(November 5, 2018 at 11:55 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: I don't really see how this caravan fits that definition. Honduras is a shithole, but Costa Rica and Nircaragua are very safe countries right next door. A lot cheaper and easier to get to than the US. Costa Rica has lower crime then the US.

What they don't have is jobs. Which is why these people are, for the vast majority of them, coming here. Otherwise you wouldn't. You'd stay in Mexico, not walk thousands of miles to a country that doesn't even speak the same language.

Now I think it would be fine to let more immigrants in. The US has lots of work to be done, and if you believe that the American system is a good one that functions and works, then it only makes sense that it would continue to work with immigrants as well. I mean, that's basically the idea of America, that the American system of economic freedom works. You can't say "well it only works if we have the right type of people here"

BUT. They clearly don't fit the bill of refugees by that definition. They aren't being persecuted because of race, religion or any of that. They are fleeing poverty and maybe gang violence in the worst case scenario. But none of that mean they are being persecuted.

That's a matter for a court to decide.

Whether there are safer countries next door is irrelevant to the question of whether they are refugees. What is your belief that these caravan refugees are fleeing economic oppression in Honduras instead of "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" based upon? From my brief reading, it appears that the migrations from Honduras are motivated largely by gang violence against young people in the country. Are you arguing that young people don't form a protected social group? "Gangs, whose membership numbers are more than 85,000, participate in kidnapping, extortion, and forced recruitment. These groups in general, and MS-13 in particular, rely on forced recruitment to expand their memberships. Male children often attempt to leave El Salvador because of a fear of assault or death for refusing to join gangs. Additionally, gangs threaten to kill the families of the young boys they try to recruit, and female children fear rape or kidnappings at the hands of gang members." That refers to El Salvador, but the same conditions apply in Honduras.

Quote:...according to Section 1101(a)(42), an asylum-seeker must prove three elements to establish refugee status: (1) that the alien has suffered past persecution or maintains a well-founded fear of persecution; (2) that one of the five enumerated categories 93 is a central reason for the persecution; and (3) that the persecution is perpetuated by an organization that the government is unable or unwilling to control. The second element is a particularly controversial area in asylum law, where the circuit courts have disagreed on whether children fleeing from gangs in Central America satisfies one of the five enumerated categories (namely, membership in a particular group).

ASYLUM FOR THE DEFENSELESS

While I welcome your opinion, it does not appear to have unanimous agreement in the courts. As such, it's a matter to be resolved through the courts, and your opinion alone does nothing substantial to resolve that debate. Apparently, according to some courts, they are legitimately refugees. On what are you basing your opinion?

Additionally, it is worth noting that there is considerable debate as to whether the asylum laws in this country are being applied fairly. Your chances of obtaining asylum may depend more upon where you have your case is heard and whether or not you have adequate legal representation than on the actual merits of the case. So the fact that some courts reject Honduran asylum seekers is not a de facto argument that Honduran claims for asylum should be rejected. As a fact sheet on U.S. immigration and Central American asylum seekers notes: "Although many Central American families are fleeing similar situations, there’s a vast difference in how their cases are decided depending on the judge and the location of the court, according to an analysis of asylum decisions made by U.S. immigration judges. Whereas judges in New York grant asylum in more than 75 percent of the cases, in Atlanta almost 90 percent of asylum requests are denied. These disparities suggest that whether or not asylum is granted has less to do with the merits of a person’s case, and more to do with individual judge and where the case is heard."

(November 5, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 11:55 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: I don't really see how this caravan fits that definition. Honduras is a shithole, but Costa Rica and Nircaragua are very safe countries right next door. A lot cheaper and easier to get to than the US. Costa Rica has lower crime then the US.

What they don't have is jobs. Which is why these people are, for the vast majority of them, coming here. Otherwise you wouldn't. You'd stay in Mexico, not walk thousands of miles to a country that doesn't even speak the same language.

Now I think it would be fine to let more immigrants in. The US has lots of work to be done, and if you believe that the American system is a good one that functions and works, then it only makes sense that it would continue to work with immigrants as well. I mean, that's basically the idea of America, that the American system of economic freedom works. You can't say "well it only works if we have the right type of people here"

BUT. They clearly don't fit the bill of refugees by that definition. They aren't being persecuted because of race, religion or any of that. They are fleeing poverty and maybe gang violence in the worst case scenario. But none of that mean they are being persecuted.

That's a matter for a court to decide.

Whether there are safer countries next door is irrelevant to the question of whether they are refugees. What is your belief that these caravan refugees are fleeing economic oppression in Honduras instead of "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" based upon? From my brief reading, it appears that the migrations from Honduras are motivated largely by gang violence against young people in the country. Are you arguing that young people don't form a protected social group? "Gangs, whose membership numbers are more than 85,000, participate in kidnapping, extortion, and forced recruitment. These groups in general, and MS-13 in particular, rely on forced recruitment to expand their memberships. Male children often attempt to leave El Salvador because of a fear of assault or death for refusing to join gangs. Additionally, gangs threaten to kill the families of the young boys they try to recruit, and female children fear rape or kidnappings at the hands of gang members." That refers to El Salvador, but the same conditions apply in Honduras.

Quote:...according to Section 1101(a)(42), an asylum-seeker must prove three elements to establish refugee status: (1) that the alien has suffered past persecution or maintains a well-founded fear of persecution; (2) that one of the five enumerated categories 93 is a central reason for the persecution; and (3) that the persecution is perpetuated by an organization that the government is unable or unwilling to control. The second element is a particularly controversial area in asylum law, where the circuit courts have disagreed on whether children fleeing from gangs in Central America satisfies one of the five enumerated categories (namely, membership in a particular group).

ASYLUM FOR THE DEFENSELESS

While I welcome your opinion, it does not appear to have unanimous agreement in the courts. As such, it's a matter to be resolved through the courts, and your opinion alone does nothing substantial to resolve that debate. Apparently, according to some courts, they are legitimately refugees. On what are you basing your opinion?

Additionally, it is worth noting that there is considerable debate as to whether the asylum laws in this country are being applied fairly. Your chances of obtaining asylum may depend more upon where you have your case is heard and whether or not you have adequate legal representation than on the actual merits of the case. So the fact that some courts reject Honduran asylum seekers is not a de facto argument that Honduran claims for asylum should be rejected. As a fact sheet on U.S. immigration and Central American asylum seekers notes: "Although many Central American families are fleeing similar situations, there’s a vast difference in how their cases are decided depending on the judge and the location of the court, according to an analysis of asylum decisions made by U.S. immigration judges. Whereas judges in New York grant asylum in more than 75 percent of the cases, in Atlanta almost 90 percent of asylum requests are denied. These disparities suggest that whether or not asylum is granted has less to do with the merits of a person’s case, and more to do with individual judge and where the case is heard."

Let's just highlight a key passage here..

Quote: that one of the five enumerated categories 93 is a central reason for the persecution;

Those five reasons being:

race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,

What's your reasoning that gangs are persecuting them for one of those reasons? I don't see any evidence of that. Gang violence in your country is not a prerequisite for refugee status. Every country has gangs in it.

My reasoning for why it's obviously economic I already laid out. You simply would go to Costa Rica or Nircaragua if you wanted to escape violence. They are less violent countries than the US and speak the same language.

If you were escaping violence and given the option of a 5000 mile walk, or a 200 mile walk. The 200 mile walk ended in a safer country that spoke the same language and the 5000 mile one in a more dangerous one that spoke a different one. Which would you chose?

The only reason to walk all the way to the US is an economic one.

Says the person why isn't in the caravan and has never talked any of them .....

I would think that, in an area where gang violence is rampant, not being a member of a gang would qualify one as being a member of a particular social group, and given that gangs prey on the innocent, that would certainly count as persecution.

Boru

(November 5, 2018 at 3:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I would think that, in an area where gang violence is rampant, not being a member of a gang would qualify one as being a member of a particular social group, and given that gangs prey on the innocent, that would certainly count as persecution.

Boru

Not to mention they are also fleeing political corruption and the gangs are not just street thugs they are integrated into the economy and the government itself.

