The whole thing about asking for asylum in another country under international law, to put it in its simplest form, is that you have to prove that a) you’re in danger in your home country and b) you’re simply looking to get yourself out of danger.

Honduras, where the current caravan of migrants originated, isn’t a particularly safe country, but it’s hardly war-torn and those who are in legitimate danger could seek refuge in any number of destinations immediately adjacent to them.

The caravanners currently dominating the headlines, for the most part, seemed uninterested in those options, hence the reason why they’re currently agglomerated on the Mexican side of various U.S. ports of entry.

In a Twitter post published Monday, conservative actor James Woods was kind of wondering about that arrangement:

I’m genuinely curious about this #asylum issue. If people from Honduras and Guatemala are simply seeking #refuge from their native lands, and Mexico is offering #sanctuary, why do they need to violate our laws and border? They have already been granted asylum in Mexico, correct? — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) November 26, 2018

TRENDING: Pelosi Reveals Legislation Aimed at Limiting Trump's Presidential Powers

“I’m genuinely curious about this #asylum issue. If people from Honduras and Guatemala are simply seeking #refuge from their native lands, and Mexico is offering #sanctuary, why do they need to violate our laws and border?” Woods tweeted Monday.

“They have already been granted asylum in Mexico, correct?”

Indeed, some of them have.

Do you think that caravan members should have accepted asylum in Mexico? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (3056 Votes) 0% (11 Votes)

“Mexico has offered temporary work permits to migrants who register for asylum, as a big caravan of Central American migrants makes its way through the country toward the US,” the BBC reported in late October.

“The plan also envisages temporary ID cards, medical care and schooling.

“But to qualify, migrants must remain in Mexico’s southern Chiapas and Oaxaca states.”

That may not be what migrants envisaged when they started out, but it would also be safety from the conditions they say they’re trying to escape. Mexico may be dangerous in parts, but no one would argue there aren’t safe spots for asylum seekers in the country, even in Chiapas and Oaxaca.

That’s not what they want, however. They want entry to the United States. And they want their asylum claims processed at breakneck speed.

RELATED: Pelosi Claims Police 'Murdered' Breonna Taylor, Laments That No One Held Accountable

The failure to do this led to a “protest” on Sunday — one which ended with migrants charging the border and tear gas being used.

Of course, the media narrative was that this was excessive and cruel. But what was the alternative?

The alternative was for them to seek asylum in Mexico — something they could have gotten quite some time ago. That’s not what this was all about, however.

Democrats, the media and Hollywood may not want to acknowledge it, but there are two answers to James Woods’ question: They wanted taxpayer largesse in America, and American liberals want future voters.

It’s as simple as that.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.