Dutchy wrote:

If the US politicians decide to violate human rights, then it should withdraw from the treaty. Not ruling that some rights will need to be observed and some don't need to for opportunistic reasons. It's like with pregnancy, either you are or you aren't, you can't be a bit pregnant.

Asking for asylum is a fundamental human right thus can't be denied on the grounds of inconvenience or looking for some kind of lope hole.

As mentioned, Title 42 was enacted as an emergency measure and there was full agreement in Congress.

Also of note, many other countries also suspended asylum rights during the pandemic. That was in no way unusual. Nor would there be any expectation that those nations (or the US) would withdraw from the treaty.

The court acknowledged that the original emergency that was the foundation of Title 42, no longer exists. That is part of their deliberations. But the main issue before them is one of states rights.

Since the US is a federation, states can challenge federal policy. That's a basic premise of our government. So the stay is in place until that issue can be decided.

Dutchy wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

Are you arguing countries no longer can control their borders, that all are free to enter, ask asylum and be admitted? The very nature of being a nation means that nation gets to say who is and, more importantly, who is not allowed entry or citizenship.

As many of these immigrants have already passed thru Mexico, why isn’t Mexico to blame for not offering them asylum. Perhaps, it easy to say with Belgium, Germany as countries buffering you from the teeming millions in Ceuta and Mililla. Imagine an EU being home to additional millions of Africans in the next 20 years.

Avatar2go wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If the US politicians decide to violate human rights, then it should withdraw from the treaty. Not ruling that some rights will need to be observed and some don't need to for opportunistic reasons. It's like with pregnancy, either you are or you aren't, you can't be a bit pregnant.

Asking for asylum is a fundamental human right thus can't be denied on the grounds of inconvenience or looking for some kind of lope hole.

As mentioned, Title 42 was enacted as an emergency measure and there was full agreement in Congress.

Not the point. It was/is in violation of the convention of human rights, which was probably also in full agreement with Congress. This convention isn't about cherry-picking the rights you like.

Avatar2go wrote:

Also of note, many other countries also suspended asylum rights during the pandemic. That was in no way unusual. Nor would there be any expectation that those nations (or the US) would withdraw from the treaty.

I was truly 'surprised' that some countries did this. It would be impossible to do this within the EU. One would just file a lawsuit with The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and it will rule in your favor, even though I am not a lawyer, I would put a fine bottle of wine on this. Although the US did 'do' Guantanomo bay, which is also in gross violation of human rights and due process.

Avatar2go wrote:

The court acknowledged that the original emergency that was the foundation of Title 42, no longer exists. That is part of their deliberations. But the main issue before them is one of states rights.

Since the US is a federation, states can challenge federal policy. That's a basic premise of our government. So the stay is in place until that issue can be decided.

I know and it is a strange set-up of a state. So international treaties can be challenged by a single state, strange in my eyes.

Dutchy wrote:

I was truly 'surprised' that some countries did this. It would be impossible to do this within the EU. One would just file a lawsuit with The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and it will rule in your favor, even though I am not a lawyer, I would put a fine bottle of wine on this. Although the US did 'do' Guantanomo bay, which is also in gross violation of human rights and due process.

I know and it is a strange set-up of a state. So international treaties can be challenged by a single state, strange in my eyes.

So first, I won't press you for the wine, but in the EU, 25 of 26 countries in the Schengen region totally closed their borders, including to all immigration.

https://theconversation.com/closed-bord ... rld-157040

Then second, the international treaty is not threatened by Title 42, any more than by the other COVID bans. I mentioned earlier that implementation had changed over time. Under Trump there were almost 90% expulsions. Under Biden, the number has dropped to under 50%.

It remains high because of the number of repeat attempts, by people who have already been returned to Mexico. Those people, along with other specific groups, can still be summarily expelled. Their requests have already been denied.

You might have a look at this article, which describes the effects of Title 42. No one thinks it's a particularly good solution. It was designed to be sledgehammer and makes a very poor scalpel. But in the absence of other tools, some border states are concerned about the surge that would occur without it. The US is not alone in the world, in terms of that concern.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. ... rs-in-2021

Avatar2go wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I was truly 'surprised' that some countries did this. It would be impossible to do this within the EU. One would just file a lawsuit with The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and it will rule in your favor, even though I am not a lawyer, I would put a fine bottle of wine on this. Although the US did 'do' Guantanomo bay, which is also in gross violation of human rights and due process.

I know and it is a strange set-up of a state. So international treaties can be challenged by a single state, strange in my eyes.

