Skip to content

Isn’t this a terror?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration said Tuesday that it will generally deny asylum to migrants who show up at the U.S. southern border without first seeking protection in a country they passed through, mirroring an attempt by the Trump administration that never took effect because it was blocked in court.

The measure, while stopping short of a total ban, imposes severe limitations on asylum for any nationality except Mexicans, who don’t have to travel through a third country to reach the U.S.

Given that’s basically what international law is. Those making their claim of asylum in the first safe country must be granted at least the hearing, those in their second or subsequent safe country may be.


21 thoughts on “Isn’t this a terror?”

  1. It’s Ok. Cause it’s cuddly Biden and the loving Dems doing it. If it were evil Trump and the nasty Republicans it would be fascism.

  2. It will be interesting to see whether Biden version is blocked in court and, if not, why not

    Given that Obama’s “muslim ban”, which was almost word-for-word identical to Trump’s, didn’t raise an eyebrow, I doubt this asylum policy will have any trouble.

  3. Exceptions will be made for people with an “acute medical emergency,” “imminent and extreme threat” of violent crimes such as murder, rape or kidnapping, being a victim of human trafficking or “other extremely compelling circumstances.” Children traveling alone will also be exempted, according to the rule.

    So that lets a significant number slip through the net.

    Also what happens if Mexico, independently or more likely with US encouragement, simply refuses to offer protection. After all it would be distinctly No Bueno for the short-term lifespan of any official reducing the potential income for the cartels.

  4. If children will be exempted – I imagine a lot of documents will be magically lost and people are going to remember being born 17 years ago, though having had a very hard life that makes them look quite a lot older…

  5. Glad to see HMG at last doing something about the backlog of welfare seekers waiting to be granted leave to remain. Remove the need to face to face interviews for 12,000 from 5 countries…..Radio 4 states that 95% of asylum claims from those 5 countries are granted anyway, so why bother?

    Confirms to me they have no interest in protecting this island and have surrendered.

  6. Apparently there’s some High Court ruling that says this doesn’t apply and that refugees asylum seekers etc can travel to the UK passing through innumerable safe countries first.

    I can’t be bothered to argue these days and suggest machine gunning them in the Channel instead.

  7. That is not what international law says. What it really says is that a refugee is entitled to seek asylum anywhere, but cannot settle down in a safe country and then claim asylum elsewhere. They are perfectly free to pass through safe countries on their way to the place where they claim asylum.

    It should be fairly obvious that it is like this because history has shown that refugees have fled through what were at the time safe countries but later stopped being safe due to being invaded. It is perfectly reasonable for a refugee to want to put some distance between themselves and the danger. It is also reasonable for refugees to choose to claim asylum in a country that they have some connection with (e.g. relatives or friends already live there, or they speak the language) or feel has a reputation for being safe.

    It would also be very unfair to countries to require refugees to seek asylum in only the few countries which are close to the danger rather than spreading the responsibility. Especially when countries like the UK which have sea around them and so are much harder to get to than those with long borders which can be crossed on foot.

  8. No, I’m very, very, careful in what I say.

    First safe country *MUST* grant asylum. Second and subsequent *MAY* grant asylum as they wish.

    Sure, an asylum seeker can try it out on places that suit better. I’ve no problem with that, just helped out a vague mate manage to upgrade his fleeing Iran (where he was likely to be hanged as a journalist and no, it wasn’t a result of the pieces we wrote together) from Spain to the US. The US was happy to take him, it worked better for him, great. But the US didn’t *have* to take him under international law, it was a choice. Spain actually did – first safe country he reached, direct flight. To the point that he couldn’t come and stay here 50 km over the border while it all worked though because that’s now a second country.

    It’s really important that you understand what I say. Any country can offer asylum to anyone they like. Anyone has the right to ask anywhere. Sure, great.

    But the first safe country *MUST* offer asylum*. Everyone else has a choice. That’s just what the law is.

    *Yeah, yeah, evaluated on a reasonable idea of whether there actually is a danger in the source country and all that but that’s not the bit I’m talking about.

  9. The US did not have to accept his application from abroad, but if he got to the US, then the US couldn’t deport him. Not to Iran, due to refoulement, and not to Spain as Spain would have no obligation to accept him, since he would be coming from the US which is a safe country.

    The relevant phrase is “coming directly”. That does not mean without stopping. We all understand that a direct train is not the same as a non-stop train. It’s important to bear in mind that the Convention dates from 1951, when it was far from routine for people to fly around the world – that was for rich people only. As such, it was impossible for the vast majority of refugees to leave many countries except by entering one of the few neighbouring countries, and there is nothing in the Convention or 1967 Protocol which suggests that the intent was to concentrate the burden on a few neighbouring countries. That would not be “in the true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement.”

  10. I find it perpetually amazing that the things that were rammed into me in Highschool English as a non-native speaker seems to …. completely defeat… native speakers.

    “Must” and “may” have…implications in Meaning. So do “Could”, “Should”, and “Would” and all their incarnations. Besides the other traps…

    This message brought to you by “Spliffy”, my year 1-4 english highschool teacher, who still is one of the most lovely and iconic ladies in my life.
    Especially because she taught me *ENGLISH*.
    She’s why I could get the girls and avoid slaps as a Teenageron exchanges…
    No Statue big Enough…

  11. You don’t agree that’s what the current law says? Or you don’t think that’s what the current law should say?

  12. It possible to derive it from this:

    Read it properly and you’ll see they’re saying well, yes, first safe country, but we shouldn’t apply it. Which is a perfectly acceptable, even sane, argument. It’s just that it falls under exactly what I’m saying. Anywhere can have any policy they like as long as it includes first safe country and must provide asylum.

    Or here:

    Even these folk aren’t denying my point:

    “The fact is that some refugees do not want to stay in the first safe country they reach, nor are they under any legal obligation to do so.”

    Never said they are. Rather, first safe country has legal duty to allow them in. Second can, may probably will, but doesn’t have to must.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *