Amid the conspiracy theories and the bloody madness revolving about the matter, we've never quite settled on the proper nomenclature: What do we call thousands of Central Americans tramping towards our southern border intent on entering our country and living here?

“Migrant caravan” has a pleasant ring to it, as though this were a modern-day Canterbury Tales. But theirs is not a pilgrimage from which the travelers will one day return home. This is a body of people the size of a town population looking to relocate to the United States whether the citizens of this country like it or not.

It isn't quite right to call the march an “invasion” or the people on it an “army.” They're not an armed mob, and they’re not talking about entering with force, despite the impression that apparently was burnt into the mind of the mad Pittsburgh synagogue shooter.

But whatever the right label is for the northbound thousands, it can be said without hesitation that America should not open its doors to them when they arrive. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is correct to say, "Do not come."

Refugees are supposed to settle in a country where they are not at risk of persecution. If these Hondurans are at risk in Honduras, they ought to settle in Guatemala. If not there, then in Mexico. It is not plausible to say they need to flee Mexico, as well. There is a clear sense that many of them simply feel they are entitled to enter the United States.

Most are Hondurans simply seeking a better life. Arriving at our southern border is not, or should not be, the most effective way of getting it. They have no right to come here. We have many avenues for immigration. The United States lets in more foreigners than any country in the world: 13 percent of our population is foreign born. The standard immigration or visa process, though, is not what this “caravan” seeks.

The fundamental issue is that sovereignty, and thus democracy, require that a country control who enters and who doesn’t. By effectively breaching Mexico’s southern border against the will of the Mexican government, this “caravan” showed its disregard for the rule of law. Preserving the rule of law requires our government to state clearly, backed by action, that we won’t allow this multitude simply to march into our country. To do so would invite thousands more, and would declare that America no longer has borders and is therefore no longer a real country.

Most immigration has strengthened America. But it is up to the citizens of this country to exclude or include whomever they wish and for whatever reason they choose. Absorbing thousands of people who have no jobs or place to live and who cannot speak English, would impose a burden on an American community or communities that neither the beneficiaries of this laxity nor the federal government has any right to impose.

It is irresponsible to let this march across Mexico continue. It could end dangerously for the weakest and most vulnerable marchers — families, children, the elderly — and in ugly confrontation for American security forces tasked with rejecting the throng of strong, able-bodied young men who will by then have been pursuing their goal for more than a month.

Under our broken immigration system, which betrays this country's citizens, two out of every five entrants who apply for refugee status fail to show up for their hearings. Even if they do not themselves laugh at the naivety of those who follow the rules, their success in illegally living in America makes a mockery of their hosts in their new home country.

The administration is right to be worried about this march. Many commentators point to the craziest conspiracy theories about the march in order to pretend concerns about it are mere political theater. This argument ignores the obvious fact: this is a real political issue and one on which Republicans and Democrats should be judged in the midterm congressional elections now only a few days away.