(November 5, 2018 at 4:16 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 3:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I would think that, in an area where gang violence is rampant, not being a member of a gang would qualify one as being a member of a particular social group, and given that gangs prey on the innocent, that would certainly count as persecution.

Boru

Not to mention they are also fleeing political corruption and the gangs are not just street thugs they are integrated into the economy and the government itself.

Would would covered by the clause about governments being unwilling or unable to stop the persecution.

Boru

(November 5, 2018 at 3:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: That's a matter for a court to decide.  

Whether there are safer countries next door is irrelevant to the question of whether they are refugees.  What is your belief that these caravan refugees are fleeing economic oppression in Honduras instead of "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" based upon?  From my brief reading, it appears that the migrations from Honduras are motivated largely by gang violence against young people in the country.  Are you arguing that young people don't form a protected social group?  "Gangs, whose membership numbers are more than  85,000,  participate  in  kidnapping,  extortion,  and  forced recruitment.    These groups in general, and MS-13 in particular, rely on forced recruitment to expand their memberships. Male children often  attempt  to  leave  El  Salvador  because  of  a  fear  of  assault  or death for refusing to join gangs.  Additionally, gangs threaten to kill the  families  of  the  young  boys  they  try  to  recruit, and  female children fear rape or kidnappings at the hands of gang members."  That refers to El Salvador, but the same conditions apply in Honduras.  


While I welcome your opinion, it does not appear to have unanimous agreement in the courts.  As such, it's a matter to be resolved through the courts, and your opinion alone does nothing substantial to resolve that debate.  Apparently, according to some courts, they are legitimately refugees.  On what are you basing your opinion?

Additionally, it is worth noting that there is considerable debate as to whether the asylum laws in this country are being applied fairly.  Your chances of obtaining asylum may depend more upon where you have your case is heard and whether or not you have adequate legal representation than on the actual merits of the case.  So the fact that some courts reject Honduran asylum seekers is not a de facto argument that Honduran claims for asylum should be rejected.  As a fact sheet on U.S. immigration and Central American asylum seekers notes: "Although many Central American families are fleeing similar situations, there’s a vast difference in how their cases are decided depending on the judge and the location of the court, according to an analysis of asylum decisions made by U.S. immigration judges. Whereas judges in New York grant asylum in more than 75 percent of the cases, in Atlanta almost 90 percent of asylum requests are denied. These disparities suggest that whether or not asylum is granted has less to do with the merits of a person’s case, and more to do with individual judge and where the case is heard."

Let's just highlight a key passage here..

Quote: that  one  of  the  five  enumerated  categories 93   is  a central  reason  for  the  persecution;  

Those five reasons being:

race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,

What's your reasoning that gangs are persecuting them for one of those reasons? I don't see any evidence of that. Gang violence in your country is not a prerequisite for refugee status. Every country has gangs in it.

I don't know that they necessarily are refugees according to that definition, but there is support for the idea that they may be given that some district courts hold that they are. You claimed that they 'clearly' don't satisfy the UN Protocol's definition of a refugee. You need something to support such an opinion and so far you haven't provided anything of merit.

(November 5, 2018 at 3:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: My reasoning for why it's obviously economic I already laid out. You simply would go to Costa Rica or Nircaragua if you wanted to escape violence. They are less violent countries than the US and speak the same language.

If you were escaping violence and given the option of a 5000 mile walk, or a 200 mile walk. The 200 mile walk ended in a safer country that spoke the same language and the 5000 mile one in a more dangerous one that spoke a different one. Which would you chose?

The only reason to walk all the way to the US is an economic one.

