> 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/commentisfree/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.
If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico. If they do file in Mexico and they refuse to hear their case for asylum, then they could file in the next country.
Asylum seekers are NOT REQUIRED to apply for asylum in the first country they get to.
> If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico.
That is not correct.
Just how do you think they get on the plane without a visa or visa waiver?!?
They apply for a tourist visa, which is easier to get for Mexico than for the US. They are in Mexico, legally, then travel to the US border to apply for asylum.
Furthermore, for all you know, every single one of them could have answered the question "Por qué motivo viaja a México?" with "Para solicitar asilo en los EE.UU." And been allowed entry telling the truth.
Clearly they got a visa, so were sufficiently able to demonstrate the certificate of employment and bank statements. No part of the definition of "refugee" requires they be penniless and unemployed.
Which law are they breaking?
Again, why do you know they lied? Do you have evidence?
And, does it matter? Obrador has said Mexico will grant asylum status to Ukranian and Russian refugees. https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1760627/mexico-says-its-pr...
And the US has no restrictions on accepting refugees that have already been granted asylum elsewhere, excepting when there's an Asylum Cooperative Agreements. (The law is at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/... .) And there is no Asylum Cooperative Agreement for this situation.
So, flee to Mexico with a tourist visa, request asylum, get accepted. Travel to the US. Cross the border. Request asylum.
I've cited my sources showing every step appears to be legal.
What is your goal in continuing this conversation? Keep Ukrainian refugees out of the US? Learn more about international refugee law?
That's wonderful news, so it sounds like this is a moot argument. There is no reason for them to request asylum in the US now. This is a problem solved :)
Moral: they probably left a lot behind and are traumatized to some degree. A little kindness goes a long ways in situations like that.
Pragmatic: they had the means, wits, and luck to escape conflict to relative safety. People like that probably have good values and won't be freeloaders.
History: it works. "Brain drain" is a trope for a reason. NASA would have had a much harder time with the cold war space race if the US had been less willing to accept German refugees in WWII, for example.
The list goes on. And it ends with conscience: it's the right thing to do.
What's wrong with Mexico? Why can't they stay there rather than in the US?
Is Mexico a totalitarian state?
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".
> ... 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.