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: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

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.


Since Mexico has offered asylum as per International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 23 then they are required to seek it there and not shop around. If Mexico did not offer and protection was limited then the US could be considered first country.

The direction to go is for asylum to be setup and verified there in Mexico with funding support from the US. If they are determine to truly be refugees then they can seek safety in Mexico until the turmoil in their home country subsides. If they are determine to not be a refugee then continuing to come to America will not give them any extra asylum status chance.

Right now...most if not all are coming here to say the magic words the border lawyers tell them to say and then they are in. Once in they tend to disappear into the wood work.
edit on 4-6-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: willzilla
I guess he don’t mind thousands of us a day go there illegally and get free healthcare?

Eh? I can go to Mexico and get free health care?

I knew I could go and get what would be very expensive things here in the States done for a much more reasonable cost, but certainly not for free.

By all means, elaborate on how I can get it for free.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
I honestly don't have time to explain it but this is a disaster.

Nope... short term pain for long term gain.


US car makers have this day lost $18 Billion in market value.

On paper... losses that can be recouped in one day as well.


Where do you think the parts and the cars are made? Mexico!

So, either the manufacturers will start making things here, or Mexico will put an end to the constant flow of illegals to our country. Maybe even both.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

They are not required to seek asylum in the first country that offers it. The way I'm reading it is that they can shop around and if the country of their choice denies them asylum they can be returned to the first country who is obligated to grant them asylum.

I think americans want to read it differently because it suits their argument as non-first country.

The only two examples offered so far have been Canada and the EU.

The Canada deal is the US telling Canada you can turn them away at the border and have them file with us, probably not the same if caught illegally inside Canada.

EU-Turkey allows them to file for their country of choice and only after being denied are they returned to the country of first transit.

There is nothing in the original convention that states that someone "must" file for asylum in the country of first transit. It is just a principle being discussed, probably because of the current situations.

ETA: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 23 is about the family unit. Actually that document doesn't mention asylum or refugees at all.

Search for yourselves: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights PDF
edit on 4-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Thanks for your response.

I hope you're correct.
I'd also add MY previous comment to which you responded has provoked more responses than any comment I've ever made in years on ATS.

Quite amazing actually. I guess what really surprises me is the large number of people who are truly "All in for Trump". I'm o.k. with Trump; voted against HRC, but I am not terribly impressed with his Foreign Policy decisions.

Whatever.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Since Mexico has offered asylum as per International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 23 then they are required to seek it there and not shop around. If Mexico did not offer and protection was limited then the US could be considered first country. 


They are not "required" to seek it there, but a member country is allowed in that circumstance to send them back to the first "safe country". The country is no longer required to consider you a refugee/asylee. It becomes a choice of the country to process them or ship them back to the first country. The asylee has no guaranteed right to asylum-seek in any other country after reaching a "safe country". The convention mandates the first safe country to accept responsibility for processing the asylee's petition for refuge. Other countries are not so mandated.

The US will process refugee status if you are here illegally after transiting a safe country. It will also process people from the middle east on location. It allows processing through any of the several UNHCR locations in Mexico. It even allows select NGO's in other countries to accept petitions for refugee status.
But none of those things are mandated (or prohibited, for that matter) by the convention.




The direction to go is for asylum to be setup and verified there in Mexico with funding support from the US. If they are determine to truly be refugees then they can seek safety in Mexico until the turmoil in their home country subsides. If they are determine to not be a refugee then continuing to come to America will not give them any extra asylum status chance. 

Basically agree with this, and the US would be well within their rights to do so.
edit on 4-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




EU-Turkey allows them to file for their country of choice and only after being denied are they returned to the country of first transit. 



No. Any of the Syrians present illegally in the EU are sent to Turkey.

If you flee Libya and raft to the French Riviera, the first thing they do is fingerprint you and put you in a database while they process you. If you then make your way to Dover or to Frankfurt, the first thing they do is also fingerprint you. Since you are already in the system, they can say, "Oh, the French are already responsible for you. Get on this bus/ferry."



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Maybe you missed what I linked to late last night:

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.


Where are you getting the info you posted?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I cannot tell after however many pages if you are deliberately obfuscating or just being obtuse.

It is anywhere you search. It is even in your link at the very beginning.




1) All new irregular (illegal) migrants crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands as of 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey.


They can do that because Turkey is the first country of transit. "crossing from Turkey... returned to Turkey. "

Asylees arriving directly to Greece or presenting themselves legally at border crossings are being processed. Most are not actually seeking asylum. They are trying to get to Germany predominantly for the same reasons Hondurans try to get to the US.

Regardless, as the section you quoted affirms, any or the rest of the Syrian migrants (from Turkey or otherwise, before the or after the date of agreement) will be shipped to Turkey anyway if they do not qualify for asylum. That is the part that required an agreement, because the other option available to Greece for those who did not transit Turkey was returning them to Syria (not ideal for a variety of reasons). Turkey said, "hey, we'd love to play hero, but there are a lot of Syrians. We already have bunches. What is in it for us?"
edit on 4-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: shooterbrody


nope a fleet of poutine selling footrucks


Now we're talking. Knowing Austin, TX though it would probably be Poutine-Korean fusion and have kimchi or some other healthy BS on it lol.

