THE UNITED STATES accepts more political refugees than any country in the world. Welcoming the persecuted is good. However, the definition of persecution has been abused, loosened and degraded (we now take victims of “LGTB” discrimination from Africa), partly through the influence of the “non-profit” refugee resettlement industry. Now, in response to the border crisis, Obama is proposing to further broaden the definition of a refugee.

At The American Thinker, Jonathan Moseley explains why the unaccompanied minors from Central America are not refugees in any legal or customary sense. He writes:

Clearly, none of those coming across our southern border illegally is facing “persecution” on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. “Persecution” to qualify for asylum does not mean poverty or violence, like that breaking out in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago, Illinois or in Detroit, Michigan.

Furthermore, a person who would otherwise qualify for asylum cannot be considered a refugee or qualify for asylum if (8 CFR § 208.13 [b][i] [B]) “[t]he applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country[.]” If you are fleeing the violence in Chicago caused by liberal gun control policies, you could simply move to Indiana. As a result, those fleeing Chicago or Detroit would not qualify as refugees. If they can move within their own country, migrating people won’t qualify for asylum or as refugees.

He continues:

This brings home a vitally important part.  Yes, absolutely, “the government” should take care of these children and others.  But which government?  Not ours.  The governments responsible for these people are the governments of the respective countries in which they are citizens.  That is the crucial error of Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, and others.  Of course these people should be taken care of.  That’s what their governments – not ours – are morally obligated to do.

These sometimes 24-year-old “children” are simply coming to the United States to make money – or for “greed,” in liberal-speak.  (Resource-rich Mexico’s unemployment rate was 4.7% last fall.)  Apparently greed can be good with liberals.  At most they are fleeing routine violence like that in the Southside of Chicago and parets of the District of Columbia.  But violence that is not systematically caused by a government or a civil war doesn’t count.

These migrants are not fleeing persecution.  On the contrary, the Mexican government is helping them, while conspiring with their Central American governments.

Hundreds of migrants ride on the roof of a U.S.-owned “NAFTA Train” called “The Beast,” coming north through Mexico from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  The Mexican government and the train company can see that hundreds of people are piled on top of the freight train as it travels for many days from Mexico’s southern border to the U.S. border.  An estimated 20,000 migrants have ridden the freight train in the last four months.  This is highly dangerous and illegal.

On July 10, 2014, the train derailed – again.  The train also derailed earlier on August 25, 2013, at 3:00 AM, blamed on rain-soaked embankments.  But themust-see photographs show that the train toppled over – obviously influenced by the weight of hundreds of migrants riding on top.  A freight train is not designed to travel top-heavy that way.

Any normal government would stop the train, arrest those operating it, and put an end to this risky business.  Ye

Please follow and like us: