Biden Can End 'Remain in Mexico' Border Policy, Says SCOTUS
Scrapping the policy is an important step in restoring a fair asylum-seeking process.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration may end a Trump-era border policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or "Remain in Mexico." Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer.
Announced by President Donald Trump in 2018 and implemented in 2019, Remain in Mexico required asylum seekers to await their immigration court dates in Mexico. This policy subverted a longstanding practice of generally allowing asylum seekers to stay in the U.S. either in detention or on release while their legal proceedings took place. Under Trump's policy, once migrants arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border to request asylum, they received court dates and were returned to Mexico. There, they often waited in tent cities that sprang up in dangerous border towns. Under Trump, roughly 70,000 people were returned to Mexico; the Biden administration has sent at least 4,300 migrants to Mexico under the program.
President Joe Biden sought to roll back Remain in Mexico upon taking office, with the Department of Homeland Security officially terminating the program in June 2021. Texas and Missouri argued the suspension had created chaos at the southern border and sued the federal government to get the policy reinstated. A federal judge ordered the Biden administration to reinstate the program in August, saying it was illegally repealed. The administration appealed, eventually losing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
The lower courts had determined that the Biden administration is obligated to either detain all asylum seekers or send them to Mexico prior to their immigration court hearings. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have enough capacity to detain every asylum seeker, so the courts held that returning migrants to Mexico was the only tenable option.
The Supreme Court set out to determine whether the government's repeal of Remain in Mexico "violated the Immigration and Nationality Act" (INA)—which provides for the attorney general to expel migrants arriving on land from a foreign territory—"and whether the Government's second termination of the policy was a valid final agency action."
"The contiguous-territory return authority…is discretionary," the opinion reads. "The INA itself does not require the Secretary [of Homeland Security] to continue exercising his discretionary authority under these circumstances." Further, the government's termination "did constitute final agency action."
Remain in Mexico has been mired in controversy due to its harmful effects on people who wish to seek asylum in the United States. The State Department ranks Tamaulipas, one of the Mexican border states where migrants have had to wait, as equally dangerous to Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As of February 2021, the nonprofit Human Rights First had recorded at least 1,544 cases of murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, and violent assault among migrants who were returned to Mexico.
Opponents of the policy also cite its ill effects on due process for asylum seekers. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported in 2019 that "asylum seekers who have finished their court dates are being sent back to Mexico with documents that contain fraudulent future court dates, keeping some migrants south of the border indefinitely." Tens of thousands of people were unable to reach courts for their hearings, and a scant 7.5 percent of asylum seekers had secured a lawyer by December 2020, according to the American Immigration Council. And hardly anybody actually secured asylum: By December 2020, just 521 of 42,012 Remain in Mexico cases had won relief.
Scrapping Remain in Mexico is an important step in restoring fairness to the asylum-seeking process at the border. That being said, there are still restrictions on asylum in place that keep migrants in harm's way and deprive them of due process. Until the administration ensures that legal and accessible immigration pathways are available to migrants, people will continue to face the risks that accompany harsh border policy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sure, there is no such thing as a moral hazard or anything. Just letting everyone in won’t create a bigger crisis on the border or cause more harm. Nope.
Biden can end this. When he does, things on the border are going to get a lot worse than they already are. But, hey all that harm is just eggs in the big, gay libertarian omelet.
I actually have made $18290 within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop…~ni185~As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I’m ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home…~ni185~All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site…. https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Reason will sacrifice all the poor migrants necessary to promote the dissolution of the US
“Countries” are so old fashioned.
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-59) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home.
Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> http://payout11.tk
What’s wrong with “waiting in mexico”? What’s wrong with these asylum seekers seeking asylum in Mexico?
What’s wrong with “waiting in mexico”?
The policy violates international law, and the camps themselves often turn into violent shitholes.
What’s wrong with these asylum seekers seeking asylum in Mexico?
They could, but they would likely claim that from their point of view, Mexico is not a “safe third country”.
