Nations that would grant asylum? (Re: Draft)

[Trek234]

Can anyone provide some information regarding nations that would grant asylum to a person escaping a draft? (i.e. say one that would send you to a war zone to oppress the local population, fight for HAL and a group of fascists)

I have been looking at western european nations asylum policys, and a few seem to have provisions regarding war. Germany in particular seems to have a policy of granting asylum to people who want to "escape war".

This information might be of interest to some people should the worst happen in Nov 04.

[corarose]

1. People went to Canada during the Viet Nam War

I would go to jail before I would fight JR's war.

[Maple]

2. Canada accepted

a ton of 'draft dodgers' last time...Viet Nam.

[Trek234]

3. True

But I have heard they now have an agreement with the US to extradite any US people that may be escaping a US draft in the future.

[dutchdemocrat]

6. Canada did not support the war in Iraq remember

And with all the Trade wars, Bush and his cronies have inflicted on Canada, they won't turn people back.

Canada is a vast country that takes in more immigrants than any other countries in the world. 28 per cent of the population was not even born there.

And they are a tolerant people who have decided that wasting money and time chasing people for a joint is a waste of resources, taxes are generally ok because they have free and or inexpensive health care, and gays can marry if they want.

I think they will either axe the agreement (if there is one) or just let them in and see what America's reaction will be. I suggest your children, if they are of draft age, look into immigrating to Canada and what their options are before a draft is enacted.

They can take a free assessment here

http://www.canadaimmigrationvisa.com/form.html

to see if they qualify.

The other choice is Mexico, which is a no-brainer. Just send money and keep them somewhere cheap, where they may get jobs in tourism. The Mexicans also opposed the Iraq war and can't be bothered to chase down a few kids.

[markus]

22. The Canadians agreed to return "fleeing felons"

I have to wonder, if push came to shove, if someone formally requested political asylum for a well founded fear of persecution for resisting the draft, if Canada would send them back.

[Trek234]

23. They also agreed

to return those escaping a draft.

And true or false - escaping the draft would likely be a felony?

[maveric]

4. I'm 8 miles from Mexico. Does the BFEE have influence there?

What I'm asking is would the mexican govt. capture and expedite those seeking asylum from the draft.
I have 3 sons, 21, 18, 13, all of which are able-bodied. I wont let bu$h and rummy take them.
Canada is a long way from San Diego but TJ is right here. Anyone know anything about Mexico's policies?

[MuseRider]

5. We all should get together

and brainstorm some of this. My sons are almost 18 and almost 20 so I am equally interested. I heard about Canada sending them back, I do not know about Mexico. We had thought about getting to the Caribbean but how far would we have to go?

[dutchdemocrat]

7. If you want to send them to the Caribbean

Send them to St. Maarten/St. Martin.

I know. I lived there.

It's half French and half Dutch with no border and no one cares (and does anything) about who lives there or not. Lots of jobs in tourist industry, large American community etc.

Links

See St. Martin board at www.traveltalkonline.com
www.thedailyherald.com (newspaper)
www.st-martin.com (government site).

Good luck

[alfredo]

15. Bush has angered Fox, so maybe there is a chance

they would grant your request. Write them.

[bluestateguy]

8. My best guess would be France or Germany

Figure Australia and the UK would repatriate. Canada? That's a big if. Our relations with Canada have so deteriorated that that country may not be willing to help feed the war machine. Don't know about Mexico. I'm sure France and Germany would be of assistance, and maybe Spain too, if Aznar's party is given the boot in coming elections.

[Kellanved]

16. Not likely

Both Nations still have a draft (France only pro forma; Germany for real). I know that the US send German draft dodgers home ASAP - I guess that works both ways.

[Trek234]

You have to realize though

That Germany allows asylum specifically for those escaping a war. How many German draftees go to Iraq to fight for HAL? How many German draftees do duty other than military?

As for France - it has a one day draft. You can tell they are really serious about it, huh?

[Trek234]

24. You have to realize though

That Germany allows asylum specifically for those escaping a war. How many German draftees go to Iraq to fight for HAL? How many German draftees do duty other than military?

As for France - it has a one day draft. You can tell they are really serious about it, huh?

[Silverhair]

9. Prevent the draft is better. Write you congressperson.

So far only Dem congresspersons have introduced legislation to start up the draft. The them to stop it as they are providing cover for Bush v2.0 if he really does want a draft.

[JackRiddler]

10. agreed!

