Government photos show detained migrants pleading for help

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nope. They can apply anywhere they like.

And before that you said

"Its international law on Migrants even in the absence of any such agreements. Even those migrants who legitimately fled El Salvador, Nicaragua or Honduras because they feared for their safety, went to Mexico and eliminated those threats. They continued to the US for purely economic and other reasons."
​

So, am I to take from your latest post that you DO NOT say that they MUST apply in Mexico AND, if they do not apply in Mexico then they do not qualify if they apply in the US (to the point where they should not be allowed to apply for refugee/asylee status?

If that is what you are saying - now - then you are in direct opposition to the latest version of the currently operative, officially approved, "Team Trump" endorsed, "Truth-of-the-Day".

Not only that, but if that is what you are saying - now - you are agreeing with me that they DO have the right to apply to the US government for refugee/asylee status in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

Please return your MAGA hat to "Team Trump" immediately.

 

[bluesmoke]

Lock'm up! Lock'm up! Lock'm up! Oh, wait... Hang'm! Hang'm! Hang'm!

 

[Mason66]

Canada would do exactly what the laws of Canada required be done. They would be allowed to apply (in accordance with international law, treaty law, and domestic law), and their applications would be adjudicated in accordance with Canadian law (as provided for by international law, treaty lae, and domestic law). Unfortunately for you, Canadian law indicates that, since the US is a "Safe First Country", those applications would be rejected (as provided for by international law, treaty law, and domestic law) and the people would be returned to the United States of America (as provided for by international law, treaty law, and domestic law).

You might not have realized it, but the"Safe First Country Agreement" (which is a part of the law in BOTH Canada and the United States of America) was something that the US government insisted upon - and got.

Now, what the procedure is SUPPOSED TO BE, in the US those people are supposed (as provided for by international law, treaty law, and domestic law) to be allowed to apply for refugee/asylee status, then those applications are suppose to be adjudicated pursuant to American law (as provided for by international law, treaty law, and domestic law), and, if rejected the people are supposed to be returned to the country from which they entered the United States of America (as provided for by international law, treaty law, and domestic law). If someone attempted to "illegally enter" the United States of America from Canada and then to make a claim for refugee/asylee status, then the US would be quite legally correct to reject that claim under the provisions of the SFCA and return the person to Canada.

Why the Canadian government/people should assist the US government in breaching international law, treaty law, and domestic law just because you want to see the US government breach international law, treaty law, and domestic law is totally beyond the comprehension of any rational person.

PS - Canada already accepts more refugees (in ABSOLUTE numbers and not just on a per capita basis) than the US does.

What would Canada do with the amount of people that are currently applying for asylum in the US?

Do they just let hundreds of thousands of people roam around their country while waiting for the hearing?

I have seen those airport border shows. It is hard to get into Canada unless you have all your paperwork in order.

 

[Mason66]

If the US has a FSCA with Mexico, then that would be the case for the US - unfortunately for your argument, the US does NOT have a FSCA with Mexico. If Canada has a FSCA with Mexico, then that would be the case for Canada - unfortunately for your argument, Canada does NOT have a FSCA with Mexico.

Additionally, it is slightly difficult for someone to cross the Canada/Mexico border and then apply for refugee/asylee status (you might not have noticed it, but there is no Canada/Mexico border).

PS - If you want to actually take a look at the actual terms of the actual Canada/US SFCA, you will see that it provides for the return (by "Country A") of someone who COULD have applied for refugee/asylee status in "Country B" but who didn't, to "Country B". That means that even if the US government did load up semi-trailer vans with Mexicans and trucked they across the US to Canada, they wouldn't be eligible for entry because of the Canada/US SFCA.

PPS - Anyone who actually thinks that Mexico (outside of the heavily policed tourist trap areas) is a "safe country" will be moved to the head of the waiting list for admission to "The Home". Anyone who thinks that the heavily policed tourist trap areas in Mexico are "safer" than any of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, or even Fredericton will have their names moved up 25 places on the waiting list for admission to "The Home".

How is the determination made as to whether it is a safe country or not?

There are many parts of the US I would not venture into. Should those areas be used as the example of the whole country?

 

[NiceGuyEddie]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What would Canada do with the amount of people that are currently applying for asylum in the US?

