Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia

Nope. Sorry, but if there's one subject that's of high interest to me, it's history and government. It's called "food for thought" and I'm not arguing anything. However, the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. I'm proud of this nation and proud of my service. I come from a long line of military service in my family, so don't try to say otherwise. Most people in this portal come down hard on one side of thought or the other. But I'm not blind to thinking about what the other side might think.
One of POTUS's appointments is Homeland Secretary John Kelly. He's a bright spot here. As he stated, addressing "the root causes of insecurity and instability is not just in the region's interests, but ours as well". I like the way Secretary Kelly thinks. If you don't understand what the root causes are for a situation, you will almost certainly create more problems in the future for whatever situation is at hand.
Again, "food for thought".

MSgt Neil Greenfield - Sorry, I still fail to see how the Geneva Convention has any bearing on how the immigration policies of the United States are written or enforced. By citing the Geneva Convention you are implying that we are in a state of war. I like to think that I have an open mind and also enjoy food for thought. I also have my own strong beliefs and will argue them with anyone. I am just curious as to how you think the Geneva Convention applies to this situation.

All countries reserve the right to deport persons without right of abode, even those who are longtime residents and/or possess permanent residency. In general, foreigners who have committed serious crimes, entered the country illegally, overstayed and/or broken the conditions of their visa, or otherwise lost their legal status to remain in the country may be administratively removed or deported. __ source: Henckaerts, Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice, 1995, p. 5; Forsythe and Lawson, Encyclopedia of Human Rights, 1996, p. 53-54.

Carry that thought through. That's really like saying that when the US signs a treaty, our word doesn't mean anything.
When Britain signed a defense treaty with Poland before Germany invaded them, would it have been right for Britain to say, sorry, but we didn't know this was going to happen?

Not sure where you made that leap. If there is a domestic law and a contradictory international law, the domestic law is followed. People are selfish. And governments are made of people. So they are more likely to follow laws made for domestic jurisdiction. Military alliance pacts like NATO are different in terms of international law and compliance.

Article II of the United States Constitution:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

And more to the point is the Supremacy Clause - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause - which is Article VI, Clause 2.
This clause is one that a lot of state rights advocates forget about.

"Food for thought" is roughly = to "critical thinking skills", something that's immensely important to get to the "root cause", the "why" something is happening and how to mitigate or remediate the issue at hand. It's not about quick fixes or stupid campaign phrases. It's the difference between being strategic and thinking things through with a risk management philosophy versus a tactical piecemail approach that's inefficient and ineffective in the long run. Too many people on this site are very quick to say someone is stupid or they don't know what they're talking about, just because their ideas are different from their own.
That's what "food for thought" is all about.

MSgt Neil Greenfield - Why thank you for describing to me what you think an old wife's saying means. That fucking degree on the wall next to me must be for looks since I have to have somebody describe "Food for thought". Now why would a grown ass man not know what it means? Now if you had said, "More worthless than tits on a boar hog." I could see how somebody could not understand that. Then we could have the discussion about that boar tits are actually important due the genetic factors in breeding for future stock and the impact it would have if we discounted boar tits in a global world economy. Just food for thought.

So while you deflected the question I asked I am going to ask it again. Obama has done the exact same thing as Trump. Why was it not a bad thing when Obama did it? Here is some more food for thought. If this was religion based why can Muslims from Africa still come in? Or if it is race based then why can somebody enter the US if they from the UAE?

I am going to do one more "food for thought". What does that articles of war and domestic policy have in common and why would somebody reference them to each other while prefacing with it "Food for thought" over and over..