Your comments are out of line. I am more than confident (since your name is nepalese and you seem to have the knowledge that Nepalis travel to India without any travel document) that you want Nepali asylum seekers to not come to USA for the asylum purpose or want the asylum seekers already in USA to save attorney fees and go to India and live a luxurious (in your view) life. It should be, always, the choice of asylum seeker where to flee. It is different that someone living in third country for a longer period of time should be taken differently but questioning the choice of protection is very very bad. First, asylum is straight forward LEGAL WAY of showing humanity, kindness and a helping hand. How can same system says go to 13 different countries and finally show up here if you have no success. That will be flies in the face (in Attorney’s words) of international obligation of US government. And for a asylum seeker it will not make any sense. For example: I am a Nepali and I need protection, and I chose to flee to India since a treaty allows Nepali and Indians to travel across the border without any travel document. In this case I did not bring the issue of my persecution risk and silently traveled to India and started living there not as an refugee but as a Nepali protected by a treaty. What will be my situation if both countries proceed to terminate the treaty and I am required to go back again? So your Indian Idea could be different tomorrow.

Also as an asylum seeker, I consider myself a legal beggar. For me, it is no different than a homeless guy holding a banner saying ” Hungry!!” Only difference is most of the time drivers passing his way are not in the position to say, “go for it, if you are hungry, ask for it, I gatch you”. Here in this scenario, person (US Government) being begged is encouraging, showing sympathy and providing helping hand. Now if same person (US government) says you should have begged with others before begging me, how does that sound? How is generosity and action match here? A beggar is and will always going to decide not to beg with someone. If you don’t even think he is hungry do not give him anything, end of the story but not giving him food just because he failed to beg with others is ridiculous especially when you go out in the group of friends (for example: US in international conventions) and say hey you know what, a guy was as asking for a food and I fed him. Just imagine how cheap would it sound if he says, hey you know what, a guy was hungry and I didn’t fed him because he should have asked with others first.

We all know and we don’t even need to discuss that who passed thorough 13 countries had a straight forward intention to apply asylum only in the united states. Its clear and do not know why people like professors waste time talking about this. But, even for a refugee being safe is not the end of the life. We, just like anyone else, want to become a better person in life after protection. And just like anyone else, have to think the life ahead of protection, and just because we do that does not make us NOT REFUGEE and does not entitle us a be a possible applicant just for legal status. For example: One left home because he is broke but hungry. He went to market and saw three shops offering free food which is distributed after verifying he is broke and signing up a document that said he was given food. He knows that shop 1 and 2 offers food but does not offer free drink, but the third shop, which lies further deep in the market does because its in the news all the time. Now when he goes to the third shop passing 1st and 2nd people yell at him that he is there just because others don’t offer free drink and he could have feed himself on 1st or 2nd shop. What is the guy’s fault? When he left home shamelessly anyway for free food, what is wrong with finding the right shop so he can feed himself good? Bottomline is, just because he ended in third shop does not mean he was not hungry at all, the discussion should focus if he really was hungry rather than if he should have feed himself in 1st or 2nd shop if he got there earlier. If this really is an issue why even offer free food?

I think you point out a legitimate argument (as does Mr. Krikorian). I believe the problem with that argument is that no country is safe for everyone all the time. For example, India might not be safe for certain asylum seekers from Nepal, even if it is safe for the majority of Nepali asylum seekers. We could create a blanket prohibition–for example, banning all Nepali asylum seekers who come to the US via India–but this would invariably result in some Nepalis being denied asylum unjustly (specifically, Nepalis who passed through India but who could not remain safely in India). I think this form of justice is a bit too rough. A counter-argument to my point is that perhaps the journey from India to the US is unsafe, and so maybe we help people by deterring them from making the journey. Again, though, I feel that each individual needs to balance for himself whether it is safer to risk a trip to the US or safer to remain where he is.

No worries – actually your comment was quite helpful as it points to the existing international law that Mr. Krikorian seeks to amend (or at least he seeks to amend how the US implements that law).

Access to a substantive procedure can legitimately be denied to a person who has already found protection in a first country of asylum provided that such protection continues to be available. When it comes to the issue of return to a “safe third country” of an asylum-seeker whose claim has yet to be determined, UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusions No. 15 (XXX) and No. 85 (XLIX) have laid down the following basic rules:
(i) the circumstance that the asylum-seeker has been in a third State where he could have sought asylum does not, in and by itself, provide sufficient grounds for the State in whose jurisdiction the claim has been submitted to refuse considering his/her asylum request in substance and return him/her instead to the third country;
(ii) the transfer from one State to another of the responsibility for considering an asylum request may only be justified in cases where the applicant has meaningful links or connections (e.g. family or cultural ties, or legal residence) with that other State;

I’ve never talked to an asylum seeker that really could have stayed in any country they passed through. Your illustration of Eritreans is spot on.