Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

US Immigration Policy - CBP 'promises' to not be bastards camping at hospitals for arrests

1252628303145

Posts

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    RickRudeBucketmanMan in the MistsElvenshaeTofystedeth
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    I was also under the impression that they couldn’t just make this change, that some process was required first.

    ArbitraryDescriptorBucketman
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    I was also under the impression that they couldn’t just make this change, that some process was required first.

    So many things are supposed to work like that and yet...

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    XaquinJragghenMorganVBullheadEmerlmaster999AbsoluteZeroMolotovCockatooFencingsaxelectricitylikesmeMrVyngaardMegaMekBlackDragon480TicaldfjamNobeardKoopahTroopahJohnny ChopsockyRickRudeJaysonFourBucketmanCelestialBadgerZilla360thatassemblyguyMan in the MistsVeagleElldrenCalicaMagellDee KaeElvenshaeDacTofystedethLabelemp123
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Another Congressional visit to one of these camps. Members of Appropriations are touring Homestead today. I only caught the end of it, they seemed pretty mad.

    Tim Ryan was there, Wasserman-Schultz, Crist, DeLauro, Lowey, Allred, Lee, Pocan, Watson Coleman, and Torres.

    Which is a mix of CPC members like Lee, DWS' corporate ass, Tim Ryan's industrial midwest people are the only people, and former Republicans like Crist.

    From what I recall of the one last week, it was mostly your furthest left House members (AOC, Pressley, Omar, Tlaib, a few others but I think all were CPC members). So it's good the moderates are going and seeing what this actually looks like.

    Notably, if things are going to change we need to change the minds of people who voted for the 4.6 billion in extra money, so among this group that's: Crist, DWS, Watson Coleman, and Allred.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Nobeard
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Trump said the not-so-quiet part out loud, back in April: "Our country is full, turn around."

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    IncenjucarBucketman
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Trump said the not-so-quiet part out loud, back in April: "Our country is full, turn around."

    If only we were full when his parents came over.

    wbee62u815wj.png
    destroyah87TomantaBlackDragon480TicaldfjamJaysonFourRickRudeBucketmanZilla360CelestialBadgerthatassemblyguyMan in the MistsAimElvenshae
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Trump said the not-so-quiet part out loud, back in April: "Our country is full, turn around."

    If only we were full when his parents came over.

    Grandparents. Fred Trump was born in the Bronx.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited July 16
    Is it time to post the Puck cartoon again?

    EDIT: Okay then!

    DTW5bcaUMAAKdWB.jpg

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    TetraNitroCubaneTicaldfjamNobeardBucketmanElvenshaeboogedybooMan in the MistsTofystedethOghulkHacksawemp123
  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style Warning: Mothership Reporting Richland, WARegistered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Also, imagine for a moment they get their wish. Nobody enters anymore and all immigrants "go back to their country" and they have their white ethnostate.

    The US would collapse within five minutes of that happening.

    The sheer stupidity of the argument is mindboggling.

    Considering how into Atlas Shrugged conservatives are, I think that's a problem they're just physically incapable of considering.

    atlass.gif

    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
    Cristovaldispatch.oGnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480djmitchellaJaysonFourBucketmanZilla360Man in the MistsMagellElvenshaeHacksawNitsua
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    I was also under the impression that they couldn’t just make this change, that some process was required first.

    Yeah I could swear they tried this under Sessions. Maybe they just floated the idea?

    MarathonBucketman
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 15
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Trump said the not-so-quiet part out loud, back in April: "Our country is full, turn around."

    If only we were full when his parents came over.

    Grandparents. Fred Trump was born in the Bronx.

    We still haven't seen his long-form birth certificate, though.

    Doc on
    ThawmusDoctor DetroitFencingsaxTicaldfjamJaysonFourBucketmanZilla360ElvenshaeHacksaw
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Also, imagine for a moment they get their wish. Nobody enters anymore and all immigrants "go back to their country" and they have their white ethnostate.

    The US would collapse within five minutes of that happening.

    The sheer stupidity of the argument is mindboggling.

    Considering how into Atlas Shrugged conservatives are, I think that's a problem they're just physically incapable of considering.

    atlass.gif

    Rand tried to pre-empt this problem by having a few characters who were the captain-of-industry equivalent of menial labor, like, the John Galt of standing at a cigarette counter for three bucks an hour

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    wbBv3fj.png
    PreacherThawmusFencingsaxSleepJaysonFourBucketmanMan in the MistsElldren
  • A duck!A duck! Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    To note, "safe" is an actual designation that the US can apply to a country. Currently Canada is designated safe and Mexico is not.

