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: 9
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You could do that with or without the caravans.


Yeah, but it will be easier since they will have left.




posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik
You bolded the wrong part..



Article 31 was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries, who are unable to find protection Article 31 of the 1951 Convention 34 from persecution in the first country or countries to which they flee, or who have ‘good cause’ for not applying in such country or countries.



Mexico is a party to the convention. So they would need to demonstrate "good cause" for not applying in Mexico.
They would need to show on an individual basis reasonable concern of political persecution or endangerment in Mexico.

You already admit they have been offered asylum in Mexico. Mexico is not systemically oppressing or persecuting Guatemalans or Hondurans or El Salvadorans, et al Their lives are not inherently endangered in Mexico.



The terms are defined in that same UNHCR document.



2.3 The Meaning of Terms

...

35. The notion of "good cause" has also not been the source of great difficulty; being a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution is generally accepted as a sufficient good cause, although this criterion is also considered relevant to assessing the validly of the reason why a refugee or asylum-seeker might choose to move beyond the first country of refuge or transit.






'Good cause' is pretty broad and I don't think anyone here is in a position to decide what does and does not constitute it. 


The organization tasked with convention compliance has defined what it is for us... So unless you do not believe the UNHCR has reason to interpret the convention, we can absolutely decide what constitutes good cause or not.


I linked the UNHCR .pdf because it is original source material, which is also obviously advocating the rights of refugees. I could have linked you to the full treaty text, but sent you directly to their Article 31 dissection, which is obviously definitive on the convention. It breaks down each of the terms and issues associated. That's what people do in informed discussions. As opposed to echoing empty talking points that have no basis in fact with a bunch of weasel words like "it may be violating something else", "we cannot really define that", etc to obfuscate the facts in evidence.
edit on 3-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I pointed out the 'good cause" part and that is the variable, like having TPS from the US, which refutes your claim. The truth is that it isn't up to you to decide whether any particular refugee has 'good cause'.

I'm pointing out how things work and why you are not seeing the results you would like based on the facts and the interpretation of that article you keep bringing up.

Your interpretation of it is also pretty much moot since you don't decide that either.

ETA: Also, it only means that the "other than first" country they enter illegally can apply a penalty, which was the specific legal matter the article was about.
edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It's not for me to decide. It was for the convention to define. It's for each nation to decide the merits of each case individually in a fair process. But the term is already defined for us. A country may be as liberal as it chooses when granting asylum in so far as it does not violate the convention. The convention establishes minimim guarantees and safeguards.
Germany could import Tibetans for asylum or grant asylum to American Democrats if they want to. They can allow Tibetans ro process their claims if they walked on water across the Pacific through America and on to Europe if they choose. They can fly Tibetans from Tibet or processes claims directly by the internet from Tibetans in Tibet if they so choose.
But in none of those instances are those asylees guaranteed protected status in Germany by the convention and international law. It would be Germany's sovereign choice to grant protected status in those instances.

Temporary protected status is a thing the US voluntarily grants. Any signatory can be more generous than the described minimum if they choose. We are among the most generous. Which is why I find it hysterical that any talk of tightening up the system results in claims that we are violating human rights and international law-- as though people not protected with refugee status under the convention have some human right to access the United States.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You really don't see it do you?

Nobody has said that it isn't up to each country to be generous if they want to?

Your source still says that a refugee doesn't have to accept asylum in the first country. If that is because the US is overly generous, they have family, a job waiting in another country than so be it. That is the situation and their right to try and claim.

In those cases with a a good cause it would be a violation of their human rights because the convention states that they don't have to come directly from their country of origin and that article 31 applies if they have a good cause. That is something that can't be hashed out here because it is case by case.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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?



So you think a CARAVAN of people coming up from the south through the entire length of Mexico is invisible to Mexican authorities? They don't notice all those people passing through en masse? The difference is that when that caravan gets to the USA, they all disperse instead of staying together in that same caravan. Mexico is the choke point that is not being choked where it should be.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
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.




So why aren't they asking for asylum in Mexico? Why isn't Mexico offering them asylum? Why does asylum HAVE to come from the USA for them just wanting to escape the situation in their own home countries? Mexico won't do? Why is that?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: byteshertz
a reply to: dragonridr


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.


Ditto my above questions.....



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Rich Z

Who said they were invisible? They were offered asylum by Mexico and some accepted, others refused it. Those that accepted but then were found ineligible were deported.

Those that refused were given 30 days to get out of Mexico.

These reached the border and filed paperwork for asylum or hopped the border illegally and maybe some (probably very few) gave up and went back home.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Your source still says that a refugee doesn't have to accept asylum in the first country.


It says they have to demonstrate good cause which has been defined as the first country(-ies) present a hazard if they do not do so. That is the requirement for protection under the convention. That many countries choose to allow transit is both true and immaterial to a discussion (more of an empty emotive appeal so far, really) of what violates "international law" and "basic human rights" .




it would be a violation of their human rights

Please cite the specific legal human right you assert would be violated if a country chooses to grant protected status based soley on the legal threshold of the convention. There is no human right to move to another country because you "have a job lined up there" or "have family there."

There is a human right to escape persecution in which your life is in endanger by transit to the first safe country you can reach. According to the convention, if you wish to be protected by the convention, you cannot transit safe signatories and still be protected. You must demonstrate that the signatory country you voluntarily transit was not a safe haven for you. That would be "good cause" to keep moving.


Repeatedly showing examples of countries allowing other conditions (like the US granting refugee status to tens of thousands across the globe every year and many others given TPS) does not make all those instances covered by conventions of asylum. That in practice all governments are willing to grant status for other causes and people are not rejected solely by this practice does not make that extra-legal decision an convention obligation or human right. Every member country sets its own standard, which all must meet the minimum thresholds established by the convention.