So first, I won't press you for the wine, but in the EU, 25 of 26 countries in the Schengen region totally closed their borders, including to all immigration.

we were not talking about immigration (Schengen isn't even about immigration, it is about removing the border checks, as an EU citizen, I am allowed to live anywhere within the EU anyway), we were talking about seeking asylum which is a totally different thing. Not denying that borders were closed, but even then people were allowed to ask for asylum and were let in.

From your link:

In September, the Trump administration halted the U.S. asylum program, barring refugees from seeking asylum. The only other country that explicitly targeted immigrants and asylum seekers with a COVID-19 travel ban was Hungary.

So only the US and Hungary did actually ban asylum seekers as the only two countries in the world. As for Hungary, that is an EU country, so bound by the ECtHR. So it would be interesting if any cases were filed and if so, what the verdict was. Or that it even was challenged during the pandemic (Hungary is quite anti-asylum so I would avoid going to Hungary anyway). So I might be wrong and I do owe you a wine, if it was rejected by the ECtHR.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

Are you arguing countries no longer can control their borders, that all are free to enter, ask asylum and be admitted? The very nature of being a nation means that nation gets to say who is and, more importantly, who is not allowed entry or citizenship.

As many of these immigrants have already passed thru Mexico, why isn’t Mexico to blame for not offering them asylum. Perhaps, it easy to say with Belgium, Germany as countries buffering you from the teeming millions in Ceuta and Mililla. Imagine an EU being home to additional millions of Africans in the next 20 years.

If that is your position then you should lobby your politicians to withdraw from the convention on refugees. Basically, it is a human right to live, so if a person shows up on your border and asks for asylum, yes he or she must be allowed to enter the country. Then the authorities need to find out if the asylum claim was warranted or not. If it was, he or she needs to be allowed to stay and live in the country as a refugee, if not he or she can be removed from the country as an illegal.
Citizenship is a totally different matter.

Asylum is not offered, it is asked, so Mexico can't offer them asylum in the way you mean it.

The Netherlands took in 34 860 asylum seekers last year, on 18.000.000citizens. The US in 2021: 339,179 on 331,900,000. So the Netherlands took in roughly twice the number of asylum seekers per capita. So your assumption is not correct.

Dutchy wrote:

we were not talking about immigration (Schengen isn't even about immigration, it is about removing the border checks, as an EU citizen, I am allowed to live anywhere within the EU anyway), we were talking about seeking asylum which is a totally different thing. Not denying that borders were closed, but even then people were allowed to ask for asylum and were let in.

From your link:

In September, the Trump administration halted the U.S. asylum program, barring refugees from seeking asylum. The only other country that explicitly targeted immigrants and asylum seekers with a COVID-19 travel ban was Hungary.

So only the US and Hungary did actually ban asylum seekers as the only two countries in the world. As for Hungary, that is an EU country, so bound by the ECtHR. So it would be interesting if any cases were filed and if so, what the verdict was. Or that it even was challenged during the pandemic (Hungary is quite anti-asylum so I would avoid going to Hungary anyway). So I might be wrong and I do owe you a wine, if it was rejected by the ECtHR.

I think this may be a technicality, in that the US and Hungary stopped taking asylum applications, whereas other countries continued. But there was no movement of individuals while borders were closed.

In the US at least, part of the rational for that was the people piling up or being trapped at the border. The goal was to discourage them from coming or remaining there. It was cited as a humanitarian crisis at the time. The "Remain in Mexico" policy was a prior stopgap measure, but became a problem with the border closure.

Also one point about asylum seekers: countries are obligated to accept and consider their applications. They are not obligated to admit them. The US denies many applications every year, as do other countries. There are specific requirements that must be met to qualify for asylum.

Dutchy wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

Are you arguing countries no longer can control their borders, that all are free to enter, ask asylum and be admitted? The very nature of being a nation means that nation gets to say who is and, more importantly, who is not allowed entry or citizenship.

As many of these immigrants have already passed thru Mexico, why isn’t Mexico to blame for not offering them asylum. Perhaps, it easy to say with Belgium, Germany as countries buffering you from the teeming millions in Ceuta and Mililla. Imagine an EU being home to additional millions of Africans in the next 20 years.

If that is your position then you should lobby your politicians to withdraw from the convention on refugees. Basically, it is a human right to live, so if a person shows up on your border and asks for asylum, yes he or she must be allowed to enter the country. Then the authorities need to find out if the asylum claim was warranted or not. If it was, he or she needs to be allowed to stay and live in the country as a refugee, if not he or she can be removed from the country as an illegal.
Citizenship is a totally different matter.

