Why are immigrants being deported to "third countries"?

Politruk

Loves Spam
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
18,471
Whether the government can do that is being litigated, but why would they even want to? It costs no more money to deport them to their countries of origin.
 
Whether the government can do that is being litigated, but why would they even want to? It costs no more money to deport them to their countries of origin.

1. Some countries don't want their people back.
2. Sometimes the correct place to send someone is to the first country they landed on when seeking asylum. For instance if someone is an asylum seeker from Venezuela and they travel across Colombia on their journey to the USA then their correct destination under international law is Colombia.

Asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first place they land, not in their desired destination.
 
1. Some countries don't want their people back.
2. Sometimes the correct place to send someone is to the first country they landed on when seeking asylum. For instance if someone is an asylum seeker from Venezuela and they travel across Colombia on their journey to the USA then their correct destination under international law is Colombia.

Asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first place they land, not in their desired destination.
But nobody endered the U.S. by way of (or, AFAIK, from) South Sudan.
 
Right. As I said here: 1. Some countries don't want their people back.

If Venezuela refuses to take back their people and South Sudan will take them then off to South Sudan they go.

Which comports with international law:

https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/overview/1951-refugee-convention
The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.


How is it any different to send them to a different country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom? Which applies to just about anyone who enters South Sudan.
 
The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.


How is it any different to send them to a different country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom?
Thing is chump doesn't care about any of that that's how pig culture lovers are...
 
Nah, we want Canada for the beer. (Although our craft houses are turning out some seriously tasty stuff.)
 
Back
Top