It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Your source still says that a refugee doesn't have to accept asylum in the first country.
it would be a violation of their human rights
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.
The US is only bound by convention to take you if you can demonstrate with evidence "good cause" existed.
If the border is shut down and no claims accepted then, there you go, violation of due process.
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?