Asylum is not offered, it is asked, so Mexico can't offer them asylum in the way you mean it.

The Netherlands took in 34 860 asylum seekers last year, on 18.000.000citizens. The US in 2021: 339,179 on 331,900,000. So the Netherlands took in roughly twice the number of asylum seekers per capita. So your assumption is not correct.

While Avatar corrected the legality in the previous post, I would also submit that Mexico’s government doesn’t operate efficiently enough to credibly resolve their asylum data either way. There may be some migrants from other LatAm countries who indeed request asylum there. According to this, requests have dramatically increased in Mexico in recent years:

https://www.wola.org/analysis/key-point ... arch-2021/

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Are you arguing countries no longer can control their borders, that all are free to enter, ask asylum and be admitted? The very nature of being a nation means that nation gets to say who is and, more importantly, who is not allowed entry or citizenship.

As many of these immigrants have already passed thru Mexico, why isn’t Mexico to blame for not offering them asylum. Perhaps, it easy to say with Belgium, Germany as countries buffering you from the teeming millions in Ceuta and Mililla. Imagine an EU being home to additional millions of Africans in the next 20 years.

If that is your position then you should lobby your politicians to withdraw from the convention on refugees. Basically, it is a human right to live, so if a person shows up on your border and asks for asylum, yes he or she must be allowed to enter the country. Then the authorities need to find out if the asylum claim was warranted or not. If it was, he or she needs to be allowed to stay and live in the country as a refugee, if not he or she can be removed from the country as an illegal.
Citizenship is a totally different matter.

Asylum is not offered, it is asked, so Mexico can't offer them asylum in the way you mean it.

The Netherlands took in 34 860 asylum seekers last year, on 18.000.000citizens. The US in 2021: 339,179 on 331,900,000. So the Netherlands took in roughly twice the number of asylum seekers per capita. So your assumption is not correct.

The US is only really obligated to entertain asylum applications from Mexican, Canadian or perhaps Cuban/Haitian citizens, who credibly fear persecution by the Mexican, Canadian, Cuban or Haitian governments. An application from citizens of countries that transit across Mexico do not even need to be received or answered by the US. Those applications, essentially, do not exist in the first place.

This whole thing is basically a deep Orwellian falsehood. With multiple layers of flagrant misuse of terms. Persecution, in the first place, does not mean sadness, nor does it mean envy, nor does it mean garden variety crime. Not only are the nationalities ineligible for US asylum, but the merits of the cases are also not applicable. At least not before the extreme, brand new, transformation of language that is being attempted by the global free migration advocates.

You’re essentially correct, but UNHCR is promoting an entirely different interpretation:

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/human-lives ... ights.html

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If that is your position then you should lobby your politicians to withdraw from the convention on refugees. Basically, it is a human right to live, so if a person shows up on your border and asks for asylum, yes he or she must be allowed to enter the country. Then the authorities need to find out if the asylum claim was warranted or not. If it was, he or she needs to be allowed to stay and live in the country as a refugee, if not he or she can be removed from the country as an illegal.
Citizenship is a totally different matter.

Asylum is not offered, it is asked, so Mexico can't offer them asylum in the way you mean it.

The Netherlands took in 34 860 asylum seekers last year, on 18.000.000citizens. The US in 2021: 339,179 on 331,900,000. So the Netherlands took in roughly twice the number of asylum seekers per capita. So your assumption is not correct.

The US is only really obligated to entertain asylum applications from Mexican, Canadian or perhaps Cuban/Haitian citizens, who credibly fear persecution by the Mexican, Canadian, Cuban or Haitian governments. An application from citizens of countries that transit across Mexico do not even need to be received or answered by the US. Those applications, essentially, do not exist in the first place.

Forgive me for saying it, but that is a load of bullocks. If I felt threatened by the Dutch government for some reason, I could hop on a plane and go to the US and seek asylum there. It will be rejected on perfectly valid grounds, but I can do it, the same for you in the Netherlands. The US is obligated to weigh the circumstances of each and every asylum request. So those applications are very real, from whatever nation the people are coming from, not just hand-picked neighbors. But yes, most people, refugees, will stay close to their home country. Lebanon has 1.5 million Syrian refugees, with a population of 5.9 million. Those numbers might give you some perspective.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

This whole thing is basically a deep Orwellian falsehood. With multiple layers of flagrant misuse of terms. Persecution, in the first place, does not mean sadness, nor does it mean envy, nor does it mean garden variety crime. Not only are the nationalities ineligible for US asylum, but the merits of the cases are also not applicable. At least not before the extreme, brand new, transformation of language that is being attempted by the global free migration advocates.

