[W:58] President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US

[TU Curmudgeon]

From Associated Press

President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US
​

GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — A Guatemalan immigration agreement signed with the Trump administration won’t work because the Central American nation does not have the resources, the country’s new president-elect says.

Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who was chosen overwhelmingly by voters in a weekend runoff election, said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that Guatemala is too poor to tend to its own people, let alone those from other countries.

The agreement signed in July by the outgoing administration of President Jimmy Morales would require migrants from other countries who cross into Guatemala to apply for asylum here rather than in the U.S.

“In order to be a safe country, one has to be certified as such by an international body, and I do not think Guatemala fulfills the requirements to be a third safe country. That definition doesn’t fit us,” said Giammattei, a 63-year-old doctor.

COMMENT:-

It looks like this is yet another "deal" that has absolutely no substance (and never was intended to have any), BUT since negotiations over the "secret protocols" are still ongoing, I rather suspect that it is possible that one of the things that is under discussion is how much money the US government will be paying to the Guatemalan government every month to cover the costs of dealing with the people who are being "retained" in Guatemala (and how soon after the first missed payment "the deal" expires).

But, then again, everyone knows that I'm a cynic.
​

 

[Grand Mal]

From Associated Press

President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US
​

GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — A Guatemalan immigration agreement signed with the Trump administration won’t work because the Central American nation does not have the resources, the country’s new president-elect says.

Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who was chosen overwhelmingly by voters in a weekend runoff election, said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that Guatemala is too poor to tend to its own people, let alone those from other countries.

The agreement signed in July by the outgoing administration of President Jimmy Morales would require migrants from other countries who cross into Guatemala to apply for asylum here rather than in the U.S.

“In order to be a safe country, one has to be certified as such by an international body, and I do not think Guatemala fulfills the requirements to be a third safe country. That definition doesn’t fit us,” said Giammattei, a 63-year-old doctor.

COMMENT:-

It looks like this is yet another "deal" that has absolutely no substance (and never was intended to have any), BUT since negotiations over the "secret protocols" are still ongoing, I rather suspect that it is possible that one of the things that is under discussion is how much money the US government will be paying to the Guatemalan government every month to cover the costs of dealing with the people who are being "retained" in Guatemala (and how soon after the first missed payment "the deal" expires).

But, then again, everyone knows that I'm a cynic.
​

They can't do that! A newly-elected President can't renege on an agreement made by his predecessor!
Can he?

 

[swing_voter]

How come Canada doesn't take this flood of refugees in? I thought you were supposed to be the nice guys?

Just give the word and we'll send you 100,000 of them.

The president of Guatemala is trying to shake us down for money.

 

[Grand Mal]

How come Canada doesn't take this flood of refugees in? I thought you were supposed to be the nice guys?

Just give the word and we'll send you 100,000 of them.

The president of Guatemala is trying to shake us down for money.

Canada has taken in about 60,000 Syrian refugees since 2015 (I think). Seamlessly. And we can't handle the number of refugees crossing from the USA already. So you'll have to solve this yourselves.

 

[swing_voter]

Canada has taken in about 60,000 Syrian refugees since 2015 (I think). Seamlessly. And we can't handle the number of refugees crossing from the USA already. So you'll have to solve this yourselves.

We took in Syrian refugees too. That was then, this is now.

Why doesn't Canada take in 100,000 Honduran refugees?

 

[apdst]

They can't do that! A newly-elected President can't renege on an agreement made by his predecessor!
Can he?

Sure he can, I guess. It's irrelevant because our president can damn sure cut off the $300 million a year that we give to Guatemala. I bet that'll change their tune.

 

[Lovebug]

From Associated Press

President-elect says Guatemala can’t do migrant deal with US
​

GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — A Guatemalan immigration agreement signed with the Trump administration won’t work because the Central American nation does not have the resources, the country’s new president-elect says.

Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who was chosen overwhelmingly by voters in a weekend runoff election, said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that Guatemala is too poor to tend to its own people, let alone those from other countries.

The agreement signed in July by the outgoing administration of President Jimmy Morales would require migrants from other countries who cross into Guatemala to apply for asylum here rather than in the U.S.

“In order to be a safe country, one has to be certified as such by an international body, and I do not think Guatemala fulfills the requirements to be a third safe country. That definition doesn’t fit us,” said Giammattei, a 63-year-old doctor.

