Caravans

[Angrboda]

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..

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.

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.