Migrant Caravan Question (non political please)

[cjzimmer1]

So I keep reading the news about this caravan and there is some things I don't understand and I'm wondering if there are some international laws that I don't know about or what. 

My understanding is that pretty much all countries have some sort of policies for people entering their countries from other countries (that's why we have passports and visa etc).  Are people seeking asylum granted some special human decency rights that allow them to get around these rules and enter another country anyways?  Does the country they are going to have to allow them to enter while their asylum status is decided?

I'm just very confused on the legalities of this caravan.  Can they just demand that they be allowed to enter the US and the US has to comply?  Trump says they can't come and yet the news articles just keep talking about them demanding to be let in. I'm trying to figure out why the people think they will be allowed in to the US?  Clearly they wouldn't go through this much effort if they don't think they have a chance but I'm trying to figure out if there are laws that exist that make them think they have a chance to be allowed to enter or if they are just relying on the mass number that some of them will succeed in getting in.

Thanks for any insight you can offer and please don't turn this into a political debate.

 

[Bluegoat]

So, I am sure someone knows the specifics of US law better than I do, but in general if people claim refugee status, they are assessed in a different way than normal immigrants are.  Normally there are all kinds of criteria someone who wants to live in a new country has to meet, like having a job etc - for a refugee, most of that does not apply.

However - there are very specific rules to who is a refugee, and they are investigated. They are all based around the idea that the person is fleeing some significant danger or persecution - it is a humanitarian measure, essentially.  THough lots of things most of us think are terrible don't actually count.   

Some people may be rejected and sent back immediately, in other cases it takes some time to examine the claims of a refugee and they are generally allowed to stay in the country, with certain conditions, until a decision is made.

[Amira]

Asylum seekers aren’t getting around established US laws, but instead they’re using their right to claim asylum in the US.  Almost anyone has that right, although it doesn’t mean they will be granted asylum.  US asylum laws (and those in many other countries) are heavily influenced by what happened to so many people, especially Jews, in WWII who were automatically denied asylum in safe countries.  It is important that we fairly evaluate asylum claims. There is no cap on asylees, as there are with refugees, because we never would want to stop people legitimately in need of safety from being granted asylum simply because a quota was reached.

The only way to claim asylum in the US is to be physically present in the US.  Refugees are in a different legal category and have a different entry and approval process.  This is a group of asylum seekers, not refugees, so they need to present themselves in the US and claim asylum. Under US law, asylum seekers are supposed to be allowed to present themselves anywhere in the US and claim asylum. They do not have to be at an official border crossing. After claiming asylum, they should be assessed to see if they have a credible fear of persecution in their home country.  If they do, they will be allowed to continue their asylum claim which takes some time to adjudicate because of the paperwork they need to provide to show they aren’t safe at home.  US laws allows them to stay in the US while their claims are being processed - they almost have to because leaving the US before their claim is decided on can void the claim.  

There are very few humanitarian options for entering the US.  There are a few types of humanitarian visas, or someone can go through the very long and difficult process of entering the US as a refugee, or someone can claim asylum.  Asylum claims are the most practical option for people facing significant violence in their home countries in Central America.  

[kiwik]

Asylum requires you to get across or at least to the border first - think defectors from the Russian Ballet when touring etc. Refugees usually go to a camp of some sort nearer their country and are allocated or asked to apply for different intakes.  Recent events in Europe have blurred things a lot though as traditionally refugees go where they are sent, stay there (and of course are properly grateful) whereas the Syrian refugees while legitimately fleeing behaved a lot more like economic migrants.

There are international laws and protocols but whether they will be followed is uncertain.

[Guest]

I will be watching this thread with interest. I am not knowledgeable about all the legal aspects of this. My belief is that this is not the first time such a group of migrants has come to the border; I believe it is being promoted so much by certain news outlets because we are in an election season. The stance taken by the current President and the fears of the people who support him are political motives to make this a news subject. 

[Pawz4me]

5 minutes ago, Quill said:

I will be watching this thread with interest. I am not knowledgeable about all the legal aspects of this. My belief is that this is not the first time such a group of migrants has come to the border; I believe it is being promoted so much by certain news outlets because we are in an election season. The stance taken by the current President and the fears of the people who support him are political motives to make this a news subject. 

You're correct. Caravans have occurred in the past and received little news coverage or politicization. IIRC the most recent one occurred this past spring. Typically by the time they reach the U.S. border their numbers have dwindled dramatically, usually to no more than a few hundred. Despite the current rhetoric, from what I've been able to glean the goal of many in the caravans is to seek asylum in Mexico, not the U.S.

