your political views.

It is impossible. I explain you why.
My political view is that the National Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Country.

NK enacted a decree regulating the citizenship law regarding the sons or argentines born in other countries. He simplified the procedure for getting an Argentine DNI without judge control because the RENAPER give the DNI no questions ask besides to evidence that one of your parents is Argentina. Here the decree was properly used because it was regulatory of the law 346 and its addressee were the employed of the Executive Power.

While the King tried to appoint judges at Supreme Court that could be fired after one year [if they were independent like they must be], NK enacted by decree rules of self limitation of power regulatimg the procedure to appoint judges through the Congress [not beyong the Congress]

CFK enacted decree 616/2010 that I was criticizing for the last 6 years in this forum but her subordinates of the DNM respected the Federal Judges because during her administration when I notified the DNM of a citizenship case on, they used to freeze the case respecting the separation of powers. The procedure created by decree by CFK states establishes that the arrest for deportation follow the Criminal Procedure Code and it is decided by a judge.

So, even I´m anti peronist, I had no complains with the K administration because they had political power, they used it but I do not see constitutional issues with that.

The new CC was a big change made by the former administration but It was approved by the Congress not by DNU.

Nikad mentioned that they didn´t want to listen the opposition at the Congress but I don´t see how this can be unconstitutional as soon as to listen the speech of the side who has no chance to win is not a legal requirement. Different is when there is a lot of debate on a law, but if the votes needed for its approval are there. Well...
I suggest Nikad to read the chapter of the preamble of the US bill of right of Tiffany because there he explains why her ideas about this topic are wrong.

So, besides the hate speech against the former administration, they respected the separation of powers and the National Constitution lot more that the King. This is why I prefer them even I ´m anti peronist.

I did´t vote for NK but I learnt to respect him because of her actions as President, among others, he incorporated the UN soft law standars for police by decree. It makes sense because he rule by decree to his subordinates. It makes sense because he limits his own power through the police. Judges are not subordinates of the President Nikad.

http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/200000-204999/204821/norma.htm

I do not know if you realize that this change in the citizenship law has name and last name and this is precisely what the President cannot do neither.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Number of Decrees DNU signed by democratic presidents:

Mauricio Macri 3 dnu

http://www.perfil.co...0103-0022.phtml

Seems that there are more than 3 DNU. Here you have a comparision on how the DNU were used:
http://www.latdf.com...i-vs-5-dnu.html

 

[camberiu]

With all my respect, do not forget I´m a professional specialized in Constitutional Law.

Look that the preamble of the Bill of Rights use the word "us" and "our posterity", it means citizens (Tiffany, Joel, A Treasie on Government and Constitutional Law) with full political rights while out preamble states "for us and for all the men of the world who wish to inhabit our soil":



Here you have the link of the original version in English. Check it out at the preamble chapter.
https://archive.org/...eongovern00tiff

Slaves were not included, foreigners neither.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"


I will not argue with you on that. Based on your political affiliation and ideology, you think rights come from government, so I can see why you cannot imagine a different scenario.
In regards of the DNUs, I think you just confirmed what I suspected: For you, it is not a matter of issuing DNUs or not, but who issues them and if you agree with their content or not.
You are right on this particular case, but only because you don;t agree with Macri and his DNU, not because you believe that the presidential power has to be restricted.

 

[pscheffer]

In all honesty I don't really care for a person that is a criminal and is not even Argentine. I would prefer a law and not a decree, but it will serve the purpose anyway. Whether a judge is involved or not, I honestly don't care either.

Yeah, I never understood why there is such a thing as due process and equality before the law. They should arbitrarily apply law in any situation if you ask me, makes for awesome societies.

 

[nikad]

Yeah, I never understood why there is such a thing as due process and equality before the law. They should arbitrarily apply law in any situation if you ask me, makes for awesome societies.

An illegal alien that enters the country to just to commit crimes is not part of any society my friend, and I am perfectly happy kicking him out asap. Not sure where you come from and how these people are treated in your home country. Maybe you can enlighten me.

