The recent asylum cooperation agreement between the United States and Mexico has been a hot topic of debate among politicians, activists, and the general public alike. This agreement, which was signed in June 2019, requires asylum seekers who reach the US border to first apply for asylum in Mexico before being considered for asylum in the US.
The agreement has been criticized by many who claim that it violates international law and puts vulnerable asylum seekers at risk. However, supporters argue that it is necessary to address the growing number of migrants arriving at the US-Mexico border.
Under the agreement, asylum seekers who arrive at the US border will be sent back to Mexico, where they will be required to wait for their asylum hearings. This can take months or even years, as the US immigration system is notoriously backlogged. During this time, asylum seekers may be subjected to harsh conditions in Mexican detention facilities, which have been criticized for their poor living conditions and lack of access to legal resources.
Critics of the agreement argue that it is inhumane and violates the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits countries from returning asylum seekers to a country where they may be at risk of persecution. They also argue that it places undue burden on Mexico, which is already struggling with its own migration crisis.
Supporters, on the other hand, argue that the agreement is necessary to address the influx of migrants at the border and to discourage so-called “asylum shopping” – the practice of seeking asylum in multiple countries in order to find the one with the most favorable conditions. They argue that the agreement will also help to reduce the backlog of asylum cases in the US, which has been a major issue in recent years.
In conclusion, the asylum cooperation agreement between the US and Mexico is a controversial issue that has sparked heated debate. While supporters argue that it is necessary to address the growing number of migrants arriving at the border, critics claim that it violates international law and puts vulnerable asylum seekers at risk. As the situation at the border continues to evolve, it is likely that this issue will remain a contentious one for some time to come.