Trump's asylum rule

[TheDrake]

So, Trump's rule has passed an intial legal hurdle. The rule prohibits anyone from applying for asylum in the US without asking for asylum in any other country they traversed to get there.

Now, I seem to recall Trump saying that Mexico is overrun with murders, rapists, and drug lords. So why would he think that anyone could find safety there? I mean seriously, its a shifthole.

[Crunch]

I’m sorry this happened to you. You gonna be ok?

[Pete at Home]

So, Trump's rule has passed an intial legal hurdle. The rule prohibits anyone from applying for asylum in the US without asking for asylum in any other country they traversed to get there.

Now, I seem to recall Trump saying that Mexico is overrun with murders, rapists, and drug lords. So why would he think that anyone could find safety there? I mean seriously, its a shifthole.

Hondurans and Guatemalan refugees obviously are safer in Mexico than in Honduras or Guatemala.

[TheDrake]

I’m sorry this happened to you. You gonna be ok?

I'm in the US, so probably. If I were a Guatemalan fleeing gang violence, and not wanting to have to be beaten by gang members in Mexico before finding a safe country - not so much.

[Crunch]

LOL. Right. Mexico is the most dangerous country on earth.

[TheDrake]

LOL. Right. Mexico is the most dangerous country on earth.

Ask your boy Trump if Mexico is dangerous. I don't think the rule on asylum is that you have to come from the most dangerous country on earth. Fleeing Syria for Iraq isn't exactly a respite.

IIRC it is full of "bad hombres".

[Crunch]

Trump broke you.

[TheDrake]

Your inability to respond to an argument is truly inspiring.

[DJQuag]

Your inability to respond to an argument is truly inspiring.

In some ways it's a gift. I kind of admire it.

[Crunch]

Your inability to respond to an argument is truly inspiring.

If you make one, I’ll respond. Logical fallacies and whining is not an argument.

[TheDrake]

Stay in Mexico, Mexico is safe. That's the argument in favor of this Asylum rule. Or do people have to wait for a while to get threatened in each unsafe country along the way?

I have little doubt that Trump wishes he could just cancel all Asylum and refugee entry, full stop. That's what this is really about.

[OrneryMod]

Blanket warning: please respond in earnest or don't respond at all.  Personal attacks, snide comments, and bickering aren't welcome here.

[Seriati]

I'm not sure I understand this thread.  First safe country concept is endorsed by the UN as a reasonable interpretation of the rules on asylum and in fact the process that most of the countries in the world follow.

There is no right to economic asylum.  If you are safe from the government of your own country, which you are if you exit to these neighboring South and Central American countries, there's no reason that you can't have asylum.  Asylum is really intended to be a temporary condition.

Again though, it feels like follow the laws, the actual laws, is something that makes people uncomfortable, even though they are perfectly reasonable and designed to actual balance the legitimate interests involved.

Anyway, great result.  Send all asylum seekers that failed to apply when they reached safety back to the safe country they crossed through.  There's no LEGITIMATE reason to object to such a plan.

[TheDrake]

First safe country concept is endorsed by the UN as a reasonable interpretation of the rules on asylum and in fact the process that most of the countries in the world follow.

Refugees are in fact not required under international or the UN law to stay in the first safe country.

As for countries that have unilaterally decided on such a policy, UNHCR has this to say.

In so far as application of the concept would a priori preclude a whole group of asylum-seekers from refugee status, in UNHCR’s view this would be inconsistent with the spirit and possibly the letter of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In particular:

It would be a reservation de facto to Article I A (2) of the Convention and would thus be in violation of Article 42, which prohibits reservations to this first Article.

It would introduce de facto a new geographical limitation to the Convention, which is incompatible with the intent of the 1967 Protocol to the Convention and runs counter to broadly based international opinion, as reflected in Executive Committee conclusions, in favour of application of the Convention without geographic restrictions.

It would be inconsistent with Article 3 of the 1951 Convention which requires States to apply its provisions without discrimination as to country of origin.