COMMENT:-

It looks like this is yet another "deal" that has absolutely no substance (and never was intended to have any), BUT since negotiations over the "secret protocols" are still ongoing, I rather suspect that it is possible that one of the things that is under discussion is how much money the US government will be paying to the Guatemalan government every month to cover the costs of dealing with the people who are being "retained" in Guatemala (and how soon after the first missed payment "the deal" expires).

But, then again, everyone knows that I'm a cynic.
​

More money would grease the squeaky wheel?

 

[Amelia]

They can't do that! A newly-elected President can't renege on an agreement made by his predecessor!
Can he?

 

[Amelia]

Their court had already said they couldn't do it.

Now their incoming president says they can't do it.



So, yeah, more smoke blowing by our xenophobia-pushing-screw-up-in-chief.

 

[prometeus]

They can't do that! A newly-elected President can't renege on an agreement made by his predecessor!
Can he?

We could ask Trump.

 

[ttwtt78640]

More money would grease the squeaky wheel?

You may be onto the basis for most diplomatic solutions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We took in Syrian refugees too. That was then, this is now.

Why doesn't Canada take in 100,000 Honduran refugees?

Because they are smarter than that is my best guess.

 

[apdst]

Canada has taken in about 60,000 Syrian refugees since 2015 (I think). Seamlessly. And we can't handle the number of refugees crossing from the USA already. So you'll have to solve this yourselves.

The solution is to bus them all to the Canadian border and tell them: "Ve al norte y Canadá te cuidará"

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Because they are smarter than that is my best guess.

In general they would not qualify for refugees in Canada, and would be sent back. Next issue is the same one the US, refugees are usually required to claim status in the first safe haven. As most travel by land for Canada that would be the US, as such by the agreement Canada and the US have, they would be sent back to the US.

The "refugees" from Central America could present a case that Mexico is not a safe haven (just as violent). But realistically the US should reject the claims (after due process) for most as most are not really able to claim refugee status.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They can't do that! A newly-elected President can't renege on an agreement made by his predecessor!
Can he?

As near as I can make out, Mr. Trump managed to negotiate a deal to talk about potentially making a deal and the Guatemalans are still talking about potentially making a deal - so they haven't reneged on anything.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How come Canada doesn't take this flood of refugees in? I thought you were supposed to be the nice guys?

Unfortunately the laws of Canada include a "Safe Third Country Agreement" (which the US government insisted upon) between Canada and the United States of America and Canada can no more legally accept refugees attempting to enter Canada from the US than the US can legally accept refugees attempting to enter the US from Canada.

Yes, I know that the idea that the government of a country should actually comply with the laws of the country DOES sound rather strange to some people, but it does happen once in a while.

PS - Do you know the difference between "ASKING FOR refugee/asylee status" and "BEING GRANTED refugee/asylee status"? Did you know that different laws govern whether someone is ENTITLED TO ASK for refugee/asylee status and to whether someone is ENTITLED TO BE GRANTED refugee/asylee status?

Just give the word and we'll send you 100,000 of them.

Canada already accepts more refugees (both in absolute numbers and as a ration to population) than the US does.

The president of Guatemala is trying to shake us down for money.

Well, wouldn't you want to be paid for housing, feeding, clothing, educating, and providing medical services to "guests" that you have because someone else asked you to take them in? Wouldn't you expect that the person who asked you to take them in should pay for those things if those "guests" can't?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We took in Syrian refugees too. That was then, this is now.

Why doesn't Canada take in 100,000 Honduran refugees?

The minute they cross the Honduras/Canada border (or otherwise actually arrive in Canada) their APPLICATIONS for refugee/asylee status will be accepted. After that their cases will be processed in accordance with Canadian law. If found to qualify (under the terms of Canadian law) for refugee/asylee status, they will be granted that status.

At law, the situation in the US is that minute they cross the Honduras/US border (or otherwise actually arrive in the US) their APPLICATIONS for refugee/asylee status are to be accepted. After that their cases are to be processed in accordance with American law. If found to qualify (under the terms of American law) for refugee/asylee status, they are to be granted that status.

As you can see, the situations in Canada and the United States of America are totally dissimilar.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sure he can, I guess. It's irrelevant because our president can damn sure cut off the $300 million a year that we give to Guatemala. I bet that'll change their tune.

