• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Remain In Mexico Policy Returns

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The more things change,
the more they stay the same.

More trite sayings tonite at 11.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That policy was never rescinded by the Biden administration, so Fox again is just playing game with the truth to appease their low-information base. However, details of how to handle this is still ongoing between us and them.

But if one just gets their "news" from Fox, they'd probably be blind to this. Thus, if one wants to know why such disinformation still exists, watch Fox. :rolleyes:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Lightening the mood....
R.9d76876b8fc2bd51126f2fd4f4c261cf
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It appears that the remain in Mexico policy initiated by the Trump administration will be reinstated.


US, Mexico to announce deal reinstating Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy: report
Wait.....I thought Democrats wanted "open borders"? I thought they were facilitating the "invasion of illegals across the southern border"?

Which is it conservatives?

Also, here are some of the terms of the agreement between the US and Mexico on the policy:
  • Guarantees that all asylum seekers will have access to legal counsel
  • Guarantees that all asylum seekers will have their claims processed within 180 days
  • All asylum seekers will be offered COVID vaccines (no one will be forced to take it)
  • The US and Mexican gov'ts will fund and implement a development program in C. America to address the root causes of migration
  • Asylum seekers will be housed in shelters away from the border (rather than the previous tent camps) and Mexico will transport them back to the border for court hearings
Finally, the fuller context of this situation is that the Biden admin is still seeking to end the MPP, but due to SCOTUS upholding a previous ruling they have to continue implementing the program, so they worked with Mexico to reach an agreement on how the program could be improved.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
That policy was never rescinded by the Biden administration, so Fox again is just playing game with the truth to appease their low-information base. However, details of how to handle this is still ongoing between us and them.

But if one just gets their "news" from Fox, they'd probably be blind to this. Thus, if one wants to know why such disinformation still exists, watch Fox. :rolleyes:
Supreme Court Orders The 'Remain in Mexico' Policy Reinstated For Asylum-Seekers
The justices said in their unsigned decision that the Biden administration appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously by rescinding the policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/082421zr_2d9g.pdf
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, there has been a continuous presence of those seeking asylum in Mexico even though this administration sped up the process for those seeking asylum to be heard here. As we post today, there are a great many at that border even if I don't know what the current estimate is.

Secondly, a great many have had their cases heard and were declined and were sent back home. Again, I don't know what that current number is however.

Thirdly, people seeking asylum under both international law and our domestic law have a legal right to be heard, and that law was repeatedly being violated by the previous administration compounded by the separation of families that went well beyond legal necessities under U.S. law.

Thus, it is this administration that is abiding by U.S. and international law, whereas the previous one certainly didn't.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Again, there has been a continuous presence of those seeking asylum in Mexico even though this administration sped up the process for those seeking asylum to be heard here. As we post today, there are a great many at that border even if I don't know what the current estimate is.

Secondly, a great many have had their cases heard and were declined and were sent back home. Again, I don't know what that current number is however.

Thirdly, people seeking asylum under both international law and our domestic law have a legal right to be heard, and that law was repeatedly being violated by the previous administration compounded by the separation of families that went well beyond legal necessities under U.S. law.

Thus, it is this administration that is abiding by U.S. and international law, whereas the previous one certainly didn't.

The courts have apparently decided that this administration was not abiding by U.S. law when they ruled on MPP. We'll see how the other court cases go (several states are in court with this administration over improper border policy). It is not well for a President to be derelict in his constitutional responsibilities.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I'm curious, why would a hypothetical asylum seeker have to travel to Mexico simply so they can apply for asylum in the US?
That doesn't make even the most remote amount of sense.

Also, while I realize that the Geneva conventions don't amount to much in America, but do the US really expect this blatant violation of an agreement their own Congress ratified into law to hold up in court?
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm curious, why would a hypothetical asylum seeker have to travel to Mexico simply so they can apply for asylum in the US?
That doesn't make even the most remote amount of sense.

Also, while I realize that the Geneva conventions don't amount to much in America, but do the US really expect this blatant violation of an agreement their own Congress ratified into law to hold up in court?
Article 32 disagrees with you.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I'm curious, why would a hypothetical asylum seeker have to travel to Mexico simply so they can apply for asylum in the US?
That doesn't make even the most remote amount of sense.

Also, while I realize that the Geneva conventions don't amount to much in America, but do the US really expect this blatant violation of an agreement their own Congress ratified into law to hold up in court?

Remain in Mexico applies to asylum seekers ariving by land at the U.S./Mexico border.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Remain in Mexico applies to asylum seekers ariving by land at the U.S./Mexico border.
It still makes no sense to require somebody to stay in a foreign country they do not live in order to be allowed to apply for asylum in the US; except of course, if the primary goal is to keep dirty foreigners from setting a foot on sacred American soil, and any sort of reason and legality ought to be subsumed underneath that goal.

In that case, I wonder why travel from outside the US should be allowed at all?
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Article 32 disagrees with you.
Which specific portion of Article 32 disagrees with my point?
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their terri-
tory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision
reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling rea-
sons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to
submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the
purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially desig-
nated by the competent authority.

3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period
within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting
States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as
they may deem necessary.
Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
It still makes no sense to require somebody to stay in a foreign country they do not live in order to be allowed to apply for asylum in the US; except of course, if the primary goal is to keep dirty foreigners from setting a foot on sacred American soil, and any sort of reason and legality ought to be subsumed underneath that goal.

In that case, I wonder why travel from outside the US should be allowed at all?

They don't have to stay in Mexico in order for their asylum claim to be considered. They chose to go through Mexico to get to the U.S. That's why it's called "Remain in Mexico". They were already in Mexico when they applied for asylum. We might as well ask why they thought it made sense for them to go through Mexico to get to the U.S.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
They don't have to stay in Mexico in order for their asylum claim to be considered. They chose to go through Mexico to get to the U.S. That's why it's called "Remain in Mexico". They were already in Mexico when they applied for asylum. We might as well ask why they thought it made sense for them to go through Mexico to get to the U.S.
Something about this argument still doesn't make sense to me. If they don't have to remain in Mexico and are free to enter the US, then what is the point of the "remain in Mexico" policy?
 
Top