An immigration official in the Canadian province of Quebec has said it is "surprising" to learn that New York City is sending migrants to the country's border.

New York City mayor Eric Adams told Fox 5 that his administration was assisting migrants who had been sent to his city but wanted to go elsewhere.

"Some want to go to Canada, some want to go to warmer states, and we are there for them as they continue to move on with their pursuit of this dream," Mr Adams said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64489465

Were they not complaining about them being sent to NY before? LOL.

 

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Were they not complaining about them being sent to NY before? LOL.

 

They are sending them where they are requesting to go.  They are free to travel in the US -- especially since many have been bused to NYC by the likes of DeSantis and Abbott.   NYC is now helping those who wish to be at a specific place, to get to that place.   

 

Ok, they get some free bus rides.  Do I want their life?  No.  Absolutely not.

 

I feel bad for Americans living on the street and get less help.  Bag of worms….

26 minutes ago, Credo said:

They are sending them where they are requesting to go.  They are free to travel in the US -- especially since many have been bused to NYC by the likes of DeSantis and Abbott.   NYC is now helping those who wish to be at a specific place, to get to that place.   

 

How nice of the US to be so helpful to those that arrived without going the legal route. Does the US help US citizens that are homeless as much?

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How nice of the US to be so helpful to those that arrived without going the legal route. Does the US help US citizens that are homeless as much?

It is not illegal to seek asylum in the US.  

1 hour ago, Credo said:

It is not illegal to seek asylum in the US.  

I never said it was, but if they can't get onto US soil they have to go the legal route from Mexico instead.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said it was, but if they can't get onto US soil they have to go the legal route from Mexico instead.

I personally can't understand why any asylum request would be accepted, let alone approved at the US/Mexican border.

 

Did they not escape their oppression when they crossed the southern border of Mexico.   Why are they not asking for asylum there,, when they crossed into Mexico ?

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I personally can't understand why any asylum request would be accepted, let alone approved at the US/Mexican border.

 

Did they not escape their oppression when they crossed the southern border of Mexico.   Why are they not asking for asylum there,, when they crossed into Mexico ?

That would be a logical conclusion. Yet somehow they manage to traverse 2000 plus kilometers of Mexico to magically arrive on the Rio Grande. Wonder how that happens...  

 

Anyway, the good Mayor needs a good hiding. Dont play progressive and call your city a "sanctuary", then try to pass off your problem to another country. Canada doesn't want to clean up your mess. 

This article highlights the unfortuante ingratitude of many of the migrants.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64475732

 

 

They are being housed at the Watson Hotel. Looks pretty nice, certainly out of my budget. Rooms used to go for about $450 a night.

 

https://thewatsonhotelny.com/

 

..and are complaining that they may have to shift to shared, dormitory style accommodations.  How about they shift back home instead?

Edited February 8, 20233 yr by Hanaguma

You reap what you sow. If the US had not interfered in the central american countries they would not be coming. Goes back to the United Fruit Company.

16 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

That would be a logical conclusion. Yet somehow they manage to traverse 2000 plus kilometers of Mexico to magically arrive on the Rio Grande. Wonder how that happens...  

 

Anyway, the good Mayor needs a good hiding. Dont play progressive and call your city a "sanctuary", then try to pass off your problem to another country. Canada doesn't want to clean up your mess. 

Your lack of understanding and compassion are noted.  People seeking asylum are under no obligation to apply for refugee status in Mexico.  Mexico is under no obligation to deny them legal passage to the US border.  In general, those who are traveling to the US have a familial connection to someone in the US and on the basis of that, most would be permitted transit.  It's called family reunification.   

 

For those who have been legally permitted to enter the US, there is no reason why they have to remain if their destination is Canada.  The Mayor is not 'sending' anyone anywhere.  He is facilitating the travel of those who want to go elsewhere, including to Canada.  

Canada may well not permit them entry.  That is a decision for Canada to make.  

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How nice of the US to be so helpful to those that arrived without going the legal route. Does the US help US citizens that are homeless as much?

Ahhhh seeking asylum isent illegal according to international law hope that helps………also to another poster there are many programs to help the homeless if they choose to participate and lots of jobs 3.4% unemployment the asylum seekers know Canada has a generous immigration policy so looks like nyc is helping out I don’t think they are being forced or lied to 

37 minutes ago, Credo said:

Your lack of understanding and compassion are noted.  People seeking asylum are under no obligation to apply for refugee status in Mexico.  Mexico is under no obligation to deny them legal passage to the US border.  In general, those who are traveling to the US have a familial connection to someone in the US and on the basis of that, most would be permitted transit.  It's called family reunification.   

 

For those who have been legally permitted to enter the US, there is no reason why they have to remain if their destination is Canada.  The Mayor is not 'sending' anyone anywhere.  He is facilitating the travel of those who want to go elsewhere, including to Canada.  