Quite right.

Why everyone knows that there isn't another country in the world that has $300,000,000 that it could provide to Guatemala. That means that if the US cuts off its $300,000,000 (which it currently is NOT actually providing to Guatemala) then the Guatemalans will simply have to suck rocks in order to replace the US money that it currently isn't getting.

 

[sjmay]

Didn't see this, but has anyone accused him of being racist yet?

 

[eman623]

Suddenly last weekend's raids on the Mississippi poultry packing plants make sense. It's mostly Guatemalan illegals working there.

This might be Trump playing hardball.

 

[Harshaw]

Canada has taken in about 60,000 Syrian refugees since 2015 (I think). Seamlessly. And we can't handle the number of refugees crossing from the USA already. So you'll have to solve this yourselves.

Sure you can. You're the beacon of humanitarianism in North America, aren't you? You've got more space than we do, and 1/10th of the population. You've got the room, and you've got the moral superiority.

So, we can start sending them through any time.

Or is your objection to Honduran refugees actually something else?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The solution is to bus them all to the Canadian border and tell them: "Ve al norte y Canadá te cuidará"

Where they will be greeted with

"Welcome to Canada. Please produce your passports and visas (if required). Anyone who does not have both a passport and a visa (if required) will not be admitted to Canada and will have to return to the United States of America. If you intend to make a claim for refugee status, and if you are entering Canada from the United States of America, your claim is barred by the terms of Canadian and American law so you will be denied entry to Canada and you will have to return to the United States of America."

"Bienvenue au Canada. Veuillez produire vos passeports et visas (si nécessaire). Les personnes qui ne possèdent pas à la fois un passeport et un visa (si nécessaire) ne seront pas admises au Canada et devront retourner aux États-Unis d'Amérique. Si vous avez l'intention de demander le statut de réfugié et si vous entrez au Canada en provenance des États-Unis d'Amérique, votre demande est interdite par les dispositions des lois Canadiennes et Américaines, de sorte que l'entrée au Canada vous sera refusée et que vous devrez revenir aux États-Unis d'Amérique."
​

The possibility that the people attempting to force others across the Canadian border with the United States of America will be arrested and charged with "Unlawful Confinement", "Kidnapping", "Assault", and/or "Illegal Possession of a Firearm" cannot be completely ruled out.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sure you can. You're the beacon of humanitarianism in North America, aren't you? You've got more space than we do, and 1/10th of the population. You've got the room, and you've got the moral superiority.

So, we can start sending them through any time.

Or is your objection to Honduran refugees actually something else?

Not legally you can't.

If you don't like the laws that your own government insisted be passed, then why not get your own government to change the laws of the United States of America?

 

[Harshaw]

Where they will be greeted with

"Welcome to Canada. Please produce your passports and visas (if required). Anyone who does not have both a passport and a visa (if required) will not be admitted to Canada and will have to return to the United States of America. If you intend to make a claim for refugee status, and if you are entering Canada from the United States of America, your claim is barred by the terms of Canadian and American law so you will be denied entry to Canada and you will have to return to the United States of America."

"Bienvenue au Canada. Veuillez produire vos passeports et visas (si nécessaire). Les personnes qui ne possèdent pas à la fois un passeport et un visa (si nécessaire) ne seront pas admises au Canada et devront retourner aux États-Unis d'Amérique. Si vous avez l'intention de demander le statut de réfugié et si vous entrez au Canada en provenance des États-Unis d'Amérique, votre demande est interdite par les dispositions des lois Canadiennes et Américaines, de sorte que l'entrée au Canada vous sera refusée et que vous devrez revenir aux États-Unis d'Amérique."
​

The possibility that the people attempting to force others across the Canadian border with the United States of America will be arrested and charged with "Unlawful Confinement", "Kidnapping", "Assault", and/or "Illegal Possession of a Firearm" cannot be completely ruled out.

Why, specifically, should they be denied entry into Canada? Do tell.

 

[Harshaw]

Not legally you can't.

If you don't like the laws that your own government insisted be passed, then why not get your own government to change the laws of the United States of America?

Not the point. He said you can't handle the entry of the refugees. You yourself say they should be turned back by Canada.

Neither of those things has to do with US law.

So why not?

Why would you turn them away? Explain.