When the USA invades a country,should the refugees of that war get automatic asylum in the USA ?

Answer 1

1) we shouldn't be invading people anyway.
2) Think about it. We are at war with a country, would you want to grant automatic refuge to it's citizens without question? Obviously not. Securitywise, that would be an extremely stupid move.

Answer 2

The USA is part of a coalition of countries that enforce UN security council resolutions. I do see that you are trying to single out America but this would be an impossible task for you. The USA has veto power on the UN security council thereby obligating her to police rouge states and those leaders who are detrimental to freedom. the USA is responsible for liberating and delivering freedom to more people on this planet than any other country that ever was or will be. This liberation and deliverance of freedom is a reason those whom you refer to as refugees would more than likely not want to come to America but rather stay and live a life in the country they were born in.

Answer 3

Too undesirable you chosen the incorrect answer . in case you study section 3, paragraph B, of the Authorization for use of military tension against Iraq determination of 2002. Bush replaced into required to coach to the Congress that Iraq replaced into in violation of UN Resolutions via nevertheless being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq replaced into at the back of 9-11. the two claims have on account that been disproved and discredited, and seem to be created via the Pentagon place of work on the middle of the latest Israeli secret agent scandal. subsequently, below usa regulation, the conflict in Iraq is illegitimate. And We the anybody isn't below any criminal or ethical criminal accountability to pay for it, no longer to show enable our teenagers be killed in it. "(b) Presidential determination.--In connection with the workout of the authority granted in subsection (a) to apply tension the President shall, merely before such workout or as quickly thereafter as could be possible, yet no later than 40 8 hours after workout such authority, make accessible to the Speaker of the abode of Representatives and the President professional tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (a million) reliance via america on extra diplomatic or different non violent means on my own the two (A) won't competently take care of the national secure practices of america against the continued risk posed via Iraq or (B) shouldn't deliver approximately enforcement of all proper United countries secure practices Council resolutions concerning Iraq; and (2) performing pursuant to this joint determination is consistent with america and different international places persevering with to take the essential movements against international terrorist and terrorist agencies, which includes those countries, agencies, or persons who planned, approved, committed or aided the terrorist assaults that got here approximately on Sept. 11, 2001."

Answer 4

Invading is the wrong word - and no, they should not. There's too many people here already. Let everyone start moving to Canada.

Answer 5

NO

iraq and afganistan had 50,000,000 people combined. if 20% of them left, more would though. that'd be 10 million non-english speaking people. and a few terrorists too

Answer 6

Like Germany, Japan? You fight a war and let their population into your country to do it in the home country?!!!!!

Would you volunteer to have them in your home, street, or town?

Answer 7

Not necessarily. If they are escaping persecution for, let us say, helping America conquer them, then yes.

Answer 8

They did in the Bosnian war, Clinton had them flown from Europe here to America, and fact one of them is my friend now.

Answer 9

We should help them, especially since thats why it was invaded in the first place

Answer 10

No....they should be thankful that they will get an opportunity to be free.