It would be inconsistent with the individual character of refugee status and the subjective nature of fear of persecution, which requires evaluation of the applicant’s statements, rather than solely a judgement on situations prevailing in countries of origin.

It is conceivable (given the inevitable imprecision of judgements about prevailing human rights situations in countries, as well the pace at which such situations can evolve) that strict application of the concept could lead to individuals being returned to situations of danger to life, in violation of the Article 33 prohibition against refoulement.

It is true that they don't preclude nations from pursuing burden-sharing arrangements for refugees.

Overall it is UNHCR’s position that, while in principle each State Party to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol has a responsibility to examine refugee claims made to it, “burden-sharing” arrangements allowing for readmission and determination of status elsewhere are reasonable, provided they always ensure protection of refugees and solutions to their problems.

All of this however leads us back to the question. For whom is Mexico a safe nation? Is a Guatemalan escaping gang threats going to be safe in Mexico from the threat of gang violence? Thus we come back to my question. If our administration is going to portray Mexico as a violent narco infested cesspool with a corrupt government, how can they simultaneously declare it a "first safe nation" for refugee purposes?

[cherrypoptart]

Seriati

"There's no LEGITIMATE reason to object to such a plan."

It doesn't help the Democrats win elections. That's the only "legitimate" reason they need, for anything. Anyway, massive immigration both legal and illegal for the purpose of power is the reason they are doing what they're doing. And it's successful. Ilhan Omar is proof of that. Not likely she'd be in office otherwise.

[Pete at Home]

First safe country concept is endorsed by the UN as a reasonable interpretation of the rules on asylum and in fact the process that most of the countries in the world follow.

Refugees are in fact not required under international or the UN law to stay in the first safe country.

As for countries that have unilaterally decided on such a policy, UNHCR has this to say.

In so far as application of the concept would a priori preclude a whole group of asylum-seekers from refugee status, in UNHCR’s view this would be inconsistent with the spirit and possibly the letter of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In particular:

It would be a reservation de facto to Article I A (2) of the Convention and would thus be in violation of Article 42, which prohibits reservations to this first Article.

It would introduce de facto a new geographical limitation to the Convention, which is incompatible with the intent of the 1967 Protocol to the Convention and runs counter to broadly based international opinion, as reflected in Executive Committee conclusions, in favour of application of the Convention without geographic restrictions.

It would be inconsistent with Article 3 of the 1951 Convention which requires States to apply its provisions without discrimination as to country of origin.

It would be inconsistent with the individual character of refugee status and the subjective nature of fear of persecution, which requires evaluation of the applicant’s statements, rather than solely a judgement on situations prevailing in countries of origin.

It is conceivable (given the inevitable imprecision of judgements about prevailing human rights situations in countries, as well the pace at which such situations can evolve) that strict application of the concept could lead to individuals being returned to situations of danger to life, in violation of the Article 33 prohibition against refoulement.

It is true that they don't preclude nations from pursuing burden-sharing arrangements for refugees.

Overall it is UNHCR’s position that, while in principle each State Party to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol has a responsibility to examine refugee claims made to it, “burden-sharing” arrangements allowing for readmission and determination of status elsewhere are reasonable, provided they always ensure protection of refugees and solutions to their problems.

All of this however leads us back to the question. For whom is Mexico a safe nation? Is a Guatemalan escaping gang threats going to be safe in Mexico from the threat of gang violence? Thus we come back to my question. If our administration is going to portray Mexico as a violent narco infested cesspool with a corrupt government, how can they simultaneously declare it a "first safe nation" for refugee purposes?

Remedial Ed on Latin America:

Guatemala is threatened by “gangs”
Mexico by “cartels”
Honduras by the oligarchal elites of -20 aristocratic families that Secretary Clinton helped execute a femicidal coup d’etat

I’m mystified as to why you think Mexico’s cartels would enforce killings for Guatemalan street gangs, but I do hope you will recognize that the cartels aren’t bound to carry water for Honduras’ aristocratic oligarchy. 

[TheDrake]

Didn't say it was the same gang. Just the same unsafe situation.

[Pete at Home]

Didn't say it was the same gang. Just the same unsafe situation.

