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: 7
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

immigrationimpact.com...

ahem. Reaf this. it explains a bit why,or should at least give you a inkling. besides no one but the US keeps the geneva conventions these days so maybe time to scrap them.




posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: willzilla

You guys do realize more Americans are moving to Mexico than Mexicans moving to America right?
beta-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org... -its-americans-heading-south/2019/05/18/7988421e-6c28-11e9-bbe7-1c798fb80536_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=ht tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fbeta.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fthe_americas%2Fthe-little-noticed-surge-acr oss-the-us-mexico-border-its-americans-heading-south%2F2019%2F05%2F18%2F7988421e-6c28-11e9-bbe7-1c798fb80536_story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp%23referrer% 3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%26amp_tf%3DFrom%2520%25251%2524s
amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org... usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s

Perhaps, but Americans emigrate the legal way. Big difference, wouldn’t you agree? Also, aren’t most Americans who move there retirees? If so, it seems unlikely that many of them will take jobs from Mexicans, but I admit that’s just a guess.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I doubt immigrants are leaving behind property fit for resorts, if any at all.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodworth
If I were trump I would put a tax on all money sent of the country to Mexico and central America .

Not like immigrants of the past....today's immigrants send more cash directly out of the country then any group in history

They are not funneling their money back into the country, a majority goes to invest in their countries.



That’s a fact Leftists seldom acknowledge, because it doesn’t agree with their America-is-evil mantra. Pew Research says that in 2016, out of the $574 billion in remittances worldwide, $138 billion came from the USA. That’s 24 percent of all remittances.

So we not only support millions of immigrant and H-1B workers and their families, we let them send $138 billion out of the country untaxed. Pretty damn generous of those evil Americans if you ask me.
edit on 2-6-2019 by Scapegrace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
If Mexico plays poker and tariffs rise - at what level do illegal aliens get stopped on Mexico side border.

What pain if any does the average American experience to end the problem.

Seem thread drift into policy wonk discussion when issue been made very simple by DJT.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
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.



It is Article 31.1 in your link. My link is specifically to a discussion of that Article from the UNHCR created because of that treaty.
edit on 2-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Everyone wants change... no one wants the ramifications of change.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I know but the actual law doesn't say anything about countries of first transit. That is all I'm saying. There is the entire law and I couldn't find it.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

So, if they are trying to change then that means things are not as previously claimed.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: RadioRobert

I know but the actual law doesn't say anything about countries of first transit. That is all I'm saying. There is the entire law and I couldn't find it.


"Coming directly from a territory from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened..." Central Americans are coming to the US from Mexico, not directly from Honduras, Guatemala, etc. Mexico is a signatory to the agreement and their freedoms and lives are not threatened by the Mexican government. Asylum seekers are free to seek asylum in Mexico.




www.unhcr.org...

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

12. Application of the “safe-country” concept to asylum countries poses fewer difficulties than arise with countries of origin, as long as the concept is accompanied by appropriate safeguards. In the first instance, it should be recognized that it has some basis in the phraseology of the Convention, where the Convention requires direct arrival from territories where life/freedom is threatened before a particular provision can apply (Article 31 (1)). The notion was also formally put forward in the context of the 1977 Diplomatic Conference on Territorial Asylum, when Denmark proposed that where it appeared that a person already had a connection or close links with another State, if it was reasonable and fair, (s)he should be called upon to request asylum from that State. It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.

13. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee have also variously given credence to the notion. In this connection, Conclusion 15 (XXX) (1979), para. (h) (vi) is noteworthy:

“Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation”.




Canada does this by rejecting asylum seekers entering from the US, for example. They say, "You were entering from a safe country. Seek asylum there."



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I doubt immigrants are leaving behind property fit for resorts, if any at all.


Land Development.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
The entire article is: "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 it is specifically talking about imposing penalties for illegal entry and presence, of those coming directly not that it would have any bearing on the granting of asylum.

Also, some have TPS and that is solely on the US gov.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You could do that with or without the caravans.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




So it is specifically talking about imposing penalties for illegal entry and presence, of those coming directly not that it would have any bearing on the granting of asylum. 

Also, some have TPS and that is solely on the US gov.


TPS is the US government 's choice to grant. The charter also allows governments to reject people arriving from the territory of another signatory where they were able to seek asylum because they are not arriving directly from a territory where their lives and liberty were in danger. Many countries still allow asylum seekers despite that which is their choice. It is not a requirement of the charter.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
TPS is the US government 's choice to grant.

Exactly, who said otherwise?


The charter also allows governments to reject people arriving from the territory of another signatory where they were able to seek asylum because they are not arriving directly from a territory where their lives and liberty were in danger. Many countries still allow asylum seekers despite that which is their choice. It is not a requirement of the charter.

Where does it say that? The only article that you have posted doesn't say that and I was not able to find any article that stated that.

What that article says is that if someone from a third country, fearing for their life, travels through mexico and then enters illegally into the US then the US can impose a penalty. If the US chooses not to or decides TPS covers that person because of their nationality that is the US government's choice. It has nothing to do with the mexcican government.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I already linked you to the UNHCR page which deals with rhe "first safe country" principle. The UNHCR exists to make sure the Refugee Convention is not violated (that's in the Convention). It allows countries to enter such arrangements.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The principal isn't written into law in the US. That isn't the Mexican governments fault.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Where did I suggest that?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: tanstaafl

howso?

That is simply - there is no clause/section of the Constitution that delegates such immense power - the power to deny someone the ability to work and provide for themselves and their families - to the federal government.

The bottom line is, the Right to labor is an absolute Right, not subject to government permission.

The argument could be made that they could make this a legal requirement for federal - and with State permission, State jobs/agencies, but in no way does the federal government have the power to require me to get their permission in order to work for some other private person or company.

That said, I guess States could also write regulations that make corporations and other legal entities subject to this requirement, since these exist at the


how is it different than a background check for a job?
or is that unconstitutional as well?

Yes - again, with the possible exception of federal and possibly state jobs.







 
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join