That wasn't an international law.No, you simply are not aware of the facts.
Trump created the policy, Biden tried to kill it but then federal court forced him to reinstate it.
‘Remain in Mexico 2.0’: How did the Trump-era policy get revived?
The Biden administration reinstated the controversial ‘Remain in Mexico’ programme under court order in early December.www.aljazeera.com
I never claimed it was. It was an agreement between Mexico and the USA, and Biden was forced to reinstate it due to a ruling from a federal judge.
In what way is that an agreement with Mexico?
A policy is not an international agreement.
Judge Kacsmaryk, who is the go-to Texas nut job that Republicans always go to for far-reaching rulings according to his personal whims. The matter is actually still being litigated—under the Administrative Procedures Act, no less. The ruling is merely a preliminary injunction, not a final decision. Mexico disagrees with this policy.
It was an agreement between the USA and Mexico. The USA could not enforce this policy unless Mexico agreed.
Show me the actual agreement.
You specifically claimed that there was a safe third country agreement between the US and Mexico.
Can you show me the agreement, please? Can I read the actual words that you claim the U.S. and Mexico agreed to on this point?
The admission of error is admirable, but the petulant accusation isn't.
You keep saying there is an agreement. You have been pressed to present the agreement. And you haven't.
Still waiting for evidence that it is a violation of international law to set a ceiling on yearly refugees.
Still waiting for you to show me the agreement you claim exists between the U.S. and Mexico for treating asylum seekers.
It's a violation of federal law, before international law is even considered.
As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, and under U.S. immigration law, the United States has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/us/about-unhcr/who-we-protect/asylum-seekers
Nit-pick: Treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory and which have been ratified by the Senate have the same statutory posture as federal law.
True, I just mean that we don't even have to consider our treaty obligations to show that this practice is likely illegal.
I will add that I know no such agreement exists, and I knew as much when I asked @Hercules56 to produce it. When he concedes he misspoke, or after it becomes obvious he will not, I will explain the actual diplomatic posture regarding asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Still waiting for you to bring the goalposts back.
See above.
Which post contains the agreement?
I responded with details about the actual agreement.
You gave details about a U.S. policy matter as reported in the media. Then you inferred that Mexico must have agreed to it.
No, you didn't. You posted about a unilateral decision made by Trump and then Biden. Neither of which constitutes an agreement between the United States and Mexico.
I just read through the 1951 and 1967 international law regarding refugees.
You clearly don't understand either. Nowhere in either document is there an option not to accept refugees seeking asylum.
Biden negotiated with Mexico to bring back "Stay in Mexico" program after being forced by federal court.
A claim was made that countries do not have the right to set yearly limits. That claim is baseless. The USA has had yearly limits since 1980, which has never been challenged in international court or at the UN.
I see Mexico imposing conditions. Where can I read an agreement?
Now you're splitting hairs. A plan of action was negotiated with Mexico. The article makes it very clear.
No, I'm not splitting hairs.