I didn’t say it was safe. We aren’t in the business of emptying entire unsafe countries. I’m saying that absent unusual circumstances, a Guatemalan or Honduran refugee may be reasonably safe in Mexico, having escaped their native persecutors.

[TheDrake]

Uh, yeah we should be taking in anyone fleeing from a *censored*hole country incapable of providing security for families that had the misfortune to be born there. They'll be safe in Mexico for about 4-5 months until the local gangs find that there are some teenagers to coerce and exploit.

[Seriati]

Uh, yeah we should be taking in anyone fleeing from a *censored*hole country incapable of providing security for families that had the misfortune to be born there. They'll be safe in Mexico for about 4-5 months until the local gangs find that there are some teenagers to coerce and exploit.

If that's to be the real policy then I have a better solution.  Let's conquer those countries and eliminate the gangs and corrupt leadership then there's no reason for their population to leave.  That saves everyone rather than just the asylum privileged class that was able to arrange to get to the US.  There's really no serious way to morally reconcile "everyone in danger has the right to permanently relocate to America" with a policy of not taking over unsafe countries. 

[TheDrake]

Uh, yeah we should be taking in anyone fleeing from a *censored*hole country incapable of providing security for families that had the misfortune to be born there. They'll be safe in Mexico for about 4-5 months until the local gangs find that there are some teenagers to coerce and exploit.

If that's to be the real policy then I have a better solution.  Let's conquer those countries and eliminate the gangs and corrupt leadership then there's no reason for their population to leave.  That saves everyone rather than just the asylum privileged class that was able to arrange to get to the US.  There's really no serious way to morally reconcile "everyone in danger has the right to permanently relocate to America" with a policy of not taking over unsafe countries.

Sure worked like a charm in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Seriati]

Didn't realize we'd made them US terratories and US citizens.  Can you point me to the news I missed?

[TheDrake]

You just advocated invading countries to make them better, rather than providing asylum?

[TheDeamon]

Uh, yeah we should be taking in anyone fleeing from a *censored*hole country incapable of providing security for families that had the misfortune to be born there. They'll be safe in Mexico for about 4-5 months until the local gangs find that there are some teenagers to coerce and exploit.

If that's to be the real policy then I have a better solution.  Let's conquer those countries and eliminate the gangs and corrupt leadership then there's no reason for their population to leave.  That saves everyone rather than just the asylum privileged class that was able to arrange to get to the US.  There's really no serious way to morally reconcile "everyone in danger has the right to permanently relocate to America" with a policy of not taking over unsafe countries.

Easier option is to find a way to either defund, or decriminalize the main revenue streams for the cartels. They largely exist because of "the war on drugs" so finding a resolution to that should help address the other.

Strong border security helps on one front, but there is more to the puzzle than just that, as you're never going to be able to completely secure a large border when there is enough money in play. As there obviously is with regards to both drugs and human trafficking.

[Seriati]

You just advocated invading countries to make them better, rather than providing asylum?

No I advocated conquering them, making them into America.

[TheDeamon]

You just advocated invading countries to make them better, rather than providing asylum?

No I advocated conquering them, making them into America.

I'd rather not, they're as open to the idea of socialism as your typical left-wit. We don't need to add them to our voter pool until our current batch of idiots are taken care of.

[Seriati]

Lol.  I'm sure that's the least of the problems with an actual Imperial America making the world over in it's own superior image.

[Grant]

LOL. Right. Mexico is the most dangerous country on earth.

Murder rate by country:

Honduras-  41.7
Guatemala-  26.1
Mexico- 24.8

United States- 5.3


Switzerland- 0.5
Japan- 0.2
Monaco-  0.00


Murder rate by City- Top 13 in the World, per 10,000

1. Los Cabos, Mexico.  111.33
2. Caracas, Venezuela   111.19
3. Acapulco,  Mexico    106.63
4. Natal, Brazil     102.56
5. Tijuana, Mexico  100.77
6. La Paz, Mexico   84.79
7. Fortaleza, Brazil  83.48
8. Ciudad Victoria, Mexico  83.32
9. Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela  80.28
10. Belem, Brazil   71.38
11. Vitoria da Conquista, Brazil   70.26
12. Cuilacan, Mexico  70.10
13. St. Louis, United States  65.83

21. Baltimore, United States  55.48

41.  New Orleans!, Louisiana 40.10


Bonus points:  Death rate in Syria, 2016-  55.22


So yeah, Crunch, all of Mexico is Cancun. 

