Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Catch, No Release

Any of the brain trust know what Mexico's offering refugee status did for the caravans?  

2 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: Catch, No Release

It shows starving people being offered hotdogs and potato salad but saying “hell no, we demand prime rib and baked potato with sour cream. And don’t forget bacon bits!”
Senior Contributor

Re: Catch, No Release

Optics of it, yes.


Legally, it just sealed the "refugees" fate.




"The basic international refugee law is the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by 145 UN member states including Mexico and US, and administered by Geneva based UNHCR.

Article 27(1) established the concept of ‘country of first asylum’. It is the first country reached by a person seeking asylum status that meets two criteria:

(a) that country has offered the person refugee status, and

(b) that country also offers sufficient protection from the conditions causing the refugee to seek asylum.

Mexico’s offer to provide caravan members with asylum, housing, schooling, and work means it IS the country of first asylum. This also means it is automatically entitled to UN assistance from UNHCR (financial and otherwise, such a medical, tents or other housing, food ), none of which is directly on our US nickel.

Refugees may also seek further asylum in third countries, and the first country MAY allow this under Article 26(2)(a) ‘reassignment’ (especially if first country refugees prove burdensome for that country—think Greece and Syrians), but ONLY IF the further move is safe from ‘refoulment’. Refoulment is defined as a risk of refugee being returned by third country to country of origin from which fled seeking asylum.

US policy has long been that if refugee asylum is NOT granted, the failed ‘refugee’ is deported to country of origin—definitely risking refoulment according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This means that Mexico cannot under international law allow the caravan to move to the US border seeking third country US asylum."


"Long established international law to stop the caravans moving on, failing to provide transportation is but one example.  No valid liberal US or international law challenge to a US refusal to even consider asylum petitions from caravan members who do reach the border. 


It meansthe proposed tent cities to hold caught caravan members are just there to hold them pending (only) illegal entry deportation hearings, NOT asylum petitions. The deportation hearings can go very fast because there are no facts at issue (entry was illegal), easily within the 30 days before children have to be separated from parents. Hence ‘catch NO release’"




Cue more tears and screetching for upholding borders and immigration law.