But the prospect is there, and it's an important question. For me too, as a U.S. activist in Germany where presumably some of the dodgers would be coming...

Whatever the official policy in place at the moment, you can be certain it will be interpreted and enforced/not enforced according to the political constellation when it actually happens. Americans currently have a very easy time coming to Germany, faking their way through the regulations that keep other foreigners out, staying for years, and ultimately getting residence permits. There is minimal or no information exchange on such cases between the authorities here and in the U.S. That would presumably change when thousands of draft-age men suddenly arrive here...

[JackRiddler]

11. dupe/ignore

x

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. pre-emptive action now!...oppose the "Universal National Service Act."

contact your Reps NOW!

Pending Military Conscription Bills: Legislative Update

SAY NO TO RESUMING THE MILITARY DRAFT. On January 7, the first day of the 108th Congress, Rep. Rangel (NY) introduced the "Universal National Service Act of 2003" (H.R. 163), legislation which would resume the military draft and require a two-year period of national service for all men and women aged 18-26. Specifically, the proposal would "provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security." Reportedly, Rep. Rangel's office has been receiving many inquiries and expressions of support from other members of Congress. Current cosponsors include Reps. Abercrombie (HI), Conyers (MI), Lewis (GA), Stark (CA), and McDermott (WA). Sen. Hollings (SC) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate (S. 89).

ACTION: Please contact your representative and senators. Urge them to oppose the "Universal National Service Act."

MESSAGE: Military conscription is an integral part of the war system, whose ultimate intent is the destruction of human life, and compulsory national service is a form of involuntary servitude. Both are deeply abhorrent to our religious values. The military draft is not the way to bring about the end of war. Instead, we believe the tremendous human and material resources now devoted to war and preparing for war should be redirected to address the root causes of violence, to build cooperative, international institutions to peacefully prevent deadly conflicts, and to advance human security in all its dimensions. Further, we recognize the importance of service to our communities, and we encourage all to serve. But it must be voluntary and an expression of individual conscience-not compelled by the state. Compulsory national service would threaten our basic liberty and undermine the very principle of voluntary service to community.

BACKGROUND: Rep. Rangel is concerned that Congress and the American people are being too cavalier about supporting the President's plans for war against Iraq. He notes that only three members of Congress have children in the military, and only one of those is in the enlisted ranks. The ranks of the all-volunteer military do not reflect a true cross section of American society. Rep. Rangel introduced this bill because he wanted to stimulate a more sober consideration of the importance of shared sacrifice. He hopes his bill will provoke a deeper and broader public debate about current U.S. foreign and military policy.

The Rangel bill would require everyone aged 18 to 26 to give national service -- either in the military or in the service of homeland security -- for two years. Women, as well as men, would be required to serve. Conscientious objectors inducted into the military would be required to train and serve in the military in non-combatant roles unless transferred to another national service program, subject to the discretion of the President.

We at FCNL share Rep. Rangel's concern that the public is being led into war by the Administration without a full public debate about the true costs of war in blood and treasure. The Administration has done little to promote a sense of shared sacrifice. In fact, the President's proposed tax cuts, combined with the Pentagon's commitment to the "all-volunteer" military would make a war in Iraq seem virtually cost free for the average American today.

This is troubling. It should be difficult for a democracy to go to war, not easy. A seemingly cost-free, risk-free war lulls the general public into disengagement from the actions of its elected leaders on crucial issues of war and peace. It makes it easier for the government to wage war.

However, resuming the military draft is not the answer to the problem of how to prevent a war. The Administration is already rushing to war against Iraq while this bill is moving slowly, at best, and the Selective Service system is dormant. It would take at least two years to get the system up and running and complete boot camp for the first draftees. It would take longer still to arouse the public through this method. Thus, as a tactic to prevent imminent war, this bill is too late. If we want to prevent war, we need to use other, more immediate and direct methods. Congress must rescind the war resolution, among other things.

Further, resuming the military draft may not even be a good way to promote shared sacrifice. Throughout history, persons of privilege have always managed to get the deferments, exemptions, or special placements they wanted for their own. During the Vietnam war, the ranks of draftees were filled by men from poor and minority communities in gross disproportion to the race and class composition of American society at the time.

Most observers believe that it is unlikely that this bill will get very far. The Pentagon is strongly opposed to resuming the draft. The Pentagon says it has met its recruitment and retention goals with volunteers for each component (active, reserve, National Guard). Further, the Pentagon is concerned that a draft with limited service (e.g., two years) could create morale problems and dilute the quality of its high-tech force.