    ThawmusArbitraryDescriptorFencingsaxMegaMekMartini_PhilosopherSleepJaysonFourCaptain InertiaBucketmanMrVyngaardZilla360VeagleElldrenDee KaeElvenshaeTofystedeth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    A duck! wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    To note, "safe" is an actual designation that the US can apply to a country. Currently Canada is designated safe and Mexico is not.

    I believe the proposal is to call Guatemala safe.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    shrykeThawmusIncenjucarFencingsaxMrMisterMartini_PhilosopherCaptain InertiaZilla360Man in the MistsElvenshaeTofystedeth
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Unfortunately this is a determination up to the AG and courts cannot review it*

    *by statute... which seems like it cannot be law

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    "Safe" is up to the feds but the changes to where you have to apply will be heard in court.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    "Safe" is up to the feds but the changes to where you have to apply will be heard in court.

    This isnt a change to where you have to apply for US asylum though. This is a “we will reject you if you do not apply in a third country first”.

    They will undoubtedly also reject people if Mexico rejects them by saying that Mexico has a fair process and so if you failed theirs you will fail ours

    wbBv3fj.png
    MorganV
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Unfortunately this is a determination up to the AG and courts cannot review it*

    *by statute... which seems like it cannot be law

    Isn't that still gonna be subject to administrative law to satisfy due process (like the census thing)? Is the dodge that it isn't US citizens that this hurts so nobody has standing to sue over it?

    Phoenix-D
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The executive has a massive amount of control over how immigration works and leeway in exercising their power on that subject afaik. Like a lot of foreign affairs stuff.

    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsax
  • ZenyatooZenyatoo Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:
    *snip*

    That's not quite what it means.

    Someones eligibility for asylum now requires that they have requested asylum and been denied it in a country they passed through en route to the U.S.

    it doesn't mean you apply for U.S. asylum in Mexico. It means that if you left, I dont know, lets say Columbia, and passed through some other country before reaching the U.S. you would have to apply for asylum in that country, and be denied. Then you would be eligible for asylum in the U.S.

    There are two exceptions
    1. Individuals who are being trafficked/were trafficked may apply for asylum regardless of the new ruling
    2. If none of the countries you passed through have signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.

    As near as I can tell, this means that refugees originating from Mexico specifically are immune to this new rule, given that there is no other country for them to have passed through.

    For everyone else you must now apply for asylum in a country you pass through on the way to the U.S.

    Regarding this question:


    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).

    The main drive appears to be an interpretation of the UNHCR regulations regarding "country of first asylum"
    Based on a European decision (The Dublin Regulation) it was decided that refugees entering Europe were to claim asylum in the first European country they entered. This was further backed up by the UNHCR by things like this pdf:

    https://www.unhcr.org/56f3ec5a9.pdf

    Covering one of the "Migrant Crises" that occurred. In the text is this note "Transfer of asylum-seekers and refugees from Greece to Turkey based on applying a ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concept" as well as the paragaph as follows

    "According to UNHCR, the ‘first country of asylum’ concept is to be applied in cases where a person
    has already, in a previous state, found international protection, that is once again accessible and effective
    for the individual concerned. Application of the concept requires an individual assessment of whether
    the refugee will be readmitted to that country and granted a right of legal stay and be accorded standards
    of treatment commensurate with the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967
    Protocol, and international human rights standards, including protection from refoulement, as well as
    timely access to a durable solution"

    The TL;DR for this is 'we the UNHCR say that if you pass through a country that has signed the relevant accords/conventions/etc you have to apply for asylum there during this particular crisis."


    It seems that Trump and his administration are essentially copying the European tact on this one, arguing that all asylum seekers entering the U.S. Must now follow this country of first asylum rule.

    Which does bring us to the question of "Which countries count under this rule?" or "Which countries have in fact been part of the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol?"

    https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b73b0d63/states-parties-1951-convention-its-1967-protocol.html

    Most of them. 142 of them to be precise. And yes, to tackle perhaps the most pertinent, Mexico is on the list.

    So the current administration will now argue that all asylum seekers who passed through Mexico but didn't apply for asylum are no longer eligible because they didn't follow the first country of asylum rule that the administration is now applying.

    So to answer the question of "is this legal?" Well... im definitely not a lawyer but, I think there's a strong precedent for it. The current administration will at the very least argue that if the Europeans can do it, we can too.