You’re essentially correct, but UNHCR is promoting an entirely different interpretation:

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/human-lives ... ights.html

No, he is not. A refugee is quite well-defined.

Literally, nobody is claiming that sadness, envy (economic migration) of prosecution for garden variety crime are good grounds for asylum. So that is a false argument. "Not only are the nationalities ineligible for US asylum" could you please show the legal grounds for this statement, I bet there is none at least not in the international legal framework governing asylum and refugee status.

Avatar2go wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

we were not talking about immigration (Schengen isn't even about immigration, it is about removing the border checks, as an EU citizen, I am allowed to live anywhere within the EU anyway), we were talking about seeking asylum which is a totally different thing. Not denying that borders were closed, but even then people were allowed to ask for asylum and were let in.

From your link:

In September, the Trump administration halted the U.S. asylum program, barring refugees from seeking asylum. The only other country that explicitly targeted immigrants and asylum seekers with a COVID-19 travel ban was Hungary.

So only the US and Hungary did actually ban asylum seekers as the only two countries in the world. As for Hungary, that is an EU country, so bound by the ECtHR. So it would be interesting if any cases were filed and if so, what the verdict was. Or that it even was challenged during the pandemic (Hungary is quite anti-asylum so I would avoid going to Hungary anyway). So I might be wrong and I do owe you a wine, if it was rejected by the ECtHR.

I think this may be a technicality, in that the US and Hungary stopped taking asylum applications, whereas other countries continued. But there was no movement of individuals while borders were closed./quote]

I looked up the number for the Netherlands, and even though traveling was highly restricted, people did apply for asylum during the Covid years and thus were physically in the Netherlands. How they got here is another matter. The point is, that to be in compliance with international treaties, you cannot halt taking asylum applications. They show up on your border, ask for asylum, and thus need to be given due process. You cannot say, your life might be in danger at that moment, please come back in a few months when we got our affairs on order.

Avatar2go wrote:

In the US at least, part of the rational for that was the people piling up or being trapped at the border. The goal was to discourage them from coming or remaining there. [/quote[

Of course, I understand the political aim of such a move. It is always to discourage people from coming to your country. But that is not a good rationale.

Avatar2go wrote:

It was cited as a humanitarian crisis at the time. The "Remain in Mexico" policy was a prior stopgap measure, but became a problem with the border closure.

That might be, but no rational for not taking asylum claims.

Avatar2go wrote:

Also one point about asylum seekers: countries are obligated to accept and consider their applications. They are not obligated to admit them. The US denies many applications every year, as do other countries. There are specific requirements that must be met to qualify for asylum.

Correct, and that is not the issue. The issue is not rejecting asylum claims after carefully considering them, but accepting them for consideration.

PS I donnot know what Hungary did and did not do and that does matter in these circumstances to consider it on thee merits rather than assumptions.

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Forgive me for saying it, but that is a load of bullocks. If I felt threatened by the Dutch government for some reason, I could hop on a plane and go to the US and seek asylum there. It will be rejected on perfectly valid grounds, but I can do it, the same for you in the Netherlands. The US is obligated to weigh the circumstances of each and every asylum request. So those applications are very real, from whatever nation the people are coming from, not just hand-picked neighbors. But yes, most people, refugees, will stay close to their home country. Lebanon has 1.5 million Syrian refugees, with a population of 5.9 million. Those numbers might give you some perspective.

No, he is not. A refugee is quite well-defined.

Literally, nobody is claiming that sadness, envy (economic migration) of prosecution for garden variety crime are good grounds for asylum. So that is a false argument. "Not only are the nationalities ineligible for US asylum" could you please show the legal grounds for this statement, I bet there is none at least not in the international legal framework governing asylum and refugee status.

A Honduran refugee, standing in Mexico, is not qualified to apply for asylum in the US. They may be qualified to apply for Mexican asylum (if they can explain why Guatemala and Belize were not safe). Even that is a stretch. A US asylum attempt is totally inexplicable. That would be like going to Singapore or Australia. These aren’t real asylum claims. They are petitions to migrate. Asylum has become a euphemism for absolutely standard economic migration.

That is an opinion, certainly not fact. Tells us a lot about how you few the world though. There were 4,390 (2021) cases filed by people fleeing Honduras.

