The UN's "Borderless" World
By Joseph Klein, Front Page Magazine, April 24, 2006
While pro-immigrant rallies get most of the attention from the mainstream press, many law-abiding American citizens are fed up with the reality of tens of thousands of foreign nationals every few weeks continuing to enter this country illegally through our porous borders, added to the more than 11 million illegal aliens who are already here. Americans are bearing a grossly disproportionate share of the security risks and economic costs associated with such migration, which makes it a national problem for Americans to solve through their elected representatives and through voluntary groups like the Minuteman Project.
Citizens are demanding that their government ensure effective protection at the borders against more illegal entrants, who at the very least will become tax burdens on the American people and could pose a much more serious security threat. Congress and the President must decide what to do about this mounting problem, consistent with the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. Our democratic institutions can and must handle this situation without any outside interference.
The United Nations sees the matter differently. Its bureaucrats envision a “borderless” world where immigration is treated as an international human rights issue and used as a global development tool to encourage free movement of the developing countries’ poor to developed nations. This philosophy underlies their preparations for the United Nations High Level Dialogue concerning international migration and development, scheduled to take place in conjunction with the fall 2006 General Assembly session....
The UN bureaucrats’ aggressive push into the immigration debate fits in with their dogmatic belief that international treaties should trump national sovereignty prerogatives – in this case, a UN treaty that codifies the internationalization of immigration policy called the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. This Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1990 but went into effect in 2003 after the twentieth signing country formally ratified it. It is heavily biased against countries like the United States which receive the lion’s share of illegal aliens.
Indeed, the Convention goes so far as to use the term ‘irregular’ as a euphemism for illegal aliens and would require their destination countries to provide them with an array of benefits and justiciable rights....
The United Nations wants to change all that by seeking to position the right to freely migrate from poor to richer lands as a fundamental human right deserving of universal recognition. Indeed, they view internationally managed migration as an effective means to socially engineer the end of wealth disparities existing between the world’s most developed countries and the world’s developing countries. “Migration must become an integral part of global development strategies”, said a report prepared last fall by the Global Commission on International Migration set up with Kofi Annan’s assistance to help prepare the way for this fall’s United Nations High Level Dialogue. Using the euphemism ‘irregular migration’ to refer to illegal aliens, the Commission warned that restrictive national policies are “neither desirable nor feasible, and may jeopardize the rights of migrants and refugees.”
To the UN ‘experts’ who advocate using migration as a global development tool, the unemployed poor should become the economic charges of their destination countries. For those migrants who do manage to find jobs in their destination countries, they would be expected to send money back to their families still residing in their countries of origin. These remittances, as they are called, are seen by the UN’s migration development advocates as an indirect form of aid generated from the economies of the host countries and adding significantly to the gross national product of the migrants’ countries of origin. If transfers that went through informal channels were added to the official statistics, remittances could be as high as $300 billion. They are larger than official development assistance (ODA) and more than foreign direct investment (FDI)....
In short, if the UN advocates of open borders have their way, the developing countries would get to transfer their economic underclass without any cost to the destination countries, which would be expected to subsidize them....
...The host country is supposed to welcome all migrants desiring entry across an open border and take care of them. Why? Because the United Nations bureaucrats want us to believe that migrants’ human rights must take precedence above all else, including concerns about securing national borders.
As they say in Texas, that dog won’t hunt. The United Nations is an interloper, putting its nose in our country’s business when it comes to deciding how we are to treat illegal aliens, irregulars, undocumented immigrants or whatever other label one wishes to attach to those individuals who do not abide by our laws when entering our country.
...I would add that we cut off all U.S. funding for any United Nations projects or forums promoting the inane idea that ‘migration without borders’ is a universal human right or seeking to push international migration as a global wealth transfer development tool.
Read the complete article.
In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.