    Two final notes.
    1. This new ruling only applies to new asylum seekers, as in, those who arrive in america after its implementation. It thus doesn't apply to anyone currently inside the current administrations concentration camps
    2. Fuck Trump. Fuck these stupid fucking concentration camps. Fuck this new ruling. Fuck Barr. Fuck Kevin McAleenan Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Thanks.

    ThawmusMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusJuliusElldrenCalica
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Fudging "country of first asylum" has been a right wing talking point in their circles for a while now. Its a common argument against Syrians in Europe.

    FencingsaxelectricitylikesmeDarkPrimusStabbity StyleArbitraryDescriptorTicaldfjamMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusJaysonFourBucketmanJuliusMan in the MistsElvenshaeHacksaw
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:

    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).
    The rule’s bar on asylum eligibility for aliens who fail to apply for protection in at least one third country through which they transit en route to the United States also aims to further the humanitarian purposes of asylum.

    It prioritizes individuals who are unable to obtain protection from persecution elsewhere and individuals who are victims of a “severe form of trafficking in persons” as defined by 8 CFR 214.11, many of whom do not volitionally transit through a third country to reach the United States.


    By deterring meritless asylum claims and de-prioritizing the applications of individuals who could have obtained protection in another country, the Departments seek to ensure that those refugees who have no alternative to U.S.-based asylum relief or have been subjected to an extreme form of human trafficking are able to obtain relief more quickly.

    No malice here, they're just prioritizing the system to handle people who were kidnapped, but eventually escaped on US soil.

    We're the heartless one's for asking those 0-1 person(s) to wait in line with everyone else.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    A duck! wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    To note, "safe" is an actual designation that the US can apply to a country. Currently Canada is designated safe and Mexico is not.

    If Mexico isn't designated safe then why is it a talking point that the asylum seekers should either apply for asylum in Mexico, or just wait in Mexico while their application is being processed?

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    A duck! wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    To note, "safe" is an actual designation that the US can apply to a country. Currently Canada is designated safe and Mexico is not.

    If Mexico isn't designated safe then why is it a talking point that the asylum seekers should either apply for asylum in Mexico, or just wait in Mexico while their application is being processed?

    Because the people saying it are racist.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    ThawmusEmerlmaster999Stabbity StyleCommander ZoomTetraNitroCubaneBlackDragon480ShortyTicaldfjamPreacherNo-QuarterMartini_PhilosopherNobeardMegaMekJaysonFourBucketmanbrynhrtmnSolarMrVyngaardElldrenlonelyahavaDee KaeMagellMan in the MistsElvenshaeKamardurandal4532TofystedethLabelHacksawHappy Little MachineHellerbooy
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    A duck! wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    To note, "safe" is an actual designation that the US can apply to a country. Currently Canada is designated safe and Mexico is not.

    If Mexico isn't designated safe then why is it a talking point that the asylum seekers should either apply for asylum in Mexico, or just wait in Mexico while their application is being processed?

    I guess they're trying to get those deals signed:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-sign-asylum-deal-guatemala-critics-call-illegal/story?id=64307189

    Or this rule change is an indication that said deals fell through.

    Julius
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Unfortunately this is a determination up to the AG and courts cannot review it*

    *by statute... which seems like it cannot be law

    Isn't that still gonna be subject to administrative law to satisfy due process (like the census thing)? Is the dodge that it isn't US citizens that this hurts so nobody has standing to sue over it?

    No. The dodge is that these AG determinations are not reviewable by the courts by statute.

    Which... I don't think they have ever been challenged... but i am expressing my skepticism that the statue could be binding. Congress can set up courts to have specific jurisdiction but they cannot remove the innate jurisdiction from the courts entirely, some court must have jurisdiction over every aspect of law that courts have constitutional jurisdiction over.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    Fudging "country of first asylum" has been a right wing talking point in their circles for a while now. Its a common argument against Syrians in Europe.

    Should also point out that refugees are then part of a Europe-wide system that sees the 'overflow' transferred to countries away from the border. So Mexico would take it's share of them and then the rest would be the responsibility of the States. Common European Asylum System
    The proposals include a fairness mechanism based on solidarity which includes a corrective allocation mechanism and which takes into account resettlement efforts made by a Member State to resettle those in need of international protection direct from a third country. This will acknowledge the importance of efforts to implement legal and safe pathways to Europe.

    This new system would automatically establish when a country is handling a disproportionate number of asylum applications. It would do so by reference to a country's size and wealth. If one country receives disproportionate numbers above and beyond that reference (over 150% of the reference number), all further new applicants in that country would (regardless of nationality) be relocated, after an admissibility verification of their application, across the EU until the number of applications is back below that level. A Member State would also have the option to temporarily not take part in the reallocation. In that case, it would have to make a solidarity contribution of €250,000 for each applicant for whom it would otherwise have been responsible under the fairness mechanism, to the Member State that is reallocated the person instead.

