Appeals court allows America to keep returning asylum seekers to Mexico

[Has lost its way]

Because I don’t think the gangs/cartels will be beat by people throwing rocks?

Yes, I believe a local populace that outnumbers them 100 to 1 easily can expel them at will even with rocks.

Do not excuse their cowardice if they are unwilling to fight for a better future they don't deserve it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Yes, I believe a local populace that outnumbers them 100 to 1 easily can expel them at will even with rocks.

Do not excuse their cowardice if they are unwilling to fight for a better future they don't deserve it.

I'm willing to bet any one of them would beat you out on courage, though you probably would win on delusion.

[Jimmy Woods]

Trump tried but Thanks liberal judges for giving up American sovereignty.

Trump didn't try shit.

Democrats offered Trump $25billion for a wall in 2018, but Trump and Republicans, just as they did during Obama when they turned down $50 billion for border security, wanted the immigration issue to run on in the midterms so Trump "Art of the Deal" said "Naw fuck it we will win on my bases hatred for brown people". And it almost worked. 50 million people voted Republican in 2018, too bad 60 million voted Democrat.

Aside from refusing to take $25 billion to build the wall, Trump also cut off aid to these countries which has directly caused even more refugees to head to America. Even Trump backers like Tom Barrack said the border crisis is a direct result of Trump's foreign policy just the other day.

So basically, you have a party who's sole platform is cutting taxes for the super wealthy elites which ironically also benefits from cheap immigrant labor, claiming to want to stop illegal immigration, but in reality are creating the very problem they claim only they can fix LOL very Trumpian, or should I say Republican.

[kasuke06]

Do you have a source on how many show up to court hearing because only 28% fail to show up based on the source I read.

the most recent I've found is 2016 at 39%, down from 2015 with 43% in abesntia rulings(didn't show up). Couldn't locate anything but raw number of absentia rulings for 2018.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-court-data-s/

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...ed-in-absentia

[Wermys]

Refugees have to travel across 1,000 miles of Mexico to reach the American border. Mexico is a safe country.

Do you feel that returning refugees from America to Mexico is okay?

Seeing that they aren't going through proper channels and just showing up at the border. Sure. Mexico is essentially letting these people go through there country in the first place. If they refuse to stop then themselves that isn't our problem. They can apply for asylum and we can consider them but there is no need to let them into the country until there case is decided. The bottom line is that we are not responsible for them.

[Noradin]

Well, they're from Honduras and Guatemala and those two countries don't have much of a drug trade.

They're 100% economic immigrants.

You have evidence of that claim in regards to every single one of them?

- - - Updated - - -

I was under the impression that if you want to file a case for asylum because you're fleeing war or violence you had to stop in the first safe country you arrived in and apply for it.

Your impression is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

The internationally accepted legal definition is:
a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster

So as far as I see it Mexico isn't currently at war, or suffering a natural disaster, persecution should be looked at as a case by case basis, but its worth noting poverty on its own isn't an accepted excuse for refugee status.

Are those all Mexicans who are applying for asylum?

- - - Updated - - -

its our border we should be able to turn away anyone we want.

If you want to tell the whole world that you are untrustworthy and that international treaties mean nothing to you...

- - - Updated - - -

Seeing that they aren't going through proper channels and just showing up at the border. Sure. Mexico is essentially letting these people go through there country in the first place. If they refuse to stop then themselves that isn't our problem. They can apply for asylum and we can consider them but there is no need to let them into the country until there case is decided. The bottom line is that we are not responsible for them.

You should read your own laws an treaties on the topic somtimes.

[Has lost its way]

I'm willing to bet any one of them would beat you out on courage, though you probably would win on delusion.

Yes they are rather noble cowards are they not? Leaving everything to flee and assuming they are illegal to work as slaves... come,come see the heroes as they beg see them as they dig through trash.

Such noble fools surely we can learn so much from them! If your country goes to shit don't try to fix it just flee!

[cuafpr]

You have evidence of that claim in regards to every single one of them?

- - - Updated - - -



Your impression is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



Are those all Mexicans who are applying for asylum?

- - - Updated - - -



If you want to tell the whole world that you are untrustworthy and that international treaties mean nothing to you...

- - - Updated - - -



You should read your own laws an treaties on the topic somtimes.

by no means am familiar with every treaty the US has but we have one that requires us to accept people? But at the end of the day any country has the right to allow whomever they want in and deny those they don't. There are plenty of first world countries with strict rules on immigration.

