Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met.
|
This sounds like your slick con artistry at work. What do you mean by "can be met"? Are you referring to some verbal manipulation to circumvent protocol text? Either the standards are met by the asylum claimant or they are not. Why would any provisions be necessary if the asylum standards are already met?
If a government is "unwilling" to provide protection from gangs and rapes, then the government is complicit and responsible for the persecution. In that case, asylum is met under the rubric of political persecution. It has to be proven that the government is deliberately not protecting the claimant.
Should the citizens of the South side of Chicago, under UN protocols, be granted asylum into Switzerland because of the persistent threat of gang violence?
Threaded Mode