    HamHamJ
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    A duck! wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    To note, "safe" is an actual designation that the US can apply to a country. Currently Canada is designated safe and Mexico is not.

    If Mexico isn't designated safe then why is it a talking point that the asylum seekers should either apply for asylum in Mexico, or just wait in Mexico while their application is being processed?

    I guess they're trying to get those deals signed:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-sign-asylum-deal-guatemala-critics-call-illegal/story?id=64307189

    Or this rule change is an indication that said deals fell through.

    I wouldn't take a deal with Trump even if I got cash up front.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Mild ConfusionXaquinDocdispatch.oJaysonFourThawmusEmerlmaster999BucketmanbrynhrtmnOrcakimeMrVyngaardMan in the MistsElvenshaeDuke 2.0TNTrooperKamarNobeardemp123
  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    One cannot (and should not) make deals with a party, Trump and by extension the GOP, that does not honor prior agreements.

    Future Employee of Planetary Acquisitions, Inc.
    Pax Arcadia(PC) Division Agent
    xu257gunns6e.png

    Commander ZoomDocdispatch.oJaysonFourQuidAPODionysusThawmusEmerlmaster999BucketmanscherbchenbrynhrtmnOrcakimeVeagleElldrenMan in the MistsTNTrooperKamarGnome-Interruptusemp123
  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:

    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).

    Like is a rule the same as a law? Does this somehow supersede the law in place? And how do they expect people to know about it?

  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    Also like, we shouldn't be making another country shoulder the burden of people wanting to enter our country.

    JaysonFourFencingsaxkimeIncenjucarlonelyahavaEmerlmaster999ElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    If X funding produced X camps why wouldn’t it stand to reason that X+Y funding will equal X+Y camps

    EDIT: ‘They were being cruel without the money’ is a bad argument when the whole point of the money was to allow them to continue being cruel. That was why they asked for the money.

    Nah, it's literally the entire point. The cruelty is not contingent on funding in either direction. It's simply a function of the task and the people carrying it out. More funding does not mean more cruelty. Less funding does not mean less cruelty. Nor the other way around.

    It's basically the same with camps. The entire thing all these looks inside the camps have shown is that the number of camps or staff they have is not a limiting factor on what they are doing. Which should be no surprise since there's no way they are letting people go free just because they don't have the space.

    Given the above the basic reasoning behind going for funding would be because then you avoid headlines about how you are responsible for the overcrowding because you refuse to properly fund border security and you can say "We gave you money Trump and yet it's still terrible, what are you diong?" and because it might lead to less overcrowding or more resources or something. Not saying I think it's the best play, but there's a case to be made there.

    The other point here is that the alternative doesn't solve anything either. Refusing funding is basically just a positioning strategy so you can say you had nothing to do with the issue and aren't responsible in any way.

    It's basically a matter of picking your media strategy here. Because nothing you do is gonna stop the camps beyond, like, oversight attached to funding bills. Which they already said and showed they won't allow.

    The bolded is most definitely false. Sure, the quality of the cruelty is independent of funds, but the quantity is assuredly improved by funding. More money means more ICE agents to steal more people, more computers to look for more people and more locations, more vehicles and fuel to conduct more raids, more people rounded up to be cruel to.

    The Dems may not be able to help the people that are locked up by cutting funding, but they sure as shit could have prevented more people from being locked up.

    The difference between 100,000 and 200,000 or any fucking number isn’t a statistic, they are real people and we’re gonna be torturing more of them now, not less. And any language that reduced the quantity of the torture isn’t gonna lessen, because that language was removed. Same quantity, just more of it.

    I don't think that's really true. AFAIK these people are border crossers for the most part, not people picked up in internal ICE raids or something. And the ridiculously overcrowded conditions we are already seeing are a pretty abject demonstration imo of the fact that they aren't really concerned with issues of available resources. There's not a ton of slack here they aren't already trying to pick up in terms of rounding people up.

    Like 208 million of the money is reserved for ICE, to aid in their mission to round people up. A large part of it intended for overtime and other personnel costs, because while numbers of camps is perhaps not a limiting factor, staff very much is. Even the most racist ICE agent is not going to work for nothing.

  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Well people could apply for asylum at a US Embassy or Consulate. But one of the very first actions of the Trump Administration was to end this, so the only way to apply would be to physically travel to the US.

    Its saying they need to apply for asylum in Mexico before they can be granted the right to apply in the US.

    Its ridiculous because Mexico isnt safe.

    Also like, we shouldn't be making another country shoulder the burden of people wanting to enter our country.

    I'm also pretty sure that any Latin American country being offered that position would soundly, publicly tell Trump to eat a cazuela pot of dicks.

    wbee62u815wj.png
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Zenyatoo wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:
    *snip*

    That's not quite what it means.

    Someones eligibility for asylum now requires that they have requested asylum and been denied it in a country they passed through en route to the U.S.

    it doesn't mean you apply for U.S. asylum in Mexico. It means that if you left, I dont know, lets say Columbia, and passed through some other country before reaching the U.S. you would have to apply for asylum in that country, and be denied. Then you would be eligible for asylum in the U.S.

    There are two exceptions
    1. Individuals who are being trafficked/were trafficked may apply for asylum regardless of the new ruling
    2. If none of the countries you passed through have signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.

    As near as I can tell, this means that refugees originating from Mexico specifically are immune to this new rule, given that there is no other country for them to have passed through.

    For everyone else you must now apply for asylum in a country you pass through on the way to the U.S.

    Regarding this question:


    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).

    The main drive appears to be an interpretation of the UNHCR regulations regarding "country of first asylum"
    Based on a European decision (The Dublin Regulation) it was decided that refugees entering Europe were to claim asylum in the first European country they entered. This was further backed up by the UNHCR by things like this pdf:

    https://www.unhcr.org/56f3ec5a9.pdf

    Covering one of the "Migrant Crises" that occurred. In the text is this note "Transfer of asylum-seekers and refugees from Greece to Turkey based on applying a ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concept" as well as the paragaph as follows

    "According to UNHCR, the ‘first country of asylum’ concept is to be applied in cases where a person
    has already, in a previous state, found international protection, that is once again accessible and effective
    for the individual concerned. Application of the concept requires an individual assessment of whether
    the refugee will be readmitted to that country and granted a right of legal stay and be accorded standards
    of treatment commensurate with the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967
    Protocol, and international human rights standards, including protection from refoulement, as well as
    timely access to a durable solution"

    The TL;DR for this is 'we the UNHCR say that if you pass through a country that has signed the relevant accords/conventions/etc you have to apply for asylum there during this particular crisis."


    It seems that Trump and his administration are essentially copying the European tact on this one, arguing that all asylum seekers entering the U.S. Must now follow this country of first asylum rule.

    Which does bring us to the question of "Which countries count under this rule?" or "Which countries have in fact been part of the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol?"

    https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b73b0d63/states-parties-1951-convention-its-1967-protocol.html

    Most of them. 142 of them to be precise. And yes, to tackle perhaps the most pertinent, Mexico is on the list.

    So the current administration will now argue that all asylum seekers who passed through Mexico but didn't apply for asylum are no longer eligible because they didn't follow the first country of asylum rule that the administration is now applying.

    So to answer the question of "is this legal?" Well... im definitely not a lawyer but, I think there's a strong precedent for it. The current administration will at the very least argue that if the Europeans can do it, we can too.

    At issue here is not really the 'first country of asylum' concept, because the US, like everybody, already follows it anyway. That concept simply means that if granted asylum or status (i.e. "already ... found international protection"), a person is not allowed to apply for asylum in another country. It happens, and the US (afaik) has always followed the procedure of returning said person to the country in which they were granted asylum. I believe the primary goal is to prevent situations where an asylee commits a crime and tries to flee,. The relevant EU interpretation of this is that a person shall be considered this if they have applied for asylum and been recognized as refugee by a country in which we know their rights will be protected. (In practice this currently means per the Dublin agreement that any EU country qualifies.)

    The important bit is the 'safe third country' concept, which says:
    "The‘safe third country concept’ is to be applied in cases where a person could, in a previous state, have applied for international protection, but has not done so, or where protection was sought but status was not determined."
    The main idea being that if you could have applied you should have, and you can be refused consideration for status. But, according to the UNHCR there are a lot of factors to be considered before labelling a country "safe", which is why the concept is the target of bilateral treaties like the US-Canada one. And to quote the UNHCR: "There is no obligation under international law for a person to seek international protection at the first effective opportunity." What Trump is trying to do is in violation of international law. He can't simply label all countries 'safe'. Even the EU wouldn't try that.

    DarkPrimusMartini_PhilosopherArbitraryDescriptorElvenshaeMillMan in the Mists
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Zenyatoo wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:
    *snip*

    That's not quite what it means.

