It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexico comes to the table

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The thread isn't about blaming them it is about blaming mexico for their choice to claim that right to file.
edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

There can be human rights violations but we are not in a position to sift through every case.

Closing the border was just an example of a blanket policy which pretty much insures that someones rights will be violated.

Filing from the country of origin is an argument I have seen before and that always ends up in a argument about refugee vs asylum. Truth is that if people could file at home I'm sure they would.
edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I think Mexico is happy to use the US as a relief valve and allow transit. I also think that should stop. I also recognize that on a practical level that will mean increased US taxpayer money budgeted for Mexico's southern border, the UNHCR, and Mexico's own asylum program will all be necessary to create a viable solution. What is not acceptable is the status quo vis a vis Mexico turning a blind eye to the hordes of people in transit. The reason Mexico does not want US border security is understandably that it will leave the mess in their own laps (the cartels probably also factor).

There needs to be a solution that prevents massive illegal economic migration into both countries and still is responsive to actual humanitarian concerns in Central America, and Mexico cannot do that alone. But while I recognize those realities and the reasons Mexico uses us as the relief valve, I can still "blame" Mexico for their current handling of the problems.

And again, the only posts I've made have been in response to a line of thought that the US was ignoring international law and human rights.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

They don't have to file from home. Central Americans can file for refugee status in the US in Mexico or apply for relief from Mexico itself. The myth is that they all need to sneak across our border to apply for asylum to get refugee status. Most "asylees" know their claims are not valid and so avoid filing from Mexico or an embassy/consulate or border station because they play the odds that they will not be caught and can live here illegally on the public dole and apply for asylum defensively if they are finally caught. Stopping the systemic abuse of illegal border crossings will not prevent a single refugee or psuedo refugee from applying for protected status in the US.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The US isn't the relief valve. It is the magnet, the light at the end of the tunnel, the land of milk and honey.

It has been pointed out before that the people in the caravans don't look poor or famished. Some might be running from violence, probably very few. Everyone is going for the money. That is all. Increase border security, stop being generous, cancel TPS and watch the flow slow down to a trickle. But all that is something the US has to do, not mexico.

(Start X files theme) Then again, they might be setting up the next stage of the Merida Initiative. "US funds Mexico's southern wall", that would be funny.


edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Like I said. I have seen that argument where one side says you can and the other says you can't. To me if you could file from home or the next safe country people would be doing it instead of this whole carvan thing.

Heck I even saw advice on an immigration law site that said given the option to file at a port of entry or entering illegally, it is better to enter illegally because at the border there is a higher chance that they will just turn you around.

For whatever reason they are not doing it from home or the next safe country and they are not required to do it.



edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




The US isn't the relief valve. It is the magnet, the light at the end of the tunnel, the land of milk and honey. 

It is. For the economic migrants.

But for Mexico who gets stuck with them if they have nowhere to go when/if the border is secured, the US is that relief valve. They also benefit from Mexican citizens taking work across the border and sending the hard currency back into the Mexican economy. Mexico loves the open border.




For whatever reason they are not doing it from home or the next safe country and they are not required to do it. 

Well, the US is not requiring it, so why would they. Just sneak in and get on the benefits programs. If you get caught then you can apply the "right way" and at a minimum delay getting deported, possibly disappear back into the country and not show up for your hearings like ~80% do not.

But you're absolutely right, in that the US has chosen to allow that this far.

And again, realistic solutions involve both countries working together. Mexico is not equipped to deal with a mass influx of refugees, and the US has an interest in helping them, but also in controlling their border.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You missed the point. If/when the border is secured, nobody is going to bother making the trip. The US is not the relief valve now, nor will it be then because one won't be needed.

Probably 90% make the trip because they have a good chance of getting into the US, even if they have to put on a sob story and if that fails they can do the mad dash. If the chances go down then so does the incentive and most don't want to be stuck in Mexico. You may as well stay at home in that case, unless it's a case of actually needing asylum and those are going to be very reduced numbers.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Well, if we closed our porous border, the only people making the trip to apply would be real refugees.


But until the gravy train is shown to have stopped, the people will keep coming. It's not going to stop overnight. Which means Mexico will have plenty of people still attempting the journey for some time until it is demonstrated that it doesn't pay off anymore and the trip isn't worth it.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Well, if we closed our porous border, the only people making the trip to apply would be real refugees.

That was the point I was talking about. A pressure relief won't be needed then.


But until the gravy train is shown to have stopped, the people will keep coming. It's not going to stop overnight. Which means Mexico will have plenty of people still attempting the journey for some time until it is demonstrated that it doesn't pay off anymore and the trip isn't worth it.

The caravans will stop pretty quick. Things will go back to old school smuggling which mexico won't need a pressure relief for. The numbers will probably be even lower than before this caravan craze because prices will have gone up and less chances of actually making it.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Probably 90% make the trip because they have a good chance of getting into the US, even if they have to put on a sob story and if that fails they can do the mad dash. If the chances go down then so does the incentive and most don't want to be stuck in Mexico. You may as well stay at home in that case, unless it's a case of actually needing asylum and those are going to be very reduced numbers.



The liberals perpetuate the idea for them to come. Open borders, sanctuary cities, the ease to say a couple of words to get asylum, to use kids as tools for entry etc.

Its funny the only country that one could suggest is asylum status is Venezuela and they are not really coming from there. The other part is that you do not cross multiple countries to pick and choose, you need to go to the nearest country to claim asylum...i.e. get out of the situation that is causing you to seek asylum, not travel to the country of choice.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Well, if we closed our porous border, the only people making the trip to apply would be real refugees.


