It’s not my favorite solution. It’s certainly not a permanent one.
But if thousands of migrants are going to make a point of showing our border impotence, we need an immediate answer.
The central problem, which many don’t realize, is that while our border is a leaky sieve, caravans like this aren’t trying to just break in, they’re perfectly happy applying for asylum at the border and then being taken into custody, before being released due to overcrowding and then told to report for their hearing.
It saves them plenty of days of rough travel.
We could stop accepting asylum applications, but to do that, we first have to do this.
United States asylum law derives from the United Nations. The 1951 UN refugee convention and the 1967 protocol, to which we became a signatory in 1968, have been baked into our legal codes. Article 3 precludes a Muslim travel ban, Article 16 mandates free legal aid for refugees, Article 17 requires allowing a refugee to work, Article 22 mandates free education, Article 23, welfare, Article 26, travel anywhere within the United States, Article 28, travel outside the country, Articles 32 and 33 make deportation very difficult, and Article 31 prohibits imposing, “penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”. United States courts have debated how to interpret these articles, but a leftist Supreme Court could easily use Article 33 to open up our borders.
And we would be obligated to process and possibly take in every refugee anywhere in the world.
When the United States signed on to the convention in ’68, LBJ and his people lied to the Senate and to Americans and assured them that it wouldn’t change anything about our system. The convention however is the most damaging piece of immigration law that doesn’t carry Ted Kennedy’s name.
“Accession to the Protocol would not impinge adversely upon established practices under existing laws in the United States,” LBJ had claimed. “State laws are not superseded by the Convention or Protocol.”
He described it as a “symbolic element” in his message to the Senate.
There’s nothing symbolic about it. And until it’s gone, our borders can never be secure.
A security zone would have a number of advantages.
First, it immediately ends the asylum problem. If the migrant caravans can’t reach the border, they can’t apply for asylum. Individuals would still get through, but it wouldn’t be the same kind of flaunting of our impotence.
Second, it helps reduce the cartel and organized crime situation that’s feeding some of the border craziness. Right now border personnel are facing heavily armed drug traffickers with access to more firepower than some armies.
Third, it would avoid a number of legal issues that have come up when it comes to using the military inside the United States. Those issues are not valid, but lefty judges can exploit them.
But it would only be a very temporary answer.
Leave a Reply