    Someones eligibility for asylum now requires that they have requested asylum and been denied it in a country they passed through en route to the U.S.

    it doesn't mean you apply for U.S. asylum in Mexico. It means that if you left, I dont know, lets say Columbia, and passed through some other country before reaching the U.S. you would have to apply for asylum in that country, and be denied. Then you would be eligible for asylum in the U.S.

    There are two exceptions
    1. Individuals who are being trafficked/were trafficked may apply for asylum regardless of the new ruling
    2. If none of the countries you passed through have signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.

    As near as I can tell, this means that refugees originating from Mexico specifically are immune to this new rule, given that there is no other country for them to have passed through.

    For everyone else you must now apply for asylum in a country you pass through on the way to the U.S.

    Regarding this question:


    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).

    The main drive appears to be an interpretation of the UNHCR regulations regarding "country of first asylum"
    Based on a European decision (The Dublin Regulation) it was decided that refugees entering Europe were to claim asylum in the first European country they entered. This was further backed up by the UNHCR by things like this pdf:

    https://www.unhcr.org/56f3ec5a9.pdf

    Covering one of the "Migrant Crises" that occurred. In the text is this note "Transfer of asylum-seekers and refugees from Greece to Turkey based on applying a ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concept" as well as the paragaph as follows

    "According to UNHCR, the ‘first country of asylum’ concept is to be applied in cases where a person
    has already, in a previous state, found international protection, that is once again accessible and effective
    for the individual concerned. Application of the concept requires an individual assessment of whether
    the refugee will be readmitted to that country and granted a right of legal stay and be accorded standards
    of treatment commensurate with the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967
    Protocol, and international human rights standards, including protection from refoulement, as well as
    timely access to a durable solution"

    The TL;DR for this is 'we the UNHCR say that if you pass through a country that has signed the relevant accords/conventions/etc you have to apply for asylum there during this particular crisis."


    It seems that Trump and his administration are essentially copying the European tact on this one, arguing that all asylum seekers entering the U.S. Must now follow this country of first asylum rule.

    Which does bring us to the question of "Which countries count under this rule?" or "Which countries have in fact been part of the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol?"

    https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b73b0d63/states-parties-1951-convention-its-1967-protocol.html

    Most of them. 142 of them to be precise. And yes, to tackle perhaps the most pertinent, Mexico is on the list.

    So the current administration will now argue that all asylum seekers who passed through Mexico but didn't apply for asylum are no longer eligible because they didn't follow the first country of asylum rule that the administration is now applying.

    So to answer the question of "is this legal?" Well... im definitely not a lawyer but, I think there's a strong precedent for it. The current administration will at the very least argue that if the Europeans can do it, we can too.

    At issue here is not really the 'first country of asylum' concept, because the US, like everybody, already follows it anyway. That concept simply means that if granted asylum or status (i.e. "already ... found international protection"), a person is not allowed to apply for asylum in another country. It happens, and the US (afaik) has always followed the procedure of returning said person to the country in which they were granted asylum. I believe the primary goal is to prevent situations where an asylee commits a crime and tries to flee,. The relevant EU interpretation of this is that a person shall be considered this if they have applied for asylum and been recognized as refugee by a country in which we know their rights will be protected. (In practice this currently means per the Dublin agreement that any EU country qualifies.)

    The important bit is the 'safe third country' concept, which says:
    "The‘safe third country concept’ is to be applied in cases where a person could, in a previous state, have applied for international protection, but has not done so, or where protection was sought but status was not determined."
    The main idea being that if you could have applied you should have, and you can be refused consideration for status. But, according to the UNHCR there are a lot of factors to be considered before labelling a country "safe", which is why the concept is the target of bilateral treaties like the US-Canada one. And to quote the UNHCR: "There is no obligation under international law for a person to seek international protection at the first effective opportunity." What Trump is trying to do is in violation of international law. He can't simply label all countries 'safe'. Even the EU wouldn't try that.

    And I would assume that as the US is a signatory, it has the status of law in the US, and Trump can't (well, we'll see) unilaterally violate it or come up with overly creative interpretations.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Julius
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Trump will absolutely violate it.

    Maybe he'll try to come up with creative justification, or maybe he'll just ignore the law and dare people to stop him, but there's no way he opts to follow clear international law.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Commander ZoomDocIncenjucarJaysonFourMan in the MistsshrykeFencingsaxElldrenKamarBigJoeMdispatch.oElvenshaeShadowfireGnome-InterruptusEmerlmaster999durandal4532ButtersDarkPrimusZonugalBucketmanTicaldfjamJuliusStabbity StyleNobeardLabelemp123
  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Zenyatoo wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:
    *snip*

    That's not quite what it means.

