[HN Gopher] Growing number of Russians, Ukrainians seeking asylu...
___________________________________________________________________
Growing number of Russians, Ukrainians seeking asylum at
U.S.-Mexico border
Author : everybodyknows
Score : 54 points
Date : 2022-03-05 19:33 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (timesofsandiego.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (timesofsandiego.com)
| yosito wrote:
| I'm an American, and I've spent a lot of time in Mexico. I'm a
| bit surprised that Ukrainians would want to come to the US from
| Mexico right now. Mexico is a lot more distant from the current
| conflict than the US, life there is more affordable, and the
| weather is better. A lot of my American friends are leaving for
| Mexico due to the current war.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm an American, and I've spent a lot of time in Mexico. I'm
| a bit surprised that Ukrainians would want to come to the US
| from Mexico right now. Mexico is a lot more distant from the
| current conflict than the US
|
| It's more distant in the sense that it is more committed to
| good relations with Putin. Why Ukrainians or Russians fleeing
| because of Putin's aggression (whether because they are targets
| of it or dob't feel they can safely oppose it at home) might
| not prefer that is... hardly mysterious.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Maybe they read somewhere that Trotsky moved to Mexico?
| Vecr wrote:
| Going by international laws on refugees, any country further
| along the travel path can send these people back to the first
| country in the path they consider safe, so for example the US
| could send these people back to Mexico, Mexico could send them
| back to Germany, and Germany could send them back to Poland. The
| US has absolutely no obligation to take these people.
| Xylakant wrote:
| What international law are you talking about? The Dublin
| agreement stipulates something like that, but that's a EU
| internal contract and would bind neither Mexico nor the US.
| andrewjf wrote:
| Why should they send them back?
| Pigalowda wrote:
| In my opinion the US owes it to our Afghan collaborationists and
| to Ukraine refugees to take them in. Our existence and foreign
| policy is partly responsible for the upheavals in these places.
|
| Hopefully these people can make it in alright
| paxys wrote:
| The two situations aren't at all comparable. US foreign policy
| isn't what caused Russia to invade Ukraine.
| ndnwkqod wrote:
| 34679 wrote:
| There is simply no moral justification for prohibiting the
| movement of any human who has not been accused of a crime.
| Nobody chooses what country they're born in. The least we can
| do as a species is allow individuals to seek out countries that
| align with their values.
| [deleted]
| ryankupyn wrote:
| And we should let them all in - the people who are leaving Russia
| now have an ardent desire to escape what is fast becoming a
| totalitarian state, while the Ukrainians are, of course, fleeing
| an invading army that has shown callous disregard for their
| lives.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| The article says they're in Mexico, not Russia.
|
| What's wrong with Mexico? Why can't they stay there rather than
| in the US?
|
| Is Mexico a totalitarian state?
| bitcoinmoney wrote:
| Economic opportunitie? Isn't that obvious for you?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Does that mean every person has a right to be in the US,
| Canada, Western Europe, South Korea or Japan (and maybe a
| few other countries)?
| [deleted]
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Nothing in the parent comment said anything about economic
| opportunity.
|
| It referenced escaping a totalitarian state. Is Mexico a
| totalitarian state that people need to escape?
|
| I live in a city where there's a lot less economic
| opportunity than there used to be, a lot of manufacturing
| work here that used to pay good wages moved to Mexico.
|
| I'm pissed off about it to tell you the truth. Economic
| opportunity? Really?
|
| Had about enough of "The Economist".
| eesmith wrote:
| "Why Don't Refugees Stay in the First Safe Country?" -
| https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-
| refugees...
|
| > ... many times more refugees do stay in the first
| country they arrive in rather than continue their journey
| onwards. However, we also see cases where people first
| arrive in a country such as Greece, Italy or Hungary and
| initially do try to settle there, but, if that country
| has economic problems like acute unemployment or food
| shortages it becomes impossible for them to survive and
| they end up destitute in the street. Some therefore
| decide to move on to France, or further, due to a desire
| to become independent and contribute to society. In the
| long term this will benefit both the refugee and the host
| country. ...
|
| > Refugees who have lost everything due to war or
| persecution face a daunting task in trying to rebuild
| their lives. Ask yourself, "If I had to suddenly leave
| home and everything behind me tomorrow, arriving to a new
| country without shelter and without work, which country
| would I go to and why?"
|
| If I were a refugee and spoke good English and no
| Spanish, I would prefer to live in the US where it's much
| more likely I can support myself, and where the language
| barrier is much smaller.
| stevespang wrote:
| paxys wrote:
| Counterpoint - if they managed to get to Mexico they already
| have asylum. International law regarding refugees is pretty
| clear that the first safe country they reach has to hear their
| case in good faith vs passing them off elsewhere. EU has such a
| system in place, and so does the US itself with Mexico
| regarding Central American refugees.
| eesmith wrote:
| There's no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe
| country.
|
| > There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum
| in any particular country. There is a requirement for the
| first safe country in which they arrive to hear their asylum
| claim but, if this does not happen for any reason, the
| refugee is then free to make their asylum claim elsewhere. --
| https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-
| refugees...
|
| > There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any
| other instrument of international law that requires refugees
| to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however,
| been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in
| international law by which countries are expected to take
| refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state.
| This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum
| seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another
| country is liable to be returned there in order for his or
| her claim to be determined. - https://www.theguardian.com/com
| mentisfree/libertycentral/201...
|
| For example, the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement
| says "Individuals entering Canada at a land port of entry
| continue to be ineligible to make a refugee claim, and will
| be returned to the U.S. unless they meet one of the relevant
| exceptions under the STCA." -
| https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-
| citizenship/co... .
|
| (Though with opposition: "CCC official: Frozen bodies show
| why Canada must end agreement with U.S."
| https://cruxnow.com/cns/2022/01/ccc-official-frozen-
| bodies-s... )
|
| As you say, the one between the US and Mexico only concerns
| migrants from Central America. Not Europe.
| beaned wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-05 23:01 UTC)