Mexico is a country of first asylum
Jeff, I will give you and more open borders fans a bit more consideration when you personally host, house, and sponsor some immigrants.
EHS, I will give you and more pro-life fans a bit more consideration when you personally adopt, raise and feed some unwanted babies.
Is that a valid argument? Or is that a bullshit ad-hominem? You decide!
There are plenty who do. More than who take liability for illegal immigrants. Want to try again?
There are plenty of open-border advocates who also sponsor refugees as well.
That’s not what makes it a bullshit ad-hominem argument.
Mexico straight up isn’t that bad.
I swear to god, everyone acts like it’s a third world country. It’s the 11th largest economy in the world, and its per-capita income is more than twice the world median.
It’s definitely poor compared to the richest country in the world to the north, but it really does drive me crazy when people act like Mexico is some failed state.
Like, how many people here have even been to Mexico? It has a lot of rural poverty but it’s not Rwanda.
Overall, Mexico isn’t that bad, I agree. Although it must be acknowledged that this view is shaped by my obvious tourist status, and I don’t really know what it is like to be a native-born citizen of Mexico living in some rural place.
But these camps in particular, are pretty bad. Here is an article about one of them:
https://archive.ph/HmkHv
I’ve seen it. You’re making an argument that another country not fulfilling international law, as you cited above, is not our concern and instead we should simply take the people instead.
Push back on Mexico. You’re creating a race-to-the-bottom where if one is actively shitty to Asylum seekers it absolves you of your international agreements. In the process you’re making it harder for actual asylum seekers to find a safe harbor.
Also, I apologize for swearing and being huffy. I really like Mexico, and I hate how our international relations with them so often encourage them to avoid reforming in positive ways. It’s a point I get huffy over.
No worries mate.
It incentivizes Mexico to lean against the wall and do nothing to control or help migrants coming through their own country.
Sure. So along with following international law, perhaps the US government could assist Latin American nations to help address the root causes of migration, which appears to be violence associated with the drug trade, and basic lack of respect for the rule of law. Decriminalizing and/or legalizing drugs would help, along with helping those nations – voluntarily, not by force – to build those types of governance institutions that we here take for granted.
“Sure. So along with following international law, perhaps the US government could assist Latin American nations to help address the root causes of migration, which appears to be violence associated with the drug trade, and basic lack of respect for the rule of law.”
So…we should conquer Latin America or spend trillions “nation building” there, a practice with an extremely poor record of success.
OR…we could enforce law and tell them to go fuck off and stay in Mexico.
along with helping those nations – voluntarily, not by force
https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/taking-care-your-teeth-and-mouth
Last I checked, there is no law mandating brushing one’s teeth.
Collectivistjeff thinks if he refers to the US government stealing from Americans at gunpoint “voluntary” that he might find someone as stupid as himself to buy it
Push back on Mexico.
I agree that the US government should use voluntary non-coercive means to help Mexico and all Latin American countries build institutions of stable good governance.
Hey, everyone is allowed to shop around, even immigrants, right?
You mean it is shaped by your ignorance and racism.
This is true. I installed machinery there 20 years ago. Standards were higher than ours. Not every case, but for some.
It’s because the answer is complicated. Mexico is a country, with a long history, a lot of heterogeneity in its population (10th largest population on earth), spread over a huge area (13th biggest country in the world). They have shitty people, they have saints, they have normal people trying to make a living, they have farmers and rapists and people who prefer dogs and people who prefer cats.
And so it’s complicated, but the cultural tendency to view them as some poor backwater that deserves our pity isn’t helping them in any way.
Their point of view is irrelevant. International law says it is.
International law says that they may seek asylum in the first *safe* country that they get to.
Mexico is a fucking safe country Jeff. Jesus. Everyone always fucking treating Mexico like it’s a war zone.
I don’t even care if we take them in. Open borders, yay. This argument always turns into some weird thing where Mexico is some poor country unable to do anything when it’s convenient for the Mexican government, and when it’s not they’re all saints. The way we talk about Mexico in the media and culturally is fucking ignorant.