    Someones eligibility for asylum now requires that they have requested asylum and been denied it in a country they passed through en route to the U.S.

    it doesn't mean you apply for U.S. asylum in Mexico. It means that if you left, I dont know, lets say Columbia, and passed through some other country before reaching the U.S. you would have to apply for asylum in that country, and be denied. Then you would be eligible for asylum in the U.S.

    There are two exceptions
    1. Individuals who are being trafficked/were trafficked may apply for asylum regardless of the new ruling
    2. If none of the countries you passed through have signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.

    As near as I can tell, this means that refugees originating from Mexico specifically are immune to this new rule, given that there is no other country for them to have passed through.

    For everyone else you must now apply for asylum in a country you pass through on the way to the U.S.

    Regarding this question:


    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).

    The main drive appears to be an interpretation of the UNHCR regulations regarding "country of first asylum"
    Based on a European decision (The Dublin Regulation) it was decided that refugees entering Europe were to claim asylum in the first European country they entered. This was further backed up by the UNHCR by things like this pdf:

    https://www.unhcr.org/56f3ec5a9.pdf

    Covering one of the "Migrant Crises" that occurred. In the text is this note "Transfer of asylum-seekers and refugees from Greece to Turkey based on applying a ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concept" as well as the paragaph as follows

    "According to UNHCR, the ‘first country of asylum’ concept is to be applied in cases where a person
    has already, in a previous state, found international protection, that is once again accessible and effective
    for the individual concerned. Application of the concept requires an individual assessment of whether
    the refugee will be readmitted to that country and granted a right of legal stay and be accorded standards
    of treatment commensurate with the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967
    Protocol, and international human rights standards, including protection from refoulement, as well as
    timely access to a durable solution"

    The TL;DR for this is 'we the UNHCR say that if you pass through a country that has signed the relevant accords/conventions/etc you have to apply for asylum there during this particular crisis."


    It seems that Trump and his administration are essentially copying the European tact on this one, arguing that all asylum seekers entering the U.S. Must now follow this country of first asylum rule.

    Which does bring us to the question of "Which countries count under this rule?" or "Which countries have in fact been part of the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol?"

    https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b73b0d63/states-parties-1951-convention-its-1967-protocol.html

    Most of them. 142 of them to be precise. And yes, to tackle perhaps the most pertinent, Mexico is on the list.

    So the current administration will now argue that all asylum seekers who passed through Mexico but didn't apply for asylum are no longer eligible because they didn't follow the first country of asylum rule that the administration is now applying.

    So to answer the question of "is this legal?" Well... im definitely not a lawyer but, I think there's a strong precedent for it. The current administration will at the very least argue that if the Europeans can do it, we can too.

    At issue here is not really the 'first country of asylum' concept, because the US, like everybody, already follows it anyway. That concept simply means that if granted asylum or status (i.e. "already ... found international protection"), a person is not allowed to apply for asylum in another country. It happens, and the US (afaik) has always followed the procedure of returning said person to the country in which they were granted asylum. I believe the primary goal is to prevent situations where an asylee commits a crime and tries to flee,. The relevant EU interpretation of this is that a person shall be considered this if they have applied for asylum and been recognized as refugee by a country in which we know their rights will be protected. (In practice this currently means per the Dublin agreement that any EU country qualifies.)

    The important bit is the 'safe third country' concept, which says:
    "The‘safe third country concept’ is to be applied in cases where a person could, in a previous state, have applied for international protection, but has not done so, or where protection was sought but status was not determined."
    The main idea being that if you could have applied you should have, and you can be refused consideration for status. But, according to the UNHCR there are a lot of factors to be considered before labelling a country "safe", which is why the concept is the target of bilateral treaties like the US-Canada one. And to quote the UNHCR: "There is no obligation under international law for a person to seek international protection at the first effective opportunity." What Trump is trying to do is in violation of international law. He can't simply label all countries 'safe'. Even the EU wouldn't try that.

    You're acting like he'd even give a fuck about things like "decency", "human rights", and "international law".

    steam_sig.png
    FencingsaxOrcaEmerlmaster999Man in the MistsMegaMekZonugal
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Trump will absolutely violate it.

    Maybe he'll try to come up with creative justification, or maybe he'll just ignore the law and dare people to stop him, but there's no way he opts to follow clear international law.

    Definitely. The question is, once he's done it, what then? Can US courts judge on this matter?

