Custom Search
Why was asylum created?
Submitted by mujermagnetica on Fri, 2010/02/05 - 22:33.
In another blog, the concept of asylum and why it is granted was touched upon. I wanted to build on this idea.
World War II brought about a Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a foundation of peace and security for nations involved in this declaration. The fact is that the U.S. is part of an international treaty, which protects U.S. citizens as much as people from other locations who come to the U.S. The Geneva Convention mandates certain laws governing asylum. The purpose is to eliminating torture, and eliminate a person's victimization from "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." (That is the universal language that determines the reason for asylum).
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm
The 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions contain stringent rules dealing with what are known as "grave breaches".
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMGF9
September 11th changed social perceptions of human rights and how they may be applied to cultures of people that some U.S. citizens don’t understand. National security has endorsed government-sponsored torture or "grave breaches" and some prolonged arbitrary detention (even sometimes, in the case of legal immigrants who have to prove they are legal) but mostly in undocumented immigrants. Many feel this has done nothing for Homeland Security, but created more animosity towards the U.S. It is the reason these practices have come in question by people throughout the world, because it breaks the covenants of the Geneva Convention and what it was founded upon.
The need for asylum has been accepted almost world-wide, and using trickery and deceit to deny certain individuals of asylum should be of concern to any person who values ethics and worries about their loved ones when they travel. And as the mother of a soldier, I pray that other countries respect our Geneva Convention as much as we should.
My posts address the corruption within the asylum system. If that ruffles feathers of those who don't want to believe this happens, so be it. Maybe a dose of reality is what is needed sometimes to correct bad processes and make them ethically right. And for anyone who is an expatriate, it is wise to understand why our Geneva Convention is so important. If that basic idea misses you, then you don't stand a chance if something happens to you in another country during civil unrest, if you become a victim.
- mujermagnetica's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Update to our case...
I have contacted the UNHCR in Panama, who handles all refugee cases in Nicaragua. Mexico used to handle them but no longer does. I have found a contact number there of a person named Eva Camps - 011 507 301 7365. She is the person who handles the Nicaraguan cases and provides contact for family members.
Correction: Just learned that: Blanca.acnur@cepad.org.ni is the one who handles the Nicaraguan cases. She will be the one investigating our case for me.
I have also been told to contact UNHCR (ANCUR in Spanish) in Washington DC, which I am doing, to have his documents from his application for asylum in the U.S. sent to Nicaragua. We have an advocate for his case now. For anyone needing to know this process, there is a wonderful woman at the Panamanian ANCUR office: 507 317-1630 who can refer you to the ANCUR representatives in NIcaragua and address any of your concerns. They are very pleasant and helpful.
I will continue to explain what transpires for those who may be considering this process.
Trend setting, or just bucking it?
According to www.unhcr.org
As at January 2009
Those wanting to enter Nicaragua as a better alternative to their current situation was:
147 classed as Refugees residing in Nicaragua.
0 (zero) Asylum Seekers
On the other hand, The organization was overseeing 1,537 refugees that had originated from Nicaragua (may not all be Nicaraguan?)
468 Asylum Seekers, seeking Asylum to member countries but originated from Nicaragua. (as above, may not all be Nicaraguan)
Bottom line, the trend seems to be to seek a way out, not a way in.
Anyone have any later figures?
CA-4 total asylum pool is 5?
If that data is fairly current, and if people seeking asylum are not opting for another route due to expediency (http://www.nicaliving.com/node/16584) or some other factor, etc., then the sum total of all current "asylum" seekers in the CA-4 region is 5 (as Guatemala has 5, and Honduras, Salvador, and Nicaragua are all listed as zero). When 3 neighboring countries are all zero, one has to wonder what formal route (if any) people are really taking. Even if a zero were added to the total making it 50, clearly it still could not be said to be a priority on anyone's part (seekers or granters) nor a destination where one might detect a true trend. While people might be migrating there and elsewhere under the table, it seems unlikely the formal asylum process is what they are or will be doing. Refugees and asylum seekers are almost always treated differently, legally and politically, and the big numbers one usually sees is stats are almost always refugee numbers.
It also says:
"Latin American countries host hundreds of thousands of refugees, asylum-seekers and others of concern to UNHCR. Most come from Colombia, which also has one of the biggest populations of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the world."
And then:
"Throughout the region, unemployment and limited access to labour markets, partly due to the lack of required documentation, hamper the local integration of refugees and their search for economic self-reliance. The region is receiving a growing number of asylum-seekers and economic migrants, especially from the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, posing new challenges to sometimes fragile asylum systems."
But this site, is very interesting:
http://www.unhcr.org/48480a1f2.html
"This law represents the spirit of the Nicaraguan people; it reflects our tradition of hospitality," said National Assembly member, Salvador Talavera, a former refugee. Fellow legislator Carlos Gadea stressed that the new law was the product of "non-partisan collaboration and a humanitarian spirit which cuts across party lines."
