Traditionally, international law only governed the relations between nations. But now, this concept has evolved into something that’s threatening the very foundation of our country.
Case in point: As young illegal immigrants pour across the Mexican border from Central America, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is hoping America grants them refugee status.
The UN believes that if we refuse these sick, poverty-stricken children, it will be a violation of international law…
But American law specifically prohibits the entrance of unaccompanied minors.
So now, both bodies of law are in direct conflict – and the UN isn’t budging.
And this raises an important question: Has America lost its sovereignty to a new world order?
America the UN
Thanks to an evolution in international law – which now governs the relations between individuals and transnational corporations and organizations – the idea of national sovereignty has eroded in many ways during the course of the last few decades.
And because of the UN’s interference, media elites have started referring to illegal aliens as refugees.
FOX News commentator Charles Krauthammer addressed the word play being used: “If you treat them here as refugees, you’re essentially saying everybody who wants [to enter the United States] can come in. We should send buses to pick them up in Central America, so they’re not going to die on top of Mexican trains.”
All kidding aside, the policy of open borders might be well intentioned. But it just isn’t feasible.
Krauthammer continued: “We cannot… open our borders up because of miserable conditions in certain countries – otherwise, the Congo would empty and end up here.”
And just like the UN’s open border policy, many of their rules are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and English Common Law, which form the basis of our legal system…
From the U.S. to the Middle East
In addition to the immigration law dilemma is the issue regarding taking unilateral action against foreign states we deem “rogue.”
While it’s clear that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has committed violations of international law, it’s doubtful these violations would rise to the level that allows Obama and the U.S. military to respond unilaterally.
Once again, the UN held the United States back from exercising its rights as a nation…
After World War II, the international law governing such military action was established within the UN framework. This law forbids any and all use of force against other states (Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter), except for the purpose of individual or collective self-defense (Art. 51), or as authorized by the UN Security Council for the purposes of restoring or maintaining collective security (Arts. 39-42).
In order for a state to use force in self-defense, it (or some other state) must have suffered an armed attack – or under some interpretations, be the target of an imminent armed attack.
The international law never gives authority to intervene in these civil conflicts. Syria’s Al-Assad isn’t attacking another state; he is attacking his own citizens.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom