No. of Recommendations: 1
When have we ever not promised to defend our borders and who exactly in the international community is going to have an issue with that? - Dope
==================
I am starting to feel that way myself. We are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?
There are 160 countries that signed the treaty, per wiki,
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum.
Interesting that the asylum seekers streaming through our southern border had to pass through a number of other countries that also signed the same treaty and therefore in theory have the same "obligations" that we do. Yet the asylees flow right through them looking for a better deal in the USA.
Here is something enlightening from wiki regarding this treaty,
There exists a diversity of definition of refugees across the globe, where countries and local districts even have differing legal meanings and rights allocated to refugees.[3]
So right there is where we are as far as I am concerned. The open borders crowd wants our present condition to appear to be an iron clad requirement of international law. The "diversity of definition" verbiage suggests that other signatory nations apply their own interpretations within the treaty framework. The senate border bill that was shot down would have been an example of the USA applying this principle.
And present day realities make it imperative we do the same.