Apparently, the Nicaraguan people DO feel humanitarian efforts to help refugees and asylum applicants is valuable. Hmmm!
Are you sure you have not made a mistake
in the email address?
http://www.cepad.org.ni/index2.htm Nowhere is there any mention of asylum cases.
But maybe I missed it.
No mistake.
I didn't get the email address from a site. It was given to me via a phone call to Eva Camps about our case. During that phone call, Sra. Camps also told me she would forward all of our documents to this email, since this person was inside of Nicaragua and Sra. Camps was in Panama.
I'm not getting my information from the internet. This information has been obtained from numerous phone calls, inquiring about my husband. In the process, there are 7 different agencies involved to ensure a fair review of the refugee's application. This is why I feel the process is compassionate and fair.
I would think you knew this, because you were offering me help. Are you learning the process along with me? Or did you simply mean you knew of a good attorney?
Actually, I am in Managua this week
and CEPAD.org.ni 's mission intrigues me.
CEPAD's Vision A Christian institution working to serve poor communities, promoting justice, peace and equitable solidarity with the aim of improving quality of life.
CEPAD's Mission We are a Christian organization answering God's call to stand with and serve poor communities by means of development programs, emergency relief and by promoting just relationships between men and women.
A quick call to them confirmed they do in fact work with ACNUR. I'll stop by this afternoon and maybe they answer some of the questions I posed on this thread: http://www.nicaliving.com/node/16667
This is what I've learned is happening in our case...
During this process, it is crucial that the family members call CEDAP/UNHCR immediately.
It is likely my husband will be released on Thursday or Friday, because he is only held for 7 days during this process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nicaragua is very proud on their new Ley 655 of 2008 and they certainly have the right to be, because it is a very humane procedure. They really don't want any bad publicity regarding their asylum process.
- UNHCR is monitoring the process and applicants all the way
- 95% of all applicants are given asylum in Nicaragua
- They grant asylum to almost everybody. In 2009 asylum was given to 300 Columbians of which was said that a great deal of them were FARC fighters.
- My husband is already in DME's ACNUR monitored detention facility, that means he is not suspected anymore of being in the country illegally.
- DME is already working on checking his story. He's being interviewed. He's only being held because that is the procedure. It is a precaution to prevent the applicant of giving instructions to witnesses, family members or anybody else that could support his (possibly fake?) story. For the same reason he is not allowed to call anybody without supervision. An attaché of the Nicaraguan embassy in El Salvador might already be doing some footwork.
- My husband has a valid passport, a place to stay in Managua and a phone number, so if DME needs more information he is easily accessible.
- If during the short period that he is detained, the investigators of his case conclude that he is a political risk to Nicaragua and the DME's advice will be to deny asylum, he will be let go immediately too.
- His USA wife is seeking residency in Nicaragua (and DME knows this). Nicaragua likes (the money of) US residents.
- To be granted asylum, you first have to be recognized as refugee. If my husband receives the refugee status but is denied asylum after all, he is still allowed another 12 months in the country to seek legal admission into another country (Art. 9c) with or without the help of the Nica government. They will never send him back to El Salvador, the law is prohibiting this...and...The applicant is still allowed the right to appeal too (free legal services).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I want to sincerely thank the person who gave me all of this information. It is one of the reasons this site is valuable, to answer and address the concerns of people who may be enduring a stressful time during their process of trying to enter Nicaragua.
I hope by me quoting this information, I can help another person with similar concerns. As I said, this process seems like one of the most compassionate ways of dealing with refugees and asylum applicant that I've seen. And if my husband were not granted asylum, I would feel that we have been treated with dignity and fairness.
"The Nicaraguan Welcome Wagon", thats all we need.
We could give out medals for long service and have special chairs for the regulars. Bingo, Meat Draws, "Meet the Newbie" nights. Maybe a wallchart showing the weather "back home", and a world map with little coloured pins showing where we all came from.
Sorry but being a Jock, I hope you see the sense of humour. My Dad's family are all from Arrochar, Dumbartonshire.
There were athletes in England?
Next you're going to tell us you're from a family of orthodontists! :)
There were athletes in England?
Next you're going to tell us you're from a family of orthodontists! :)
Jock as in Scottish, as in: "If it's not Scottish, it's Crap"
It should have read "Sorry, but you being a Jock....
When I lived in Oxford, I frequently used to pass the hallowed grounds where Roger Bannister made the first sub 4 minute mile at Iffley Road track. Corpus Christi College was another, they filmed Chariots of Fire there. My only athletic claim was once swimming 2,772 yards down the River Thames. St. Aldgates Bridge to Iffley Lock. Crazy we remember this stuff but what did I have for breakfast?
