Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. This isn't to say that countries do publish so called limits. And sometimes even attempt to and occasionaly limit asylum-seekers. Still, there's a difference between what the law says and enforcement. International law is often toothless. But the United States has enforced those laws on ourselves.

www.aclu.org

District Court Strikes Down Restrictions in Biden-Era Rule Severely Limiting Asylum | American Civil Liberties Union

WASHINGTON — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today issued a victory for the plaintiffs in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center...
www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
 
acbytesla said:
No, they don't. This isn't to say that countries do publish so called limits. And sometimes even attempt to and occasionaly limit asylum-seekers. Still, there's a difference between what the law says and enforcement. International law is often toothless. But the United States has enforced those laws on ourselves.

www.aclu.org

District Court Strikes Down Restrictions in Biden-Era Rule Severely Limiting Asylum | American Civil Liberties Union

WASHINGTON — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today issued a victory for the plaintiffs in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center...
www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
Click to expand...
This court case had nothing to do with what we are talking about and did not say that the United States has no authority to set yearly limits on asylum seekers.
 
There are no statutory or numerical limits on the number of individuals who can seek asylum in the United States. While the U.S. does have annual refugee admissions ceilings, these differ from asylum seekers. Recent policies, like the Biden administration's executive action, have introduced restrictions on asylum eligibility for those entering irregularly, particularly at the southern border, but these do not constitute a cap on the overall number of asylum seekers.
Elaboration:
Asylum vs. Refugee:
It's important to distinguish between asylum and refugee status. Refugees are individuals who are outside their country of origin and are unable or unwilling to return due to persecution. Asylum seekers are individuals who are already in the U.S. or at a port of entry and claim a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.
No Statutory Cap:
The American Bar Association says there is no law that limits the number of asylum seekers allowed into the U.S.
Refugee Caps:
The U.S. does set an annual cap on the number of refugees it will resettle each year. This number is determined by the President and has been set at 125,000 for Fiscal Year 2025.
Biden Administration's Actions:
The Biden administration has implemented policies that restrict asylum eligibility for those who cross the border irregularly. These policies, such as the one involving a "border closure" triggered by high encounter numbers, do not set a numerical limit on asylum seekers but rather restrict the process for those who enter outside of established legal channels.
International Law:
International law, including the Refugee Convention, prohibits the forced return of refugees to countries where they face persecution, a principle known as non-refoulement.
 
acbytesla said:
There are no statutory or numerical limits on the number of individuals who can seek asylum in the United States. While the U.S. does have annual refugee admissions ceilings, these differ from asylum seekers. Recent policies, like the Biden administration's executive action, have introduced restrictions on asylum eligibility for those entering irregularly, particularly at the southern border, but these do not constitute a cap on the overall number of asylum seekers.
Elaboration:
Asylum vs. Refugee:
It's important to distinguish between asylum and refugee status. Refugees are individuals who are outside their country of origin and are unable or unwilling to return due to persecution. Asylum seekers are individuals who are already in the U.S. or at a port of entry and claim a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.
No Statutory Cap:
The American Bar Association says there is no law that limits the number of asylum seekers allowed into the U.S.
Refugee Caps:
The U.S. does set an annual cap on the number of refugees it will resettle each year. This number is determined by the President and has been set at 125,000 for Fiscal Year 2025.
Biden Administration's Actions:
The Biden administration has implemented policies that restrict asylum eligibility for those who cross the border irregularly. These policies, such as the one involving a "border closure" triggered by high encounter numbers, do not set a numerical limit on asylum seekers but rather restrict the process for those who enter outside of established legal channels.
International Law:
International law, including the Refugee Convention, prohibits the forced return of refugees to countries where they face persecution, a principle known as non-refoulement.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why we send asylum seekers back to Mexico if they came through Mexico.
 
Hercules56 said:
I proved that an agreement was reached via negotiations with Mexico.
Click to expand...
Not by any evidence you showed in this thread. You shown that U.S. policy imposed things on Mexico. And you shown that Mexico imposed things on the U.S. You've shown no agreement. And then you asked me to lower the standard of proof.

Hercules56 said:
You're gonna have to accept that.
Click to expand...
I accept that you know you're wrong and don't want to admit it.
 
