Lets establish some ground rules -
The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) is the international body with set definitions all countries use. There are 3 categories
1 - Refugee
Is someone who has left his or her country of origin and is unable or unwilling to return there because of a serious threat to his or her life or
freedom. The international legal definition of the term is contained in the 1951 Convention.
2 -Asylum Seeker
is a general designation for someone who is seeking international protection. In some countries it is a legal term referring to a person who has
applied for refugee status and has not yet received a final decision on his or her claim. Not every asylum-seeker will ultimately be recognized as a
refugee. However, an asylum-seeker should not be sent back to his or her country of origin until the asylum claim has been examined in a fair
3 - Migrant
is best understood as someone who chooses to move, not because of a direct threat to life or freedom, but in order to find work, for education,
family reunion, or other personal reasons. Unlike refugees, migrants do not have a fear of
persecution or serious harm in their home countries. Migrants continue to enjoy the protection of their own governments even when abroad and can
The bulk of the US immigration issues come from migrants and usually from Mexico and central American nations. Asylum seekers have to comply with "The
first country of Asylum", which is the standard. It means the first foreign country you come to is where you must apply for Asylum. You cannot transit
thru that country to get to another one. Finally there is no such thing as an "economic refugee" either in US law or International Law. Crappy job
pay, working conditions, no jobs etc is not a justifiable reason to try and gain admittance and protections of another country. Migrants actually have
access to their own government for assistance with certain issues and Mexico routinely intervenes to try and keep their national in our country.
I am somewhat familiar with Mexican Immigration laws but not any of the Central or South American countries. Mexican immigration laws compared to the
United States are draconian compared to ours. Violating their immigration laws usually starts you off at the felony level charge with a decade or more
in prison. Smuggling people into Mexico is also a lot of prison time.
Mexico does have a wall on their southern border (big chuck of it is a solid barrier type system) and they also has the same headaches on their
southern border that the US has on our southern border. So Mexico just threw international law out the window and looks the other way or, in some
cases, actually transport illegal immigrants north top our border and dump them in our lap. Currently Canada is experiencing an immigration problem on
their border with us. Trudeau initially welcomed them but now its gotten out of hand and Canada has been asking the US to help stop the flow (the
The big bitch with our current immigration policy deals solely with enforcing existing laws, which were not enforced the last 8 years. Enter at a US
port of entry and you don't get separated from your kids. Illegally enter and you do - here is why.
We have a zero tolerance policy on illegally entering. This means if you illegally enter and get caught you are going to be prosecuted. It is a
criminal prosecution (misdemeanor first offense / felony for more than one) so the accused are placed into detention facilities. It is forbidden by
scotus / federal law to house minors with adults in adult detention centers. Flores vs Reno established the no family housing requirement and the
separation requirement. It also established the requirement for minors to be housed separately in their own facility and also requires segregation by
sex. Currently 80% of the minors in custody are unaccompanied minors. One other thing to remember is the Scotus ruling in JENNINGS
ET AL v. RODRIGUEZ ET AL vs US. Illegal immigrants who are in custody no longer have a right to bail. They are held until their situation is
Drug cartels / pedo rings etc exploited the previous family policies so they were sending people in pretending to be families when in reality they
weren't. Hence the zero tolerance now.
The US has also for the longest time took the hit when we try to deport an illegal back to their home country and the home country refuses to take
them (primarily central American countries and a few African countries). In reality we could send them back to the country they entered from but
Mexico started to refuse to take them.
We have one of the most open systems for people wanting to come here.
Is it to much to ask to do it legally?
Going back to Mexican laws they also prevent foreign ownership of property in certain parts of the country (like the coastal areas). The drug cartels
dont help the situation which is why the asylum seekers from Mexico have a somewhat valid claim.
The US nor any other country is required to take a foreigner in. Helping out with poverty and prosperity in some of these countries might go a long
way to help resolve the problem however the government are somewhat corrupt in certain areas of the respective governments and its usually from either
being bribed by cartels or threatened to be killed by cartels.
The people in government dont seem to care when it comes to really trying to fix the problem and the US sends a massive amount of cash to help them
out, which never seems to help.
Sorry for the long response and just my 2 cents...
edit on 19-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2018
by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)