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: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Little will change. Increases in cost get past on to consumers. Mexico will carry on as usual.




That's what we call winning.




posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




If the US can't stop them at the US/Mexican border why would Mexico be able to stop them at their southern border?


Because the Border of Mexico/Guatemala is 541 miles long and the US Mexico border is 1954 miles long. The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the nation of Mexico through their southern border first.

The Mexican government aid illegals at their southern border in entering our southern border illegally. This is not an equitable arrangement and not a policy a good neighbor engages in. I don't think Canada would be very happy if the US government encouraged US citizens or illegals from our southern border to break Canadian law, why should we tolerate this?




I know all about the caravans. The people backing them are NGOs in their home countries. That means that they are not being backed by the Mexican government, which was where you were pointing you finger.


You. Are. Wrong.




ETA: Some say they those groups are US based, Either way what does it have to do with the mexican government?


A lot as I have shown. As far as the caravans are concerned, the Honduran and Mexican governments both aided the caravans in getting here.




There you go. You can't blame Cuba for their choices so why are you trying to do it with other countries?


My parents escaped Cuba via the Peruvian embassy. They were granted asylum in Costa Rica (where I was born) and flow there by the government of Peru. From there, my parents did the paperwork to enter the US legally as political refugees. We knocked on the front door the whole way here. Cuba was a prison to my parents, not a normal country. Please stay in your lane and stick to crap you know.
edit on 1 6 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Just because the border is smaller doesn't mean people wont get across.

The caravans are a drop in a bucket and they asked for help just like your parents.

I know you know the difference.

Also go after the facts instead of trying to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.



edit on 1-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: byteshertz

Just thought I would quote the article shared for all those who were too busy singing The Star Spangled Banner to realize that, as usual, your gun is pointed at your own feet.



The US Chamber of Commerce, which represents three million businesses in the US, condemned Mr Trump's plan. Chief policy officer Neil Bradley said the tariffs would "be paid by American families and businesses without doing a thing to solve the very real problems at the border".

Source: www.bbc.com...


Typically, the Chamber on Commerce is the bad guy on ATS.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: projectvxn

If the US gov can't stop illegals from entering the US how can you blame the Mexican gov for not being able to do the same thing?


We can. Some people just reee really loud if we even begin to.

Meanwhile, Mexico just transports illegal crossers of their southern border to ours.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Maybe you don't really want them stopped there or even further south?



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Good to see humanity getting along as usual.

What a great species we are!



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

It has nothing to do with making money, the cost to enter Mexico is 360 peso, which is equal to 1 - 1.5 days work for housekeepers in most areas - nothing crazy. If it was about the money that price would increase because people pay about 100,000 peso to cross to the US, so Mexico would be chasing a bigger cut.

What it has to do with is international law which under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum. Mexico is not going to break international law just because the US seems to be on a mission to ignore human rights and international law these days.

Also as previously stated, if the US can't stop them, how do you expect Mexico to? If US people can be corrupted into assisting / looking the other way for crossings, the cost will be less to do the same to cross to Mexico.

Rights and laws are not made to protect people when it is convenient, they are there to protect people when it is least convenient. The US has enjoyed the fruits of cheap, illegal labor for years. Now when things are tough, they are quick to blame those who washed their cars, cleaned their pools, served their food for a pittance.

Directing anger, frustration and grief at those who have helped to shape and grow the country because it was too lazy and entitled to. America has grown up, it is now a millennial, snowflake teenager. Merica the badass new kid on the block has got more than just comfortable, the popularity has swollen its head. It has become the consumer demanding a return and it's money back after using the service / product.

I may sound like I hate America but I don't at all, I am disappointed in seeing my hero, my big brother wasting away. Man up America and stop being a whiny bitch, you have forgotten you are.


Edit to add: PS - dragonridr this is was not obviously directed at you, other than the first part

edit on 2-6-2019 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: byteshertz
the cost to enter Mexico is 360 peso

You are talking legally.

It doesn't cost anything if you border hop. Well, you might have to pay if you want to travel in style. Here is a video from 2018 of some Guatemalans traveling into Mexico. At about 6:55 the guy asks "how much would it be in total?" the guy from the raft answers "Q70, there are 7 so Q70". The quetzal is the local currency and it is at about Q7.25 to 1 USD so they paid about USD$1.40 to hop into mexico. From that point on they would have to deal with the Federales, if they had any intention of crossing all of mexico.





edit on 2-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Thanks for sharing and yes I was meaning entering Mexico legally. I don't see many of those entering illegally trying to make it to the US due to the cost they would be facing to even try to enter the US illegally would make the Mexico legal entry fee look like nothing.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Sorry if this has already been brought up, but is this the part where Mexico pays for the wall?