It isn’t up to you or me to decide if Mexico is “safe” or not. It is up to the asylum process based on each individual’s case. Mexico, like any country, may be safe enough in a general sense, but may be particularly unsafe for specific people in specific situations.
Congratulations, you’ve argued a path forward for the anti-immigrant folks to just start beating asylum seekers until the US is no longer safe for them.
Stop patronizing Mexico. Hold them to a standard and they can meet it.
Well, for all their hot air, I really doubt the anti-immigrant folks are actually going to start murdering immigrants in this country (occasional nutballs like GG notwithstanding). And even if there were to be some pogrom to start up here, I doubt it would be based on some calculated desire to subvert an international treaty.
I agree that the best long-term solution is for Mexico, and all the Latin American countries, to have robust systems of law enforcement, rule of law, independent judiciary, where citizens can feel like they are more or less secure in their daily lives. This asylum process is just a short-term bandaid really.
Honestly the best solution right now, I think, is for a robust guest worker program, and remittances. Let workers come and go between countries, and let those workers freely send remittances home to their families to support them. You won’t have entire families relocating here just to support themselves, because the breadwinner(s) will be able to come and go more or less freely. And those workers sending money home is a type of foreign aid that is completely non-coercive – no tax money spent, and it doesn’t go to corrupt governments, it goes directly to the people who need the help.
“It isn’t up to you or me to decide if Mexico is “safe” or not. It is up to the asylum process”
No, it’s up the treaties agreed to.
That is it.
“Mexico, like any country, may be safe enough in a general sense, but may be particularly unsafe for specific people in specific situations.”
Then couldn’t we say “Well, those dudes died in a trailer in TX” and list ourselves as inherently unsafe as well?
No, it’s up the treaties agreed to.
Which the asylum process implements. Which is what I said.
Then couldn’t we say “Well, those dudes died in a trailer in TX” and list ourselves as inherently unsafe as well?
If a person wanted to claim asylum in Canada based on that incident, that person is free to try. Legally, Canada would have to consider that request in good faith and not return the applicant back to the US while the request is pending.
It is not up to the individual you retarded fuck. Stop advocating for asylum tourism.
Here is Jesse, advocating for deciding asylum cases en masse based on collective properties, not based on the individual merits of each case.
we should help them develop their north like we developed our southwest. more golf resorts.
“International law says that they may seek asylum in the first *safe* country that they get to.”
Yes, Mr “Murder is OK for Trespass”.
The person does not to decide what THEY feel is safe. The treaties indicate that.
https://reason.com/2022/06/30/california-accidentally-leaked-the-personal-data-of-thousands-of-licensed-gun-owners/?comments=true#comment-9575075
The person does not to decide what THEY feel is safe. The treaties indicate that.
The applicant makes his/her case. The asylum process then makes its determination.
“ Countries that accept asylum seekers are not allowed to return them to the place from which they are fleeing.”
That’s why they should stay in Mexico – they haven’t been accepted! Duh!
Mexico is a signatory to the Refugee convention. It doesn’t matter whether the migrants prefer Mexico or not.
What the fuck is international law, you totalitarian faggot?
No it doesn’t. Asylum claims for asylum tourism are actually violations though.
Mexico letting them wait in a hell-hole is Mexico’s problem. If it’s so bad, why don’t they go back home?
Time to bus them all to DC, Delaware, and NYC.
Every. Single. One.
I’d ask if a new column making the identical arguments every week is REALLY worth Reason’s money. Seems weird that they beg for money when they have the cash to pay Fiona here and all.
Also an important step in providing cost-effective foreign-born labor for Charles Koch, the billionaire who funds Reason.com.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
#InDefenseOfBillionaires
I agree that on its face the decision is correct. I’m curious to hear the objections from the dissenting judges. I’m definitely more inclined towards supporting limited immigration than the open borders “bring in all the third world unvetted” position. That said, if one administration can unilaterally enact a policy then the next can repeal it. What I question is how these procedures are directed through signed legislation passed through congress and how such laws weigh against their constitutional authority.
Must be all the exploited proles escaping from those capitalist nations to get to our Socialist Paradise.
Is this part of “the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States” that Biden was squawking about?
The Court has lost its legitimacy and its rulings are to be ignored. That’s what I heard yesterday.
>> just 521 of 42,012 Remain in Mexico cases had won relief.
strict reasons to be granted asylum are strict.
Indeed.
But hey, now we can get those 40k+ into the US before their case comes up so they get to stay regardless of any decision!
Bidens DHS lawyer sent a statement telling all immigration lawyers to dismiss all cases as required prosecutorial discretion. Redefining the word discretion.
Democrats must be finding that getting yard work done is becoming too expensive.
The influx of immigrants will surely reduce inflation on rent.
“Remain in Mexico has been mired in controversy due to its harmful effects on people who wish to seek asylum in the United States.”
Can we now mire it in controversy over its harmful effects on citizens in border states?
No. Suffering by Americans is considered “justice” by the anti-American crowd.
Biden certainly thinks it is in regards to gas prices.
They will be high for “As long as it takes”
Geraldo Rivera stated the opinion that, so long as people were poor in Central America and well off in the US, there should be no limit to any sort of immigration. Since almost every Latin American country is a kleptocracy we should expect little improvement, so we can suppose immigration will continue until conditions in the US approach those in the rest of the Americas.
One wonders why our own poor, desperate homeless relegated to living under overpasses, public parks, throughways, streets and alleyways haven’t gone running to Canada. And if El Salvadoran migrants were coming through America to get to Canada, imagine if America just left its southern border open and then did that ‘stand with our backs against the wall’ letting all the migrants through so they could easily get to the Canadian border.
I’m wondering what the international community would say about America if it just simply refused to deal with its own homeless population or migrants passing through so they could wind up in camps in Canada?
What is Spanish for “trespassers will be shot”?
La Migra.
I’d have to read the reasoning, but the idea that a later executive can’t repeal a previous executive order does seem absolutely insane. I say this as someone for the Remain In Mexico policy.
Agree, but Trump was sued relentlessly for trying to end Obama orders. Goose and gander and all that.
Yeah, I get that. Removing it is better for the country over all. That was an absurd ruling the first time. Making that a long standing precedent is fucking horrifying.
It should have been upheld based on the take care clause. The President abdication immigration or issuing mandatory discretion to ignore it is not a valid power of the executive.
It’s bad to end the policy, but does seem the correct legal decision.
Other than the fact that the US Federal government is contractually (US constitution) obligated to defend the nation’s borders…
Like Trump reversing Obama’s DREAMER EO?
Fiona, you open legs, er, border slut! Is there anything that you feel hesitant to give to others (and anything you feel hesitant to take from some people to give to other people)?
So, seriously, if some of these poor, suffering immigrants have not been shagged in a while, are you ready to fulfill their human rights?
Yes we know, recognizing their fundamental human liberties is equivalent to giving them some unearned privilege.
I’ve asked you before and I’ll ask again, why is it the job of any given government to recognize rights that others fail to?
A *just* government protects the natural rights of all within its jurisdiction.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Ok so we aren’t just.
Did you know that life also isn’t fair?
So you actively want an explicitly unjust government?
Why must it be the job of our unjust government to fix the injustices of it’s contemporaries?
Yet we did not seek to conquer England who was violating our laws. Weird.
Nope. The Founding Fathers created their own government which they believed (at the time) was a more just version of a government than the one they just left. Do you have a problem with this?
Yet we did not demand UK abide by our laws.
We do not demand others do so NOW even though we certainly have the power necessary to do so.
You didnt say it sucked Rittenhouse used his right to self defense?
We’re not talking about Rittenhouse. Do you understand why people call you a troll, when you pull shit like this? You’re just trying to generate a ‘gotcha’.
No country owes anyone a “fair” asylum process. Asylum is a gift. Take it or leave it as is.
Let everyone in with a streamlined process that gives a temporary green card immediately after a cursory background check.
once in, the agreement is that you will be deported if you
1. commit any crimes
2. turn out to have a violent criminal background
Also, no public welfare money (section 8, foodstamps, medicaid).