They are also free to return people on that principle, as you've been given multiple examples of.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The only way to show good cause is to have a hearing.

Not giving them a hearing would be that violation.

You said it yourself: "It's for each nation to decide the merits of each case individually in a fair process."

Which is why I asked if you really didn't see it?

ETA: And the convention doesn't say that you have to show the first country of transit was not a safe haven. It says you can't enter illegally into another country without penalty, at the discretion of the destination country, if there is no threat in country of first transit. You keep leaving out that the article only applies to penalties for illegal entry.
edit on 3-6-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
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" ?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I have not really looked at those cases.

I thought we were talking about Mexico and the US?

If the US refuses to accept claims then that would be due process. Who knows what is going on in the EU.


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



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Sure. If you show up here from Central America seeking asylum, you can make your case. The US is only bound by convention to take you if you can demonstrate with evidence "good cause" existed. Good cause meaning that you also need protection from Mexico.

The US continues to grant tens of thousands of refugees refugee status/asylum and other protected statuses every year by choice. And it is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is not bound by "international law" and "basic human rights" to do so, unless they arrive and demonstrate the country they just passed through to get here was unsafe for them.

A high-profile political enemy of the Mexican President unjustly imprisoned or wanted or otherwise systemically persecuted would be eligible to claim Mexico is a danger, and be guaranteed asylum by the convention. We would violate human rights by handing that person back into custody of Mexican authorities into physical jeopardy.

People who are simply poor and want a new life, are not granted that same guarantee by convention. People in similar jeopardy in Honduras are protected by convention -- in Guatemala. If they wish convention protection in Mexico they need to demonstrate Guatemala is not safe for them! Same for making the journey beyond to the US.

The US (and Mexico) choose to generously grant asylum to many cases beyond that mandated by the convention. If they chose instead not to, it would not be "a violation of their basic human rights ans international law"


Just like the EU shipping people back to Turkey or other member states is not a violation.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Again, from the UNHCR itself:




Introduction

1. As demands on States to admit and receive persons seeking asylum increase, resort is had to arrangements or approaches by which responsibilities in this regard might reasonably be rationalized and shared. Such arrangements or approaches are to be welcomed where they lead to clearer identification of those in need of protection and to international cooperation in the provision of this protection and the realisation of lasting solutions. The refugee problem is international in scope and character. International problems require an international solution which, in turn, depends on international cooperation.1

2. It is against this background, and with a view to stimulating helpful guidelines, that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees submits for the consideration of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection this background note on a concept which is gaining much currency and which has become, for a number of States, one basis both for protection burden-sharing and, at an earlier stage, for determining States’ responsibilities. The concept is generally referred to as the “safe country” concept.

The Safe Country Concept

3. Simply put, the term “safe country” has been applied, in the refugee context, to countries which are determined either as being non-refugee-producing countries or as being countries in which refugees can enjoy asylum without any danger. Clearly, therefore, the concept of “safe country” is applicable in two situations which give rise to separate sets of considerations: i.e. in the context of A) Safe Country of Origin and B) Safe Country of Asylum. 

...
B: Safe Country of Asylum

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.
...
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”.

Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
can enter and remain there,
is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
has access to a durable solution.


So unless you can show that Mexico is a threat to your safety or will not obey its obligations under the convention to protect you from danger, you have zero protection from the convention guaranteeing you protected status in the US if you transit Mexico. That the US historically allows other causes does not make it an issue of "international law and basic human rights".


For the record, again, I am not even advocating such a draconian approach. I am just saying that the US is under no obligation by treaty, convention, international law or basic human rights to receive asylees transiting Mexico. Zero obligation unless you can show Mexico and any other preceding countries transited were not safe for you.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert


The US is only bound by convention to take you if you can demonstrate with evidence "good cause" existed.

Nobody has a right to be granted asylum but you do have a right to file the claim and if immigrants want to travel across Mexico to file it with the US then that is their right.

The US has every right to cancel TPS, set the requirements to the convention limit and deny any and everyone that doesn't meet the requirements.

If the border is shut down and no claims accepted then, there you go, violation of due process.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You have the generosity of the US gov. if you have TPS.

Nobody said it was an obligation. It is the reason why some people do not apply for asylum in mexico.

Now if you want the truth, everyone wants the american dream. Ever hear of the mexican dream? And if you have friends or family legal or illegal in the US why would you want to stay in a country where you don't know anyone?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




If the border is shut down and no claims accepted then, there you go, violation of due process.


You're arguing a position noone has made. I posted in response to someone saying we are ignoring international law and basic human rights. You echoed that sentiment repeatedly, and it is false.

If the border was closed/secure, then asylees would have to apply when caught. If the border was 100% airtight against infiltration, asylees would still be eligible to seek asylum at designated ports of entry (which is the preferred method endorsed by the UNHCR, btw. No one has to smuggle themselves in to a country to get asylum. The proviso for illegal transit is that traditional border crossing may not be safe while leaving your place of origin. It is not a blanket endorsement to sneak through foreign countries -- hence another limiter of "immediately" turning oneself in to authorities.)
The US also generously allows refugees to seek/apply for refugee status from the US government at any embassy or HCR location (I think it is more than a dozen in Mexico, but I haven't looked at it lately) or several other NGO's in Mexico and Central America.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Now if you want the truth, everyone wants the american dream. Ever hear of the mexican dream? And if you have friends or family legal or illegal in the US why would you want to stay in a country where you don't know anyone?


I do not blame them, but that does not make them refugees. I also heartily support legal immigration. We also granted a five year high in new (naturalized) citizenship status to immigrants in 2018.

I just want control over our border. I am not saying people cannot apply for asylum or that we shouldn't take any immigrants in.







 
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join