Home Sweet Home
I have been tuning in from time to time as an old fart member of this site with this fascinating story of your personal life. I wish you and your Husband find the light and each other sooner than later. Thinking of all the reasons we gamble on another spot to live, for whatever reason.... it occurred to me that it would be helpful if there was a kind of soft landing, an association, some kind of tangible, physical presence in Nicaragua for the "Foreigners" to get support from when they land. I'm not meaning a Blog like this and TRN (Those that endlessley chat at each other!) but somewhere, something, that can exist providing hard information and support such as your head-line post asks. Maybe its impossible. Or at the least for now until more people arrive.( Less Americans-more Scottish I hope) When I first landed in Canada from Scotland, I was seeking asylum, celtic had just transferred the best centre forward they ever had and the All Blacks had just demolished Scotland at Murryfield. Oh Well, anyway I headed to the nearest Rugby club "The Nomads". Made up of South Africans, Kiwis,Aussies, English,Irish Welsh and Scottish players..All backgrounds professions etc.. it helped that we had the game of Rugby in common, however, we were all away from home. We had that in common as well. Making a new life for ourselves. some of us were single (I was-thankyou god) others married,some illegal-what visa? some just party animals. It was Magic. A great entry. The other thing was it didn't matter if we lived in a Major City like Toronto, we had kindred spirits in every province. We were not limited to Geography, and Canada is a big Country. We had a Network Coast to Coast. I can Remember, I hope this is not maudlin, Tony, Bob, Alan, members of NL that have passed on, I met or spoke with on the phone, Sam, Roger, and his Royal Geekiness phil and Ana whom I have met along with many others in Nicaragua. also.some members outside, and whilst the NicaLiving site is wonderful for information, and nonsense, it would be great if the common interest of landing in Nicaragua and biding for awhile could be made a little easier and welcoming. By the Way, if you didn't already know this. The Scots invented the Modern World ye ken.
Your idea of unity is interesting...
But in my experiences with expatriation, it seems to me that many do find a way to one another eventually. It seems that when people move to countries they find like minds or even foreign minds if they wish to, and others who don't wish to, never do.
I know our weekend BBQs in Mexico were about as multinational as they come, and we never lived in one of those typical immigrant communities when we lived in Mexico. On any given weekend we had two Russians, a Brazilian, a Colombian, several Mexican nationals, several U.S. citizens and depending on the event several more that we met along the way. We had staunch Republicans, adamant Socialistas, and anything inbetween and we seemed to get along fine. I do miss that, because my husband and I love entertaining, but it seems a natural phenomenon when people immigrate. We seem to love to share experiences, frustrations, associations, and we unite often to help one another for "those times."
i think this site is some of this in that I know I have found some incredibly insightful information here and some help. I've also found some battles and jaded people, just as I would in any community. That is what sites like this offer.
The information I received today about Nicaraguan Asylum policies eased my mind and it was helpful for me. I think if I can offer our experience (which I admit is not typical of the average immigrant experience here) it might be beneficial to another with their own unique issues and that is why I took a risk and posted it. And for me, that is what keeps me interested in life in this old age...I enjoy helping others with unique situations.
But I thank you for your kind wishes for my family. That is always nice to hear as well. And I hope you have found your happiness here too! If we are destined to meet there, we will.
I respect your attempt to explain the asylum principles.
What I am curious about is the following:
I know Canada has many applicants for asylum. They come from around the world and most of them are being accepted.
I am reasonably sure the US has at least as many applicants as Canada but accepts far fewer of them.
Nicaragua? It never occurred to me that Nicaragua could be suffering from an overload of asylum applicants. I imagine we don't have that problem. Sure we accept people that we feel are at risk of persecution in their home country.
There are several examples of that happening. At times Nicaragua and her leaders have taken a lot of flack for acting in a correct manner in some cases. They have been accused of accepting people for political reasons.
Since Nicaragua is a relatively poor country, we have to consider the following: When a country accepts an applicant for asylum, it is similar to adopting a child. The host country has the responsibility to help the applicant to get established. Established in a economic sense, social sense and generally prepare the applicant to blend into society. Seeing that Nicaragua has very limited resources, they have to be very selective.
This brings me to a general question of persons seeking asylum in Nicaragua. Why Nicaragua?
Is it because the weather is nice? Is it because it suits them culturally? Is it because they feel this is the country that, due to past lax requirements offers the highest percentage of acceptance?
Surely there must be other reasons such as maybe economic possibilities or even political ideology that attracts the applicant.
My post here is not meant to glean more information regarding mm's situation. I am trying to find out, in generalities why someone would choose Nicaragua to seek asylum over lets say Canada or Germany.
In addition I am trying to get the discussion back to Nicaragua and off the soap opera like track we have been on with several threads. :-)
In Nicaragua, they promote the program.
At Penas Blancas, in the Immigration Office, there is a large poster (in Spanish) from Amnesty International, explaining the rights of an "asylum seeker" as they saw them. Problem is (in my humble opinion), the laws and regulations of countries could well be changing far more rapidly than this organization can keep up with. Nicaragua may well have an agreement in principal to follow the program, but I would not have any confidence in the process here at all.
On the other hand, the poster could have been hiding an ugly mark on the wall.
Thank you and I think it is important to remember
I also doubt that Nicaragua suffers from an overload of asylum seekers based on its economic status. So I would have to agree with your post on this.
