Monday, April 22, 2013

U.S. "Repatriation" of Cubans Cover for "Refouling"

Suddenly, the U.S. is using the word "repatriation" like it's the next best thing since sliced bread.

Returning someone who has asked for political asylum is illegal, without a case first. Most of the time, one has to be present physically in a country to have the international right to a trial for political asylum. Still, if someone made it to the waters of the Florida Keys, and if those waters are deemed U.S. territory or juridiction, they got far enough to be considered to be on U.S. territory and have a right to hearing.

The U.S. Coast Guard has repatriated 32 Cuban migrants who were recently picked up in waters off South Florida and the Keys.

Instead, apparently, the U.S. "repatriated" them back to Cuba. Repatriated means, "re-introduced" as a "patriot" of the country of origin. Mmm, better definition would be if someone renounced citizenship or had it revoked or denied it, to claim that person has citizenship and is in the country's jurisidiction is to "repatriate".

However, what a sneaky term for "refoulment".

Repatriation is usually a voluntary act by the person who WANTS to be "repatriated". Refouling someone is to commit a "foul".

It means: BAD GAME and since you committed fouls, you can be penalized.

Another way of looking at it, is that it is not a kind of technical "foul" in international justice, it is also to return someone to a foul position. If they were treated like badly in their country, and any link to state-sponsored activity is present, that person is "fouled". So if they leave a position of being "fouled", and then are forced back to it, it is "refoulment". You could think of "foul" as in "unsanitary" or "this stinks" or "very bad" and you can also think about it in terms of a game, where if a citizen is not protected with the same protection other citizens are given, they are "fouled" players.

If a "state", i.e., country, continues to trip someone, hits them, steals their stuff, tortures them, these are "fouls".

So next time you see a game on t.v.--baseball, basketball, football, hockey,...any of these games where there are "rules" and someone gets "fouled", notice what they are being fouled over. How many times does a team get to foul other players, and still make it? Or what about when a team is suddenly fouling it's own player on its own team, repeatedly...people might wonder if that player is really part of the same team at all.

So basically, the U.S. just "refouled" Cubans who were trying to be refugees or request political asylum. The U.S. admits they were picked up in waters within the U.S. jurisdiction, so if they were not given a hearing first, they were refouled. Not "repatriated".

I noticed this article by Fox news because I first saw one from the Toshiba-Google newsbar I have on this computer, about the U.S. Department of State putting "pressure" on China for "repatriating" North Koreans. Again, there that use of the word "repatriate" rather than "refoul". So the U.S. is dictating to China about how bad they are for forcing North Koreans back to North Korea when they show up in China asking for refugee or political asylum status.

So. U.S. Department of State...put your money where your mouth is. Where is my son? Did you know you are legally liable for what you've done? Of course you know. I was refouled with my son to the U.S., not "repatriated". Then, the U.S. knew they had no jurisdiction over my son, so they broke the law and assigned my son with a social security number. That is the loophole. That's one, just one of several, but that one is significant. They couldn't do anything on "paper" to make it look like they had agency over my son until they gave him a social security number, which I had revoked from my son's name before we left. The U.S. put a social security number on my son, to give them "federal nexus" when they did not even follow court process first.

Both Canada and the U.S. didn't follow any process to start with, because it was illegal for the U.S. to "hunt down" me and my son when I was free to leave.

U.S. to Press China Over Forced "Repatriation" of North Korean Refugees

So basically, the U.S. wants to lecture China about refouling North Koreans when the U.S. just refouled Cubans. Is someone from China going to come to the U.S. to ask the U.S. about their refoulment of Cubans?

I think some are using the word "repatriation" more than "refoulment" because it doesn't sound as bad.

Repatriation is a voluntary act by the person desiring to be reconnected to the country they rejected. Refoulment is an act by government that forces persons who do not want to return and are in danger or have been persecuted, to go back to a place of harm.

I was told later, when I said something about my son being given a social security number outside of the process, that there was an "exception" to the rule.

There isn't. They lied. My parental rights were not even terminated, and the U.S. wanted to assume "guardianship" from a federal position so they did this, knowing it was against my wishes. Not only did they do this to spite me, they did it because it was the only way they could claim they had a right to terminate my rights to my son, be his "guardian" or adopt him away from me.

I was told the U.S. can force a baby to have a social security number in "extreme life-endangering" circumstances. There was no such situation.

The state admitted on their own all they had on me was a "cluttered house". They didn't have an investigation against me before I left, and there was not any mental health or drug use evidence. There was NO Preceding Investigation.

Which means, the U.S. just made it all up.

How does forcing my BABY to have a U.S. god-damned social security number, "protect" him anyway? It has nothing to do with anything except lawyers who lied and a government that was full of shit and refouled both me and my son to their same shit.

What it proves, is that the U.S. was determined to kidnap my son permanently. They kidnapped him, and lied about the nature of what they'd done, and then they assigned a social security number to him, in violation of my parental rights, because they had already decided all of their "talk" about "visitation" and "bonding" and "doing services" or "cooperation" were a lie--they wanted him adopted away from me, so they could control him, and to do this they had to stamp him with U.S. "ID".

My son's social security number is a lie and it is a fraudulent attempt for the U.S. to lay a claim on him.

No comments: