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.
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.
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/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... .
Your own link says there is a requirement for them to hear the asylum case, which can only happen if the refugees file as such.
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.
The "requirement for them to hear the asylum case" is the obligation on Mexico ONLY IF someone applies for asylum.
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.
Please point to the relevant section of Mexican law before you claim something is illegal.
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.
By definition you can't meet the requirements for a tourist visa if you're seeking asylum as a refugee (see economic solvency requirements, job/address, etc.). And lying on federal immigration paperwork is in fact a crime in Mexico as it is in every nation on earth, so I would advise you to speak with an attorney that specializes in that area for potential punishments.
Where is that definition? I cited sources, so surely you can too.
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 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?
>Obrador has said Mexico will grant asylum status to Ukranian and Russian refugees
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 :)
Yes, but that sentiment should not be limited to this particular conflict. People fleeing war should always be welcomed with open arms. There are many reasons.
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.
You can't claim refugee status just to improve economic opportunities. They certainly didn't walk to the US/Mexico border, so clearly they have the means...
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?
> ... 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.
It's worth replying specifically to highlight how wrong the original comment is, but the evidence that was cited by the Russian government to justify their invasion was clearly fabricated.
For instance, an alleged car bombing in Donetsk right before the invasion was staged using cadavers,[1] and a video used to claim that Ukrainian troops were moving aggressively into separatist territory was filmed far from its purported location.[2]
If Russia was so sure that Ukraine was committing these atrocities, they wouldn't need to rely on fake videos to justify attacking.
I think the key distinction is that, for the most part, the current generation of cruise missiles are targeted and launched with a "human in the loop" - that is, a person actively makes the decision to fire the missile at a specific target. However, the autonomous weapons being debated have significantly less direct human control - they are potentially designed to simply patrol a certain area and attack anything that the weapon classifies as an enemy.
Of course, there are grey areas here - certainly there are existing missiles that can be launched without a defined target and programmed to aim for anything that, say, has radar emissions that match known enemy systems.
This is an intriguing concept, but given that the submarine is small and suitable for mostly high-value cargo (whisky is the example cargo given in the article) I'm not sure how it'll offer significant advantages over other forms of transportation in practice.
Although submarines are more effective navigating through storms, one could simply wait for the storm to pass when shipping non-time-sensitive cargo, then use a regular surface cargo ship (which could be automated if desired just like the submarine). Surface ships also have the advantage of compatibility with our already-established shipbuilding and maintenance infrastructure, while a submarine would require the proliferation of new skills and tools to support it.
For time-critical cargo (where one can't wait for a hypothetical storm to pass), it's likely aircraft would be a better option for most shipments - certainly in severe storms aircraft can't operate either, but in that case the very act of loading and unloading the submarine would be hazardous as well.
I think that a lot of this makes sense from Google's legal perspective, where antitrust litigation is a constant consideration and any internal document mentioning market share or competitors could be used against them.
I'm sure that there is a great deal of discussion about potential anticompetitive issues within Google and with their outside counsel, but in a context where legal privilege protects against disclosure.
One could argue that they position themselves as an accomplished monopoly already, because their internal correspondence pretends competition doesn't even exist, or is of no consequence whatsoever.
Being a monopoly (or to be precise: to be in a dominant position), is not problematic in EU competition law. It is the abuse of said position that is illegal!
I think it'd be risky for Carvana if they tried "cornering the market" on used cars - unlike houses, used cars fall in price pretty quickly and new-car production has the potential to increase as car manufacturers respond in a way that housing production does not. If Carvana buys up all the inventory to drive up prices they'll need a plan to unload as well - while keeping prices high.
I think the challenge is that if the rewards were high, Twitter employees (with the advantage of inside information) might be tempted to "tip off" an outsider in exchange for a cut of the reward, rather than just reporting the issue internally.
At the same time, there isn't much of an outside market for algorithmic bias info in the same way there for security vulnerabilities. Probably the biggest effect of this reward will be to pull some grad students who were going to study algorithmic bias anyways towards studying Twitter specifically - after all, there aren't any rewards for studying the algorithmic bias of other companies!
I think this is a really good point, and I think that if anyone is really committed to promoting free-speech-maximalist approach to the web they should be focused on building tools that make is easier for people to host and distribute their own content without relying on a centralized service.
Any business with the technical ability to censor what they host is going to be tempted (and likely pressured by other actors) to take down content that people find objectionable. Removing these "chokepoints" where a small number of people have the ability to engage in mass censorship is key if you want to promote more diverse speech on the web. (Not everyone has this goal!)
