Posted on 11/20/2018 8:25:49 AM PST by gattaca
For generations, the United States has opened its doors to individuals from around the world seeking safety and protection. The process of seeking asylum in the United States is rigorous and well-established under U.S. law. But in a cynical attempt to reject asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S. southern border, the Trump administration is working towards a system that forces them to seek asylum in Mexico instead.
Individuals generally must make their claim for asylum in the first country they enter after fleeing persecution if that country is considered a “safe third country.” If a country has not been designated a safe third country, an asylum seeker may pass through it and apply for asylum in the next country.
In May 2018, representatives of the U.S. and Mexican governments began discussions about whether to recognize each other as safe third countries. If this were to happen, the two countries would enter into a legal arrangement known as a “Safe Third Country Agreement,” or STCA. Under such an agreement, each country would designate the other as a safe third country for asylum seekers.
Not just any country can be designated as a safe third country, however. To be designated, a country must be able to meet the protection needs of asylum seekers. Specifically, a country will be designated as a safe third country only when it is clear that asylum seekers will not be returned to the country where they fear persecution or torture; the well-established international legal principle of non-refoulement.
Various non-governmental organizations are concerned that Mexico cannot fulfill the role of a safe third country and should not be designated as such. They fear that asylum seekers are not safe there.
For example, in January 2018 Amnesty International reported that in a survey of people detained by the Mexican migration agency, 75 percent were not informed of their right to seek asylum. This is particularly troubling because asylum seekers in Mexico have only 30 business days to file an asylum application—much less than the short, one-year period in the United States. Adding to the problem is the fact that Mexico’s Commission for Refugee Assistance is understaffed, under-resourced, and limited geographically, curbing its ability to process asylum applications and protect against non-refoulement.
Currently an STCA exists between the United States and Canada. However, whether Canada will continue to recognize the United States as a safe third country is the subject of litigation in Canada.
A May 2017 lawsuit filed in Canada argues that the United States is no longer a safe third country because current U.S. policies and practices—including denying refugees access to the asylum process at the U.S. southern border, the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers for unlawful entry, the short one-year filing deadline on asylum applications, and the expanded and widespread detention of asylum seekers—put asylum seekers at risk of refoulement; or, at risk of being returned to a country where they fear persecution or torture.
The purpose behind safe third country agreements is to encourage responsibility-sharing for refugee protection among countries where asylum seekers do not fear persecution. The administration’s attempt to have Mexico designated as a safe third country seems like an attempt at shirking its own responsibilities to asylum seekers.
BBC did a story today showing some guy taking names for Asylum ,LOL
So basically Mexico isn’t safe, but it isn’t a s-hole either.
If Mexico is not a “safe” country, then the US would have to issue travel warnings to every American going there.
Unless that is happening, then Mexico must be considered to be a safe country for purposes of Amnesty.
Trump can’t do it because of a UN treaty ?
.
They should just go home where they belong.
They obviously were doing well at home, judging by their clothing.
They have no need for asylum.
.
Our job is to make the US decidedly unsafe for them!
.
> This group is trying to say Mexico is not save, so asylum
> seekers should be allowed to come to the United States.
B-b-b-but the US is a xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, fascist, transphobic, racist gulag bristling with assault rifles and replete with mass school shooters and toothless deplorables!
How could that be safer than Mexico, which at least isn’t racist or xenophobic?
Brilliant. How can anyone argue that it isn’t. Most of the car electronics today are manufactured there. Guatemalans are trying to get into Mexico constantly.
What’s the counter argument? Mexico ISN’T safe? Because if that’s true, then what threat do they/have they posed against us? Anyting (human trafficking) going on in Arizona, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, California, we ought to know about? How about Bangladeshis? How’d they get into Mexico undetected, and why are they crossing into the US now?
Does the Law the Judge used cover Invasion by Caravan ?
But in a cynical attempt to reject asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S. southern border, the Trump administration is working towards a system that forces them to seek asylum in Mexico instead.
Nothing cynical about it. Just a President doing his job protecting his nation and its people.
Americans vacation and retire in Mexico all the time.
I just saw a “top ten” that listed Mexico City as one of the great cities to live in.
Exactly. As you suggest, this well-dressed, well-fed crowd is just looking for a better neighborhood, primarily at the urging of some who have a political agenda.
1. Is Mexico a "safe" country? In this context, absolutely. Mexico has demonstrated it is able and willing to feed them and offer them jobs. As a purported ally, Mexico ought to proudly declare it is indeed a safe country (the least it could do since if did little or nothing to defend its southern border).
2. Is there any basis for any asylum seeker to rationally fear prosecution or torture (from the article) in his/her home country? None that is in the public realm. Thus, Mexico ought to be able to fed them, employ them or deport them as it may wish without jeopardizing its "safe country" status.
Maybe another approach, and one that might deter future asylum abusers, would be to end catch and release, and start housing asylum seekers in very basic conditions for short periods of time, with no tolerance adjudicators appointed to review the applications, then instant deportations for those found to be abusing the system.
Make a public show of the change in the system, and there will be no incentive to come north. After all, even before Trump, most illegals would be caught then released, it’s not that easy to get across and disappear before being intercepted that one time, but of course after that many just then fan out and never report back.
Don’t get me wrong, I support the idea of blockading the border against illegals but with this refugee loophole, it means either changing that legislation, or ending catch and release and getting tough on enforcing actual conditions for asylum. If one or two legitimate cases get thrown into this mixture, then they will get a favorable outcome and leave that way.
The Canucks pride themselves on providing sanctuary....let's give'em the chance to REALLY strut their stuff.
They have no need for asylum.
*************************************
Exactly. As you suggest, this well-dressed, well-fed crowd is just looking for a better neighborhood, primarily at the urging of some who have a political agenda.
1. Is Mexico a “safe” country? In this context, absolutely. Mexico has demonstrated it is able and willing to feed them and offer them jobs. As a purported ally, Mexico ought to proudly declare it is indeed a safe country (the least it could do since if did little or nothing to defend its southern border).
2. Is there any basis for any asylum seeker to rationally fear prosecution or torture (from the article) in his/her home country? None that is in the public realm. Thus, Mexico ought to be able to fed them, employ them or deport them as it may wish without jeopardizing its “safe country” status.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
plus mexico’s new el presidente is a socialist, so this should be right down his alley.
he wants big gummit to take care of more people.
perfect solution. let them stay in mexico
If it is not safe, then the border should be closed. Both MAGA and MASA (make America SAFE again)!
I see a quick fix here - make the filing period for the United States be in sync with Mexico, as 30 business days. Who the heck thought a one-year period was "short", when Mexico has a 30-day period?
Asylum can be granted when the individual is threatened with physical harm by the government or the culture from which they seek asylum. There must be imminent danger. None of these people are in danger of physical harm if they return to their home country. Mexico has offered to grant amnesty to the hoard. They have refused. They may not refuse amnesty from Mexico and request amnesty from the US. The bulk of the travelers are looking for economic opportunity. This is not grounds for amnesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.