There is an article in the New York Times gaining attention because the Obama proposal outlined seems ridiculous:
NYT – Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country. (read more)
However, there might be an unusual reason for this consideration. The definition of “refugee” is internationally recognized and has specific constructs and expectations. As Mark Kirkorian at the Center for Immigration Studies notes:.
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees includes this provision (my emphasis):
Article 31 – Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
That means that an illegal alien can’t be barred from applying for asylum simply because he snuck across the border or overstayed a visa. But as the bolded text notes, that’s only the case for the first safe country the refugee enters. He shouldn’t even be allowed to apply for asylum if he passed through other countries. Asylum is for people willing to go anywhere to get out of where they are; just as a drowning man doesn’t pick and choose among life preservers he sees in the water, a genuine asylum-seeker doesn’t pick and choose among countries. (link)
Illegal aliens entering the U.S. have passed through Mexico. According to historical and internationally accepted norms, Mexico would be the first -and only- country a traditional refugee would be allowed to claim asylum. I strongly suggest reading the entire article at Mark Kirkorian’s blog to better understand HERE.
Another exceptional analysis of the entire construct is available at Refugee Resettlement Watch – HERE <– highly recommended.
Redefining “refugee”, and simultaneously allowing applications for “asylum status” in the home country of the immigrant, appears to be the way a person who would desire to deconstruct the framework of global colonialism would operate.
Such a proposition would essentially lead to wildly open borders and a global community unbound by traditional national origins. One would think it would only be advanced by severe liberals or people who hold no specific affection to the country of their own origin; what we used to call ‘travelers’. Cultural support for such a proposal would need a world view petri dish to develop a virus of “non exceptionalism”. Additionally, patriotism would necessarily need to be removed…. and… oh, sh!t…
… hey, wait a minute…. wha, ….what quote did I just read in the Washington Post two days ago?
…“But whether people see what’s happening in Ukraine, and Russia’s aggression towards its neighbors in the manner in which it’s financing and arming separatists; to what’s happened in Syria — the devastation that Assad has wrought on his own people; to the failure in Iraq for Sunni and Shia and Kurd to compromise — although we’re trying to see if we can put together a government that actually can function; to ongoing terrorist threats; to what’s happening in Israel and Gaza — part of peoples’ concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.”