Also too, remember that we were discussing a hypothetical situation proposed by UltraVires. You wouldn’t have much of a claim for asylum anywhere, let alone Monaco, under that hypothetical. You also wouldn’t have much of a claim for asylum anywhere, let alone Monaco, in the real world.
But our discussion of the hypothetical doesn’t say jack shit about what the actual rules are for traveling through Country A to seek asylum in Country B. Nor have I said anything about those rules, since I’m totally unfamiliar with them.
I’ll remind everyone that that foreign born population has increased by about 35k each month, on average, since Trump became president. Last numbers I saw did not have this caravan as any more than an insignificant blip.
"This week there was a white supremacist attack at Kroger’s, assassination attempts against two presidents and a dozen others, now an active shooter at a major Synagogue.
The DHS secretary has spent the week at the border, fear-mongering about unarmed starving kids 1000 miles away."
Without meaning to sound too crass, anyone who seriously cares about this has their priorities completely and utterly fucked.
Big chunks of the response are state and local law enforcement. The FBI, our leading counter-terror law enforcement organization at the federal level, falls under DOJ. They work with and support DHS efforts. DHS provides supporting information and assistance to state DHSs and law enforcement that work for their Governors not DHS. For attacks that don’t appear to be tied to larger conspiracies/organizations, like these, there’s not a big role for DHS to make changes to their routine efforts. Maybe the FBI or National Intelligence community develops information about one of these attacks to shift priority for important, but routine, tasks conducted by DHS. We’re not there yet.
I’m having a hard time seeing what real difference increased priority by DHS would play at this point. What are you expecting DHS to do that they aren’t doing because of lower Cabinet level attention to the issue?
That’s not a good characterization of the two mainstream sides. The first quote is basically “open borders, except for the really bad guys”. That may be the position of a small minority of Americans, but a better characterization of the mainstream Democratic position is: “We need and welcome immigrants. Allow a certain amount of legal immigrants in, regardless of race, creed or national origin; allow a good amount of refugees in; find a path to legalize those who are here illegally as long as they pass some level of scrutiny”. I don’t think many Americans are good with the idea that the default position is that anyone can come here as long we can’t find a reason why that individual person shouldn’t be let in. I think most Americans want some limit on the total number of immigrants allowed in at any give time.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN in 1948. Monaco has been a member since 1993.
I say go for it.
It should be noted that there is a tiny possibility that Monaco will reject your claim, but you absolutely have the right to go to Monaco and claim asylum. Good luck.
John Mace, I see your point, but I respectfully disagee. As soon as you start deciding which are the “valid reasons” to keep certain people out, the phrase “open borders” is no longer accurate.
Indeed, some on both sides might end up at exactly the same positions, about who can be allowed in and how. The difference is the starting point (“default”) from which one approaches these questions.
The ‘caravan’ has already left the terrible places they are fleeing. They are in Mexico, which has offered them asylum in Mexico, a nation that happens to share their language.
Not the whole picture, I have seen reports that show that many have turned around as they run out of money or where robbed of their money already, many kids can not endure such treks on harsh environments,.
As for the “No takers” bit, it sounds to me more like words from the most upfront members of the caravan (or from one city a group had formed). “Thousands of migrants” refusing the offer does not sound really like “all of them” refusing; and as noted already, many are taking offers to return to Central America or stay in Mexico.
He literally can’t. It’s impossible to request asylum at Monaco’s land border crossing points.
There’s nobody to request asylum from. There’s no security at Monaco’s land borders. Monaco has a special relationship with France. It’s borders and customs territory are under French control. It’s only other border is with Italy. Both Italy and France are part of the Schengen Area so Monaco is de facto part of the Schengen Area and doesn’t have border control between countries of the area. In theory, asylum seekers should be asking for asylum in the first Schengen Area country they enter anyway. If he enters through their one seaport or heliport I suppose he can ask the French and Monégasque authorities there for asylum. That’s the only entry control in Monaco. ISTR that would be handled by the French as a request for asylum in France. I was mostly interested in legal issues related to crossing their border without a passport*, not asylum, at the time I researched it.
Monaco was just an awful case to randomly select for the point I think he was trying to make.
I was in Europe on NATO orders and taking leave. I could legally travel within NATO countries without a passport.
These “refugees” from violence and poverty have been offered asylum and work visas by Mexico. They threw the offer back into the Mexicans face. They do not want asylum. They do not want jobs. They want America and will settle for nothing less. Theyve made it clear that they will break the law to get it. Pretty bold considering American citizens can expect jail for breaking Honduras law.
Many Central Americans have applied for and received asylum in Mexico. But Mexico is not a particularly safe place either, especially if you’re a Central American migrant. And most people already have relatives in the US.
It is not illegal, under U.S. and international law, to enter the U.S. and apply for asylum, which is what the people on the caravan want to do. Actually, they want to apply at ports of entry. The fact that the Trump administration will not permit them to do so is the illegal action in this case.