[Lanny]

It is my belief that if someone is going to apply for Asylum, under international law, they must do it in the first country they arrive in. I do not believe they have the right, under international law, to cross various countries, and continue traveling to their desired destination.  I do not believe that Asylum seekers have the right to specify which country they will apply for Asylum in.  Apparently, approximately 2700 of the people who were in the original caravan (there are 4 now) did apply for permission to stay in Mexico and are doing that.  Approximately 80 or 85% of the people in the caravans are men.  It would be interesting to know who (a government or an organization?) is paying for the caravans.

[RootAnn]

6 hours ago, Amira said:

Asylum seekers aren’t getting around established US laws, but instead they’re using their right to claim asylum in the US. 

I just wanted to thank Amira for her post that was very informative and avoided political mentions in any direction. I found it helpful to understand the process further. 

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, Lanny said:

It is my belief that if someone is going to apply for Asylum, under international law, they must do it in the first country they arrive in. 

I believe it is the first SAFE country - if the first country they come to has for instance, political aggreements (legal or just wink wink type) to return all asylum seekers, for instance, than it would be pointless to claim asylum there, so they can legally move on to the next place. 

[Amira]

37 minutes ago, Lanny said:

It is my belief that if someone is going to apply for Asylum, under international law, they must do it in the first country they arrive in. I do not believe they have the right, under international law, to cross various countries, and continue traveling to their desired destination.  I do not believe that Asylum seekers have the right to specify which country they will apply for Asylum in.  Apparently, approximately 2700 of the people who were in the original caravan (there are 4 now) did apply for permission to stay in Mexico and are doing that.  Approximately 80 or 85% of the people in the caravans are men.  It would be interesting to know who (a government or an organization?) is paying for the caravans.

Refugees are supposed to stay in the country where they registered as refugees until they are either resettled in a third country (they don’t get to choose which country) or can return home, if either of those options ever becomes a possibility.  Asylum seekers are different though.  They can choose where they try to claim asylum, even if it’s not the first country they fled to.  It is not always a viable option for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first country they come to.  Many Central Americans have claimed asylum in other Central American countries. Costa Rica, for example, is hosting a large number of refugees and asylum seekers from Central America.

There are a number of groups who support asylum seekers all over the world as they are trying to find safe places to live.  Pueblos Sin Fronteras is one of the more prominent groups supporting the Central American asylum seekers in the news right now, but there are others too, including many religious groups helping individual asylum seekers.  

Edited November 5, 2018 by Amira

[Hikin' Mama]

7 hours ago, Amira said:

Asylum seekers aren’t getting around established US laws, but instead they’re using their right to claim asylum in the US.  Almost anyone has that right, although it doesn’t mean they will be granted asylum.  US asylum laws (and those in many other countries) are heavily influenced by what happened to so many people, especially Jews, in WWII who were automatically denied asylum in safe countries.  It is important that we fairly evaluate asylum claims. There is no cap on asylees, as there are with refugees, because we never would want to stop people legitimately in need of safety from being granted asylum simply because a quota was reached.

The only way to claim asylum in the US is to be physically present in the US.  Refugees are in a different legal category and have a different entry and approval process.  This is a group of asylum seekers, not refugees, so they need to present themselves in the US and claim asylum. Under US law, asylum seekers are supposed to be allowed to present themselves anywhere in the US and claim asylum. They do not have to be at an official border crossing. After claiming asylum, they should be assessed to see if they have a credible fear of persecution in their home country.  If they do, they will be allowed to continue their asylum claim which takes some time to adjudicate because of the paperwork they need to provide to show they aren’t safe at home.  US laws allows them to stay in the US while their claims are being processed - they almost have to because leaving the US before their claim is decided on can void the claim.  

There are very few humanitarian options for entering the US.  There are a few types of humanitarian visas, or someone can go through the very long and difficult process of entering the US as a refugee, or someone can claim asylum.  Asylum claims are the most practical option for people facing significant violence in their home countries in Central America.  

Thank you, Amira. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this, because this is information I didn't know.

[Amira]

Here are two stories about people I personally know who have fled their homes as refugees or asylum seekers. 

The first is a Chaldean Christian from Iraq.  She fled with her brother and his family to Jordan in the 1990s because her brother refused to serve in the Iraqi military anymore under Saddam Hussein.  As Christians, they also faced an uncertain future in Iraq. Their life in Jordan was very difficult because Jordan hosts so many refugees and asylum seekers.  Up to 1/3 of Jordan’s population are refugees or asylum seekers and it is impossible for Jordan to support them.  My friend (who I met in Jordan in 1997) ended up returning to Iraq in the 2000s after the Kurdish north became somewhat safer and more autonomous because life in Jordan was too hard.  She applied to be resettled in both the US and Australia but her applications were denied.  My husband was able to see her again in Iraq a couple of years ago, 19 years after we first met her, and it would be impossible for me to describe everything she and her children have been through.