As for your other statement about Nicaragua being a host country to people applying for asylum and being "selective", it would seem that a person from the same region (which is why I believe the CA-4 agreement was created) with the same culture and practices would be MUCH less of an investment than accepting North Americans who arrive knowing absolutely nothing about the region or culture. For instance for North Americans, even the language is often an issue, because as much as Nicaragua spends to accept an asylum applicant from El Salvador, they spend helping English speakers who can't interpret documents, or need police help and cannot speak Spanish, or medical help during emergencies, and any other number of issues that arise when one immigrates to a new location. So if Nicaragua is being selective, then logically, they probably would be leaning towards regional preferences, especially when the applicant will be financially sponsored by a North American wife who can demonstrate enough income to do so, over a U.S. college student arriving on a visa and realizing a surf camp might be a cool thing to do on $5,000 of his student loan money. Or the average back packer who ends up in Nicaragua and decides he wants to remain because he's discovering a new political ideology. Or even the aging man who is fed up with North American women and women his own age and feels he might have a chance to seek a young new wife of a different culture.
For a Salvadoran, the reason they might choose Nicaragua could be proximity to El Salvador to keep in touch with relatives and allow them to visit easily. And for some, it might be political. But as a member of a CA-4 country, Nicaragua seems like a logical choice for a Salvadoran with like minded political ideologies and with its lack of cultural hegemony that some other areas demonstrate.
Beyond that, I would ask the same questions of why so many North Americans with capitalistic goals and conservative views would choose Nicaragua? It seems completely illogical to choose a poor country that doesn't embrace capitalism as an ideal, whose leader opposes conservative leaders in the U.S., where the social structure challenges a lot of what a North American is used to, and where if they invest they could very likely have their property expropriated. Why would someone like this choose Nicaragua instead of Germany or Spain, or even Costa Rica, or Chile? And why would they then move there and feel free to espouse their conservative views about Nicaragua's government? Wouldn't they be concerned that their host country would feel a little miffed reading their political rants about political leaders they can't even vote for?
This is a two way street. And the answer may be that each person arrives in Nicaragua with their own reasons, baggage, justifications as much as each person chooses a variety of spouses for the same reasons.
Let's not mix and match asylum seekers with immigrants
I suspect there are precious few asylum seekers from North America pounding on the doors of Nicaragua begging "Let me in!".
There are lots of want to be immigrants from North America wishing to reside in Nicaragua. They need to prove their ability to financially support themselves in accordance to current requirements.
So really I don't think they are an issue since in all likely hood, they will contribute in a positive way to the economy of Nicaragua. At the very least they will not have a negative impact.
I also feel once a person applies for (I am guessing) political asylum, that person places himself/herself outside the CA-4 agreement and is applying strictly as asylum seeker.
If the only reason for seeking asylum is the proximity to ones family, I wonder why not look toward a country that offers greater financial stability?
As for the numerous North Americans that are in disagreement with the current administration, yet continue to live here. I have no explanation for this phenomena.
In any case, lets not make this about you and your case. I am still curious how many cases of persons seeking asylum in Nicaragua are being processed annually.
Why not Nicaragua?
While I didn't come to Nicaragua seeking asylum (well, at least not in the legal sense), I don't see a reason why my choice of a new country would be different if I was seeking asylum. I wanted to escape from what I will call a crazy and unsustainable situation for me. I initially picked Costa Rica because, while I had more knowledge of Nicaragua, I had more tourist experience in Costa Rica. Or, to put it another way, I bought the pura vida story.
Once I saw what I didn't like about Costa Rica, I looked for a place that didn't have those faults. While I have friends who have moved to Panama and other locations in The Americas, I decided Nicaragua was the best fit for me. Six plus years later, I feel the same. Now, some of that comes from less knowledge of the alternatives but from what I do know, it seems unlikely that I would find a better choice with the possible exception of Bolivia.
Here is my short list of why I ruled out other options:
So, what about the government in Nicaragua? Having run businesses in the U.S. as well as worked for government, I was ready for a place where the government was not in your face. As just a couple of examples of what I am talking about, here are some of my business experiences with government:
These are but examples, Bottom line was that all too much of your time went into dealing with government, plus the actual revenues. While I personally have no serious issues with the government here (well, I wish the Post Office would stay in one place), the biggest plus to me is that they are inexpensive and not in my face all the time. Where I live, some of my neighbors have lived here for generations. Some like the current government, some don't. But, for either group, it is much more like someone in the U.S. would say "I hate those crooks in Washington" than any in-your-face interference in their lives.