On the other hand, as the war in Afghanistan drags on, as the Administration prepares for war with Iraq, as the conflict with North Korea intensifies, and as the war on terror expands to dozens of countries around the world, the armed forces may begin facing personnel shortfalls. An indication of this was seen on January 14 when the U.S. Marine Corps imposed a "Stop Loss" order barring from leaving the service all active and reserve duty Marines who were scheduled to leave the service between January 15 and September 30.

Will the other armed services soon follow suit? Will requests to increase troop strength soon follow? Will enough volunteers come forward in a time of war, or will a military draft be needed to fill the ranks? We at FCNL will continue to monitor the situation in the months ahead. However, for now, everyone needs to keep their focus on preventing war with Iraq and reducing the scope and duration of the war on terror.

[Cleita]

12. It has been the practice in the past for a country to grant

asylum to citizens of a country that they are either at war with or are in some sort of cold war with. So our country used to grant asylum to dissidents from Soviet Bloc countries and vice versa. So maybe North Korea, China or Iran?

[Unknown Known]

13. I really don't think there will be a draft

Rummy's got the go ahead from the House and the Senate will vote next week on the final bill to basically privatize the DoD. This has been Rummy's dream for a long time.

The draft would just cause too much disruption to the Empire. What I think will happen is this privatization will change our military into a private enterprise. This is the way it has been drifting for awhile - they will hire any mercenary from any part of the globe. You won't have to be an American to serve in the American Empire military.

See my earlier thread -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=679903

[knight_of_the_star]

14. I would think

That you could probably get asylum from Switzerland, Sweden, or Ireland. Those nations typically stay neutral in wars and would proably refuse to extradite anyone they grant asylum to.

[iverglas]

18. Canadian rules, the real thing

The draft resisters accepted into Canada during the Vietnam era were working under a whole different set of rules from what we have now.

They were processed inland as immigrants, *not* as refugees/asylum seekers. Their reasons for leaving the US were essentially irrelevant. They simply qualified for immigration to Canada.

That's not how immigration to Canada works nowadays. Anyone wanting to resist the draft by immigrating to Canada in the regular way would have to apply from outside Canada and meet the usual requirements, or come within an exception for applying from within Canada (e.g. be involved in a genuine marriage, or established de facto relationship with a person of either sex).


Now, the refugee rules. Canada adheres to the international definition of a refugee:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/asylum-1.html

Convention refugee

A Convention refugee is a person who is outside of their country of nationality or habitual residence and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group.

Person in need of protection

A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country of nationality or former habitual residence would subject them to the possibility of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees" -- the UN's recommendations for how states should apply the international Convention on refugees -- contains this:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/refugeehandbook.pdf (emphases mine)

B. Deserters and persons avoiding military service

167. In countries where military service is compulsory, failure to perform this duty is frequently punishable by law. Moreover, whether military service is compulsory or not, desertion is invariably considered a criminal offence. The Penalties may vary from country to country, and are not normally regarded as persecution. Fear of prosecution and punishment for desertion or draft-evasion does not in itself constitute well-founded fear of persecution under the definition. Desertion or draft-evasion does not, on the other hand, exclude a person from being a refugee, and a person may be a refugee in addition to being a deserter or draft-evader.

168. A person is clearly not a refugee if his only reason for desertion or draft-evasion is his dislike of military service or fear of combat. He may, however, be a refugee if his desertion or evasion of military service is concomitant with other relevant motives for leaving or remaining outside his country, or if he otherwise has reasons, within the meaning of the definition, to fear persecution.

...

169. A deserter or draft-evader may also be considered a refugee if it can be shown that he would suffer disproportionately severe punishment for the military offence on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The same would apply if it can be shown that he has well-founded fear of persecution on these grounds above and beyond the punishment for desertion.

170. There are, however, also cases where the necessity to perform military service may be the sole ground for a claim to refugee status, i.e. when a person can show that the performance of military service would have required his participation in military action contrary to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions, or to valid reasons of conscience.

171. Not every conviction, genuine though it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

172. Refusal to perform military service may also be based on religious convictions. If an applicant is able to show that his religious convictions are genuine, and that such convictions are not taken into account by the authorities of his country in requiring him to perform military service, he may be able to establish a claim to refugee status. Such a claim would, of course, be supported by any additional indications that the applicant or his family may have encountered difficulties due to their religious convictions.

