Instead, they insisted that U.S. immigration laws created by Americans’ elected representatives be enforced and strengthened, and that the UN be kept out of U.S. immigration policy.
“Our view is that this is a domestic policy issue,” said Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a leading immigration-focused organization that seeks to slow the flow of newcomers.
“When you add the United Nations to what should be a domestic issue, the end product is something that you’re not going to want to consume,” added Mehlman, echoing widespread concerns among immigration-policy advocates about the UN’s efforts to get more involved.
UN Pleased With Biden’s Actions
So far, the Biden administration has not publicly made any concrete moves to join the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration rejected by his predecessor.
However, its actions on the issue have been praised by the UN and its International Organization for Migration, which is leading the charge to promote the GCM.
“The International Organization for Migration (IOM) applauds President Joe Biden’s plans to address the drivers of migration and advance safe, orderly and regular migration in the region,” the UN organization said in a statement released in early February using the precise language of the global migration pact.
The Biden administration’s executive actions on immigration “will provide a framework to expand refugee resettlement,” the UN IOM added in reference to Biden’s orders increasing the cap on refugees from less than 20,000 per year to over 120,000.
The UN agency also boasted that it had already “assisted the United States with case processing, pre-departure health assessments, cultural orientation and transportation” of migrants from Central America.
“IOM looks forward to working with the Biden administration … to foster the positive opportunities and impacts of regular migration for individuals and their families as well as for the communities and societies with which they are affiliated,” the statement added.
As soon as Biden took office, the UN suggested that the U.S. government should re-engage in the UN’s international efforts on global migration.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, for instance, issued a statement on Biden’s first day expressing hope that the new administration would join the GCM.
“This partnership is needed now more than ever as we seek to provide assistance, protection and sustainable solutions to the displacement of record numbers of people who have been forced to flee their homes as a result of conflict, violence or disaster, or are migrating in the hopes of finding a better life for themselves and their families,” said the statement issued by Guterres’s office.
The top UN refugee official, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi, anticipated closer cooperation with the Biden administration as soon as it took office.
“We look forward to deepening the strong and trusted partnership with the United States, and to working with the new administration and Congress to address the many challenges of forced displacement around the world,” Grandi said on Jan. 20.
Trump Led Global Opposition
Under the Trump administration, which sought to reduce illegal immigration and some forms of legal immigration into the United States in favor of merit-based programs, the UN efforts to boost its involvement in migration policy received a cold shoulder.
It represented a clean break from the Obama administration, which in 2016 played a key role in the UN’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants that eventually led to the GCM negotiated at a December, 2018, summit in Morocco.
Trump blasted the effort. Indeed, a forceful statement released by the U.S. State Department on Dec. 7, 2018, slammed the GCM as a flagrant attack on sovereignty that was unacceptable to the United States.
“The Compact and the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which called for the development of the Compact and commits to ‘strengthening global governance’ for international migration, contain goals and objectives that are inconsistent and incompatible with U.S. law, policy, and the interests of the American people,” the State Department said, adding that the U.S. government objected to and would not be bound by the UN deal.
“The United States proclaims and reaffirms its belief that decisions about how to secure its borders, and whom to admit for legal residency or to grant citizenship, are among the most important sovereign decisions a State can make, and are not subject to negotiation, or review, in international instruments,” the statement continued, adding that the U.S. government would maintain the sovereign right to control its borders.
Beyond that, the Trump administration said the UN efforts represented an attempt by the UN “to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws, policies, and interests.”
“While the United States honors the contributions of the many immigrants who helped build our nation, we cannot support a ‘Compact’ or process that imposes or has the potential to impose international guidelines, standards, expectations, or commitments that might constrain our ability to make decisions in the best interests of our nation and citizens,” the State Department said before outlining a large number of specific criticisms of the GCM.
Among other concerns, the Trump administration said the UN compact was a threat to free expression, immigration enforcement, American workers, and even a proper understanding of “rights.”
Aside from an apparently automated message indicating she was on leave until March 29, Leslie Marshall with the Press Office of the U.S. Bureau of Global Public Affairs did not respond to repeated requests for comment asking about the State Department’s current position.
Numerous other governments that declined to participate also warned that the UN agreement sought to increase the flow of immigration into Western nations, usurp the sovereignty of national governments in determining policy, and even redefine migration as a “human right.”
Following Trump’s lead, dozens of nations and governments decided against adopting the UN compact including Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Austria, Israel, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Latvia, Poland, Australia, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Chile, and more.
“It cannot … be that any formulations are adopted that could perhaps or possibly be interpreted to mean that migration can be a human right,” argued Austrian Vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache at the time. “That can and must not be the case.”
Other European leaders warned that the UN’s efforts would exacerbate the migration crisis in Europe while encouraging even more mass migration.
In the end, only about 150 governments—mostly governments of nations sending rather than receiving migrants—joined the compact.
Over 40 governments, including many of the top destinations for migrants, declined to support the UN deal.
GCM Via Backdoor?
However, even without having supported the UN GCM, its policies and objectives are quietly being implemented in nations where authorities rejected the agreement.
Without naming specific governments, UN Network on Migration Communications Coordinator Kim told The Epoch Times that most of the governments that declined to participate or approve the UN agreement were nonetheless implementing its “common sense” provisions.
“You don’t need to adopt the GCM to actually implement it,” she said. “They will implement it at their own rhythm.”
“Sometimes it can be politically sensitive, so countries [governments] did not adopt it,” added Kim, who works at the UN’s offices in Geneva. “But a majority of those countries are implementing at least some parts of it.”
The United States is actually surrounded by nations where governments are enthusiastic supporters of the UN effort. In fact, the governments of both Mexico and Canada are considered “champions” of the GCM, Kim said.
“Mexico has agreed and requested to pilot some tools developed by the UN agencies through the Network for Migration,” Kim said, adding that the Mexican government served as “co-facilitator of the negotiations.”
“They know how relevant migration is for their own country, so they know they need to manage it better, to make sure those crossing the country or leaving from Mexico are protected,” she added.
“The fact that Mexico can be supported by the UN in protecting migrants leaving or crossing can have an impact on the United States,” continued Kim. “We are talking about international migration here, so anything implemented by one country has an impact on neighboring countries.”
To the North, Canada is also a GCM “champion country,” she said.
“Canada has been implementing quite a lot, they are quite progressive in this sense, meaning that their policies are much more gender responsive, they are quite active in the integration of migrants,” continued Kim.
All of that will have an effect on America, she said.
“The U.S. is a bit surrounded by GCM champion countries and the latest declarations from the U.S. representatives show there is a real willingness to improve migration management and make sure that migrants in the U.S. are protected and included,” Kim continued. “This will benefit the whole population.”
UN Migration Networks
As part of the implementation of the GCM, the UN has set up “Migration Networks” in about 40 countries around the globe so far.
Most recently, the UN announced the creation of a “Network for Migration” in Iraq, one of the nations sending large numbers of migrants into the West.
In a statement, a deputy special representative of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the network would coordinate UN support to “improve migration governance in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.”
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also referred to as UN Agenda 2030, represent a comprehensive global effort to reform governance and the economy to be more in line with what the UN considers to be sustainable.
The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”
Leading the Networks for Migration are a number of key UN agencies, including several that are run by Chinese officials loyal to Beijing.
Kim, the UN spokesperson for the migration networks, said the goal of the UN was to try to pool its expertise in supporting governments in the implementation of the UN global migration pact.
“For Mexico it is important to support the government with the ongoing situation with the U.S., trying to adjust the migration policies, trying to protect the migrants going through or leaving from Mexico,” she said.
The networks also serve as a “tool for advocacy,” Kim explained, adding that a trust fund run by the UN Network was supporting migration-related projects around the world.
In addition to the nine UN agencies on the executive board and the dozens of UN entities involved are hundreds of “civil society” organizations, Kim said.
Among the priorities of the UN agency are ending detention of what Kim described as “irregular migrants,” known more commonly in the United States as illegal immigrants.
Asked about “irregular migration,” she said: “Calling migration illegal is not accurate, a person cannot be illegal.”
When asked if the sort of policies being supported under the UN’s programs would encourage even more migration, Kim hesitated but suggested there were limits.
“We are not there to say ‘let’s have all the migrants in the world, and have them go anywhere,’” Kim clarified. “The compact aims to ensure that migration is well governed. We find the right balance that benefits those that want to come to a country, those who live in the country, and the governments involved.”
In Europe, she suggested creating new and larger pathways for legal migration would prevent people from crossing the Mediterranean.
“If they have legal means to come to Europe in a controlled, more-governed way, then the migrants don’t have to risk their lives,” she said, adding that this would provide more labor and tax revenue for the receiving countries.
She also argued that attempting to stop mass migration was futile.
“You can build all the walls in the world that you want, but when people have to leave, they will,” she said.
Instead, they insisted that U.S. immigration laws created by Americans’ elected representatives be enforced and strengthened, and that the UN be kept out of U.S. immigration policy.
“Our view is that this is a domestic policy issue,” said Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a leading immigration-focused organization that seeks to slow the flow of newcomers.
“When you add the United Nations to what should be a domestic issue, the end product is something that you’re not going to want to consume,” added Mehlman, echoing widespread concerns among immigration-policy advocates about the UN’s efforts to get more involved.
UN Pleased With Biden’s Actions
So far, the Biden administration has not publicly made any concrete moves to join the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration rejected by his predecessor.
However, its actions on the issue have been praised by the UN and its International Organization for Migration, which is leading the charge to promote the GCM.
“The International Organization for Migration (IOM) applauds President Joe Biden’s plans to address the drivers of migration and advance safe, orderly and regular migration in the region,” the UN organization said in a statement released in early February using the precise language of the global migration pact.
The Biden administration’s executive actions on immigration “will provide a framework to expand refugee resettlement,” the UN IOM added in reference to Biden’s orders increasing the cap on refugees from less than 20,000 per year to over 120,000.
The UN agency also boasted that it had already “assisted the United States with case processing, pre-departure health assessments, cultural orientation and transportation” of migrants from Central America.
“IOM looks forward to working with the Biden administration … to foster the positive opportunities and impacts of regular migration for individuals and their families as well as for the communities and societies with which they are affiliated,” the statement added.
As soon as Biden took office, the UN suggested that the U.S. government should re-engage in the UN’s international efforts on global migration.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, for instance, issued a statement on Biden’s first day expressing hope that the new administration would join the GCM.
“This partnership is needed now more than ever as we seek to provide assistance, protection and sustainable solutions to the displacement of record numbers of people who have been forced to flee their homes as a result of conflict, violence or disaster, or are migrating in the hopes of finding a better life for themselves and their families,” said the statement issued by Guterres’s office.
The top UN refugee official, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi, anticipated closer cooperation with the Biden administration as soon as it took office.
“We look forward to deepening the strong and trusted partnership with the United States, and to working with the new administration and Congress to address the many challenges of forced displacement around the world,” Grandi said on Jan. 20.
Trump Led Global Opposition Under the Trump administration, which sought to reduce illegal immigration and some forms of legal immigration into the United States in favor of merit-based programs, the UN efforts to boost its involvement in migration policy received a cold shoulder.
It represented a clean break from the Obama administration, which in 2016 played a key role in the UN’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants that eventually led to the GCM negotiated at a December, 2018, summit in Morocco.
Trump blasted the effort. Indeed, a forceful statement released by the U.S. State Department on Dec. 7, 2018, slammed the GCM as a flagrant attack on sovereignty that was unacceptable to the United States.
“The Compact and the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which called for the development of the Compact and commits to ‘strengthening global governance’ for international migration, contain goals and objectives that are inconsistent and incompatible with U.S. law, policy, and the interests of the American people,” the State Department said, adding that the U.S. government objected to and would not be bound by the UN deal.
“The United States proclaims and reaffirms its belief that decisions about how to secure its borders, and whom to admit for legal residency or to grant citizenship, are among the most important sovereign decisions a State can make, and are not subject to negotiation, or review, in international instruments,” the statement continued, adding that the U.S. government would maintain the sovereign right to control its borders.
Beyond that, the Trump administration said the UN efforts represented an attempt by the UN “to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws, policies, and interests.”
“While the United States honors the contributions of the many immigrants who helped build our nation, we cannot support a ‘Compact’ or process that imposes or has the potential to impose international guidelines, standards, expectations, or commitments that might constrain our ability to make decisions in the best interests of our nation and citizens,” the State Department said before outlining a large number of specific criticisms of the GCM.
Among other concerns, the Trump administration said the UN compact was a threat to free expression, immigration enforcement, American workers, and even a proper understanding of “rights.”
Aside from an apparently automated message indicating she was on leave until March 29, Leslie Marshall with the Press Office of the U.S. Bureau of Global Public Affairs did not respond to repeated requests for comment asking about the State Department’s current position.
Numerous other governments that declined to participate also warned that the UN agreement sought to increase the flow of immigration into Western nations, usurp the sovereignty of national governments in determining policy, and even redefine migration as a “human right.”
Following Trump’s lead, dozens of nations and governments decided against adopting the UN compact including Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Austria, Israel, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Latvia, Poland, Australia, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Chile, and more.
