I will give you a quick response. I think that you have put your finger on one of the fundamental elements of the bill and the problems it may raise. With its list of designated countries, this bill might close the door to the most vulnerable people from a wide range of countries. That is why we are recommending that there be no designated country.
The Mexican example is a particularly good one. I believe that a number of you met with Luis Arriaga a few weeks ago. He is the director of the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Centre, and he spoke about how various groups of people could not receive protection in many regions of Mexico, and that it is wrong to say that if they were to move from one place to another...
For example, if we were to tell women or same-sex couples that their applications would be turned down at the first level and that they would not be eligible for a second hearing, then that would fundamentally alter the process by which claims can be made and processed on an individual basis. We must respect the international convention, which calls on countries to process individual applications, and not base decisions on a group, category or country of origin, which would fundamentally alter the process.