Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

Hercules56 said:
Still waiting for evidence that it is a violation of international law to set a ceiling on yearly refugees.
Click to expand...
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

You don't seem to get it. if someone qualifies as a refugee seeking asylum every nation signatory must grant it. Period, end of story. The US is a signatory. It lacks the right to say we'll only allow 3 refugees or 3 million. This does lead to complaints that some nations are carrying more of the burden than others. Germany as of late has been complaining.

Now, why don't you admit that you misspoke, and no such agreement exists.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Now, why don't you admit that you misspoke and no such agreement exists.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hercules56 said:
I responded with details about the actual agreement.
Click to expand...
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.
 
acbytesla said:
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

You don't seem to get it. if someone qualifies as a refugee seeking asylum every nation signatory must grant it. Period, end of story. The US is a signatory. It lacks the right to say we'll only allow 3 refugees or 3 million. This does lead to complaints that some nations are carrying more of the burden than others. Germany as of late has been complaining.

Now, why don't you admit that you misspoke, and no such agreement exists.
Click to expand...
I just read through the 1951 and 1967 international law regarding refugees.

None of them say that the nations may not set limits to how many refugees they will accept per year.

You made it up.
 
Hercules56 said:
I just read through the 1951 and 1967 international law regarding refugees.

None of them say that the nations may not set limits to how many refugees they will accept per year.

You made it up.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand either. Nowhere in either document is there an option not to accept refugees seeking asylum.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
You clearly don't understand either. Nowhere in either document is there an option not to accept refugees seeking asylum.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hercules56 said:
Now you're splitting hairs. A plan of action was negotiated with Mexico.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not splitting hairs.

I've read the Dept. of Homeland Security position paper on this. I've also read the official declaration of the Government of Mexico. I know for a fact that there is no agreement. I know for a fact what the actual diplomatic posture was.

You claim there was a negotiated agreement. I wand to read that negotiated agreement. Show me the actual agreement, not inferences, impositions, or policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom