[paxys]

Counterpoint – if they managed to get to Mexico they already have asylum. International law regarding refugees is pretty clear that the first safe country they reach has to hear their case in good faith vs passing them off elsewhere. EU has such a system in place, and so does the US itself with Mexico regarding Central American refugees.

[eesmith]

There's no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country.

> There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. There is a requirement for the first safe country in which they arrive to hear their asylum claim but, if this does not happen for any reason, the refugee is then free to make their asylum claim elsewhere. -- https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees...

> There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined. - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/201...

For example, the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement says "Individuals entering Canada at a land port of entry continue to be ineligible to make a refugee claim, and will be returned to the U.S. unless they meet one of the relevant exceptions under the STCA." - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co... .

(Though with opposition: "CCC official: Frozen bodies show why Canada must end agreement with U.S." https://cruxnow.com/cns/2022/01/ccc-official-frozen-bodies-s... )

As you say, the one between the US and Mexico only concerns migrants from Central America. Not Europe.

[yucky]

So has Mexico heard their asylum case, or given a reason why they won't?

[eesmith]

Likely they did not apply to Mexico for asylum. Under international law there is no requirement they do so.

[yucky]

Your own link says there is a requirement for them to hear the asylum case, which can only happen if the refugees file as such.

If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico. If they do file in Mexico and they refuse to hear their case for asylum, then they could file in the next country.

[eesmith]

The "requirement for them to hear the asylum case" is the obligation on Mexico ONLY IF someone applies for asylum.

Asylum seekers are NOT REQUIRED to apply for asylum in the first country they get to.

> If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico.

That is not correct.

Just how do you think they get on the plane without a visa or visa waiver?!?

They apply for a tourist visa, which is easier to get for Mexico than for the US. They are in Mexico, legally, then travel to the US border to apply for asylum.

[yucky]

Since they filed for tourist visas under false pretenses then they are in Mexico illegally.