The recent ink offered by Jill Colvin and Colleen Long is drenched with the foul stench of falsehoods that is typical of Associated Press yellow journalism.
AP lies—all of it.
Saying Trump wrongly insisted that his administration had no choice but to separate families apprehended at the border because federal law and a court decision is an outright media lie.
The news media pushed this false—full of lies—story.
It isn’t Trump’s law—the clearness and fullness of the law has existed since the foundation of our country.
If we are to remain a country, then by all means all law-breakers must be punished.
For many reasons, including the benefit of the child, the children of the law-breaker are not allowed to face the full majesty of the law.
The question is unpretentious and forthright: If a citizen of a foreign nation crosses another country’s sovereign border is it a legal, or illegal act?
If a law has been broken, then enforcement of the law is compulsory if the legal system is to exist and survive.
The prevailing legal application of non-refoulement, with respect to asylum, is the basis of argument by those who have wailed against President Trump’s so-called “No Tolerance” policy.
Essentially, no such legal edifice exists.
Many have argued that simply because the White House used the expression doesn’t make it a law.
Long before President Trump assumed the office of president, the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) drafted the international legal precedence that governs not only the refugee, but the substance of non-refoulement.
The UNHCR’s Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement was drafted in and around November 1997.
Moreover, the foundation of all international law concerning the refugee within global currents and undercurrents dates back to 1951 and is sustained by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948, which concedes the right of persons to seek asylum from prosecution in other countries.
The status of the refugee and the classification of the asylum-seeker is fully addressed by the Geneva Convention, and is both a status and rights-based instrument, underpinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement.
The States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, signed by 145 nations, including the United States in 1968, was adopted on 31 January, 1967, and entered into force on 4 October, 1967.
The 1967 Protocol removed all geographical limitations and thus gave the Convention universal coverage.
The Convention outlines a modicum of standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice. These rights include access to courts, primary education, work, and the consideration for documentation.
Since its inception, the 1967 protocol document is as widely accepted as the Nansen passport.
It is in the area of access to courts that I focus attention to.
If access to courts is given, then legal basis is grounded in the status of the refugee, and the refugee is as subject to legal standing as any other entity.
Consequently, the legal establishment of the refugee is subject to all laws and statutes of the country sought out.
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the principle of non-refoulement as the bedrock of asylum and of international refugee law.
A refugee is not the same as an asylum-seeker.
Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention, modified by the 1967 Protocol, identify a refugee as a person who “owing to well-founded fear of being prosecuted for various reasons, including race, religion, and political opinion, is outside the country of nationality and is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.
An asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been established or proven. Unless the reasons for fleeing a country in a mass refugee movement are evident, such as war and political oppression, claims by asylum-seekers cannot be declared prima facie refugees.
To further emphasize the refugee status method, neither International refugee law or international human rights treaties articulate an explicit entitlement to asylum for the individuals concerned, nor impose an obligation on states to grant asylum. Individuals have a right to seek asylum, not to be granted asylum, and the states have the right to grant asylum, but no obligation. The Geneva Convention does not guarantee asylum-seekers the right to be granted refugee status, even if they fulfill the conditions to be considered refugees; this remains at state discretion. Each state is also free to establish the conditions for granting asylum. This situation is reinforced by the fact that no body is entitled to interpret the Geneva Convention authoritatively, unlike most other international human rights treaties. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has the duty to supervise its application, but has no authority to provide mandatory interpretations. The task of interpreting the Convention has thus fallen to domestic law-makers and courts.
As the asylum-seeker is not a refugee simply because they demand to be, rather they are subject to the laws of whatever host country they choose, it is up to the host country to classify their status.
Under such a transitional and impermanent status, a condition of arraignment is in order. Appropriately, a person charged with a transgression is separated from their family and stands before the law to face the charge alone.
This is the spirit of the law, and was being appropriately conducted by the Trump Administration.
In summary: our country is as swarming as a crowded theater.
Freedom of Speech is not protected if someone screams “Fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists.
This is what the yellow journalism media is doing, right now.
When the theater is jam-packed and bursting, the media is unleashing their loudest ear-piercing, high-pitched wail.
Like they’ve behaved for the past 160 years in the USA—the media has pulled a false story out of the putrid, foulness of their cesspit of mendacity and pushed a false narrative to get their unctuous way.
These lecherous, yellow journalists won’t stop until they’re stopped.
The propagandists and media liars have much power.
Every single movement in history has first been thrust across the minds of the masses via the end of the pen.
Take these liars and propagandists seriously, or else they’ll make the weak-minded and the gullible believe that 2+2 equals 6.
Their unscrupulous actions are tantamount to treason.
Judgment against treason must be severe, and is best served at the gallows.
Propagandists, with the intention of disrupting and destroying our Republic deserve the severest punishment, executed swiftly.
If not, our Republic will die.
Photos: Bank Phrom, Elijah O’Donell, Hermes Rivera