Canada may well not permit them entry.  That is a decision for Canada to make.  

wrong, if seeking asylum you are required to stop in the first country where they are no longer persecuted, not keep going till you find one that is more financial for you, these people are illegals and should be removed from the US, they have been sent to cities offering asylum for them then these cities are sending them away because they dont actually want them staying there, shows just how pathetic and full of shat democrats are

Edited February 9, 20233 yr by seajae

33 minutes ago, Credo said:

Your lack of understanding and compassion are noted.  People seeking asylum are under no obligation to apply for refugee status in Mexico.  Mexico is under no obligation to deny them legal passage to the US border.  In general, those who are traveling to the US have a familial connection to someone in the US and on the basis of that, most would be permitted transit.  It's called family reunification.   

 

For those who have been legally permitted to enter the US, there is no reason why they have to remain if their destination is Canada.  The Mayor is not 'sending' anyone anywhere.  He is facilitating the travel of those who want to go elsewhere, including to Canada.  

Canada may well not permit them entry.  That is a decision for Canada to make.  

Any idea how many are legally passing through Mexico though? How many use illegal means like human traffickers?

 

Please show your stats on family unification if you have them. And why this would matter to mexico.

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Any idea how many are legally passing through Mexico though? How many use illegal means like human traffickers?

 

Please show your stats on family unification if you have them. And why this would matter to mexico.

Mexico has its own problems with refugees seeking to remain in Mexico.  It is certainly not equipped to deal with those who wish to travel through Mexico to the US (or Canada).  Most are allowed up to 180 days in Mexico, but this law was largely ignored once the Trump administration started the 'remain in Mexico' policy.   

 

Mexico has relatively recently changed visa requirements for a number of countries, making it much harder for people from Venezuela, Haiti and Cuba to enter Mexico.  

 

I don't know if there is any readily available data on those with family connections, but it's high and always has been.  If you look at asylum seekers worldwide, you see many single males.  Once they are in the US (or most other countries), they are in a position to either bring or sponsor immediate family members.   

US policy is to not grant refugee status if a person is eligible for a sponsored petition by a relative.  In other words, they are admitted as an immigrant, not a refugee.  If someone is requesting asylum, legally they can't be returned until they have a hearing to determine their status.  If that person has an immediate family member who may be eligible to sponsor them, deportation may be delayed pending approval of a petition for admission to the US.

 

 

51 minutes ago, seajae said:

wrong, if seeking asylum you are required to stop in the first country where they are no longer persecuted, not keep going till you find one that is more financial for you, these people are illegals and should be removed from the US, they have been sent to cities offering asylum for them then these cities are sending them away because they dont actually want them staying there, shows just how pathetic and full of shat democrats are

Good post.

The best illustration of your points would be the recent arrival of "asylum seekers" on Martha's Vineyard and how it played out in that epicenter of Woke lunacy.

1 hour ago, seajae said:

wrong, if seeking asylum you are required to stop in the first country where they are no longer persecuted, not keep going till you find one that is more financial for you, these people are illegals and should be removed from the US, they have been sent to cities offering asylum for them then these cities are sending them away because they dont actually want them staying there, shows just how pathetic and full of shat democrats are

No, that is not correct.  A person seeking asylum is not required to do so in the first country where they are no longer persecuted.  As a matter of fact, they are not required to ever request asylum if they don't want to. 

Some countries, like Thailand, are not signatories to the UN Conventions on Refugees and do not ever accept people as refugees. 

 

1 hour ago, Credo said:

 

 

I don't know if there is any readily available data on those with family connections, but it's high and always has been.  If you look at asylum seekers worldwide, you see many single males.  Once they are in the US (or most other countries), they are in a position to either bring or sponsor immediate family members.   

 

 

Which is it? These seem to be contradictory statements. Lots of young single men suggest migrating for purely economic reasons, which is outside the purview of asylum. Not family cases Yet economics seems to be the norm.

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Which is it? These seem to be contradictory statements. Lots of young single men suggest migrating for purely economic reasons, which is outside the purview of asylum. Not family cases Yet economics seems to be the norm.

I spent many years working with refugees and asylum seekers both for the US Department of State, the UN and for more than one foreign government.  Much of that time was spent doing screening of asylum seekers.  

The laws and regulations vary from one country to another.  All signatories to the UN conventions agree to the 5 main categories, but they can expand them.  In short, a country allow anybody it wants to remain on it's soil.  

 

Being a refugee has nothing to do with economics -- you can be rich or you can be poor.  Ones economic category doesn't negate your asylum status.   Some notable refugees include W. Michael Blumenthal, Former Secretary of Treasury, Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, Salvador Dali, Artist, Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate, Gloria Estefan, Singer, Andy Garcia, Actor and Henry Kissinger, just name a few. 

 

For the 'unwashed masses' many of them are motivated by economics, but that doesn't mean they might not be refugees.  If they have been deprived of the ability to make a living because of one of the 5 main categories for refugees, they may be granted status. 

 

For a variety of reasons, including simple economics, if a person who can be classified as a refugee has a relative who can sponsor them (and provide financial support) every effort will be made to have them admitted as an immigrant.  This helps keep the number of people entering as refugees as low as possible.  The reason for that is that it is never known when there might be a humanitarian crisis or war where those slots might fill up quickly. 