The second story is about a South Sudanese man who has fled his home multiple times.  When he was about 10 in the early 1990s, he walked from southern Sudan to Khartoum with his grandmother.  On the journey, he saw children taken by hyenas at night and feared the same would happen to him. I will never forget listening to him talk about that experience as a child.  He lived in Khartoum for a few years and then moved on to Egypt where many Sudanese have taken refuge.  Sudanese in Egypt have a very difficult life and rarely can get legal permission to work, but for many it’s the only viable place to live. Then in 2011, South Sudan became a country and many South Sudanese, including my friend, returned home with so much hope (and since Egypt had just had its own revolution, many South Sudanese felt Egypt was not a good option anymore), but civil war broke out.  My friend was put in prison for years, for no reason, and finally escaped back to Egypt where he cannot support his family because of Egypt’s economic and political difficulties, but at least he is safer.  There literally is no place on this planet right now where he has a legal right to live and work safely. He has not seen his mother in 27 years.

These are just two examples.  I have talked to Salvadorans in the US, Afghans in Kyrgyzstan, Syrians in France, and Nicaraguans in Mexico who tell the same kinds of stories. Things are very dangerous in some parts of Central America right now.  People don’t flee their homes unless they can’t live there anymore.  Claiming asylum in the US is a last, desparate attempt because the vast majority of Central American asylum claims are rejected in the end.  But when your children are not safe, you do whatever you can to make them safe.  

[ktgrok]

It is also interesting to note that when we had a policy where asylum seekers were given a place to live (so an address that stayed the same), legal help, etc  nearly 100 percent of them made their court dates, and it was much cheaper than keeping them in camps/prisons/etc until their case was finished - BUT - the program was canceled with the reason given being that too many of them proved their case and were allowed to stay. IN other words...if they have access to legal support and to friends who can help them find documentation, etc they can prove they need asylum, but we as a country didn't WANT them staying, so we stopped the program. Then, locked up, without easy access to legal help, they couldn't make their case and we could deport them. Not because they didn't have a case, but because we make it harder to prove it. 

As for immigration in general, and those who say they should "just come here legally like my ancestors did" there is a lot of information here about that - http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/whydonttheycomeherelegally.cfm

[Amira]

1 minute ago, HeighHo said:

 

This is partially correct, and I would encourage all of you to do your own research. Understand what the Safe Third Country Agreement is with respect to the Canadian/US Border for ex here is a starter: https://globalnews.ca/news/3685527/what-happens-to-asylum-seekers-crossing-illegally-into-canada/ Understand what the Refugee Convention of 1951 means to the US and Mexico. Understand what the UN is supposed to be doing, and what countries are or are not participating in the agreements.  The migration is worldwide.  

The issue is that many are breaking the law by crossing the border illegally rather than waiting for intake processing at an Official Border Crossing. 

US asylum law allows undocumented people who have been in the US for up to a year to claim asylum.  In fact, it’s important to allow that option because we don’t want to deport anyone to a life-threatening situation.  Is that your only concern with what I posted?  

A good place to learn about US asylum law is the US government website about it.  https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

[Amira]

2 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

You missed my concern. Your mistake, as I indicatd with the opener 'the issue is...'  is not informing people that it matters if the person comes in illegally. And that's not just the U.S.

I personally hope that every asylum seeker is allowed to enter the US at a designated border entry and is given a credible fear test.  That’s the best way to handle this particular situation too. But the original question was about US law.  Whether an entry was documented or not doesn’t matter, legally, although I understand why some are concerned about it.  To me, the way to handle that is to make the inprocessing at border points more efficient so no one feels that they need to try to enter elsewhere.

[NorthwestMom]

59 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

You missed my concern and tried to substitute one of your talking points in as 'my concern'.  Please remember this is not a political post and arguing sleazily discredits you.

Your mistake, as I indicated with the opener 'the issue is...'  is not informing people that it matters if the person comes in illegally. And that's not just the U.S.

 

This reads as inappropriately hostile to me and not what I get from Amira's tone at all. She did not insult you in any way, yet you insulted her. Can we keep this civil without ascribing negative intentions to others? 