 

[pscheffer]

An illegal alien that enters the country to just to commit crimes is not part of any society my friend, and I am perfectly happy kicking him out asap. Not sure where you come from and how these people are treated in your home country. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Does it matter where I come from?

And I don't think we can find a lot of people who would like to welcome a convicted criminal. Though many of the first immigrants in Argentina actually were criminals. And many criminals seem to populate the judicial and political system here as well, with impunity I might add. So the whole debate seems a bit whimsical to me.

Sure, you can beg to differ but wether or not someone is a criminal is decided by a judge and/or his peers. And in the process to establish that and any penalties [eg. deportation] that befall on a suspect are subject to due process and equal treatment before the law. If you are foreign born has no relevancy whatsoever to that principle. But of course -as I said, you can disagree with all that. I just don't know of any pleasant society that has flourished under arbitrary treatment of people by a government.

 

[nikad]

Does it matter where I come from?

And I don't think we can find a lot of people who would like to welcome a convicted criminal. Though many of the first immigrants in Argentina actually were criminals. And many criminals seem to populate the judicial and political system here as well, with impunity I might add. So the whole debate seems a bit whimsical to me.

Sure, you can beg to differ but wether or not someone is a criminal is decided by a judge and/or his peers. And in the process to establish that and any penalties [eg. deportation] that befall on a suspect are subject to due process and equal treatment before the law. If you are foreign born has no relevancy whatsoever to that principle. But of course -as I said, you can disagree with all that. I just don't know of any pleasant society that has flourished under arbitrary treatment of people by a government.

Well then you either didn't read the whole draft or you misinterpreted: the expedited process for deportation is meant to run in parallel to the criminal process where a judge has to rule first and all the guarantees of the legal process remain current ( appeal, etc ). No rights are taken away, it is just an expedite process to deport criminals. Most countries have zero tolerance for alien criminals, this is why I asked where you were coming from.

 

[pscheffer]

Well then you either didn't read the whole draft or you misinterpreted: the expedited process for deportation is meant to run in parallel to the criminal process where a judge has to rule first and all the guarantees of the legal process remain current ( appeal, etc ). No rights are taken away, it is just an expedite process to deport criminals. Most countries have zero tolerance for alien criminals, this is why I asked where you were coming from.

I know what the proposed decree says. That was not my point. I referred to your comment and question your apparent lack of support for due process, as you "didn't care" whether a judge was involved. But you are welcome to clarify or to change your statement.

 

[nikad]

I know what the proposed decree says. That was not my point. I referred to your comment and question your apparent lack of support for due process, as you "didn't care" whether a judge was involved. But you are welcome to clarify or to change your statement.

I guess you misinterpreted my words, as a bachelor in law, I could never be against due process ( criminal or not ). I think Bajo tries to imply that rights are taken with an expedite deportation. By the way, care to elaborate how most immigrants were criminals? My great grandparents were immigrants and none of them was a criminal back home or here...

 

[pscheffer]

I guess you misinterpreted my words, as a bachelor in law, I could never be against due process ( criminal or not ). I think Bajo tries to imply that rights are taken with an expedite deportation. By the way, care to elaborate how most immigrants were criminals? My great grandparents were immigrants and none of them was a criminal back home or here...

I am sure your grandparents, like many others were of good intent.
Criminal immigration to the America's to escape persecution -usually political, religious or criminal is very well documented. Of course the definition of criminal is difficult here as in Francoist Spain many Republicans that fled were convicted in absence of treason, marking them officially a criminal. Fortunately countries like Mexico and Argentina provided shelter and a new life for many political and religious refugees. You can learn all about it at the Hotel de Inmigrantes here in Buenos Aires actually.
And after WW2 there was actually an active policy at work to attract talented scientists and engineers from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and collaborateurs from France to move to Argentina. They were promised a clean slate, thereby actively sheltering (possible) war criminals. Similar policies were adopted in Brazil, Paraguay and Chile and the United States by the way. So yes, Argentina has a rich history of involuntary as wel as willingly attracting people with questionable backgrounds, a few actively looking to perpetrate crime but historically most of the immigrants were fleeing persecution.