Quite frankly, the Canadian government would have an impossible task on their hands. Now if the number was roughly in proportion to the relative populations of Canada and the US, the current system would be strained, but likely not broken.

Do they just let hundreds of thousands of people roam around their country while waiting for the hearing?

Actually that rather does describe what happens (absent the implied pejoratives).

You might not know this, but the "Fail To Appear" rate is approximately 3.4% in Canada.

I have seen those airport border shows. It is hard to get into Canada unless you have all your paperwork in order.

It's pretty difficult to get past US Customs unless you have your paperwork in order too. Of course, to get to US Customs you have to enter the US first and there is absolutely no paperwork required to do that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How is the determination made as to whether it is a safe country or not?

If you are talking about an SFCA, then that is a mutual decision of the governments of the two countries involved in the SFCA. If there is no SFCA, then the domestic laws of the country that the person is seeking entry to apply and (in the US) there is no provision for rejecting an application for refugee/asylee status simply because "the applicant is no longer in their country of origin".

There are many parts of the US I would not venture into. Should those areas be used as the example of the whole country?

The issue is NOT whether the US (per se) is "safer" than the applicant's country of origin, but only whether the applicant will face the same type of persecution in the US as they claimed that they were facing in their country of origin.

 

[Mason66]

If you are talking about an SFCA, then that is a mutual decision of the governments of the two countries involved in the SFCA. If there is no SFCA, then the domestic laws of the country that the person is seeking entry to apply and (in the US) there is no provision for rejecting an application for refugee/asylee status simply because "the applicant is no longer in their country of origin".



The issue is NOT whether the US (per se) is "safer" than the applicant's country of origin, but only whether the applicant will face the same type of persecution in the US as they claimed that they were facing in their country of origin.

You said Mexico was not a safe country. Who made that determination? Why would you think the person asking for asylum in the US would not be safe in Mexico?

 

[dixon01767]

And before that you said

"Its international law on Migrants even in the absence of any such agreements. Even those migrants who legitimately fled El Salvador, Nicaragua or Honduras because they feared for their safety, went to Mexico and eliminated those threats. They continued to the US for purely economic and other reasons."
​

.

You are demonstrating my point for me and demonstrationg that the views you assign to me are a product of your own imagination.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You said Mexico was not a safe country.

Indeed I did.

Possibly the term "drug cartel" is not totally unfamiliar to you, but maybe it is.

Who made that determination?

That decision is made in two ways. The first is by looking at the crime and corruption statistics. The second is made by the person who wishes to apply for refugee/asylee status.

Why would you think the person asking for asylum in the US would not be safe in Mexico?

What I think is irrelevant since I am not seeking refugee/asylee status.

However, if I were to be in such a position and I were to compare both Mexico and the US to my country of origin, I would find that there was very little difference between my country of origin and Mexico. You might want to think of is as choosing between

1. moving from a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Cripps" to a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Bloods"; and
2. moving from a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Cripps" to a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Salvation Army".
   
   However, to return to your original question "How is the determination made as to whether it is a safe country or not?" the answer is
   
   
   If you are talking about an SFCA, then that is a mutual decision of the governments of the two countries involved in the SFCA. If there is no SFCA, then the domestic laws of the country that the person is seeking entry to apply and (in the US) there is no provision for rejecting an application for refugee/asylee status simply because "the applicant is no longer in their country of origin".
   ​
   
   You do realize that it would assist you in discussing the legal ramifications of what the law actually is if you would actually pay some attention to what the law actually is.
   
   You might also want to realize that "I think that the law shouldn't be what it is so the appropriate course of action is to completely ignore what the law actually is and do whatever I feel like doing." is a legal position that is only slightly better at supporting a position than 33[SUP]o[/SUP] F water is at supporting a 5# rock.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You are demonstrating my point for me and demonstrationg that the views you assign to me are a product of your own imagination.

If by "demonstrating my point for me" you mean accurately quoting you when you say totally opposite things in order to prove that you are saying totally opposite things, you are 100% correct.

If you don't believe that I quoted you correctly, then I suggest that you take a look at

Its international law on Migrants even in the absence of any such agreements. Even those migrants who legitimately fled El Salvador, Nicaragua or Honduras because they feared for their safety, went to Mexico and eliminated those threats. They continued to the US for purely economic and other reasons.

which is Post 46 of this thread.