 

The standard for being a refugee is high and it's not an easy bar to overcome.  During my time in screening refugees, I'd take a very close estimate that 90% I screened were not given refugee status.  I saw some absolutely heart-breaking situations, I saw people who most definitely deserved a better life, but they weren't refugees.  I also saw, arrogant, butt-holes of humanity that were and they were screened in.

 

If you look at the statistics concerning people at the US/Mexico border, you will see that a huge number of them are not admitted to the US.  Some will be allowed to stay because of family connections -- but that is largely dependent on a close relative sponsoring them.  If they don't and they aren't a refugee, then will eventually be deported.   If they are a refugee and have been admitted as an immigrant, they will not be returned to the country of origin.  That is refoulment and is not permitted under the UN refugee protocols. 

 

Someone entering the US and claiming asylum is given a pre-screening that makes a preliminary determination whether they have a credible claim or not.  If so, they can remain pending a full immigration hearing.  Unfortunately for many, the process is slow and cumbersome and in many cases over legalistic.  In the meantime, people start living a life and that may include marrying a US citizen or having a child.  Now Immigration is in a bind because deporting a husband/father or mother goes against a number of regulations.  

 

Immigration hearings need to be quick and fair before people get settled and start a family. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Credo said:

Your lack of understanding and compassion are noted.  People seeking asylum are under no obligation to apply for refugee status in Mexico. 

That's the problem and they should be required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they come to.

 

I have compassion but not for those that expect another country to give them a better life without going through legal channels.

20 hours ago, Credo said:

For those who have been legally permitted to enter the US, there is no reason why they have to remain if their destination is Canada.

Then they should apply for legal entry to Canada. Paying criminal gangs to bring them to the US border should result in immediate deportation, IMO.

19 hours ago, Credo said:

Mexico has its own problems with refugees seeking to remain in Mexico. 

Then Mexico has the right to prevent them crossing the border illegally. No point in letting them in and then complaining they are a problem.

 

 

On 2/7/2023 at 9:49 PM, Credo said:

It is not illegal to seek asylum in the US.  

It is not. But they have to prove persecution or reasonable evidence that they will be persecuted if returned to their country.  I'd say most illegal migrants in the U.S. are economic "refugees" or coming from some lawless/disrupted country. 

 

Back in 1979/80 I worked in Thailand with the U.S. refugee resettlement program, mostly with Lao/Hmong people fleeing the commies.  (I liked some of those people more then some of the U.S. Immigration officers I worked with.  ????)

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Then they should apply for legal entry to Canada. Paying criminal gangs to bring them to the US border should result in immediate deportation, IMO.

Where does it say that they were not applying for legal entry?  Where do you think the buses are taking them?  To some place in the middle of the woods?  These are not chartered buses, they are normal bus services to regular destinations.  

 

People very often have no idea that those transporting them are 'traffickers'.  

54 minutes ago, Damrongsak said:

It is not. But they have to prove persecution or reasonable evidence that they will be persecuted if returned to their country.  I'd say most illegal migrants in the U.S. are economic "refugees" or coming from some lawless/disrupted country. 

 

Back in 1979/80 I worked in Thailand with the U.S. refugee resettlement program, mostly with Lao/Hmong people fleeing the commies.  (I liked some of those people more then some of the U.S. Immigration officers I worked with.  ????)

I spent some time assisting with the Lao/Hmong in the very late 80s and early 90s as well.  I was seconded to Phanat Nikhom for a time.  I'd have to agree there were some troublesome IO there.  

2 hours ago, Scott said:

I spent some time assisting with the Lao/Hmong in the very late 80s and early 90s as well.  I was seconded to Phanat Nikhom for a time.  I'd have to agree there were some troublesome IO there.  

I mostly worked the Ban Vinai camp in Loei, but worked in Nan, Trat, Nong Khai and over by Surin and maybe another place or two.  Funny thing was, I mostly worked the Loei camp and that's where I spent 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer. 

 

One morning on the way to work in Loei, there were about 500 Hmong people who had just crossed the Mekong river at Pak Chom in Loei.  They marched them back to Chiang Khan.  I think they were forcibly repatriated to Laos ...  one wonders how many survived.

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by Damrongsak

3 hours ago, Credo said:

Where does it say that they were not applying for legal entry?  Where do you think the buses are taking them?  To some place in the middle of the woods?  These are not chartered buses, they are normal bus services to regular destinations.  

 

People very often have no idea that those transporting them are 'traffickers'.  

Are you serious? People don't realize that the guys they pay hundreds/thousands of dollars to drive them to the border are not criminals?  That beggars belief.  The overwhelming influence of gangs and organized crime in smuggling people from central/south America to the US and Canada is well documented. 

9 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Are you serious? People don't realize that the guys they pay hundreds/thousands of dollars to drive them to the border are not criminals?  That beggars belief.  The overwhelming influence of gangs and organized crime in smuggling people from central/south America to the US and Canada is well documented. 

Of course, I am serious.  Do you think the people who pay a tour operator in Thailand know if they are legal or not?

Canada does seem preferable except for the weather.