Just a few quick responses: 1). Do you have cites for the second sentence? It does not appear to be true: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-safe-country-20180518-story.html
The article gives a lot of pretty good reasons people might want to avoid seeking asylum in Mexico. But, more to the point, it also notes that they are not required to do so if they get there first. The only country we have a "first safe country" agreement with is Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_Safe_Third_Country_Agreement 2) See above 3) This is a defensible position, although the last clause ("to eliminate that possibility by letting those not eligible for asylum flee is an affront to US citizens.") seems to be an exaggeration/misrepresentation. The possibility is not eliminated, and there have been other solutions put forward and attempted besides detention centers. For example, this very reasonable and successful-sounding case management program discontinued last year by the current administration: https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/ice-shuts-down-program-for-asylum-seekers/529887/ 4)This isn't really fact so much as your opinion, with which I heartily disagree. Again, the false claim about what asylum-seekers are required to do. I hope none of that came off as abusive. On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-5, Larry Charlton wrote: > > This is a difficult subject because too many people approach the subject > emotionally and attempts to be logical/unemotional get one labeled, > targeted, and rejected. The reality is that there are multiple mitigating > facts: > > 1. Mexico is a signatory to multiple international asylum and refugee > agreements. As such, citizens of Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and > Guatemala are obligated to request asylum in the "first safe country" they > reach -- Mexico. To then travel another 1,000 miles indicates they aren't > seeking asylum but rather are seeking better financial or living > conditions, which is not a legally valid reason for asylum. > > 2. Most "families" being processed did not present themselves at a US > consulate and request asylum but rather crossed illegally and were caught. > They've been coached to request asylum under such circumstances. The fact > that an asylum request was not made from the onset indicates asylum was not > the initial reason to enter illegally. > > 3. Federal law demands that aslyees be processed and that their request > be properly researched and adjudicated. Federal court agreements also > demand that children cannot be detained for greater than 20 days. > Adjudication rarely is possible within 20 days. This presents a conundrum > -- separate children from adults awaiting adjudication or release the > parents and children under the promise they will show up for their court > dates. In 2016, between 25% and 41% (depending on definitions and sources) > failed to do so. In essence, they were released and simply drifted into > the US, hoping never to be caught again. I think the US has every right as > a sovereign nation to determine who may or may not enter; to eliminate that > possibility by letting those not eligible for asylum flee is an affront to > US citizens. > > 4. Today, the executive branch faces two horrendous choices -- release > (which obviously is a terrible option) or separate the families (which IMHO > is also terrible but slightly less so.) My preference is that the Flores > agreement be put aside by the courts and that families stay together until > their court cases have been heard. Absent that, and based on #'s 1 and 2 > above, I think that all should be deported. They can ask for asylum in > Mexico which was their legal requirement from the onset, perhaps properly > present themselves as a US consulate in Mexico and have their cases > adjudicated there with the possibility asylum could be granted, or return > home. > > I started this saying that being logical begets abuse. I expect it now. > But I try to approach all contentious subjects from a legal and logical > perspective and not let emotions get in the way of a decision. This is > also why my first marriage ended. LOL > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