[Themius]

by no means am familiar with every treaty the US has but we have one that requires us to accept people? But at the end of the day any country has the right to allow whomever they want in and deny those they don't. There are plenty of first world countries with strict rules on immigration.

We're talking about Asylum seekers.

[cuafpr]

We're talking about Asylum seekers.

so? seeking Asylum doesn't mean its auto-granted to a person. and i'd wager at least some are using that status just get across the border as they have learned u can show cross via any means scream Asylum... its an abused system.

[Monster Hunter]

You have evidence of that claim in regards to every single one of them?

- - - Updated - - -



Your impression is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



Are those all Mexicans who are applying for asylum?

- - - Updated - - -



If you want to tell the whole world that you are untrustworthy and that international treaties mean nothing to you...

- - - Updated - - -



You should read your own laws an treaties on the topic somtimes.

Do you know what case by case basis means?

Try reading befor you make assumptions to the intent of post.

[Themius]

so? seeking Asylum doesn't mean its auto-granted to a person. and i'd wager at least some are using that status just get across the border as they have learned u can show cross via any means scream Asylum... its an abused system.

Each case is adjudicated but since they’re asylum seekers often escaping literal death you can’t send them back. So you have proof of abuse?

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

the most recent I've found is 2016 at 39%, down from 2015 with 43% in abesntia rulings(didn't show up). Couldn't locate anything but raw number of absentia rulings for 2018.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-court-data-s/

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...ed-in-absentia

So not zero and was lower at a different point in time.

[cuafpr]

Each case is adjudicated but since they’re asylum seekers often escaping literal death you can’t send them back. So you have proof of abuse?

of course not but you can't tell me its not ripe for abuse if you can just cross a border and scream asylum.... If i had proof it wouldn't be "i'd wager", i'd link it, i'm going with the odds that not 100% of these folks are true asylum seekers. Yes you can send them back if the country wanted to. (might not be the morally right thing to do but a country absolutely has the right to say no more people).

personally i think camps to hold them in for processing would work, standard of living equal to deployed troops get would work. Once full though you turn people away.. is what it is.

[Zoibert the Bear]

Being a refugee is not limited to only fleeing a war.

A refugee is someone escaping from war, violence of other nature or natural disasters.

Immigrants are not refugees.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

A refugee is someone escaping from war, violence of other nature or natural disasters.

Immigrants are not refugees.

No one is talking about immigrants, some of theses people are legit refugees As some have already been given the status.

[Themius]

of course not but you can't tell me its not ripe for abuse if you can just cross a border and scream asylum.... If i had proof it wouldn't be "i'd wager", i'd link it, i'm going with the odds that not 100% of these folks are true asylum seekers. Yes you can send them back if the country wanted to. (might not be the morally right thing to do but a country absolutely has the right to say no more people).

personally i think camps to hold them in for processing would work, standard of living equal to deployed troops get would work. Once full though you turn people away.. is what it is.

Okay so you have no proof of abuse you just "assume" it is ripe for abuse even though each case is taken on a case by case. basis and we don't just accept people because they said "asylum"

The ones that aren't "true" asylum seekers are sent back and denied asylum hence where is the abuse as they're sent back?

- - - Updated - - -

A refugee is someone escaping from war, violence of other nature or natural disasters.

Immigrants are not refugees.

Did you just ignore violence?

[cuafpr]

Okay so you have no proof of abuse you just "assume" it is ripe for abuse even though each case is taken on a case by case. basis and we don't just accept people because they said "asylum"

The ones that aren't "true" asylum seekers are sent back and denied asylum hence where is the abuse as they're sent back?

- - - Updated - - -



Did you just ignore violence?

not gonna let it rest eh? A system where you can cross a border via any means and then ask for asylum is ripe for abuse in my mind... and imo should be changed to be more strict. And playing the odds isn't always assuming but hey to each their own if you want to "assume" 100% of them are truly in need of asylum and/or "Assume" the system doesn't get abused go for it, I'm way more cynical and jaded than you obviously

[dunhildas]

I don’t count Mexico as a safe country and sending actual asylum seekers back puts them at a much greater risk. Why Americans want to be seen as safe as mexico is beyond me.

It's why we want a wall and stronger border controls.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's why we want a wall and stronger border controls.

Not really on topic but ok I guess?