After 7 years, you become a citizen and the terms are lifted.
And then enforce the border fiercely.
It seems like a reasonable approach.
PS Caveat, i dont support nation states or borders at all, but given there is a nation state with a border it seems to care about, and they have all the guns and power and votes to support them, this would be the best case solution.
I agree with this eminently reasonable approach.
The good news is that it would be a lot easier to patrol the border if the reason for 99% of the illegal migration vanished overnight with a robust guest worker program.
Also decriminalizing/legalizing drugs would go a long way to reducing the violence associated with the drug trade that is the origin for so many of the asylum claims.
No.
GTFO
Let everyone in who wants to come in and isn’t a violent criminal.
I dont see anything wrong with that. At all.
We need to get to a time and place where 99% of the world will have a better chance at winning Power Ball than getting a ‘card’ to enter this Country. Historians are going to laugh themselves silly researching and reading articles like this after we destroyed ourselves.
Remember when the words, “voluntary assumption of risk” were part of the libertarian vocabulary?
My Puerto Rican companion who listened to the Spanish news told me that people were coming here due to hunger. My niece (in high school) told me recently her instructor said we will have half the jobs we do today in the not too distant future (10+ years). If this is indeed so allowing our population to swell via those currently outside the U.S. (any merits aside) will recreate this marked hunger here when all that job automation dust settles it seems. What a legacy to pass on to future U.S. generations.
If we’re going to go with your analogy about a racoon, you need to take account the fact that one or more people in your household think that racoons are adorable and feel sorry for them.
The best way to demonstrate to those people WHY you don’t want racoons in your home is to let them experience the consequences of their ideas.
Right now, it’s like you (initials: TX) have a daughter (Initials: DC) not letting you kick out the racoon, but throwing a temper tantrum if you shoo the racoon out of your room and into hers. She wants to feel good about helping the wildlife, but is largely shielded from the consequences of that policy.
But what if my daughter identifies as a raccoon?
Yeah, I would like to see that claim backed up as well.
He can’t because international law doesn’t say that. International law generally recognizes the “first safe country” rule.
The first safe country principle refers to the practice of refusing entry to asylum seekers who, prior to their arrival in the country where they are seeking asylum, have travelled through an alternative country that could have offered them asylum protection.
Someone claiming that, for example, the Salvadoran government would torture them (as part of their asylum claim) would be “safe” (from that government torture) in at least 2 countries before they reached the US border (Honduras, Mexico).
The US would have every right to reject an asylum claim from someone from El Savlador who didn’t bother to try to get asylum in Honduras or Mexico first.
Call in a biologist to get to the bottom of this problem.
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-52) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home. Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
It is the principle of non-refoulement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement
Countries that accept asylum seekers are not allowed to return them to the place from which they are fleeing.
The people seeking asylum status here are likely claiming that Mexico is not safe for them. So by the principle of non-refoulement, the US is obliged not to send them back there while their case is pending.
Section 11
The concept of first country of asylum
Introduction: International Standards
The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant
for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail
him/herself of that protection; or
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting
from the principle of non-refoulement;
provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.
In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an
applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).
Why are Hondurans and El Salvadorans “fleeing” Mexico?
Countries that accept asylum seekers are not allowed to return them to the place from which they are fleeing.
They’re not being returned to the country they are fleeing. They’re being held in a safe third country.
“ Countries that accept asylum seekers are not allowed to return them to the place from which they are fleeing.”
That’s why they should stay in Mexico – they haven’t been accepted! Duh!
Commonly, many asylum seekers claim that they are not safe due to gang violence, and that those gangs operate more or less freely in all three countries.
It is up to the asylum process based on each individual’s case.
Nationalist Front of Mexico opposes what it sees as Anglo-American cultural influences[5] and rejects the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as well as what its members consider the “American occupation” of territory formerly belonging to Mexico and now form the southwestern United States.