[Lanny]

1 hour ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Thanks, Lanny. I knew we could count on at least one person here introducing some component of a conspiracy here. Who’s paying for it? Perhaps the exact same way every other needy soul pays thei way— by their own pennies, by begging, by the kindness of citizens of the lands they pass thru, by priests and other church leaders that give them a blanket and a cup of soup and a place to sleep. There’s a good book called Enrique’s Journey that just might explain a few pertinent facts to answer your doubts.

https://www.amazon.com/Enriques-Journey-Dangerous-Odyssey-Reunite/dp/0812971787

 

Conspiracy?     What you described is what I believe the Venezuelans who have come here to Colombia have done.  They have, never, to the best of my knowledge and belief, come here in huge groups or entered Colombia other than in a normal border crossing point.    I simply cannot begin to imagine, that there is not a lot of $ being spent by a 3rd party, to sustain the current 4 caravans, with apparently up to approximately 12000 people, total.  That takes a lot of logistics and planning and it is nothing like what has happened with the Venezuelans who've come here or have transited Colombia and continued South to other countries.  We have approximately one million Venezuelans here now. Some of them have permission to work and to live here and some are waiting for that, and hoping for that.  I am not sure if they are considered Refugees or Asylum seekers, or whether the Colombian government has created a new status for them.  They are fleeing a country where getting food or other things that we take for granted we can find, when we go to a supermarket, for granted, is frequently not possible. They are fleeing a Communist country where the opposition is not treated nicely by those in power.  And, they are fleeing a place where there is a lot of crime.  Again, I believe they have come here alone or in very small groups and that they have struggled to get here, as  you described. And their life here is not a bed of Roses either. There are as I write this, a lot of them living near the main bus terminal in the city of Cali and we are on the opposite end of the country from Venezuela. 

[NorthwestMom]

"Sleazy" has a tone. It's negative.  I'm leaving this discussion now.  This is not a place I fight. 

[Amira]

I actually wasn’t trying to switch or change HeighHo’s concern, but address what I thought that concern was in relation to the original post. That’s why I asked for clarification and I appreciated that it was given.  I missed the sleazy part since that was edited in later.  I  responded to what I quoted (and I didn’t edit anything HeighHo said).

I’m not sure why pronouns referring to me are in quotes, or why my board name is being put in quotes and misspelled.  Amira isn’t my real name, but I don’t think many of us are using our real names here.

[Ravin]

3 hours ago, Lanny said:

It is my belief that if someone is going to apply for Asylum, under international law, they must do it in the first country they arrive in. I do not believe they have the right, under international law, to cross various countries, and continue traveling to their desired destination.  I do not believe that Asylum seekers have the right to specify which country they will apply for Asylum in.  Apparently, approximately 2700 of the people who were in the original caravan (there are 4 now) did apply for permission to stay in Mexico and are doing that.  Approximately 80 or 85% of the people in the caravans are men.  It would be interesting to know who (a government or an organization?) is paying for the caravans.

 

Asylum seekers are expected to make the claim in the first safe country they arrive in. There is currently no safe country agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. This article explains all this fairly well:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-safe-country-20180518-story.html

The article is from last May and refers to a different caravan of asylum seekers.

[cjzimmer1]

I've been out all day and just now returning to my thread.  Thank you to all who responded with additional information.  I simply had no background knowledge at all in relation to asylum seekers so you have helped give me a good starting point.  I will be reading the links you have provided as I have time.  And thanks for keeping it "mostly" civil.  

[umsami]

10 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

You missed my concern and tried to substitute one of your talking points in as 'my concern'.  Please remember this is not a political post and arguing sleazily discredits you.

Your mistake, as I indicated with the opener 'the issue is...'  is not informing people that it matters if the person comes in illegally. And that's not just the U.S.

Don't believe any of Amira's posts on this thread have ever been anything but informative and not political.  Sleezy? Really? That's a low blow and completely unfounded. 

[umsami]

9 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

I pointed out 'her' use of a sleazy political tactic...inserting her point as 'my concern'.  That isn't an insult.

I also pointed out that I did identify my point, which  'she' had initially ignored.

Again, this is not political. It's also inappropriate of you to insert tone, and claim insult. If I wanted to be hostile rather than factual, I would have used glaringly appropriately language choices that would have resulted in no doubt in anyone's mind.

What's up with the 'her' and 'she'?  I've never seen that done on these boards.  Do you think she's transgender? Is it something else? I can't assume anything other than a negative intent.  Perhaps it's her nickname and the assumption that she's Muslim?  Well, I can tell you that she's not.  (I am.) 

Honestly, HeighHo, you're being quite hostile towards Amira with no justification at all.  Perhaps you simply do not like the information she has given. Fine to post your own opinion without attacking her.

[ktgrok]

10 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

Yes, and its commonly ascribed to politicians -- apt for the switch "Almira" was attempting.  

 

 

The closest thing to political I saw in her post was her linking to current US law. Versus you, who tried to use the law of Canada to explain the legalities of someone entering the USA, which doesn't even make sense.