Mexico comes to the table

There isn't a human rights violation. The Greek Court upheld following the EU principle of safe country of asylum, which is a recognized precept by the UNHCR (which is formed by the convention for the enforcement of the convention). I have sourced it multiple times. And you continue to pretend it means something else.

Even Human Rights Watch acknowledges it is legal -- their argument (which lost in court) that Greece should not deport without hearing is not based on an argument about whether safe country of transit policies are legal or allowed by the convention. Instead they argue Turkey does not constitute a safe country.

You can continue boldly lying about what that means, but it won't make you anymore right than you were on your first post. The fact many countries do not limit refugees in such a way does not create a violation of law or rights by doing so.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The greek court isn't the the "Supreme Court" of the EU. Maybe that will clear it up for you.

I'm not lying about anything. I'm saying that it isn't settled law and until it is, you can't use lower court decisions to make your argument.

ETA: Well, you can use lower court decisions to make your argument but it is rather pointless.

Human Rights Watch:

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.

UNHCR on Safe Country of Asylum:

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. 

Nowhere is there a legal requirement for the country to process the asylum claim first. That is the point is to determine what nation should address it and to prevent asylum shopping. That many countries in practice do not deny a hearing does not make it necessary by the convention. On what basis do you believe Human Rights Watch is lying about the EU laws regarding safe country of asylum policies?

a reply to: RadioRobert

Googling that bolded phrase brings up two hits. An article and something quoting that article. Seems like you are just taking what some random news article says at its word.

Either way, the Greek court is not the European Court of Justice. You can keep re-posting that article all you want but it still has not been settled in the highest court of the EU.

ETA: By the way Human Rights Watch is calling them out for human rights violation because of that decision. The complete opposite of claiming they are saying that there isn't a human rights violation.

Germany

There is no separate procedure preceding the regular procedure in which decisions on admissibility of asylum applications are taken. However, it is possible that applications are declared inadmissible in the course of the regular procedure, based on the grounds set out in Section 29 of the Asylum Act.

Applications are deemed inadmissible in the following cases:

Another country is responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure, according to the Dublin Regulation or based on other European or international treaties;Another EU Member State has already granted the applicant international protection;A country that is willing to readmit the foreigner is regarded as a “safe third country” for the asylum seeker; A country that is not an EU Member State and is willing to readmit the foreigner is regarded as “another third country”; The applicant has made a subsequent, or secondary, application.

Safe third country

Article 38 recast Asylum Procedures Directive

 

The "safe third country" concept is defined in Article 38 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive as a country which is considered to offer sufficient protection against persecution or serious harm, which respects the principle of non-refoulement, and which offers the possibility for an individual to request refugee status and receive protection in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention.

 

The safe third country concept is a ground for inadmissibility. It is incorporated in domestic law in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland,Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Serbia and Turkey. Switzerland and Germany have lists of safe third countries, which however only include countries applying the Dublin Regulation.
...

This has led to many asylum applications being dismissed over the years without the Asylum Office ever having entered into the merits of the claim.
....

On the other hand, Hungary has introduced connection-related criteria in its Asylum Act and deems transit or stay as a sufficient connection in practice, even where the person was smuggled through a country and has no knowledge of that country. Serbia has not introduced rules requiring a connection, but also deems mere transit through a country sufficient for the “safe third country” concept to be applied.
..

Under Article 35 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, the concept of "first country of asylum" entails that an asylum seeker has obtained refugee status in a third country and may avail him or herself of this protection, or “otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country”. The Directive also enables Member States to take into account the criteria relating to “safe third countries”, which include the possibility for an individual to request and receive protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

The first country of asylum concept is also an inadmissibility ground, and is incorporated in domestic law in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, France, Spain, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Serbia.

Four countries using this concept as an inadmissibility ground (France, Spain, Croatia and Hungary) expressly require the applicant to be recognised as a refugee and to be able to benefit from that protection.

Safe Country Concepts

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: RadioRobert



ETA: By the way Human Rights Watch is calling them out for human rights violation because of that decision. The complete opposite of claiming they are saying that there isn't a human rights violation.