It's true that the United States has no obligation towards refugees.  People have obligations towards refugees, not the government.  The real question is; what obligations does the government have to restrict immigration to the United States?

The obvious #1 answer is security.  Not many would dispute that. 

The #2 answer is economics, which is a double edged sword.  Immigration assists the economy as a whole but harms certain members. 

Answer #3 is racial or cultural purity.  Pretty contentious.  Not sure what it's supposed to look like.  Maybe a screening test that only allows people who love Def Leopard, and the Police Academy movies to immigrate. 

Answer #4 is political advantage.  Definitely contentious, but honestly, if all new citizens were voting Republican, the tables would probably be turned. 

So which category do these refugees seeking asylum fall into?  Are they bringing suitcase nukes and cocaine over the border?  Are they going to crash the economy of Los Angeles?  Are they bringing harmful ideas?  Or they just too damn brown?

[Grant]

If that's to be the real policy then I have a better solution.  Let's conquer those countries and eliminate the gangs and corrupt leadership then there's no reason for their population to leave.  That saves everyone rather than just the asylum privileged class that was able to arrange to get to the US.  There's really no serious way to morally reconcile "everyone in danger has the right to permanently relocate to America" with a policy of not taking over unsafe countries.

Finally!  Finally someone is with me on this!  Listen, I already have a plan.  I call it WarPlan White.  Not after the old colored warplans from the 1930s, or even some race thing (though the white nationalists would probably love it), but from Ron White the comedian. 

Here is the plan:  We roll into Mexico City and basically knock off the Mexican Government.  Do a little cleanup.  Not serious occupation.  Pretty much like we did with Iraq.  We shouldn't have to draft but 5 extra Light Infantry Divisions, and an extra Marine Division.  Great for the economy. 

Then... we sell the whole thing to Russia.  They are really in the market for beach front property.  Look at what they are spending for Crimea.  They will go nuts for Mexico.  We put Russia on a payment plan, start wiping out the national debt.  And who could make such a brilliant DEAL, but the DEALMAKER IN CHIEF, Puter's BFF, President Donald Trump.  Amendment XXII repeal guaranteed!

Then!  Then!  We let the Russians do the majority of the occupation and cleaning.  We let it go for cheap.  Let them round up the gangs and deal with rebels.  Give them a couple of years.  Eventually Russia is going to go broke and default on the payments.  Then, we roll back into Mexico as LIBERTADORES!  We crush Puter's nuts, the Mexicans are now happy we are there, and we got paid by the people who's ass we kicked!  I'm going to be famous.  George Marshall Nobel Peace Prize famous. 

Or we can let some refugees in.  Which is boring. 

[DonaldD]

It's true that the United States has no obligation towards refugees

This is not true.  The United States is a signatory of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the key multilateral treaty in international refugee law.

It lays out, among other things, the responsibilities of signatory states to those defined as refugees under the treaty. So yes, the United States has agreed that it does have obligations to refugees.

[Grant]

This is not true.  The United States is a signatory of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the key multilateral treaty in international refugee law.

It lays out, among other things, the responsibilities of signatory states to those defined as refugees under the treaty. So yes, the United States has agreed that it does have obligations to refugees.

This is technically incorrect, which is the worse kind of incorrect, by logical inversion of the Conrad Principle.  Technically, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is what laid out signatory responsibilities towards refugees, not the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which simply expanded the obligations temporally and spatially.  Also, since the convention only applies to signatories and is not designated as a fundamental human right by UN Law, one could argue that the fundamental obligation is to adhere to your treaty agreements, rather than an obligation towards refugees. 

Bwahhhhahahhahahaaahahhahhahaha!