On its website, the front states:
We reject the occupation of our nation in its northern territories, an important cause of poverty and emigration. We demand that our claim to all the territories occupied by force by the United States be recognized in our Constitution, and we will bravely defend, according to the principle of self-determination to all peoples, the right of the Mexican people to live in the whole of our territory within its historical borders, as they existed and were recognized at the moment of our independence.
El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan is about national liberation. Aztlan is only good to build power for the Xicano Movement. As Corky Gonzalez quotes,
”The publication of a revolutionary paper is equal to the taking of a city. The proclamation of a political plan is the same as the bloodiest combat. . . they form equal parts of a rebellion and are inherent in it. . . I have never seen, nor will I ever see a revolution without the propagation of ideas as a preliminary, and the shedding of blood, as the inevitable means of deciding the outcome”[5] Cultural and political mobilization is the goal of this document. The idea of Aztlan has survived numerous conquests and hundreds of years of settler-colonial oppression which means the tie to land and indigeneity is the engine to mobilization.[3]
The goal of national mobilization is to create a nation a return to history. Declaring full sovereignty of the south west from the settler nation of America. The revolutionary caucus of the 1969 Chicano Youth Conference states,
“We, a non-conquered people living in a conquered land, come together hoping that a plan of liberation, a concrete revolutionary program acceptable to the entire southwest, will from this conference. Subjected to a system that has denied our human dignity, our rights are also being denied under a constitution which we had no part in formulating but more fundamentally the rights protected under the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty which grants the right to cultural autonomy have been violated. For 144 years we have been trying to peacefully coexist yet no peace has come to our communities. Revolution is the only means available to us. We owe no allegiance, no respect, to any of the laws of this racist country. Our liberation struggle is a war of Survival.”[5] The Revolutionary caucus is calling for action such as described in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. They are calling for the complete succession of Xicano and Indigenous land from a nation that does not recognize them as fully human.
Succession only works with the complete national sovereignty of a people and fully removed for the structure created to oppress the Indigenous / Xicano. The creation of a new national identity and the creation of a nation. It is laid out by Gonzalez as,
“La Crusada Para La Justicia exists as an expression of some members of La Raza consciously creating social systems that are parallel to and independent of the anglo systems imposed by war, annexation, and conquest. It offers a wide range of services: education, counseling, legal, medical, and financial: it focuses as a center for art, music, and drama: it builds barrio identity, political power, economic muscle.”[5] This statement offers Xicanos / Xicanas a basis of what to accomplish and how to build power for the Xicano / Indigenous communities.
Aztlan is firmly the idea of indigeneity and natural inheritance to a land stolen by occupying power. Aztlan gives the Xicano / Indigenous community power to build national liberation movement. Rodolfo Gonzalez writes, “Aztlan, a mythical land of the Aztecs? Aztlan an abstract illusion of a Nation? Aztlan a common denominator that la gente de La Raza, the mestizo, the Chicano can agree upon is not based on a phantasma of romantic delusions it is conceived on the foundations of history and the reality of its existence can and will be proven by law; not a law based on political courts of injustice and cold anglo legalities, but based on human fact and historical inheritance.” In other words, Aztlan means to build power, and this power is based on historical facts and rightness. The land of the Mexica, Dine, Hopi, Apache, Yaqui, Yavapai, and many more.[5]
Organizational goals
This list of organizational goals is pulled directly from the El Plan de Aztlan document itself.[6]
“1. UNITY in the thinking of our people concerning the barrios, the pueblo, the campo, the land, the poor, the middle class, the professional-all committed to the liberation of La Raza.
2. ECONOMY: economic control of our lives and our communities can only come about by driving the exploiter out of our communities, our pueblos, and our lands and by controlling and developing our own talents, sweat, and resources. Cultural background and values which ignore materialism and embrace humanism will contribute to the act of cooperative buying and the distribution of resources and production to sustain an economic base for healthy growth and development Lands rightfully ours will be fought for and defended. Land and realty ownership will be acquired by the community for the people’s welfare. Economic ties of responsibility must be secured by nationalism and the Chicano defense units.