And from their annual report: "Generally, any foreign national physically present in the United States or arriving at a POE may seek asylum regardless of immigration status. Those seeking asylum must apply within 1 year from the date of last arrival or establish that an exception applies based on changed or extraordinary circumstances.2""

source: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files ... fy2021.pdf

So it is your opinion that you only want to help people from your neighboring country and it is your opinion that people showing up at a point of entry should be turned back, regardless of their personal circumstances. It is a cold and hard opinion to have and is in direct conflict with the status quo and with international law.

Dutchy wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

The thing about the current crisis on the border is that the vast majority of the asylum seekers (technically a refugee) are seeking asylum for economic reasons, which is not one of the five grounds for asylum. They are: race, religion, nationality, social (persecution for sexual orientation, etc.), and political persecution. If you are seeking to improve your life, get a better job, or for other economic reasons, you are a migrant, not a refugee/asylum seeker. There is no such thing as an economic refugee per the Geneva Convention. Then there is the first safe country rule which states that they person should seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. This is is a "grey" rule and not specifically laid out in the Geneva Convention (at least that I know of) and has been interpreted several different ways. One interpretation is that a country can remove an asylum seeker back to a country they passed through that is "safe", i.e the remain in Mexico policy. This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though.

The rub with the hundreds of thousands of asylum requests is it bogs down an already way over worked immigration system. The cartels and smuggling organizations are coaching migrants how to use this to their advantage as a smuggling technique. The asylum seekers get paroled into the US with an NTA (Notice to Appear) and EAD (Employment Authorization Document) and are told to report at a date and time way down the road, if they are even given a date when released (link below for wait times). A lot of times they are given the NTA and told to call the local immigration office for a hearing date when they arrive at their destination. Often times if an asylum request is denied (or any other immigration case for that matter), the judge grants "relief" from removal sue to the sheer amount of time the person has been in the US since they have basically created a new life here. Relief has several facets, but immigration judges have a lot of leeway in granting relief. Its sort of a catch 22, our immigration system is way over burdened which cause the reason to grant relief.

Outside of Title 42, if you arrested crossing into the US illegally, you have certain rights. You have the right to request and immigration hearing and the right to request asylum. As soon as you do either, you have to be placed into the immigration system to await your hearings. There are a few avenues to help like Expedited and Administrative Removals, but these don't come close to solving the problem, just alleviate some pressure. But even with those, the individuals still have to be given an asylum hearing if they ask for it. This is being used by the cartels and smugglers to their advantage since they know we have very strict rules about who we keep in detention and for how long. That's why so many people are being released.

Our immigration laws are not necessarily bad and don't necessarily need to be overhauled. The way we implement them (regulatory and policy can and often are more strict than the laws they are based on) and the administrative side of the immigration system (courts, etc.) is what is severally broken. The problem is that neither side wants to take any action. They both have their reasons, but they don't really want it solved. I know this is a very complex social issue for Americans to deal with, but neither Dems or the GOP are doing a damn thing to an honest conversation about it. Both sides lie and skew data and numbers for very political reasons. I guess that can be said for just about every issue facing America today though.

For clarification, the apprehension and arrest numbers from the Border Patrol are those people who entered the US illegally, between the Ports of Entry. Lots of those people then ask for asylum after being arrested for illegal entry. The vast majority of asylum requests are in this catagory, there are far fewer requests made when presenting at a Port of Entry with out the illegal entry. For the former, there are two issues. One, the asylum request needs to be adjudicated, two, the illegal entry needs to be adjudicated if the asylum was denied.

I have to make this disclaimer or risk this being deleted. Take what I said as factual or opinion, that is on you. I cant list my non public information sources, but I promise I know of what I speak, so I guess that makes this my opinion per board rules. Of course I don't know everything and still have a lot to learn, but I do know a thing or two about this topic.

Wait Times:
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

It allowed summary expulsions without a hearing or due process. It drastically reduced the number of asylum requests, as migrants did not have the opportunity to apply.

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

The thing about the current crisis on the border is that the vast majority of the asylum seekers (technically a refugee) are seeking asylum for economic reasons, which is not one of the five grounds for asylum. They are: race, religion, nationality, social (persecution for sexual orientation, etc.), and political persecution. If you are seeking to improve your life, get a better job, or for other economic reasons, you are a migrant, not a refugee/asylum seeker. There is no such thing as an economic refugee per the Geneva Convention. Then there is the first safe country rule which states that they person should seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. This is is a "grey" rule and not specifically laid out in the Geneva Convention (at least that I know of) and has been interpreted several different ways. One interpretation is that a country can remove an asylum seeker back to a country they passed through that is "safe", i.e the remain in Mexico policy. This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though.