Looking More For Adventure
Phil:
I suspect from your post that you were looking for more adventure than is available in CR. Certainly the aggravations dealt out in the US are met with similar annoyances in Nicaragua? It's interesting, I went the same route, drew the same conclusions. Guatemala is beautiful but too violent. We only hear of a fraction of the crime. El Salvador too. I spent a lot of time in CR, lovely friends, many amenities, but I could retire cheaper in the US. , Shelley had a bunch of very high quality cosmetic surgery done for about 20% of what it would have cost in Florida. I had a very competent GP and urologist, better than I subsequently found in the US when I returned. But, CR was like being in the US. Honduras was OK, but i was turned off by the constant presence of armed soldiers and the endless traffic stops to identify myself. Still, some beautiful country, and inexpensive when you get away from the coast. We spent 3 weeks in Brazil, Sao Paulo, Rio, Curitiba, Amazon (Manaus). We already spoke Spanish, so learning Portugese would be a chore. There are suprisingly few English speakers, although Spanish is commonly spoken. Plus, we had difficulty making friends, the people seemed very exclusive and insular. Brazil for Brazilians! They have a right to be proud, they have a beautiful country with every conceivable resource. Crime is a very serous problem. So, Nicaragua?? Shelley is an RN, she hopes to do some good when she retires. I see the adventure of taming a piece of land, building a house, engineering workable infrastructure (did that in Mexico already). MAYBE start a small business, keep a thread of what I have in the US going. When the adventure ends, you die . . . .
No but I found it
It really wasn't a more adventure issue. I did, however, find it. It was much more the people attitude. I grew up in Southern California. In CR, Nicaraguans are treated the way Mexicans were in LA. Inferior but work cheap.
The irritations here seem to be the typical ones for Latin America. In the U.S. you are controlled by feat, in Latin America it is by lines.
I do agree with the "When the adventure ends, you did". I always want to near new things. Here, I have been able to take my "hobbies", glue them together and do things.
And your list of ruling out other options was similar to mine
And thank you for sharing it. Based on our experiences in Nicaragua so far, it seems like the choice was a logical one for us.
Here were our reasons:
1. My husband and his family can't stand Costa Ricans, or their country for that matter, so it wasn't an option. (Sorry, but that is a fact). They feel they are trying too hard to placate people from the U.S. and that they demean themselves in doing so, instead of building their own country values and needs without the need of U.S. assistance. (Argue it if you want, but that is their perception and they feel the same thing is now happening in El Salvador with the introduction of the dollar).
2. Panama is too far.
3. El Salvador...is the country we are applying for asylum from.
4. Guatemala and Honduras have too many criminal gangs for our liking and very little potential to clean that problem up, not to mention political instability.
5. Mexico is too dangerous these days.
6. Chile and Argentina were considered. I have family in Argentina and have been there. U.S. citizens are hated there and I know this having visited my family there who have been beaten for talking about their cousin...me! It also left a bad taste in my mouth that family members there lost a lot of money during the financial collapse, leaving one of my cousins struggling and working at Burger King while she attended the University for a whopping 70 cents an hour, when the cost of living there was so much higher in Buenos Aires. We considered it and ruled it out because of that. Chile wast so far from family in El Salvador that it would be tough for them to visit. Not to mention the expense of flying back and forth to the states when I need to go home for my family up there, or if I need to conduct business there with my publishing venture.
That left Nicaragua...and we are hoping that Nicaragua finds us suitable, but if they can't take us, then we move on and it probably won't be in the Americas.
CA-4 & extradition
I just had a thought - do you know whether the CA-4 agreement affects extradition rules at all? That is, since travel is freely allowed between CA-4 countries including Nicaragua and El Salvador, will your husband be safe from possible extradition there? Would it even technically be considered extradition if those Salvadorans he's seeking asylum from came and brought him back, since the borders are somewhat fluid now?
I don't know the answer to this- do you?
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Extradition doesn't apply to his case
It is only used for criminals or people for surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. He hasn't been convicted or charged with anything, so this would not be something we need to worry about.
From what I read in the No. 655 LEY DE PROTECCIÓN A REFUGIADOS 9 de Julio del 2008 policy, he can be deported though, if they decide he is not eligible for asylum. And that is worrying me a bit.
But I'm trying to hope that they will realize why he is eligible for asylum and see the merits of his case And after reading that, I'm comforted that this time it will be under review by a panel of people instead of one immigration commissioner with her own particular bias. But I am learning that anything can happen in these types of situations, so I won't be completely comfortable until we have an answer.
I disagree...immigrants DO cost nation in some ways....
For instance, in many countries including the U.S., the translation of documents into languages can be very expensive. And in places where English speakers migrate, the interpretation costs usually follow for documents, interpreters, etc, when many refuse to learn Spanish. This is paramount in expense to supporting an asylum applicant. And there is another factor that is very costly regarding immigrating to Central American countries and that is the costs associated with child molestation that some bring as the result of visiting as sex tourists and then deciding to move to Central America to pursue their diseased needs. Costa Rica is a prime example of this, and it might be a reason that although a country like this may look more financially stable, for some it wouldn't be a desirable place to live, especially if they have young family members or grandchildren that might visit.
