Home»US»Former US Ambassador to UN: We Have No Obligation to Bring in Syrian Refugees

Former US Ambassador to UN: We Have No Obligation to Bring in Syrian Refugees

Pinterest WhatsApp

Finally. Through all of the muck, the mire and obfuscation, a clear voice of reason emerged that calmly, but firmly asserted, the united States “has no obligation” to accept Syrian refugees. In fact, this clear voice of reason indicated that European countries were not obligated either.

John Bolton, former uS ambassador to the United Nations, appearing on “Justice with Judge Jeanine Pirro,” stated, “We have no obligation to bring them into this country.”

Bolton indicated the uS, along with other European nations, can refuse to allow entry to any Syrian refugees “without violating” any humanitarian obligations.

According to the former ambassador, there are “‘international conventions on how to handle massive numbers of refugees’ from war-torn areas, adding that ‘this system has completely broken down.'”

Does this surprise anyone? Are we so certain it was the “system” breaking down or the system being ignored while “insurrectionists” intent on destroying sovereign nations instigated an entire overwhelming invasion force? It’s something to think about. Anyone want to guess who is “leading” the charge (no pun intended) for massive illegal alien invasion takeover of Europe and the united States?

Mr. Bolton described the process in detail. The UN’s 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, amended in 1967, defines “refugee” as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” (page 3 of the document, last sentence, first paragraph.) The rights of refugees confirmed by the Convention only exists to “seek asylum from persecution.” As we all know, and Bolton confirms, many of these so-called refugees invading Europe are not from Syria. Even if somehow all of these people were somehow remotely unconnected with the Islamic State or ISIS, no nation or “signer of the convention” is under any obligation or “required to offer them asylum in their country.” Under this Convention, Bolton points out, “The refugee convention imposes on the country of first asylum an obligation to provide food, shelter, sanitation, and medicine in refugee camps.” Bolton stated this is done in mind of the main goal of repatriating them back to their country of origin as soon as possible. He added that the united States should assist with this goal.

According to Bolton, resettlement is a measure of last resort, not the first, only when there exists no chance or little success for repatriation.

In skimming the 56-page document, this little tidbit was found.

In particular, the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. (page 4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence)

Considering the tenets of the ideology of Islam, one can surely guess many have committed “acts contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations,” which the UN claims to hold in the highest regard “human rights.” Yet, those pious, high and mighty, empty suits turn a blind eye to the many human rights violations occurring in predominantly Muslim nations as they focus on nations like Israel and the united States. The so-called “delegates” refuse to recognize the atrocity of the ideology of Islam, as an all encompassing political system, hides behind the flimsiest veil of religion to perpetrate crime after crime upon humanity that every nation abhorred when it was discovered Nazi Germany committed such during World War II. No, because the ideology of Islam hides itself in the protective cocoon of a hint of religion, it has become off limits to criticism by some unidentified fear of hatred of that political system veiled in religion equated to anti-semitism. Regardless of religion, no religion or presence of any political system, the systematic murder of individuals constitutes a crime against humanity for which severest retribution should be forth coming. This is what Nazi Germany did and it is what Islam does.

The Convention itself declares “every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.”

The reading of this document continually finds the phrase “refugee lawfully in their territory,” with “their” referring to the “contracting state.” Now, maybe it’s just conjecture here, but, there does not seem to be any way possible this massive movement of people can remotely be referred to as “refugees lawfully” in the territory of a contract state, when none have made a request for asylum but have “forced” their way through all nations of Europe.

Article 9 declares the convention “cannot prevent any contracting state, in time of war or other grave and exception circumstance” from taking measures to protect its national security regarding taking in refugees. Are we not in a continual state of war? Our own federal government tells us so — the war on terror, the war on women, the war on poverty, to name a few.

Article 31 addresses the unlawful refugee; however, none of the provisions address this massive movement of hundreds of thousands, which any individual would recognize as an “invasion” size mass, intent on “political war”, instead of war by force, to over throw sovereign nations and governments. Nations can expel refugees in their territory unlawfully when national security or public order is threatened. Looking at these European nations flooded with massive numbers of invaders engaging in criminal behavior, threatening public order and national security, these nations have the duty to expel these people out. Yet, Merkel calls for her people to give way to the invaders.

And reading further, any contract state “may denounce the Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations” which will take effect one year from the date of receipt of the Secretary General of the UN. (pg. 35, Article 44) Under the circumstances, every “contracting state” should notify the Secretary General they denounce the convention immediately, waive the one-year date of effectiveness due to the massive invasion, and refuse to recognize “mass refugee” status to any and all due to the non-compliance of the “refugees” in adhering to the tenets of the convention by adhering to the laws and regulation of contracting states, the threatening of national security through commission of crimes in the contract state and the breakdown of public order caused by non-compliant refugees.

Anyone who dares to claim a contract cannot be broken immediately between nations or nations and the UN need look no further than history to see that nations often break their word, violate treaties and amend conditions at whim. This is the very reason our nation was warned by the founders to avoid such entangling relationships. However, no nation is obligated under this convention to risk its national security or public order to accommodate refugees. How many of these invaders have presented themselves to the proper authorities as required by the Convention? Why should nations extend any further “courtesy” to those not following the rules?

Throughout the document, the word “shall” is used when referencing contracting states — not “required” or “will,” indicating it is by authority of the contracting state that any enforcement occur. Refugees, on the other hand under Article 2, “has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as measures taken for the maintenance of public order.”

It appears Bolton is correct. No nation is obligated to “take in” refugees. It is totally at the discretion of contracting states to decide if to enforce or not. The UN nor any of its conventions have force of will or force of strength behind it. Being that the goal is to repatriate to the country of origin, why are nations, including the united States, government heads acting like we all have to move over, take them in and tolerate their presence for all time?

Something to think about.

*Article by Suzanne Hamner

The Washington Standard

Previous post

Christian Mother Confronts Katy Perry’s “Minister” Dad: “She’s a Satanic Woman” Who “Has Led Millions to Hell”

Next post

France’s Le Pen Calls for Re-Arming and Revocation of Muslim Passports