3. EDUCATION must be relative to our people, i.e., history, culture, bilingual education, contributions, etc. Community control of our schools, our teachers, our administrators, our counselors, and our programs.
4. INSTITUTIONS shall serve our people by providing the service necessary for a full life and their welfare on the basis of restitution, not handouts or beggar’s crumbs. Restitution for past economic slavery, political exploitation, ethnic and cultural psychological destruction and denial of civil and human rights. Institutions in our community which do not serve the people have no place in the community. The institutions belong to the people.
5. SELF-DEFENSE of the community must rely on the combined strength of the people. The front line defense will come from the barrios, the campos, the pueblos, and the ranchitos. Their involvement as protectors of their people will be given respect and dignity. They in turn offer their responsibility and their lives for their people. Those who place themselves in the front ranks for their people do so out of love and carnalismo. Those institutions which are fattened by our brothers to provide employment and political pork barrels for the gringo will do so only as acts of liberation and for La Causa. For the very young there will no longer be acts of juvenile delinquency, but revolutionary acts.
6. CULTURAL values of our people strengthen our identity and the moral backbone of the movement. Our culture unites and educates the family of La Raza towards liberation with one heart and one mind. We must insure that our writers, poets, musicians, and artists produce literature and art that is appealing to our people and relates to our revolutionary culture. Our cultural values of life, family, and home will serve as a powerful weapon to defeat the gringo dollar value system and encourage the process of love and brotherhood.
7. POLITICAL LIBERATION can only come through independent action on our part, since the two-party system is the same animal with two heads that feed from the same trough. Where we are a majority, we will control; where we are a minority, we will represent a pressure group; nationally, we will represent one party: La Familia de La Raza!”
“Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada”
Evidently there are “magic genes” as well. A person with a particular set of genetics hates freedom and wants government subservience. Isn’t that right?
Oh I read it. Plenty of countries shit on the principle of non-refoulement. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid principle or that it is not a part of international law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service_v._Cardoza-Fonseca
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic,[2] was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a “well-founded fear” of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.
Then clearly explain the source of your objection.
So what you’re saying is that no, it’s not international law.
Thanks for playing.
Sure. Although they are not Article III judges, typically.
It is a principle of customary international law, as it applies even to states that are not parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol.[2] It is also a principle of the trucial law of nations.
It is debatable whether, for them, Mexico is a “safe” third country.
“Customary”
Fucking lol. International law is toothless. Stop citing it as valid.
Well, so we’ve moved the goalposts now from “it’s not a part of international law”, to “okay, so it is a part of international law, but it’s toothless so who cares”.
You are right that there are no international cops enforcing international law.
But the US government did pledge in good faith to uphold this agreement.
But the US government did pledge in good faith to uphold this agreement.
In the 1950s. Do countries not change in your world?
It’s a binding commitment to this day. The Constitution was written a long time ago too. Should the government ignore it too because “times have changed”?
If the US government no longer wishes to follow this treaty then it should withdraw from the treaty.
I am all in favor of the executive branch nullifying the Geneva accords and on.
In fact, I’m also in favor of evicting the one body that might enforce said false laws out of the US.
Well, I am not. I don’t want the US government to withdraw from these treaties.
I read it. I don’t understand the point of contention here. Are you going to clearly spell out your source of disagreement, or are you just going to play terse word games?
Countries DO violate the principle of non-refoulement as an empirical matter, that doesn’t mean that this violation is consistent with international law or with the principle itself.
So this is you, who cannot refute my argument on its merits, instead decides to throw sand in the air and manufacture doubt to try to persuade the readers that my argument is false from the haze of doubt that you have generated.
“Culture” is a stand-in for “an inherent disposition”, which might as well be as immutable as genetics.
It is a way to say the same thing, but without the racially coded language.
In either case, it denies the individual agency of each person and assumes that they are just robots, programmed either by genetics or by “culture”, to act out a pre-ordained script.
The Trumpers around here love to claim that Trump did better electorally among Hispanics than his predecessors did. How is this possible, if “culture” was this iron shackle that bound individuals to a certain destiny?