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: byteshertz

I may be wrong but from what I understand mexico doesn't have border patrol. Any officer of the law can detain you if you are illegal and legal entry only allows you to get as far north as Mexico city. So, entering legally doesn't make much sense if you can't really get to the US/Mexican border without hassle.

One other tidbit is that Central America has formed a bit of a union and travel up to the mexican border is really easy. Not as easy as going from one state to another in the US but all you have to do is fill a form, at no cost, and off you go.

An interesting anecdote, my wife went out to lunch with some co-workers here in Guatemala and while she was eating they told her they were actually in Honduras. They took some back roads and crossed into another country to have lunch without her even knowing it. Must have been some good food I guess, to go all outlaw for it.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: byteshertz




What it has to do with is international law which under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum. Mexico is not going to break international law just because the US seems to be on a mission to ignore human rights and international law these days. 


According to the UNHCR, refugees need to apply at the port of entry for asylum in the first country they flee to.

So I guess Mexico is the one on the hook for determing whether or not they should be granted asylum in Mexico.




1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.


So the random illegal alien from Guatemala who migrared via Mexico detained after being stopped for DUI, faces two different reasons why they do not have a legal entitlement to asylum in the US because of international law.

The US chooses to allow people a year to apply. It is not obligated by treaty. Mexican asylum laws only give asylum seekers 30 days, which is their right as a sovereign country and it is more generous than the treaty requirements.


I completely agree with you about exploiting vulnerable people for cheap labour-- that's why we should stop it.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zelun
Sorry if this has already been brought up, but is this the part where Mexico pays for the wall?




No.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

DUI? How can someone walking or getting lifts from some central american country to the US/Mexican border have a DUI?

Also, the US has designated temporary protective status by country. Some people are just using what the US has made available to them.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




DUI? How can someone walking or getting lifts from some central american country to the US/Mexican border have a DUI? 

I used it as an example, as many people who are living here illegally apply for asylum after getting caught. Then advocates say we must process their claims. It is not a requirement of the HCR treaty or a "human right" recognized by any other.




Also, the US has designated temporary protective status by country. Some people are just using what the US has made available to them.

Sure, and as my post suggests, we should evaluate the whys and whats of what we are voluntarily making available to them. Much as other countries do, who set policy based on self-interest.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I used it as an example, as many people who are living here illegally apply for asylum after getting caught. Then advocates say we must process their claims. It is not a requirement of the HCR treaty or a "human right" recognized by any other.

Got a link for your quote?

Also, US law doesn't seem to include the "provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities" provision. I think it says one year. Things seem to be very fuzzy when dealing with multiple laws and jurisdictions.



Sure, and as my post suggests, we should evaluate the whys and whats of what we are voluntarily making available to them. Much as other countries do, who set policy based on self-interest.

Who is we? What was made available is available and I don't think you had any choice in it.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Yes, of course we as a country have a right to set our own policies... Why would we not? As long as our policy is more generous than "immediately" it would still be in compliance with the HCR treaty. Mexico chooses to allow 30 days for application. Right now it is a year for the US because it is our choice, as I said in my first post.

Regardless, according to the treaty, asylum seekers are only guaranteed right to seek asylum in the first country they enter upon fleeing.

So saying:



What it has to do with is international law which under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum. Mexico is not going to break international law just because the US seems to be on a mission to ignore human rights and international law these days.  

Is a gross mischaracterization, either from ignorance or deceit. There is nothing in Declaration that grants foreigners access to another county. It simply prevents a country from restricting the ability of one's own citizens to leave. Not at all the same thing. And the HCR, which does cover asylum -seekers, is not being violated.

By treaty, we would be well within our rights to say, "Sorry, you should seek asylum in Mexico as it was your first country of transit" to central americans coming to our border. Or set the limit at 24 hrs from entry for asylum seekers to have their applications submitted.

Perhaps doing that would encourage Mexico to take border security more seriously.

I'm not even advocating something so draconian, but saying trying to limit illegal border crossings is against international law and human rights is very dishonest.

ETA link to relevant HCR Article: warning .pdf download from UNHCR.ORG
edit on 2-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Your link is to a paper and not a law.

This is the actual law, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
And nowhere does it say they must apply for asylum at the first country they enter. I could be wrong because I did a quick search but I didn't find it.

I know that it is something written into European laws but it doesn't seem to be a part of what you meant to cite.


edit on 2-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Maybe you don't really want them stopped there or even further south?


Maybe I should get into land development and head down to these countries with ever decreasing populations and open up some resorts.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join