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Julius
  • ZenyatooZenyatoo Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Zenyatoo wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    DHS has changed its rules for asylum, effectively ending asylum altogether. They now say that asylum has to be applied for before crossing the border IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

    PBS reporter:
    *snip*

    That's not quite what it means.

    Someones eligibility for asylum now requires that they have requested asylum and been denied it in a country they passed through en route to the U.S.

    it doesn't mean you apply for U.S. asylum in Mexico. It means that if you left, I dont know, lets say Columbia, and passed through some other country before reaching the U.S. you would have to apply for asylum in that country, and be denied. Then you would be eligible for asylum in the U.S.

    There are two exceptions
    1. Individuals who are being trafficked/were trafficked may apply for asylum regardless of the new ruling
    2. If none of the countries you passed through have signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.

    As near as I can tell, this means that refugees originating from Mexico specifically are immune to this new rule, given that there is no other country for them to have passed through.

    For everyone else you must now apply for asylum in a country you pass through on the way to the U.S.

    Regarding this question:


    That can't be legal.

    … not that that matters, of course, when you're (R).

    The main drive appears to be an interpretation of the UNHCR regulations regarding "country of first asylum"
    Based on a European decision (The Dublin Regulation) it was decided that refugees entering Europe were to claim asylum in the first European country they entered. This was further backed up by the UNHCR by things like this pdf:

    https://www.unhcr.org/56f3ec5a9.pdf

    Covering one of the "Migrant Crises" that occurred. In the text is this note "Transfer of asylum-seekers and refugees from Greece to Turkey based on applying a ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ concept" as well as the paragaph as follows

    "According to UNHCR, the ‘first country of asylum’ concept is to be applied in cases where a person
    has already, in a previous state, found international protection, that is once again accessible and effective
    for the individual concerned. Application of the concept requires an individual assessment of whether
    the refugee will be readmitted to that country and granted a right of legal stay and be accorded standards
    of treatment commensurate with the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967
    Protocol, and international human rights standards, including protection from refoulement, as well as
    timely access to a durable solution"

    The TL;DR for this is 'we the UNHCR say that if you pass through a country that has signed the relevant accords/conventions/etc you have to apply for asylum there during this particular crisis."


    It seems that Trump and his administration are essentially copying the European tact on this one, arguing that all asylum seekers entering the U.S. Must now follow this country of first asylum rule.

    Which does bring us to the question of "Which countries count under this rule?" or "Which countries have in fact been part of the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol?"

    https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b73b0d63/states-parties-1951-convention-its-1967-protocol.html

    Most of them. 142 of them to be precise. And yes, to tackle perhaps the most pertinent, Mexico is on the list.

    So the current administration will now argue that all asylum seekers who passed through Mexico but didn't apply for asylum are no longer eligible because they didn't follow the first country of asylum rule that the administration is now applying.

    So to answer the question of "is this legal?" Well... im definitely not a lawyer but, I think there's a strong precedent for it. The current administration will at the very least argue that if the Europeans can do it, we can too.

    At issue here is not really the 'first country of asylum' concept, because the US, like everybody, already follows it anyway. That concept simply means that if granted asylum or status (i.e. "already ... found international protection"), a person is not allowed to apply for asylum in another country. It happens, and the US (afaik) has always followed the procedure of returning said person to the country in which they were granted asylum. I believe the primary goal is to prevent situations where an asylee commits a crime and tries to flee,. The relevant EU interpretation of this is that a person shall be considered this if they have applied for asylum and been recognized as refugee by a country in which we know their rights will be protected. (In practice this currently means per the Dublin agreement that any EU country qualifies.)

    The important bit is the 'safe third country' concept, which says:
    "The‘safe third country concept’ is to be applied in cases where a person could, in a previous state, have applied for international protection, but has not done so, or where protection was sought but status was not determined."
    The main idea being that if you could have applied you should have, and you can be refused consideration for status. But, according to the UNHCR there are a lot of factors to be considered before labelling a country "safe", which is why the concept is the target of bilateral treaties like the US-Canada one. And to quote the UNHCR: "There is no obligation under international law for a person to seek international protection at the first effective opportunity." What Trump is trying to do is in violation of international law. He can't simply label all countries 'safe'. Even the EU wouldn't try that.

    Unfortunately he wouldn't have to name every country safe. Just one or two between the U.S. and most refugees.

    I'd bet money that in the near future he goes on a twitter rant about how he's trying to get Mexico named safe but people keep telling him it isn't, and in classic trump fashion he'll say something like "If Mexico isn't safe, why do it's people keep trying to make our great states more like it, flying it's flag over our own? Bad hombres!"

Sign In or Register to comment.