They claim a violation because they believe Turkey should not be considered a safe country. They do not claim "safe country" principles are a violation .


Is English not your first language? WWW.RIF.ORG

a reply to: RadioRobert

Their claim is just a legal strategy.

If some court upholds similar action by the us then they will say mexico is not a safe country.

That is how the game is played.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: RadioRobert

Their claim is just a legal strategy.

and

Yes. Because arguing as you have attempted for a full day that countries are bound by international law to process these claims for asylum is so manifestly wrong they do not even try it.

a reply to: RadioRobert

From what I was able to see, it is based on the specifics of the case that the court saw.

We are really good at oversimplifying things. I'm offering an alternative POV, with a little something to back it up.

All done. Time will tell.

The safe third country concept is a ground for inadmissibility....
This has led to many asylum applications being dismissed over the years without the Asylum Office ever having entered into the merits of the claim. 

Inadmissability means the court dismisses it out of hand. It does not have to look at the circumstances. In facr, the court is unable to look at inadmissible evidence. That is literally what the word means.

That there are many countries who process asylum claims more generously, does not make that a legal requirement of the convention. Just like some countries require "immediate" presentation and applications, and some allow 30 days, some a year or more, does not make those policies required. Thhe convention only guarantees protection, ultimately, if those asylees immediately seek asylum. Countries are free to have more liberal terms, but not less.

a reply to: projectvxn

It's tradition to send diplomats to try and talk things over. It doesn't mean they're going to make any concessions. For that matter there are no concessions they can realistically make. What exactly do you think Mexico is supposed to do? Patrol the border and force people to stay in their country at the point of a gun?

We used to demonize East Germany for doing that very thing.

a reply to: Aazadan

They could patrol their southern border that we funded and enforce their own immigration laws. That'd be a good start.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

Goodness, I couldn't agree more about the Syrian false flag chemical attacks. On that issue, I was extremely disappointed to see Trump fall for that gag. I mean, it was definitely his Charlie Brown and Lucy holding the football moment!

And I agree with the tarriff's deal as far as China is concerned; something needs be done about the China cheating the rules thing.

But the Mexico tariffs is just................pointless and unnecessarily hurtfull. I mean, honestly, it seems Trump doesn't "get" the core of the problem with the waves of migrants; he doesn't appear to even realize that CBP is doing the precise same thing today they did under Clinton, "catch and release". He doesn't seem to understand that the same International Legal framework that makes it legally impossible for HIM to close the US southern border is stopping Mexico from closing its southern border. There's very little if anything Mexico can do to stop the migrants from either entering nor traversing Mexico.

Without drastically changing US law and Congress abandoning the UN Compacts regarding the treatment of migrants, nothing is ever going to "fix" the US borders problem.

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

There will always be something that disrupts trends.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: manuelram16
a reply to: TonyS

Back in the 80s there was an uproar to "Spend your money where you earn it"
go to Japan, people there buy goods made in Japan, the only American vehicles there have consular plates

They don't buy many of our cars because even our small Ford focus is bigger than most of them are looking for. Space is a premium there. Turns are a little tighter in places and roads a little narrower then parking can be hell at times. The other big reason they don't buy American cars is that most think they are crap. The older folks there remember back when Ford, Chrysler, and GM were king in the US then started making absolute crap that was shipped there. US cars took a dive in reliability and quality something they are still trying to catch up on. BMW and Mercedes is still highly sought after in Japan so it isn't them being patriots to buy at home.

That isn't all. Buying a car in Japan is far different than here. We generally find what we like on the lot. There they order cars custom to how they want and get it in a week or two.

Actually these here in Japan it will take up to 3 months to get your new car. Right now Suzuki has a one waiting list on their new Jeep style vehicle and they are not taking new orders at the moment.
Also for people in the States, its rare that you get to test drive a car before buying it. Not sure how it is in Tokyo but in the countryside with small vendors you order your car what is now on a website. Sucks i tell you, cant sit in the car before buying it.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: projectvxn

Here is a different version.