I listed a number of reasons a person might move to Nicaragua, but proximity to family is certainly one. A preference over another country might be another for many reasons...in Guatemala and Honduras there is political instability and too many criminal gang elements. Sometimes financial stability is not a factor in moving, especially if they can one day possibly return to their country of origin later if the political situation changes. After all, political asylum is one reason people make applications, right? Or maybe they see the same opportunities as North Americans, where the economics are at a state where they could invest and make money and choose the risks thinking it will not happen to them?
I cannot comment on the merits of the CA-4 agreement, because it is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that it was created to avoid these situations, so if it were used that way asylum would never be needed for a person from a CA-4 country. Maybe until I learn whether this is the case, someone can explain this. I did find a site that got into some of it, but I'd love to read the documents around this.
I would love to know the figures on people processed as asylum applicants in Nicaragua too. And also how many are accepted and what the requirements are.
In this case you have you facts wrong
Do not confuse Nicaragua with North America.
When you arrive here you will immediately realize the difference. In Nicaragua the applicant bears all cost of having documents translated and all costs, including processing fees related to their application. Business is done by law in Spanish. If the applicant is unable to speak the language, he/she needs to provide the translator. The government surely is not going to pay for it.
I am not sure where you make the connection of tourists (Sex Tourists or otherwise) with asylum seekers. Sex Tourism is illegal and the offenders can be prosecuted in their home country.
If a person is able to come here as an investor they should do so under that classification. I understand that may not always be possible. Especially if a person is being deported by another country.
Like you I am curious as to the number of asylum applications received and processed. I am a little surprised that you are not aware what the requirements for approval are.
An example of how things change with immigration though
In Mexico, it used to be like Nicaragua. People bore the same costs of interpretation. But enough English speakers moved there and the government eventually found it necessary to hire translators in many government buildings. For instance, in every utility building you will likely find a person hired to accommodate English speaking needs. In police forces you will find the same. This could be a likelihood if enough English speakers migrate to Nicaragua and that was my point.
As for the pedophiles, that is a very real cost along with other criminals who break laws in the U.S. and all over who come to countries like Nicaragua and continue on with their crime patterns. It is an example of why people do immigrate and a very real concern in countries of Central America today, along with gang members who seek asylum. And these criminals should be a concern if immigrating.
I agree that investors are beneficial for the most part for countries where the economic status is suffering. Certainly, the U.S. has benefited from a great deal of foreign investments in times when savings and loan scandals rocked our economic progress and people flocked to buy up our banks and real estate and helped our economy, and Nicaragua might benefit from the same. But there are also investors who have been run off by other countries for unscrupulous practices that may pose a risk to other countries. I'm thinking Bernie Madoff, if he could come to Nicaragua, probably wouldn't be a desirable person to accept.
iguana breath
I know you posted that just to bait me Nicareal...
People, term used loosely, chose Nicaragua for asylum because good ol' Comrade Comandante Presidente Daniel accepts thugs and terrorists from all over. His government has provided shelter, aid, comfort - heck, even cedulas - to the likes of FARC, Hezbollah, Shining Path FMLN, et al.
And, no, this is NOT commentary on the magnetic one's current situation but rather the willingness of the (edited) F$LN to accept scum the world over.
Probably a bird's of a feather thing, eh?
No bait needed
I imagine many people don't agree with granting asylum to other people for a variety of reasons.
I know in Canada many don't agree with people from Nigeria or Somalia being granted asylum. As Canadians we have the right to disagree.
Same here in Nicaragua. Nicaraguans have the right to disagree and to voice their disagreement. The ones that are guests here, in my opinion don't have any say in this matter unless they have taken the Nicaraguan citizenship. Certainly the ones that are here on visitors visas and are too lazy or too scared to apply for residency have no say in the matter.
So let's stop calling the current administration thugs and even worse. If people dislike them to that extreme, they should leave. The fact that all of the most vocal opponents are still here can only mean this:
There are compelling reasons why they are still here. These reasons could be financial, the reason could be that they are not exactly welcome in the country they came from. Or maybe they would be welcomed by the authorities in their home country and be give long them accommodation free of charge.
Whatever the reason they are here, they should remember: Be polite to your host or you could find yourself out on the street looking for another country to complain about.
You are absolutely correct, Nicareal
I know this wasn't posted to me, but I do feel that Nicaraguans have the right to voice their disagreement with who comes to their country, just as U.S. citizens have the same right and Canadians do in their country too. And I would not take issue with Nicaragua if they choose not to accept us, as I have with the U.S. for denying me (a citizen of that country) the right to bring my spouse to my country. These are two different issues.
I will also say that I find it highly unacceptable for any immigrant...either as an asylum applicant or under another form of entry to criticize the elected government of the country they choose to immigrate to. Unless you are part of the process, you really should have no voice about it. And I say the same thing to immigrants who have come to the U.S. and cannot vote.
But asylum is a bit different than merely applying to move to a country. There is a safety need to find a country that one can live in and this is why the Geneva Convention has such strict rules about how asylum should be approached. If you have no relation to the country you apply to, you are at their mercy. I think this is where the original post went here. A person who has a spouse in a given country that can provide a safe haven should be allowed to complete the application process without deportation and every effort possible should be made to accommodate their relative.