If your memory span means that you cannot remember things that you said 2 days, 2 hours, and 54 minutes previously, you have my sympathies.

 

[Mason66]

Indeed I did.

Possibly the term "drug cartel" is not totally unfamiliar to you, but maybe it is.



That decision is made in two ways. The first is by looking at the crime and corruption statistics. The second is made by the person who wishes to apply for refugee/asylee status.



What I think is irrelevant since I am not seeking refugee/asylee status.

However, if I were to be in such a position and I were to compare both Mexico and the US to my country of origin, I would find that there was very little difference between my country of origin and Mexico. You might want to think of is as choosing between

1. moving from a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Cripps" to a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Bloods"; and
2. moving from a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Cripps" to a neighbourhood "controlled" by "The Salvation Army".
   
   However, to return to your original question "How is the determination made as to whether it is a safe country or not?" the answer is
   
   If you are talking about an SFCA, then that is a mutual decision of the governments of the two countries involved in the SFCA. If there is no SFCA, then the domestic laws of the country that the person is seeking entry to apply and (in the US) there is no provision for rejecting an application for refugee/asylee status simply because "the applicant is no longer in their country of origin".
   ​
   
   You do realize that it would assist you in discussing the legal ramifications of what the law actually is if you would actually pay some attention to what the law actually is.
   
   You might also want to realize that "I think that the law shouldn't be what it is so the appropriate course of action is to completely ignore what the law actually is and do whatever I feel like doing." is a legal position that is only slightly better at supporting a position than 33[SUP]o[/SUP] F water is at supporting a 5# rock.

1. 
   
   Since I live In Sinaloa and El Chapo was caught a block from my sons school, no I have no idea what a drug cartel is.
   
   If you look at your crime stats, it says there are a few more murders in Mexico but the US beats Mexico in rapes by huge margins.
   
   It looks by your stats, the US is a very dangerous country to live in, if you are a female at least.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Since I live In Sinaloa and El Chapo was caught a block from my sons school, no I have no idea what a drug cartel is.

Well, if that is the case, and I don't doubt you for a moment, it appears that you haven't quite internalized what you "know".

If you look at your crime stats, it says there are a few more murders in Mexico but the US beats Mexico in rapes by huge margins.

An "intentional homicide rate" of 19.26/100,000 (Mexico's) is "slightly" more than a "few" more than an "intentional homicide rate" of 5.35/100,000 (the US's).

Indeed Mexico (13.2/100,000) has a lower rate of reported rape than the US (27.3/100,000).

It looks by your stats, the US is a very dangerous country to live in, if you are a female at least.

(Mexico combined rape and murder per 100,000) 19.26 + 13.2 = 32.46

(US combined rape and murder per 100,000) 5.35 + 27.3 = 32.65

Mexico has the slight edge however, the statistics on rape are MUCH more susceptible to "reporting rate" (which means that the victim reported the crime) than are the statistics on murder (where there is no requirement that the victim report the crime).

The percentage survival rates for rapes that do not include murders closely approximates 100%.

The percentage survival rates for murders (regardless of whether they involve rapes) closely approximates 0.00%.

That means that you have a better chance of being alive in the US than you have in Mexico REGARDLESS of whether you are male or female.

As before, the judgment on whether a specific country is a "safe country" for a specific person depends on that person's own judgment.

However, it's always fun bantering with people who believe that the only way to discuss what the law actually is is to pretend that the law is whatever they think it should be.

 

[dixon01767]

If by "demonstrating my point for me" you mean accurately quoting you when you say totally opposite things .....

But you havent. YOU assigned different strawman arguments to me saying totally opposite things. I suspect that was by design so you could pretend you had something relevant to contribute.

 

[dixon01767]

Well, if that is the case, and I don't doubt you for a moment, it appears that you haven't quite internalized what you "know".



An "intentional homicide rate" of 19.26/100,000 (Mexico's) is "slightly" more than a "few" more than an "intentional homicide rate" of 5.35/100,000 (the US's).

Indeed Mexico (13.2/100,000) has a lower rate of reported rape than the US (27.3/100,000).