Mexico's president has insisted his government will not be provoked, after President Donald Trump announced escalating tariffs on all goods unless Mexico curbed illegal migration. Andrés Manuel López Obrador described Mr Trump's slogan "America First" as a fallacy and said universal justice was more important than borders

The president said he had ordered his foreign minister to travel to Washington on Friday. "I want to insist that we are not going to fall into any provocations, that we are going to act prudently with respect to the authorities of the United States [and] with respect to President Donald Trump," he said. In a letter to his US counterpart, Mr López Obrador said Mexico was complying with its responsibility to avoid "as far as possible and without violating human rights, the passage [of migrants] through our country

www.bbc.co.uk...

...and, basically, who gives a rip about the "other version".

AMLO is like the Mexican Obama... he knows what to say, to elicit strong emotions from his fans... but what he can or actually DOES, is another matter all together.

So, he disagrees with the POTUS about this issue. That's nice. I'm sure that will work out real well for him.

What's next... how about starting to level a 5% surcharge per month, increased by 5% per month, on wire transfers from the U.S. to Mexico. That way he can complain about that too... TO NO EFFECT AS WELL.

What Americans should REALLY be asking, 1.) Why have the previous 4 Presidents supported China's predatory trade and monetary policies, and non-stop violation of WTO MFN standards by China for the last 20 years, and why have the last 4 Presidents allowed Mexico and Canada to dump Chinese goods in to the U.S. for profit under that OTHER abortion called NAFTA for the last 25+ years?

Simple... they don't give a f*** about Americans and American workers and their economic security... only making billions for their political buddies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Problem beginning to get solved.

Told ya so.

originally posted by: TonyS
But the Mexico tariffs is just................pointless and unnecessarily hurtfull.

Well, it starts at 5%, that isn't going to really be hurtful. But the main point is, whatever 'pain' is felt, Mexico will feel it times 10. That is what Trump meant when he said he holds all the cards. It will hurt us far less than them, and we can also afford to mitigate the pain through directly supporting the individual/small business people and farmers who do experience a dramatic impact. I wouldn't support such a thing long term, but again, this is just short term MAGA negotiations.

I mean, honestly, it seems Trump doesn't "get" the core of the problem with the waves of migrants; he doesn't appear to even realize that CBP is doing the precise same thing today they did under Clinton, "catch and release".

Not sure why you say that - it is precisely because he does understand it that he is treating this as the emergency it is.

He doesn't seem to understand that the same International Legal framework that makes it legally impossible for HIM to close the US southern border is stopping Mexico from closing its southern border.

Really not sure what you are talking about here. There is no such 'legal framework' preventing us from shutting down our borders - temporarily and/or partially (e.g., we could disallow all individual people, but allow commercial cargo like trucks loaded with produce), or we could shut the borders down completely and for as long as we like.

There's very little if anything Mexico can do to stop the migrants from either entering nor traversing Mexico.

There is actually quite a lot they could do. They could stop it completely. They simply are choosing not to, which is why Trump is using the only tool he has at his disposal (due to Congress' refusal to act).

Without drastically changing US law and Congress abandoning the UN Compacts regarding the treatment of migrants, nothing is ever going to "fix" the US borders problem.

You are correct that the only permanent fix requires Congress to fix the totally broken system that allows invaders to simply read from a card they were given on how to ask for asylum and stay here, and prevents us from shipping them right back home, children and all.

They should have to ask for asylum in our embassy in their country, and maybe in Mexico, but they should absolutely not be allowed to stay in our country just because they crossed the border.

Also, no immigrant should be eligible for any government assistance in any form, federal or state, unless/until they have acquired citizenship.

originally posted by: dasman888
What's next... how about starting to level a 5% surcharge per month, increased by 5% per month, on wire transfers from the U.S. to Mexico. That way he can complain about that too... TO NO EFFECT AS WELL.

I've thought the same thing before, but never looked at it closely...

First - I would definitely not limit this to Mexico, I would apply it to the top 3 (or 5?) countries sourcing the illegals flooding our country.

Apparently, last year, about 120 Billion was sent out of the US to the top 3 nations flooding the US with illegal immigrants.

So, 5% of that would raise about 6 Billion.

Wow... I say, make it 10%, and build the freakin wall with that money, and I'd make it permanent.