All very logical, so I believe that you know what you are talking about. And yes, many will be crossing the border for economic reasons, but that has to be determined in a fair procedure. The safe country rule is an unenforceable one, Even though we have the Dublin protocol, hardly any asylum seeker will be deported to the first country that they entered the EU in. We have people showing up at the train station in Amsterdam, hardly a point of entry into the EU. And the Netherlands hasn't any real borders with non-EU countries (except a sea border with Britain). So most asylum seekers in the Netherlands come from Syria, Afghanistan, and Eritrea, all at least 4000km away. So they crossed many relatively safe countries before entering the EU and then quite a few more before arriving in Holland. Of course, they seek shelter, but also a reasonably good prospect for a better life. Can't blame them if one is forced to leave home for fear of prosecution or war.

Five grounds for asylum? I understand social - (persecution for sexual orientation, etc.), and political persecution. But why is race, religion, nationality on its own a reason for asylum? I mean I do not see reasons as civil unrest and war which seems to me a biggy *Syria and Ukraine are the current 'hotspots'.

Dutchy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Migrants or asylum-seekers? According to UNHCR, seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, so denying the right to seek asylum is a violation of human rights. How is this possible in a country with the rule of law and is condoned by the Courts?

The thing about the current crisis on the border is that the vast majority of the asylum seekers (technically a refugee) are seeking asylum for economic reasons, which is not one of the five grounds for asylum. They are: race, religion, nationality, social (persecution for sexual orientation, etc.), and political persecution. If you are seeking to improve your life, get a better job, or for other economic reasons, you are a migrant, not a refugee/asylum seeker. There is no such thing as an economic refugee per the Geneva Convention. Then there is the first safe country rule which states that they person should seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. This is is a "grey" rule and not specifically laid out in the Geneva Convention (at least that I know of) and has been interpreted several different ways. One interpretation is that a country can remove an asylum seeker back to a country they passed through that is "safe", i.e the remain in Mexico policy. This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though.

All very logical, so I believe that you know what you are talking about. And yes, many will be crossing the border for economic reasons, but that has to be determined in a fair procedure. The safe country rule is an unenforceable one, Even though we have the Dublin protocol, hardly any asylum seeker will be deported to the first country that they entered the EU in. We have people showing up at the train station in Amsterdam, hardly a point of entry into the EU. And the Netherlands hasn't any real borders with non-EU countries (except a sea border with Britain). So most asylum seekers in the Netherlands come from Syria, Afghanistan, and Eritrea, all at least 4000km away. So they crossed many relatively safe countries before entering the EU and then quite a few more before arriving in Holland. Of course, they seek shelter, but also a reasonably good prospect for a better life. Can't blame them if one is forced to leave home for fear of prosecution or war.

Five grounds for asylum? I understand social - (persecution for sexual orientation, etc.), and political persecution. But why is race, religion, nationality on its own a reason for asylum? I mean I do not see reasons as civil unrest and war which seems to me a biggy *Syria and Ukraine are the current 'hotspots'.

I just threw the first safe country thing out there to show how very complex the whole issue is. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is, just listing the truths of the situation. As for the five grounds for asylum, those are what is listed in the Geneva Convention which is what governs the signatory countries on this. What they are saying is persecution based on race, religion, or nationality. I could have worded that better. A case of my brain thinking faster than I can type. I totally agree about the fair procedures. As an American, I am proud of our immigrant back ground and want that to continue. However, our system as it currently stands is not fair to anyone. Immigrants that are in limbo for years on end or the citizens and residents of the US. There is only one class of people benefiting, that is the political class.

This link does a great job of explaining why the US or even the EU can't take every person that wants to come. I have linked it before, but I think its that warrants another link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatxAIQTij4
I have shown this link before, but I will put it up again.

The context of the Convention matters—the Holocaust and the refusal of many countries to take in Jews, before and after WW II. I mostly agree with asylum conventions until it becomes a means of economic improvement or escape from being drafted, that’s not asylum, that’s cowardice. If Syrian or Russian men stood up to the tyrants, they might have become better countries.

bpatus297 wrote:

I just threw the first safe country thing out there to show how very complex the whole issue is. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is, just listing the truths of the situation. As for the five grounds for asylum, those are what is listed in the Geneva Convention which is what governs the signatory countries on this. What they are saying is persecution based on race, religion, or nationality. I could have worded that better. A case of my brain thinking faster than I can type. I totally agree about the fair procedures. As an American, I am proud of our immigrant back ground and want that to continue. However, our system as it currently stands is not fair to anyone. Immigrants that are in limbo for years on end or the citizens and residents of the US. There is only one class of people benefiting, that is the political class.