That's not true. If a tsunami is coming do you not seek the highest ground. If violence is rampant in Mexico and Central America, then you would logically seek the place where you would be most protected. It's not clear that they are likely to be better supported in their claims of asylum in those former countries than they would be in the U.S., or think that such is the case, so if you think you are more likely to be granted asylum in the U.S., you would have an independent reason for seeking the U.S. and not simply remaining in one of the other countries. I posted an article in another thread which explained that many countries are doing their best to evade their responsibilities to refugees. And it's possible that they are both persecuted for the reasons outlined as well as seeking to evade economic oppression. Being motivated by one doesn't mean you are not motivated by the other. Moreover being homeless in Mexico is no better than being homeless in the U.S. aside from the fact that being homeless in the U.S. may be materially better. Maybe that's a reason for seeking out the U.S. in particular which simply modifies their reasons and plans for dealing with being a refugee. If they are seeking to start a new life, they have reason to seek the best conditions possible for doing so. Regardless of whether they are or are not persecuted as much as they were in their home countries in the country they are currently passing through. So your argument that they are not refugees because they obviously are not fleeing persecution simply doesn't hold water. The plain fact of the matter is that if they are a relevantly persecuted group, their not stopping until they get to the U.S. does not necessarily mean they aren't refugees, which is your main argument.

Quote:Nearly 3,000 migrants have accepted offers to apply for asylum in Mexico, authorities there say, and another 500 have given up, asking authorities for help returning home to Central America.

That appears to leave at least 5,000 people, clustered in several groups, who remain on course. How many are likely to complete the journey?

Preliminary assessments of the first caravan by U.S. military planners anticipated only about 20 percent of the travelers would make it to the border. That would be as few as 1,000 people, if accurate. Awaiting them are 7,000 active-duty U.S. troops, 2,000 National Guard personnel and the thousands of Border Patrol agents and customs officers who will have the lead enforcement role.

Perhaps 1,000 is a low-ball estimate, and two or three times that many will reach the border. If they were to reconvene as a single group, they could present U.S. authorities with a crowd-control challenge at ports of entry or along the banks of the Rio Grande.

But in terms of an overall impact on border enforcement, this would not amount to a major surge. Last month, US. authorities took more than 50,000 into custody along the Mexico border. So even if all 5,000 migrants who remain in the caravans were to complete the journey, they would amount to 10 percent of those intercepted each month.

(Washington Post) [emphasis mine]

(November 5, 2018 at 11:45 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(November 3, 2018 at 8:19 pm)chimp3 Wrote: I would rather live next door to anyone that travels this far north to escape tyranny and despair than anyone who will vote for Trump in 2020!

El Salvador and Honduras aren't Tyrannical governments. They are basically non-functioning states. The people traveling north are escaping poverty by and large.

Otherwise they'd just go to another country in central America, not the US.

Then, despair.

Quote:Many of the migrants have told reporters that their decision to leave was made in a flash. They had been waiting for an opportunity to come along but could not afford to attempt the journey any other way. The cost of hiring a “coyote” smuggling guide to go from Central America to the United States can exceed $10,000. But grabbing a backpack and hitting the road with a mass movement? That’s free.

And on a route beset by kidnapping gangs, extortionists and other predatory criminals, joining a caravan offers a degree of protection. There’s safety in numbers, and the processions attract many police officers.


Why doesn’t the Mexican government stop the caravan?

The Trump administration is leaning hard on Mexico to make a stand and block the group’s advance. There are several reasons that has not happened — and remains unlikely to happen anytime soon.

A big one: The six-year term of President Enrique Peña Nieto will end Dec. 1. He is one of the most unpopular presidents in recent Mexican history. He has little incentive to use escalating force on impoverished Central Americans to appease Trump. That would be humiliating for him.

Mexico already is taking steps it has not in the past, soliciting help from the United Nations to screen and process asylum seekers, and the government says that more than 1,000 caravan members have done so. Mexican federal police officers also held off the caravan at the border with Guatemala last week, although many of those migrants simply waded through the river to continue their journey.

It is important to note that there is little stigma in Mexico to joining a caravan like this in hopes of reaching the United States. Poor Central American migrants are treated more like pilgrims than criminals. When they arrive in Mexican towns, people offer food, clothing and other donations as a way to support them and to encourage them to move on.

In a heavily Catholic country, and at a time when Pope Francis has urged sympathy and support for migrants worldwide, many Mexicans think they have a moral duty to help the caravan. An attempt by their government to repress the caravan by force would clash with that sentiment and court political disaster.

(Washington Post) [emphasis mine]