Caravans

[Angrboda]

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.

...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."