Fine, then be more specific to which you are referring.
That’s fine. If you don’t want migrants living in your home, no one should force you to let them in.
But, “your home” does not encompass the entire nation.
He never does.
Be also things gangs don’t exist here either. And is pretty racist that Mexico is only gangs.
Anyone is entitled to apply for asylum for any reason they wish. It doesn’t mean the application will be granted.
Sure they are. There is nothing stopping you going to the nearest border crossing and demanding asylum.
Pretty racist of you jeff.
Machismo. Duh.
“”Culture” is a stand-in for “an inherent disposition””
If you are incapable of thought, sure.
“In either case, it denies the individual agency of each person and assumes that they are just robots, programmed either by genetics or by “culture”, to act out a pre-ordained script.”
Then, by a LEGAL definition, explain why Mexico is not a safe asylum country, given that they are signatories of these same treaties.
“The Trumpers around here love to claim that Trump did better electorally among Hispanics than his predecessors did. How is this possible, if “culture” was this iron shackle that bound individuals to a certain destiny?”
Yup, culture does not exist.
Makes one wonder why those thousands and thousands are heading here since we are, literally, no better than where they come from…
Jeffie, explain to us why African born blacks greatly outperform US born blacks.
Racism, right?
No, it doesn’t.
So is this where you cannot defend your argument with any sort of specificity, so you resort to bumper-sticker slogans?
We, the people, voted on the immigration legislation through our representatives. So, yes, we ruled on it.
Your original post, where you viewed “culture” as an immutable quality of migrants, as I said?
Right. So you cannot refute what I said, so you’d rather create a haze of doubt than argue forthrightly on the merits.
You cannot win, so you will settle for confusion on who won.
Changing definitions of words isn’t a refutation.
Culture exists. But it is not this straitjacket that binds people into a preordained destiny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement
Because it would violate the principle of non-refoulement.
Treaty: Don’t violate the principle of refoulement.
Principle of refoulement: Don’t send asylum seekers back to the country from which they are fleeing.
GG: Cite specifically where the treaty explicitly says don’t send asylum seekers back to the country from which they are fleeing! You can’t! Checkmate! I win!
I think this is what’s called “playing ridiculous semantic games”.
BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT.
Why do you think this principle does not apply to asylum-seekers?
By Jesse’s logic, that’s exactly what he said.
From those who would violate them.
Is this where you cosplay communist again?
As has been stated to you over and over, end the welfare state and people won’t give a shit. But until that is done, you are in fact forcing others to take care of them.
The problem with the welfare state lies with the welfare state, not with immigration.
You do realize that native-born citizens consume far more welfare than immigrants do, right?
So here is a ‘modest proposal’*: The government should require parents to obtain a childbirth license before giving birth. The license could be obtained only if the parents could demonstrate that the kid would not be a net drain on the welfare state. After all, what is a baby other than a welfare moocher sucking off the teat of government largesse funded by hard-working taxpayers? As far as the welfare state is concerned, there is no difference between someone who immigrates here via a border crossing, and someone who ‘immigrates’ here via a vagina. In fact there is an even greater rationale to restrict childbirth, since babies are more expensive on the welfare state than immigrants – babies are on the dole for their entire K-12 education, unlike most immigrants who at least have some education before migrating here. Not to mention all of the health care costs associated with childbirth. It would save a TON of money on the welfare state. So, what do you think?
* this has to be spelled out explicitly to people like Jesse, but a ‘modest proposal’ is not a serious one, but one that provokes thought.
Collectivistjeff ceases to be
No, collectivistjeff is clearly the communist.
“No borders, no wall. No USA at all.”
Simple property rights. You wouldn’t understand.
Collectivistjeff has no natural rights.
It is literally cancer.
So find it, and beat it to death.
I was told mass shootongs only happen in the United States.
“Sure, I embezzled millions from numerous entities and I’m able to steal ID by the truckloads without a problem. I’m not violent so LET ME IN!!!”
Out a bounty on illegals.