Are there really any area in the Americas that have real refugees?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The liberals perpetuate the idea for them to come. Open borders, sanctuary cities, the ease to say a couple of words to get asylum, to use kids as tools for entry etc.

Yeah, but both sides keep the legal situation pretty much the same.


The other part is that you do not cross multiple countries to pick and choose, you need to go to the nearest country to claim asylum...i.e. get out of the situation that is causing you to seek asylum, not travel to the country of choice.

We already covered that and that just isn't true. RadioRobert said something about refugees in the EU being returned to Turkey based on that principal but I know nothing about it. I might have to see if I can dig something up.

The other example was Canada but there is a US/Canada treaty involved in that situation.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
So you do not have a specific human right that you think the EU is violating by returning refugees to Turkey or other first countries of safe haven? You just think they are violating nebulous "rights" ?

So, after looking around it seems they have the same situation as the US/Mexican situation. According to this: EU-TURKEY STATEMENT & ACTION PLAN

On 18 March 2016, the European Council and Turkey reached an agreement aimed at stopping the flow of irregular migration via Turkey to Europe. According to the EU-Turkey Statement, all new irregular migrants and asylum seekers arriving from Turkey to the Greek islands and whose applications for asylum have been declared inadmissible should be returned to Turkey.


So it would seem that they are not violating due process in the EU either. According to some articles this has created some huge backlogs and even though the flow of refugees has dropped there are still more arriving each day than being returned to Turkey.

Odd how it is almost the same situation.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Under the agreement, Syrian refugees are exchanged between Turkey and EU countries. The arrangement is that the EU sends all Syrians who reached the Greek islands illegally after March 20, 2016, back to Turkey. In return, legal Syrian refugees are accepted into the EU.

link


This is because they are traveling from Turkey to Greece. So they are legally able to ship them out due to the "safe country of asylum" principle outlined by the UNHCR in earlier posts. The wording on this is poor, but "back to Turkey" demonstrates that the people in context are the Syrians traveling through Turkey to Greece (the vast majority of Syrians in Greece travelled this way.)
The Syrians who make it to Greece without going through Turkey are still allowed to file for asylum, but many of those are not filing for asylum. And those who reached Greece illegally and who are not filing are also getting shipped to Turkey for temporary protected status.



Some argue these challenges are minor, not least because the vast majority of those arriving in Greece, so far, have not filed asylum claims there—1,470 filed in February, or 2.5 percent of arrivals—with many hoping to move on throughout the European Union. However, the increased prospect of return to Turkey and the closure of the Western Balkans route may well change that dynamic.

link



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




The other part is that you do not cross multiple countries to pick and choose, you need to go to the nearest country to claim asylum...i.e. get out of the situation that is causing you to seek asylum, not travel to the country of choice.


Well countries are allowing this behaviour and granting asylum freely anyway. But yes, to be protected by the convention, one does not get to shop for their preferred location. Their status is only protected by convention at the first safe country.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: tanstaafl
Funny how the last few admins have created work arounds for the constitution, yet people raise hell when E-verify is proposed as a plausible way to address the root problem.

First, two wrongs (violations of the Constitutional limitations on the powers of the government) don't make a right.

I am the first to agree with anyone who points out governmental overreach, which is why I fully support the abolition of 90% of the federal government, including but not limited to the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, HHS, HUD, and Labor - for starters.


Voter ID's aren't mandated in the constitution, you cool with those? I am.

First, Voting is not a capital 'R' Right, it is only a privilege (small 'r' right), and since only Citizens are allowed to vote, I certainly am supportive of Voter ID. I'm also in favor of disallowing anyone who is dependent on the government for subsistence for 6 months or more during any given year from being allowed to vote.


Maybe both sides actually like illegal immigrants in the country because it's an energizer to their base. If the problem is solved, that would take away a "key issue".

I actually agree with this statement and always have known that they both use it to their advantage, like they do most things.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I certainly appreciate your honesty and can respect your position. But I fail to see how you're OK with voter ID but not ID for employment. I'm for both, and don't really see how it infringes on rights, or poses a threat to rights by creating a posture for future infringement.
edit on 4-6-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats kind of a strange response. So to your mind shrinking the auto industry and shrinking demand for autos/light trucks is a good thing?

In a sense, from what I read, thats already happening. The millenials, a generation sadly lacking in imagination, cram themselves into rat infested cities and dont even bother to get drivers licenses.
www.latimes.com...

It is true that the new light trucks, Toyota for example can easily go 10~15 years.

Guess we will see.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Yeah, but both sides keep the legal situation pretty much the same.


Agree, but that is why I said perpetuated an already screwed up system. The liberals have pushed it to new WTF heights all in an effort to make orange man look bad and to some how create a needed for them to be in charge by making the situation worst then saying they will fix it...lol





We already covered that and that just isn't true. RadioRobert said something about refugees in the EU being returned to Turkey based on that principal but I know nothing about it. I might have to see if I can dig something up.

The other example was Canada but there is a US/Canada treaty involved in that situation.


We can read about it too.. The bottom line is Mexico has offered asylum and they said no thinks, Mexico is considered first country because of that.


Section 11
The concept of first country of asylum
Introduction: International Standards
The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant
for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail
him/herself of that protection; or
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting
from the principle of non-refoulement;
provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.




top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join