JayUtah said:
Not by any evidence you showed in this thread. You shown that U.S. policy imposed things on Mexico. And you shown that Mexico imposed things on the U.S....
Click to expand...
The Al Jazeera article shows that the policy was a result of negotiations between the Biden Admin and Mexico.
 
After lots of negotiations and discussions, MPP 2.0 which was developed between Biden and Mexico, included more exclusions, Covid vaccines, and other changes to the program so that it would be improved pver the one under Trump.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

The “Migrant Protection Protocols”: an Explanation of the Remain in Mexico Program - American Immigration Council

Under the “Migrant Protection Protocols”, individuals who arrive at the southern border and ask for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) are given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico.
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
 
Hercules56 said:
Are you accusing Al Jazeera of LYING about the negotiations between the Biden Admin and Mexico?
Click to expand...
No. I'm asking you to show me the agreement.

Hercules56 said:
After lots of negotiations and discussions, MPP 2.0 which was developed between Biden and Mexico, included more exclusions, Covid vaccines, and other changes to the program so that it would be improved pver the one under Trump.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

The “Migrant Protection Protocols”: an Explanation of the Remain in Mexico Program - American Immigration Council

Under the “Migrant Protection Protocols”, individuals who arrive at the southern border and ask for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) are given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico.
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
Click to expand...
That program ended in 2022.
 
Under the initial MPP program, aliens encountered at the southern border of the U.S. and determined to be eligible for the MPP program were processed at the border POE, issued a Notice to Appear, placed into removal proceedings, and transferred back to Mexico. Aliens were allowed to return to the U.S. at a designated POE in order to attend their immigration court hearings. Under this program, the U.S. and the Government of Mexico developed a joint agreement, where the Government of Mexico agreed to provide appropriate humanitarian protections to those aliens returned to Mexico under the MPP program.



 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
After lots of negotiations and discussions, MPP 2.0 which was developed between Biden and Mexico, included more exclusions, Covid vaccines, and other changes to the program so that it would be improved pver the one under Trump.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

The “Migrant Protection Protocols”: an Explanation of the Remain in Mexico Program - American Immigration Council

Under the “Migrant Protection Protocols”, individuals who arrive at the southern border and ask for asylum (either at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) are given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico.
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
Click to expand...
And that policy has since ended, and Mexico has unequivocally rejected the possibility of reinstating it.

abcnews.go.com

Mexico rejects any effort to reinstate 'remain in Mexico' policy for asylum-seekers

Mexico is rejecting any effort to reinstate the Trump-era 'remain in Mexico' policy for asylum-seekers.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

It's worth reiterating that what you claimed was the existence of a safe third country agreement, which never existed at all, even temporarily or informally.
 
JayUtah said:
No. I'm asking you to show me the agreement.


That program ended in 2022.
Click to expand...
Yes, Biden restarted it after negotiations with Mexico to improve the program, and it lasted a few months and then shut down again. Trump wants to start it for a third time but that required more negotiations with Mexico.
 
Hercules56 said:
Under the initial MPP program, aliens encountered at the southern border of the U.S. and determined to be eligible for the MPP program were processed at the border POE, issued a Notice to Appear, placed into removal proceedings, and transferred back to Mexico.
Click to expand...
That was always the case, and that's per statute. The problem is that the statute doesn't require Mexico to do anything, and can't do so. The government of Mexico said as much.

Hercules56 said:
Aliens were allowed to return to the U.S. at a designated POE in order to attend their immigration court hearings. Under this program, the U.S. and the Government of Mexico developed a joint agreement, where the Government of Mexico agreed to provide appropriate humanitarian protections
Click to expand...
You're talking about the short-lived reaction to the Supreme Court ruling under Biden. Mexico had no choice but to continue because the Biden administration had been prevented from altering the deal in any way. However, the Biden administration did relax its screening policy, which has nothing to do with an agreement with Mexico. That's purely a U.S. policy.

The government of Mexico announced its intention to respond to a foisted U.S. policy by taking on a humanitarian role of housing asylum seekers. It was clear in its statement that this was a separate, unrelated, sovereign response to a position the U.S. government had forced them into.
 
Hercules56 said:
It was reborn for several months, with Mexico's consent and cooperation, under Biden.
Click to expand...
So then you cannot possibly justify either your original claim that there is a safe third party agreement, nor the modified claim "the agreement requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they're asylum application is processed", because it's a dead letter.