173. The question as to whether objection to performing military service for reasons of conscience can give rise to a valid claim to refugee status should also be considered in the light of more recent developments in this field. An increasing number of States have introduced legislation or administrative regulations whereby persons who can invoke genuine reasons of conscience are exempted from military service, either entirely or subject to their performing alternative (i.e. civilian) service. The introduction of such legislation or administrative regulations has also been the subject of recommendations by international agencies. In the light of these developments, it would be open to Contracting States, to grant refugee status to persons who object to performing military service for genuine reasons of conscience.

174. The genuineness of a person's political, religious or moral convictions, or of his reasons of conscience for objecting to performing military service, will of course need to be established by a thorough investigation of his personality and background. The fact that he may have manifested his views prior to being called to arms, or that he may already have encountered difficulties with the authorities because of his convictions, are relevant considerations. Whether he has been drafted into compulsory service or joined the army as a volunteer may also be indicative of the genuineness of his convictions.

I argued #171 on behalf of an Iranian who refused to participate in the Iran-Iraq war because of the illegal acts of war committed by his government during that conflict. (No decision was ultimately made, as he was subsequently processed under a backlog-clearance program.)

It would be an interesting argument in relation to the US occupation of Iraq, but not a guaranteed winner.

.

[iverglas]

19. less formally ...

There's always the pay-your-way-out route. The cost of attending university or college in Canada for an international student, including tuition and living expenses, is far lower than at any private institution in the US, and, as I understand it, lower than at state institutions as well. Here's the estimate for McGill University in Montreal (a "world-class" institution):

http://www.mcgill.ca/applying/fees/

Undergraduate tuition fees for the academic year:
International students (depending on program and courses selected): $8,763.00 - $15,000.00 <CDN>

Student Services: $310.00
Students' Society (depending on Faculty): $366.00 - $738.00
Registration Charge: $187.00
Information Technology Charge: $168.00
Transcript Charge: $16.80
Copyright fee: $9.90
Books and instruments (about): $1,000.00
Compulsory Health Insurance for International Students (single coverage): $498.00

Residences plus meal plans (for 8 months): $5,404.00 - $6,780.00
Off-campus shared housing and food (for 8 months): about $6,000.00


About $17,000 for yer average undergrad -- or under $13,000 US.


For those with money, there are always options. Of course, this does not guarantee acceptance as a permanent resident of Canada at the end of the program.


It's hard to say what informal reaction to a wave of draft resisters would be. There would be widespread and important sympathy for people refusing to be complicit in the Iraq adventure. But there is also a hard core of knee-jerk negative reaction to "queue-jumpers".

And draft resisters wouldn't just be hanging around, they'd be wanting to work (or collect social assistance if not permitted to work), and permitting that would require official action and also meet with some negative reaction. Obviously, the whole thing would also meet with negative reaction from outside the country.

Nonetheless, keep in mind that a USAmerican entering Canada is normally allowed 6 months as a "visitor", as long as s/he is not inadmissible (e.g. because of criminal record) does not work or attend school while here, and does not have the intention of remaining permanently.


And of course, may I express my hope that the need for answers to these questions never arises for my southern friends.

.

[Trek234]

25. Pay your way route would be nice

if we were all republicans. Unfortunately many of us are not rich Bush style SOBs who can buy our way out of anything.

[bluestateguy]

20. I think it depends on who is running the show in Canada

Depends on who the government is in Canada at the time to interpret those laws.

[iverglas]

21. well, no

Laws are not interpreted by governments, they are interpreted by courts. And there is a very, very long and detailed body of decisions by the courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court, governing the interpretation of refugee legislation. The courts ain't perfect on that score, but they've done some pretty rough knuckle-rapping of the government and the lower tribunals when they have failed to apply the law properly.

And the Supreme Court of Canada is one of those activist, pro-rights and freedoms, government-tweaking benches these days. The US SC it ain't.

If refugee claims were actually made, they'd have to be decided in accordance with the existing laws. Like I said, that doesn't in any way mean they'd be successful, or that there wouldn't be political considerations in the decisions, but the decisions would be subject to public and judicial scrutiny.

In fact, the judicial process might even provide cover for a Canadian government not wanting to assist in the US war effort, but not wanting to be put on an enemies list. Not that prime-minister-in-waiting Paul Martin would actually qualify for that category.

.