This link does a great job of explaining why the US or even the EU can't take every person that wants to come. I have linked it before, but I think its that warrants another link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatxAIQTij4
I have shown this link before, but I will put it up again.

Thank you for the excellent summaries. I learned a lot and have a better understanding now.

Avatar2go wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I just threw the first safe country thing out there to show how very complex the whole issue is. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is, just listing the truths of the situation. As for the five grounds for asylum, those are what is listed in the Geneva Convention which is what governs the signatory countries on this. What they are saying is persecution based on race, religion, or nationality. I could have worded that better. A case of my brain thinking faster than I can type. I totally agree about the fair procedures. As an American, I am proud of our immigrant back ground and want that to continue. However, our system as it currently stands is not fair to anyone. Immigrants that are in limbo for years on end or the citizens and residents of the US. There is only one class of people benefiting, that is the political class.

This link does a great job of explaining why the US or even the EU can't take every person that wants to come. I have linked it before, but I think its that warrants another link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatxAIQTij4
I have shown this link before, but I will put it up again.

Thank you for the excellent summaries. I learned a lot and have a better understanding now.

You're welcome.

bpatus297 wrote:

I just threw the first safe country thing out there to show how very complex the whole issue is. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is, just listing the truths of the situation. As for the five grounds for asylum, those are what is listed in the Geneva Convention which is what governs the signatory countries on this. What they are saying is persecution based on race, religion, or nationality. I could have worded that better. A case of my brain thinking faster than I can type. I totally agree about the fair procedures. As an American, I am proud of our immigrant back ground and want that to continue. However, our system as it currently stands is not fair to anyone. Immigrants that are in limbo for years on end or the citizens and residents of the US. There is only one class of people benefiting, that is the political class.

This link does a great job of explaining why the US or even the EU can't take every person that wants to come. I have linked it before, but I think its that warrants another link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatxAIQTij4
I have shown this link before, but I will put it up again.

But the United States understands we can not take every person who wants to be here. I believe EU understands that, too. Why is this even up for debate? Yes, we need immigration reform. Democrats have been demanding this for years. The response? "Democrats want open borders!" and nothing else from Republicans. Where are the people being expelled for overstaying their work or student visa? Those people who come here simply to have their child born on American soil just so their child can have American citizenship and neither child or parent ever leave? All we ever hear is "DEMOCRATS OPEN BORDER!!" and no real talks about immigration reform, especially from Republicans.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I just threw the first safe country thing out there to show how very complex the whole issue is. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is, just listing the truths of the situation. As for the five grounds for asylum, those are what is listed in the Geneva Convention which is what governs the signatory countries on this. What they are saying is persecution based on race, religion, or nationality. I could have worded that better. A case of my brain thinking faster than I can type. I totally agree about the fair procedures. As an American, I am proud of our immigrant back ground and want that to continue. However, our system as it currently stands is not fair to anyone. Immigrants that are in limbo for years on end or the citizens and residents of the US. There is only one class of people benefiting, that is the political class.

This link does a great job of explaining why the US or even the EU can't take every person that wants to come. I have linked it before, but I think its that warrants another link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatxAIQTij4
I have shown this link before, but I will put it up again.

But the United States understands we can not take every person who wants to be here. I believe EU understands that, too. Why is this even up for debate? Yes, we need immigration reform. Democrats have been demanding this for years. The response? "Democrats want open borders!" and nothing else from Republicans. Where are the people being expelled for overstaying their work or student visa? Those people who come here simply to have their child born on American soil just so their child can have American citizenship and neither child or parent ever leave? All we ever hear is "DEMOCRATS OPEN BORDER!!" and no real talks about immigration reform, especially from Republicans.

As long as you keep think the GOP is fully to blame and the Dems have nothing to do with it, nothing will change. Both sides are at fault and share in the culpability, albeit for different reasons.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I just threw the first safe country thing out there to show how very complex the whole issue is. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is, just listing the truths of the situation. As for the five grounds for asylum, those are what is listed in the Geneva Convention which is what governs the signatory countries on this. What they are saying is persecution based on race, religion, or nationality. I could have worded that better. A case of my brain thinking faster than I can type. I totally agree about the fair procedures. As an American, I am proud of our immigrant back ground and want that to continue. However, our system as it currently stands is not fair to anyone. Immigrants that are in limbo for years on end or the citizens and residents of the US. There is only one class of people benefiting, that is the political class.