You had the right idea when you admitted error about the former. Any chance of a repeat performance?
 
mumblethrax said:
So then you cannot possibly justify either your original claim that there is a safe third party agreement, nor the modified claim "the agreement requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they're asylum application is processed", because it's a dead letter....
Click to expand...
MPP was a real program, negotiated with Mexico.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, Biden restarted it after negotiations with Mexico to improve the program
Click to expand...
Biden was forced to restart it against his will. What was that thing about courts forcing the executive to engage in diplomacy it didn't want to do?

Hercules56 said:
Trump wants to start it for a third time but that required more negotiations with Mexico.
Click to expand...
There were no negotiations the first time Trump foisted it on Mexico. It was not a "safe third country" agreement or an agreement of any kind. Trump simply notified Mexico that according to U.S. law, it would be sending asylum seekers arriving through Mexico back to Mexico. The government of Mexico had no say in this, nor was pleased with it. It issued a statement giving its response to Trump's unilateral actions, announcing that it would have no choice under its humanitarian obligations to house asylum seekers at its expense, but against its will.
 
mumblethrax said:
Even if we stipulate this is true, it would be necessary to consider the difference between the past and present tenses.
Click to expand...
Trump will just threaten more tariffs on Mexico and they will negotiate to bring the program back.
 
JayUtah said:
Biden was forced to restart it against his will. What was that thing about courts forcing the executive to engage in diplomacy it didn't want to do?...
Click to expand...
Good on Biden for complying with a Federal judge. Wish Trump would do the same.
 
Hercules56 said:
Trump will just threaten more tariffs on Mexico and they will negotiate to bring the program back.
Click to expand...
There was no negotiation the first time. Donald Trump simply told Mexico what he was going to do, and Mexico had no choice but to find some way to cope with the consequences.

Hercules56 said:
Good on Biden for complying with a Federal judge. Wish Trump would do the same.
Click to expand...
If people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, how is it any sort of agreement or negotiation? This has just been one foisted requirement after another.
 
JayUtah said:
There was no negotiation the first time. Donald Trump simply told Mexico what he was going to do, and Mexico had no choice but to find some way to cope with the consequences.


If people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, how is it any sort of agreement or negotiation? This has just been one foisted requirement after another.
Click to expand...
So you're saying Biden didn't negotiate with Mexico for the second version of MPP?

😹
 
Hercules56 said:
Yeah, we heard you the first time.
Click to expand...
The difference between what is a negotiated agreement and what is a foisted policy seems especially important.

Hercules56 said:
So you're saying Biden didn't negotiate with Mexico for the second version of MPP?

😹
Click to expand...
Fundamentally yes, that's what I'm saying. Pres. Biden did not want to have that policy at all, but the court told him he had to. He couldn't materially change the policy, because that's what violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The parameters of the policy were foisted on him by the courts. That functionally prevented Mexico from negotiating anything meaningfully different, since the Biden administration would be unable to agree to it or give ground. The second MPP was fundamentally the same as the first—even your Al Jazeera source admits as much. The only differences were in some of the screening criteria, which were purely a matter of U.S. policy.

When the policy was finally allowed to end, no one desired any sort of follow-on to it. Mexico never wanted the situation at all, but had no way to make it stop because the American government was hamstrung by its own laws. What you're proposing seems to be that Pres. Trump will simply once more foist the terms of U.S. policy on Mexico, and that Mexico will have little choice but to capitulate.
 
theprestige said:
And fundamental human rights are an open and contentious question. You can't just assert an answer out of rhetorical expediance.
Click to expand...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was co-drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt and adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The United States, along with 48 member states (out of the 58 that existed at the time), voted for its adoption. You do not get to unilaterally assert its irrelevance.
 
theprestige said:
Nobody has the right to claim a bed in someone else's house, just because things are unpleasant at home.

And fundamental human rights are an open and contentious question. You can't just assert an answer out of rhetorical expediance.
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was co-drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt and adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The United States, along with 48 member states (out of the 58 that existed at the time), voted for its adoption. You do not get to unilaterally assert its irrelevance.
Click to expand...
There was a time when Americans didn't think only of themselves. The greatest generation was followed up with the most selfish generation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom