Migration is a key issue and the UN charters that we have are from a time when it was much harder to get around.
It wasn't possible to reach the US or Europe as easily as it is now.
Anyone with Google maps can plot a course to better living conditions and many have started to do so.
The first world thought that if they increased living standards in the third world, people won't move the first world.
But this is not the case. As soon as they save up a little, they move to Europe or elsewhere.
The optics here aren't good. But are these kids well fed, clothed and kept safe?
Compared to our living conditions this seems bad but how bad were the conditions in their own countries that made them move to the US in the first place?
Take a country like Venezuela or Mexico with the cartels.
It's a difficult situation. The countries that people flee from either have a horrible government or bad living conditions (and most of the time both).
I think it's unfair to just look at the country that these displaced people end up at and point the finger at them.
The governments that are apparently so shitty that these people start looking for the care and protection of Donald J. Trump voluntarily are not focused on enough.
Why do so many parents grab their kids and run over to the border, knowing all the risks (dehydration, gang violence, US border security) seems an important topic that no one likes to talk about.
What is the 'limit' that the countries that have their shit together (somewhat) should be asked to handle. It's simply unfeasible for the US (or EU) to take in all refugees/migrants from other parts of the world.
These Nazi comparisons and generalizations really get us nowhere.
