Mexico says it has deployed 15,000 forces in the north to halt U.S.-bound migration

[Independent voter]

Mexico has deployed almost 15,000 soldiers and National Guard in the north of the country to stem the flow of illegal immigration across the border into the United States, the head of the Mexican Army said on Monday.

Alongside 6,500 members of the security forces sent to Mexico’s southern border area with Guatemala, where many migrants enter, a larger contingent was in the north, he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1TP2YN

That's nice of them to put forth the effort.

When a refugee goes to a border checkpoint in Canada and claims asylum, he's returned to America. Canada has a "the Safe Third Country Agreement" with America.

Mexico has refused to give us a "Safe Third Country Agreement" so that we can return asylum seekers to Mexico.

Why do you think Mexico has refused to give America a "Safe Third Country Agreement"?

[burzian]

Given that the asylum-seekers in question are coming from countries other than Mexico specifically to get to the US, I can't imagine why Mexico would want to sign a Safe Third Country agreement.

Not to mention, the reason most of these people are seeking asylum in the first place has way more to do with violent US intervention in Central and Latin America than it does with Mexico. America should have to deal with it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Why do you Americans want to be on the same level as Mexico? While I think America isn’t as safe as Canada it’s still miles head of Mexico.

[Independent voter]

Why do you Americans want to be on the same level as Mexico? While I think America isn’t as safe as Canada it’s still miles head of Mexico.

We gave you Canadians the "Safe Third Country Agreement". If America is so unsafe, why did Canada want the "Safe Third Country Agreement"?

Millions of Americans and Canadians vacation in Mexico every year. If it were dangerous, we'd hear about murdered tourists.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

We gave you Canadians the "Safe Third Country Agreement". If America is so unsafe, why didn't Canada want the "Safe Third Country Agreement"?

Millions of Americans and Canadians vacation in Mexico every year. If it were dangerous, we'd hear about murdered tourists.

America is close enough to canada that it is safe even if it’s not exactly as safe, Mexico is not close to either.

We also do hear about murdered tourist.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nypost.c...ed-mexico/amp/

[Trunksee]

We allowed the migration for to long. They dont want to live in Mexico because their families came here. All i can say is maybe the Trump rhetoric got Mexico off its ass for a bit. You know Trump wont deport them to their home countries. He will send them to the country they made point of entry from. Mexico doesnt want to be bombarded with migrants who in the end cant get back here. They would rather see them bypass their country because there is no country that can sustain the amount of people that are migrating. Hopefully this makes them start heading south to developed south american countries.

[DisposableHero]

We gave you Canadians the "Safe Third Country Agreement". If America is so unsafe, why did Canada want the "Safe Third Country Agreement"?

Millions of Americans and Canadians vacation in Mexico every year. If it were dangerous, we'd hear about murdered tourists.

The agreement was mutual, it is a treaty and as such it cannot exist without the agreement of both nations. It was ratified by both Canadian and American governments. It functions because the number of refugees arriving in Canada and the US is relatively even when normalized for population, so it does not financially burden one country over another to take up this agreement. Far far more asylum seekers arrive in the US from Mexico than arrive in Mexico from the US, so there is a strong financial and resource disparity between the ask of the two countries in such an agreement, which is why Mexico hasn't entered into such an agreement with the US. It is very much not in their best interested to agree to that in terms of resources, so they don't.

[PACOX]

We allowed the migration for to long. They dont want to live in Mexico because their families came here. All i can say is maybe the Trump rhetoric got Mexico off its ass for a bit. You know Trump wont deport them to their home countries. He will send them to the country they made point of entry from. Mexico doesnt want to be bombarded with migrants who in the end cant get back here. They would rather see them bypass their country because there is no country that can sustain the amount of people that are migrating. Hopefully this makes them start heading south to developed south american countries.

A country of immigrants has allowed migration for too long? What?

[Independent voter]

The agreement was mutual, it is a treaty and as such it cannot exist without the agreement of both nations. It was ratified by both Canadian and American governments. It functions because the number of refugees arriving in Canada and the US is relatively even when normalized for population, so it does not financially burden one country over another to take up this agreement. Far far more asylum seekers arrive in the US from Mexico than arrive in Mexico from the US, so there is a strong financial and resource disparity between the ask of the two countries in such an agreement, which is why Mexico hasn't entered into such an agreement with the US. It is very much not in their best interested to agree to that in terms of resources, so they don't.

It's not in America to take back refugees trying to get into Canada either. It costs us money. I say dissolve "The Safe Third Party Agreement" with Canada. Let Canada deal with a flood of refugees.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's not in America to take back refugees trying to get into Canada either. It costs us money. I say dissolve "The Safe Third Party Agreement" with Canada. Let Canada deal with a flood of refugees.

They would just be sent back for not having legit claims.

[Independent voter]

They would just be sent back for not having legit claims.

After you house them for 20 years while they wait for trial.

And you'd deport them to their home countries, not America.

[DisposableHero]

It's not in America to take back refugees trying to get into Canada either. It costs us money. I say dissolve "The Safe Third Party Agreement" with Canada. Let Canada deal with a flood of refugees.

Along the US/Canada border, there are not many asylum seekers, any given year/month/whatever period, there isn't a substantial flow in one direction, so cost wise, its neutral. You get to send back roughly as many as Canada sends back on the whole, so the number you have to deal with, and the cost, remains very similar regardless of this agreement being in place or not. That same is not true on the US/Mexico border. Far far more asylum seekers enter the US from Mexico than enter Mexico from the US, so having this deal in place would mean Mexico would deal with far far more asylum seekers than it does without it. That is why you can't get Mexico to agree to it, which is why such an agreement doesn't exist.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

After you house them for 20 years while they wait for trial.

And you'd deport them to their home countries, not America.

Both are really unlikely.

Why do you have such a hate boner for Canada any way?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Has anyone else noticed the irony, that Republicans don't really seem to care about stopping Cubans from crossing the sea and landing in Florida? I mean, we know why. Cubans vote Republican and Republicans have to win Florida if they want a shot at the presidency.