This link does a great job of explaining why the US or even the EU can't take every person that wants to come. I have linked it before, but I think its that warrants another link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatxAIQTij4
I have shown this link before, but I will put it up again.

But the United States understands we can not take every person who wants to be here. I believe EU understands that, too. Why is this even up for debate? Yes, we need immigration reform. Democrats have been demanding this for years. The response? "Democrats want open borders!" and nothing else from Republicans. Where are the people being expelled for overstaying their work or student visa? Those people who come here simply to have their child born on American soil just so their child can have American citizenship and neither child or parent ever leave? All we ever hear is "DEMOCRATS OPEN BORDER!!" and no real talks about immigration reform, especially from Republicans.

As long as you keep think the GOP is fully to blame and the Dems have nothing to do with it, nothing will change. Both sides are at fault and share in the culpability, albeit for different reasons.

Yes, very different reasons. Democrats understand unlimited immigration is not sustainable but some immigration must happen. Republicans only want immigrants from the right countries.

Really? Every administration has had different rules for Cuban (allowed in) and Haitians (shipped back).

"Disparities in U.S. Immigration Policy toward Haiti and Cuba: A Legacy to be Continued? https://www.coha.org/disparities-in-u-s ... continued/. Excerpt - " Shameful distinction between treatment of Haitians and Cubans"

Article was written during the Obama Administration.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

But the United States understands we can not take every person who wants to be here. I believe EU understands that, too. Why is this even up for debate? Yes, we need immigration reform. Democrats have been demanding this for years. The response? "Democrats want open borders!" and nothing else from Republicans. Where are the people being expelled for overstaying their work or student visa? Those people who come here simply to have their child born on American soil just so their child can have American citizenship and neither child or parent ever leave? All we ever hear is "DEMOCRATS OPEN BORDER!!" and no real talks about immigration reform, especially from Republicans.

As long as you keep think the GOP is fully to blame and the Dems have nothing to do with it, nothing will change. Both sides are at fault and share in the culpability, albeit for different reasons.

Yes, very different reasons. Democrats understand unlimited immigration is not sustainable but some immigration must happen. Republicans only want immigrants from the right countries.

Pretty hard to predict “right “ countries for any party. If you’re a Democrat, lots of Hispanics can become Republicans. Do anyone think Republicans want lots of EU social democrats in, if they came? I’m from Eastern European and English stock and brought up strong conservative from both sides. Dad, Galician, hated Roosevelt. Mom’s father was old New England Republican voted for FDR after Hoover “fired” on the vet pension army. His father swore he’d see his son dead before he voted for another Democrat. Great granddad got his wish—buried his son on Election Day ‘36

Biden released some (IMO) sound moves regarding immigration. And both the far right and far left aren't happy. Which tells me it might be good policy.

But since it sounds like the Mexican Army is calling in armored units to fight the cartels today ... things at the border could go from bad to worse.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

As long as you keep think the GOP is fully to blame and the Dems have nothing to do with it, nothing will change. Both sides are at fault and share in the culpability, albeit for different reasons.

Yes, very different reasons. Democrats understand unlimited immigration is not sustainable but some immigration must happen. Republicans only want immigrants from the right countries.

Pretty hard to predict “right “ countries for any party. If you’re a Democrat, lots of Hispanics can become Republicans. Do anyone think Republicans want lots of EU social democrats in, if they came? I’m from Eastern European and English stock and brought up strong conservative from both sides. Dad, Galician, hated Roosevelt. Mom’s father was old New England Republican voted for FDR after Hoover “fired” on the vet pension army. His father swore he’d see his son dead before he voted for another Democrat. Great granddad got his wish—buried his son on Election Day ‘36

Remember that Republicans don't want immigrants from "s**thole" countries. They could care less about immigrants from Hungary and Poland. Just those from Central/South America and Africa and Muslim nations need to be limited. The other thing I notice is the same people who want to limit immigration from certain countries are also angry there are any people in the United States who's first language is not English. Much of the South and West were occupied by Spain, Mexico, France, and Russia first, excluding the Natives who populated the land well before the arrival of Europeans. Many of their ancestors became subjects of the United States in the mid- and late 1800s. One of my childhood friends could trace his ancestry to San Diego in Mexican colonial times. Which means his ancestors had been legally in the United States long before my father's family. This angered my father till the day he died.

Democrats don't care about what nation they are from, as long as they can prove to be productive members of society. We have a couple of families here from India who are on visas and have taken over convenience stores. They are applying for full citizenship. Productive members of society. Much more productive than some native born citizens.