I found this about an El Salvador guy with no visa
How to get a visa from El Salvador?
I’m married and my husband came to the US without a visa or anything. I am looking for a way to get his visa because I was born in California so shouldn't it be easy for us? We also have a 8 month old baby. Tell me please if you know of an easy way to get his visa.
Response 1: There is a proscribed procedure for immigrating to the U.S. In your case, you, as the U.S. citizen, can submit form I-130, an immediate relative petition, on behalf of your husband. If it is approved, it will be sent to the U.S. embassy in San Salvador where your husband will have to report and apply for an immigrant visa. As he is illegally in the U.S., he will be subject to a 10-year bar due to unlawful presence. In order to get the immigrant visa, he will also need to apply for a waiver of the 10-year bar. If the waiver is approved, then he can get the immigrant visa that he lacks at the moment. This method is the easiest way for him to become legal.
Response 2: There is no easy way if he is here illegally. You can petition for him, if you can prove you can support him, but he will still have to return to his home country for the visa and interview. Since he was here illegally, he will be denied and given a 10 year ban on returning. If you can show an extreme hardship, you can file a waiver for him to return. No guarantees it will be approved.
_____________
Man, 10 years, that's a bit harsh. I guess in response B, the hardship case could be that he has a baby, but that trick must be used all the time to try and stay.
That's not even the most tragic case I've seen
And my heart goes out to this woman with the baby. Even more so than our case, because a baby needs its father. And ten years without a father? Not to mention the unnecessary hardship on the woman forced to support her baby by herself, most likely without much support from the father? The social impact of this can be even more expensive than having an undocumented immigrant in the U.S., because that mother may be forced to ask for social services to help support her child, depending on her economic status and educational level, she could need medical services, day care services and an array of expensive services because she doesn't have a partner to help with her child. Not to mention the emotional suffering of both the mother and baby. And THIS for a U.S. citizen? It's abominable!
And the ten year rule will apply to us as well, (because even though he walked up to the customs booth and told them he wanted to enter and request asylum instead of sneaking in and was admitted and even offered help with his application), they consider that an illegal entry once he wasn't granted asylum and the two I.C.E. agents lied to cover the way they bungled our case. My husband is barred from entry to the U.S. for 10 years, but in our case, he never wants to enter the U.S. again; so they won't have to worry about him. Not after what they did to him as they held him in prison for 3 years and then deported him before his case completed. Not to mention that they tried to force him to sign a document to change his name so they could deport him without his passport and on a passport provisional. I have the document where they punished him for not signing that form because he mailed it to me and they didn't intercept it. That document was forwarded to my senator and was the one thing that saved him from being illegally deported. I have so many documents that prove they falsified statements and contradicted themselves, but of course none of it was admitted in his last hearing, even if it was applied to the appeal before he was deported. Nor were the tapes of his interrogation that would have proved his case, even though one judge had ordered the evidence to be produced. But the I.C.E. agents claimed they didn't have the tapes any longer, or any of the evidence that would have proven our case. I won't bore you with the rest, but I could go on and on, and in order to publish my book, I have to have these documents to prove our case, in case they want to sue. I do!
Juanno, I could go on and on with cases even more tragic than this from my volunteer efforts. A woman who was dying (a U.S. citizen with three kids) that the U.S. wouldn't even grant a temporary visa even with an ankle monitoring system for the father to visit his wife in her last days, which forced the U.S. born children into foster homes. I have worked with so many immigrants because of our case that I learned how corrupt this system has become.
It is fine to monitor who enters the country and regulate criminals from entering. But many of these cases had no criminal history and were political asylum cases, some were elderly people who were housed in segregation near my husband and suffered there. It was heartbreaking.
And I want to say that as heartbreaking as all of this has been, we also found some wonderful people who had a great deal of compassion. We had one Judge that I felt was extremely admirable. He realized my husband had been drugged during one of his hearings and continued the hearing because he was so disgusted when my husband couldn't even hold his head up or speak lucidly. We had wonderful guards at CCA who showed so much compassion and disgust at the two I.C.E. agents who lied about our application and the Immigration officer that falsified his I-212 application statements, even getting his mother's name wrong and a so many other facts that should have been obvious.
This is why I am so hard headed about this subject. It is very personal for me. I brought my husband to my country because I believe (naively) in our justice system and immigration system. I didn't approach this with any negativity. We arrived here perfectly honest and forthright. We simply ran into two very disturbed people, who realized they screwed up and then tried to cover what they did.
That's the problem...
Out of the country you have the US being the worlds police, spending zillions of good hard working American's tax dollars in the process.
Inside the country, you have this girl marrying an illegal immigrant (HOW?) and now he has to stay in hiding, working illegally and hiding from a ten year ban.