“It cannot … be that any formulations are adopted that could perhaps or possibly be interpreted to mean that migration can be a human right,” argued Austrian Vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache at the time. “That can and must not be the case.”
Other European leaders warned that the UN’s efforts would exacerbate the migration crisis in Europe while encouraging even more mass migration.
In the end, only about 150 governments—mostly governments of nations sending rather than receiving migrants—joined the compact.
Over 40 governments, including many of the top destinations for migrants, declined to support the UN deal.
GCM Via Backdoor? However, even without having supported the UN GCM, its policies and objectives are quietly being implemented in nations where authorities rejected the agreement.
Without naming specific governments, UN Network on Migration Communications Coordinator Kim told The Epoch Times that most of the governments that declined to participate or approve the UN agreement were nonetheless implementing its “common sense” provisions.
“You don’t need to adopt the GCM to actually implement it,” she said. “They will implement it at their own rhythm.”
“Sometimes it can be politically sensitive, so countries [governments] did not adopt it,” added Kim, who works at the UN’s offices in Geneva. “But a majority of those countries are implementing at least some parts of it.”
The United States is actually surrounded by nations where governments are enthusiastic supporters of the UN effort. In fact, the governments of both Mexico and Canada are considered “champions” of the GCM, Kim said.
“Mexico has agreed and requested to pilot some tools developed by the UN agencies through the Network for Migration,” Kim said, adding that the Mexican government served as “co-facilitator of the negotiations.”
“They know how relevant migration is for their own country, so they know they need to manage it better, to make sure those crossing the country or leaving from Mexico are protected,” she added.
“The fact that Mexico can be supported by the UN in protecting migrants leaving or crossing can have an impact on the United States,” continued Kim. “We are talking about international migration here, so anything implemented by one country has an impact on neighboring countries.”
To the North, Canada is also a GCM “champion country,” she said.
“Canada has been implementing quite a lot, they are quite progressive in this sense, meaning that their policies are much more gender responsive, they are quite active in the integration of migrants,” continued Kim.
All of that will have an effect on America, she said.
“The U.S. is a bit surrounded by GCM champion countries and the latest declarations from the U.S. representatives show there is a real willingness to improve migration management and make sure that migrants in the U.S. are protected and included,” Kim continued. “This will benefit the whole population.”
UN Migration Networks As part of the implementation of the GCM, the UN has set up “Migration Networks” in about 40 countries around the globe so far.
Most recently, the UN announced the creation of a “Network for Migration” in Iraq, one of the nations sending large numbers of migrants into the West.
In a statement, a deputy special representative of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the network would coordinate UN support to “improve migration governance in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.”
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also referred to as UN Agenda 2030, represent a comprehensive global effort to reform governance and the economy to be more in line with what the UN considers to be sustainable.
The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”
Leading the Networks for Migration are a number of key UN agencies, including several that are run by Chinese officials loyal to Beijing.
Kim, the UN spokesperson for the migration networks, said the goal of the UN was to try to pool its expertise in supporting governments in the implementation of the UN global migration pact.
“For Mexico it is important to support the government with the ongoing situation with the U.S., trying to adjust the migration policies, trying to protect the migrants going through or leaving from Mexico,” she said.
The networks also serve as a “tool for advocacy,” Kim explained, adding that a trust fund run by the UN Network was supporting migration-related projects around the world.
In addition to the nine UN agencies on the executive board and the dozens of UN entities involved are hundreds of “civil society” organizations, Kim said.
Among the priorities of the UN agency are ending detention of what Kim described as “irregular migrants,” known more commonly in the United States as illegal immigrants.
Asked about “irregular migration,” she said: “Calling migration illegal is not accurate, a person cannot be illegal.”
When asked if the sort of policies being supported under the UN’s programs would encourage even more migration, Kim hesitated but suggested there were limits.
“We are not there to say ‘let’s have all the migrants in the world, and have them go anywhere,’” Kim clarified. “The compact aims to ensure that migration is well governed. We find the right balance that benefits those that want to come to a country, those who live in the country, and the governments involved.”
In Europe, she suggested creating new and larger pathways for legal migration would prevent people from crossing the Mediterranean.
“If they have legal means to come to Europe in a controlled, more-governed way, then the migrants don’t have to risk their lives,” she said, adding that this would provide more labor and tax revenue for the receiving countries.
She also argued that attempting to stop mass migration was futile.
“You can build all the walls in the world that you want, but when people have to leave, they will,” she said.