(Mexico combined rape and murder per 100,000) 19.26 + 13.2 = 32.46

(US combined rape and murder per 100,000) 5.35 + 27.3 = 32.65

Mexico has the slight edge however, the statistics on rape are MUCH more susceptible to "reporting rate" (which means that the victim reported the crime) than are the statistics on murder (where there is no requirement that the victim report the crime).

The percentage survival rates for rapes that do not include murders closely approximates 100%.

The percentage survival rates for murders (regardless of whether they involve rapes) closely approximates 0.00%.

That means that you have a better chance of being alive in the US than you have in Mexico REGARDLESS of whether you are male or female.

As before, the judgment on whether a specific country is a "safe country" for a specific person depends on that person's own judgment.

However, it's always fun bantering with people who believe that the only way to discuss what the law actually is is to pretend that the law is whatever they think it should be.

Well, at least we can see the liberals interpretation of assylum laws. The entire population of Mexico and Central America are entitled to assylum in America.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Here's a hint, the problem isn't bed space. It's Trump's policies that are the problem. But go ahead and think rounding up illegals in concentration camps is the solution. Cons like you are what allow dictators to come into power.

You keep saying trump's policies, but which, exactly? Obama had similar complaints and lawsuits about detention centers. It would seem these issues actually do require money to solve, do you really want to fix the problem, or do you just want to let it continue?

 

[Praxas]

You keep saying trump's policies, but which, exactly? Obama had similar complaints and lawsuits about detention centers. It would seem these issues actually do require money to solve, do you really want to fix the problem, or do you just want to let it continue?

No, Obama's policy wasn't to zero tolerance separate children from their parents.

 

[dixon01767]

You keep saying trump's policies, but which, exactly?

THE LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS. They just call them "Trump policies" because he chooses to enforce them.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, Obama's policy wasn't to zero tolerance separate children from their parents.

But again, the complaints were just as bad. It would seem that, whatever the policies are, they didn't affect the quality of the detention centers. They were ALWAYS bad.

 

[Praxas]

But again, the complaints were just as bad. It would seem that, whatever the policies are, they didn't affect the quality of the detention centers. They were ALWAYS bad.

Of course there were complaints, who wants to be in there? Of course, the situation was exasperated and much more overcrowding with Trump's zero tolerance application of the policies. Add into the fact children the Trump admin can't even track the children to their parents anymore and it adds much more.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But you havent.

In light of the fact that I have provided exact quotations (that's what C&P tends to do, you know), references to specific posts, and links to your actual posts, I have some slight difficulty in comprehending the mental processes that have lead you to that conclusion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well, at least we can see the liberals interpretation of assylum laws. The entire population of Mexico and Central America are entitled to assylum in America.

Not at all what I said.

The FACT is that, UNDER AMERICAN (and international) LAW, those people are entitled to APPLY (assuming that they reach the United States of America) for refugee/asylee status.

The FACT is that, UNDER AMERICAN (and international) LAW, the US government is entitled to determine whether those applications will be granted AND is entitled to do so UNDER AMERICAN LAW.

Quite frankly, someone from Switzerland is entitled, UNDER AMERICAN (and international) LAW, to APPLY for refugee/asylee status if they manage to reach the United States of America. The odds on the US government approving that application, after the application of AMERICAN LAW are vanishingly small BUT that does not detract from the person's right to APPLY.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

THE LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS. They just call them "Trump policies" because he chooses to enforce them.

"Policy" refers to HOW the enacted laws are ENFORCED.

 

[dixon01767]

In light of the fact that I have provided exact quotations (that's what C&P tends to do, you know), references to specific posts, and links to your actual posts, I have some slight difficulty in comprehending the mental processes that have lead you to that conclusion.

Yes youve provided exact quotes. Just not any two quotes that say the "opposite" thing. Of course, you long ago could have simply put the two quotes next to each other to prove your point and I have noticed that you still have not.

 

[dixon01767]

Not at all what I said.

The FACT is that, UNDER AMERICAN (and international) LAW, those people are entitled to APPLY (assuming that they reach the United States of America) for refugee/asylee status..

A fact no one has disputed. YOUR strawmen are not my arguments. AND the standards for who can "APPLY" and who is granted assylum are not the same.