OR, guess what?...the good old US will pay the welfare on the kid and her. A kid that shouldn't even have been born because he shouldn't have been there making it, let alone be allowed to marry her. (OK, I am assuming they got married in the States)
The best thing they can now do is produce more kids while he is in hiding and then plead the hardship case that he has to stay and look after them. How many are beating the system like that?
Its a joke. May as well tear down the borders, give em all a passport and a citizenship card (and a new car because hell, no American can afford one can they, and no wonder), then sell off the military equipment and use all the soldiers as Cops/Home Guard ...because you are going to darn well need them.
I don't know how any hard working American can sit back and watch their kids dying outside of the country trying to save the world from itself and at the same time watch America die from within.
And this is not about Asylum or Mujermagnetica's case. Its about a succession of American Presidents that have never dealt with an Immigration Policy. Instead they just waited 4 or 8 years to watch the next guy deal with the "compound interest effect" of illegal aliens and the American Citizen babies they produce.
Well Juanno...if you spoke to my son
he would tell you he serves in the Army and has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for the right of immigrants (which he says is the foundation of the Americas) to be safe in the U.S. And he would say that when he is searching for bombs along the roads in Iraq that he doesn't CARE where anyone came from if they are on his side, because their nationality, race, or much of anything else doesn't matter as long as they "have his back." And he is very pissed off that his U.S. born mother has to leave her country to live with her husband. We just discussed this last night. He is proud to serve his country (even when his dear old mom was not thrilled he joined the Army and had to come to terms with it) and he has risked his life because he follows a line of people who have emigrated to this country to create a good life for him.
And if you ask my Cuban-American friend about his job working for Homeland Security, he will also tell you that he is proud to protect the U.S. from terrorists but hopes he can make a difference with people trying to find a new way, the same way his parents did when Castro took over Cuba. And if you speak to one of my dearest friends, an Argentine like me whose family came here illegally from Argentina and whose father became an engineer and raised three wonderful college graduates, she will tell you also that immigrants are the back bone of the U.S. culture. As will my Vietnamese friend, and my Russian friend who lived here for a few years as an "illegal immigrant" after some aging creep sent her a fake photo and brought her here as a Russian bride and abused her until she abandoned him and he withdrew her visa, leaving her "illegal."
I won't speculate on how the young woman married her husband. For all I know she met him outside of the U.S. on a trip and fell in love, and couldn't bring him here because he may have had a fear of persecution from El Salvador. I'll leave those moral judgments to others who have made all the "right" decisions in life.
But then, I don't believe borders enhance growth, so what do I know. I think borders simply create nationalistic idiotic nativists, who often judge others because they screw up their own lives and need to blame someone. But my question is if you are not a U.S. citizen, then why do you care how we manage our immigration practices in the U.S. Because in reality, it isn't your affair. Is it?
the US immigration system is so ridiculously out of whack
The reason we're not in Europe's death-spiral is because of our immigrants, and the idea of keeping employable people for the sake of quotas established way back in Simpson-Mazzoli is (edited) retarded. That's for you, Rahm.
The U.S. Immigration system is dangerous too
Quotas and I.C.E. have done nothing to help U.S. immigration problems. They have simply made it more difficult for good people who are trying to enter the country to do the right thing. They certainly haven't stopped gang members or other criminals intent on coming to the U.S. and now find other creative ways to enter, nor have they stopped terrorists, intent on doing harm to our cities. If anything, some of the buffoons I.C.E. has hired have endangered this country even more, by their inept handling of information that could help protect the U.S.
And this idea that immigrants cost the U.S. more than they contribute is pure hogwash propaganda created by propaganda groups headed by the likes of John Tanton and Tom Tancredo, and organizations founded on white racialist separatism. John Tanton's organziation – FAIR (funded by the Pioneer Foundation, a non-profit foundation dedicated to “improving the character of the American people” by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics, or selective breeding). The Southern Poverty Law Center said this about his organizations:
“FAIR, CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the “puppeteer” of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists, promoted anti-Semitic ideas, and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a “neo-Nazi organization.” He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, “a European-American majority” is required.”
This is what immigration reform has been founded upon for many years, and it is hardly reflective of the ideas of our founding fathers in the U.S. or current social attitudes towards immigrants. Immigration should be founded upon a nation’s need, and the economic opportunity of those who immigrate to a nation, not on selective racial theories. It should benefit both the country and the immigrant. It should promote the ideals of the Geneva Convention for a safe haven when needed, without persecuting the victims fleeing to a nation’s shores. It should not use trickery and deceit to remove them. And until we overhaul the entire system to reflect these ideas, we are shooting ourselves in the foot with our policies and endangering Homeland Security by creating animosity towards our country.
And all their hogwash about following the "rule of law" becomes laughable when their key leaders are arrested for murdering U.S. citizens of Latin descent, as in the case of Shawna Forde, or when their leaders don't even pay their taxes for the organizations they lead, or when their key grass roots organizations are led by child molesters, convicted felons and people who have screwed up their lives so badly that they found organizations like the Minutemen to feel empowered once again.