Well our allies certainly aren't covered in our social contract. It's strictly between citizens and their state.

My mistake, a treaty/agreement is a completely different contractual relationship. Where is RisingTide citing our obligation to maintain world order? The Constitution? Or simply de facto because of our position post-WWII? If the latter, then couldn't the same de facto argument be made for illegals coming from Mexico, assuming that they are either a) fleeing oppression of some kind or b) pursuing the promise of the social contract to which they were denied?; how just is it for the US, as the world superpower, to deny any person fellowship who wishes to join the cause of world order? (and does that call into question our right to closed borders?) I'm not sure the "superpower must maintain world order" argument is viable because I don't see where the slippery slope of our obligation to that goal ends.