BREAKING: Migrants Breach Wall, Throw Rocks, Get Gassed Back To Mexico - Videos

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Did they make it to U.S. soil? The article is unclear on that... perhaps by design?

Also, how did they "breach the U.S. Border Wall", when the wall hasn't been built yet?

Smells like more MSM sensationalism for ratings and website hits.

a reply to: carewemust

I don't the "thedefensemaven" is considered MSM.

a reply to: rollanotherone

We have enough coming through roxham rd thank you very much.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The President WILL Declare Martial Law along our Southern Borders . Circumstances there will Eventually Force him to .

I know you really want him to declare martial Law, you've said as much before.

It is Not what I Want , but if Is Necessary To Protect America , then So Be It .

originally posted by: threeeyesopen
a reply to: rollanotherone

We have enough coming through roxham rd thank you very much.

So Canada is out of the question? But why? They all seem like hard working, decent people. They love Canada. Just see them waving the maple leaf around and shouting Viva Canada!

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

So you're admitting it's all an economic issue and not a humanitarian issue? Got it. Move along now.

No, they are seeking asylum from the Guatemalan and Honduran government and cartels. They aren't running away from Mexico.

Mexico has offered them asylum but the conditions of that asylum were untenable.

They are seeking humanitarian asylum.

And the US Refugee Act of 1980 says that it can be as an economic refugee.

Asylum seekers, per international law

The US is not a signatory to this UN law because it has its own legislation (paragraph 3 of the site you linked).

Please read the US Refugee Act of 1980.

MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please quote me the specific statute of US law that states this.

If there were such a statute, then registering such people for asylum, as has happened up until now, is an illegal act on behalf of the intercepting authority.

My understanding is that an asylum seeker must apply for asylum on US soil, either from within the borders or at an embassy.

Remember that the US has been granting asylum to previously undocumented migrants from US soil, either surrendering to patrols from within the border or at an officially designated port of entry.

In some cases it was Mexico, in others it was another country. In this case, it was NOT the USA at all unless they are Mexican citizens. And again, seeking refugee status is NOT seeking asylum.

Let me repeat, Asylum and humanitarian refugee statuses are not the same thing. They are different with different rules and requirements.

I cannot be more clear than that. If you still claim to not understand, then I think you need to go educate yourself on actual international asylum requirements.

A “refugee” is any person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or, if stateless, outside the country of last habitual residence) and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Asylum Law and Procedure

Please note that economic status is NOT one of the qualifiers in this law.

Read the relevant act. I have provided links in previous posts.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

So you're admitting it's all an economic issue and not a humanitarian issue? Got it. Move along now.

No, they are seeking asylum from the Guatemalan and Honduran government and cartels. They aren't running away from Mexico.

Mexico has offered them asylum but the conditions of that asylum were untenable.

They are seeking humanitarian asylum.

And the US Refugee Act of 1980 says that it can be as an economic refugee.

From your own "wiki" link

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[5]

Isnt that convenient. You can claim asylum because you belong to a certain social group. Even more troubling is the "political opinion" Seems like more loopholes than our tax code.

That is what the law says.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Oh look another thread, keep the fear alive man, just don't mention the vast majority of asylum seekers will arrive after the troops go home....

Except the “asylum seekers”, by their illegal attempts to breech the US border, might just ensure the US troops stay in place indefinitely, migrants sure didn’t think that one through!

At this point in time your statement is speculation .

Lol, yes, because no one on ATS EVER speculates! Curious, though, which part you think is speculation? The troops that will likely stay in place if attempted border breeches occur or that attempts to breech the US border by non US citizens is illegal?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES

Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Traversing several countries to get to the U.S., while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

UN law is not US law.

But the U.S. is a signatory of the 1967 protocol in this case, which includes article 1 as stated above. So therefore, your comment is moot.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

So you're admitting it's all an economic issue and not a humanitarian issue? Got it. Move along now.

No, they are seeking asylum from the Guatemalan and Honduran government and cartels. They aren't running away from Mexico.

Mexico has offered them asylum but the conditions of that asylum were untenable.

They are seeking humanitarian asylum.

And the US Refugee Act of 1980 says that it can be as an economic refugee.

From your own "wiki" link

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[5]

Isnt that convenient. You can claim asylum because you belong to a certain social group. Even more troubling is the "political opinion" Seems like more loopholes than our tax code.

That is what the law says.

And how are these people "asylum" seekers again?

a reply to: Lab4Us

The troops will be going home before Christmas, any asylum seekers that attempt to breech or in fact do should be arrested.... I think the authorities should be allowed to do their jobs.

a reply to: Krakatoa
What it says is that refugees cannot be penalized for entering a country illegally and I think you should take care to note the commas.

I guess I missed the part which says they must apply in the first country they come to, as well as the fact that US law makes no such distinction.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

The president does not have the power contradict a law or to enforce a law which does not exist.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

I don't the "thedefensemaven" is considered MSM.

It is to the thread creator.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa
What it says is that refugees cannot be penalized for entering a country illegally and I think you should take care of the commas.

I guess I missed the part which says they must apply in the first country they come to, as well as the fact that US law makes no such distinction.

If the U.S. was not, then we could simply refuse access outright based upon a presidential EO.

The president does not have the power to enforce a law which does not exist.

1. The word directly in article 1 is clearly indicating that....unless you failed to see that word?

2. The president does have the authority to close the border via EO based upon imminent threat, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. And no law can usurp the USC, unless deemed acceptable by the SCOTUS.

a reply to: Krakatoa

...while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

Where does it say that? I've been looking

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Krakatoa

...while refusing an offer of asylum by a country in which they are currently located, is not compliant with this article.

Where does it say that? I've been looking

The word directly in article 1 is clearly indicating that....unless you failed to see that word?

a reply to: Krakatoa

The president does have the authority to close the border via EO based upon imminent threat

Probably so.

The word directly in article 1 is clearly indicating that....unless you failed to see that word?

Looks like a list of possible situations to me.
But it doesn't matter because US law makes no such distinction.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

The president does have the authority to close the border via EO based upon imminent threat

Probably so.

The word directly in article 1 is clearly indicating that....unless you failed to see that word?

Looks like a list of possible situations to me.
But it doesn't matter because US law makes no such distinction.

But the U.S. is a signatory to the 1967 protocol, in which article 1 is applicable. Therefore, we do make a distinction until such time as the U.S. pulls out of that U.N. agreement.