I would like to see a well thought out isolationist platform to help us get some things in order. It wouldn't even have to be permanent, many countries (including ours) have cycled in and out of it to remedy problems and mitigate turbulence.
I mitigate turbulence in the great small town of Austin like a boss. Lots of Mexicans in this neck of the hills. We get along just fine. There would likely be no independent state of Texas without their noble assistance in the big battle.
I'm glad they are coming to the table.
I can smell Abuela's enchiladas wafting through room.
Buenas cosas pasaran Tengo esperanza.
Keep it weird.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Homefree

I used to live in Temple/Belton. I don't know if I could keep it weird enough for Austin. My sis lives there though.

I have no quarrel with immigrants, but I think it should be done legally, and I think it benefits immigrants the most of this can be done. We should look at making temporary visas easier.

Illegals take the opportunity for the legals. The illegals also create the possibility for bad environments since employers know they can't use many of the venues people who are here legally can.

My family is a family of immigration just one generation between me and one side and two on the other.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

After they have had their hearing and only if denied. That is not the same as "Any of the Syrians present illegally in the EU are sent to Turkey."

I think the problem isn't me being obtuse but you making vague and sweeping claims, like the above.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Who "believes" this ? .......>>>>>>


Mexico Says It Is Holding Back 250K Migrants amid Tariff Threat 🍌🤣🍌



How can they be "aliens" if we're all from the same planet"
Borders are where different folks got tired of fighting.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Sigh

There was a big to-do about this very issue. Some asylees sued and got a stay for everyone. They lost at the Greek High Court level.


Human Rights Watch

The September 22, 2017 decision by Greece’s highest administrative court that two Syrian asylum seekers can be deported to Turkey because it deems Turkey a safe third country for them puts people at risk...

The Council of State grand chamber heard an appeal by the two men, ages 22 and 29, of decisions by lower administrative tribunals that they could be returned to Turkey to have their refugee claims heard there because it can be considered a safe third country for the men. Other lower tribunals are likely to abide by the ruling, paving the way for the return of other Syrian asylum seekers from the Greek islands to Turkey...

EU asylum law allows EU governments to return asylum seekers to a “safe third country” without hearing their refugee claims only if the country respects the principle of nonrefoulement – that is, not removing or returning people to countries where they face the risk of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or threats to their life and liberty; and if the asylum seeker may apply for asylum there and enjoy all the protections afforded by the 1951 Refugee Convention if recognized as a refugee.


Notice that Human Rights Watch bases its complaint on saying that Turkey is not safe. It does not say their cases must be heard or that those who have transited a safe country are entitled to hearings under the convention like you do. Because that would be outright false. The EU rules are based on the UNHCR-recognized policy of safe country of transit.




Greek MPs voted on Thursday to change the composition of the country’s asylum appeals board, in an attempt to sideline officials who had objected on legal grounds to the expulsion of Syrians listed for deportation to Turkey.

The appeals board had jeopardised the EU-Turkey migration deal, the agreement enacted in March that is meant to see all asylum seekers landing on the Greek islands detained in Greece – and then deported.

While Greek police had enacted the first part of the plan, Greek appeals committees have largely held up the planned deportations – potentially giving Syrians greater incentive to reach Greece. The appeals committees argued that Turkey does not uphold refugee law, and is therefore not a safe country for refugees.
...
The Greek government, as well as the EU and many of its members, believe that Turkey is a safe country for refugees because it offers them a basic level of protection. But rights groups say this is not enough, and that Turkey does not offer them the higher protection refugees are owed under the terms of the 1951 UN refugee convention.

Guardian

Again, the legal complaint is that Turkey is not a safe country. The legal complaint is not that asylees transiting are owed asylum processing in another nation after transit.


"Salam. I am here for asylum"
"Okay, great. Can't help but notice you snuck across the Aegean from Turkey"
"Yes, we -"
" Sounds like Turkey was your first safe country reached. Thanks for stopping by. Καλή τύχη! "
edit on 4-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I fail to see how you're OK with voter ID but not ID for employment.

Voting is an act of political privilege. It results in putting people in a position of some power over myself and others.

Contracting with any other private individual or company is the exercise of a natural Right - the Right to Life.


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.

Then you don't comprehend that the governmental power to require permission, also encompasses the power to prevent.

It may start with only preventing illegal aliens from working - but in accordance with the law of slippery slopes, how long before it is used against political opponents.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
I guess what really surprises me is the large number of people who are truly "All in for Trump". I'm o.k. with Trump; voted against HRC, but I am not terribly impressed with his Foreign Policy decisions.

i wouldn't say I'm 'all-in' for Trump - but I would say that I have been very pleasantly surprised by his actions, very few of which I've disagreed with (e.g. I disagreed with him launching rockets at Syria after the fake/false flag 'gas' attack, and I'm 100% opposed to all forfeiture laws), but tariff's, used intelligently as bargaining tool, can be very effective, as long as you are willing to follow through and experience some short term pain.

One mistake I think Trump is making though - he should be very up front and clear about this short term pain.
edit on 4-6-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Wardaddy454

And we are back to what I said earlier, what makes you think those that left had any land?

Even if they did, who says there are not other members of the family living there?

You could always go and buy some if you really want to get into land development but that has nothing to do with the caravans.


You're aren't thinking long term. If this trend continues, eventually there won't be enough people left, and the local governments will practically give the land away to generate revenue.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Sigh

Sigh all you want but the problem is that you just don't get it. It is the litigation process. One court deciding one way is not law until the highest court decides. In the EU it is the European Court of Justice and not the Greek court decision that you cited.

Also, if there is a human rights violation in the EU, how does that help your argument that there isn't one in the US?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

No, immigration has been going on for decades and the population just keeps growing. You can keep hoping though.

You might want to buy some relatively cheap land now before the asians step in and beat you to the punch.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join