UN’s aggressive policy on state sovereignty helped cause U.S. border crisis

UN cartoon immigrant in irregular situation

Cartoons like this were run as part of the UN Human Rights campaign aimed at informing migrants about their rights when crossing international borders. Note the bureaucratic nature of the message—“Do you know the difference between ‘illegal migration’ and migrants in an ‘irregular situation’?

President Barack Obama has looked to the United Nations for leadership more than his predecessors in the Oval Office, starting with a decision to seek membership on the organization’s Human Rights Council (formerly the Human Rights Commission). The HRC’s agenda has helped cause the ongoing crisis at the U.S. southern border.

The UN has an agenda as do all government-associated bodies, and the HRC has changed the nature of policy on migration. That change directly impacts the sovereignty of all nations.

You have to read between the lines, but for anyone who observes politics closely, the impact of UN policy is clearly impacting national security policy in the United States. The “paradigm shift” the U.S. president apparently agrees with will, in effect, further dilute the sovereignty of all countries including the U.S.

National security, for the UNHRC, does not factor into policy.

Currently the Obama administration has shown little concern for what amounts to a complete breach of the border. Friendly media have assisted the administration in painting a picture of young children—“unaccompanied minors”—crossing into the U.S. from countries like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The UNHRC maintains a presence in these countries.

Billions in additional aid have been requested, mostly to provide for food, medical care, and shelter. Faith groups have joined the effort, with federal funding often available to them to provide services the government seeks.

These policies have transformed migration into a booming industry if you consider the billions and billions in play for actors at all levels—attorneys, faith groups seeking federal grants, security sectors and even the prison industry.

The president has shared no numbers with Americans, other than to seek the roughly $4 billion in aid atop the billions already redistributed from taxpayers. We have no idea how many small children are crossing, or whether those people media call “teens” are really teens. The Wall Street Journal reported:

“The bulk of unaccompanied minors caught by Border Patrol remains teenagers. In the first eight months of fiscal 2014, data available through May 31, 85% were teenagers. Nine out of 10 minors were teenagers in all fiscal 2013…”

We often call teens “young adults” because it’s hard to guess their age.

No government official has explained how minors come up with thousands of dollars to pay coyotes or smugglers.

The UN’s singular emphasis on migrant rights and a concurrent move to establish a policy that would permit anyone to call himself a refugee will have the impact of further diluting national sovereignty especially in free countries. Most don’t want to establish a residence in tyrannical countries. How many people head to Cuba to relocate?

A 2013 UN report establishes the foundation for what is occurring at present in the U.S. [underscore added]:

“[A] human rights-based approach to migration policymaking is premised on universal standards and principles that have been voluntarily assumed by States. Specific results, standards of service delivery and conduct and good practices are derived from universal human rights instruments.”

The policy has also affected practices in Europe and the U.S. is following suit. In 2010 a UN statement explained [underscore added]:

“The six agencies (UNODC, OHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, ILO, UNIFEM/UN Women) in a public letter have drawn the attention of EU members States and institutions to the importance of providing free and quality legal assistance to victims, of not pursuing prosecution of victims and respect for the principle of non-refoulement, and the right not to be forcibly returned to their countries of origin. The joint submission also calls for an approach to trafficking that is gender-sensitive, has a broad definition of particularly vulnerable persons and focuses on child victims of trafficking.”

How will Obama’s yielding to the UN impact U.S. national security in an era where wars are in play around the world? Will the UN enlist other countries to assist with the outflow from Central America?

Notably increased numbers will affect Americans, especially those in low income communities—housing, schools, healthcare, law enforcement resources. Who will pay? It won’t be the UN.

At the heart of Obama’s national security policy, where borders are concerned, is UN policy. Open borders are a leftist’s ideal scenario, but the effect of an open border in a war-plagued world where anti-U.S. sentiment has increased can be lethal even to a mighty nation.

The president appears to be permitting the UN to set U.S. policy.

Despite the so-called “border crisis,” Obama has not visited the area because he has been busy fundraising for Democrats. Even leading Democrats have voiced concerns about the president’s lack of attention to this crisis on the border.

Meanwhile, legacy media have done little to get answers about why there is suddenly an uptick, but many TV personalities on talk shows have basically transmitted government’s official messaging.

Hollywood elites like Stephen King have followed suit.

Those outside the political class will bear the brunt of the consequences of this policy. The U.S. already has a sizable number of children at risk. This will increase the population of that sector.

It would be a good thing if Americans asked their representatives to find real answers to questions and solutions about the border crisis rather than relying on government propaganda distributed by friendly media who played an aggressive role in handing over power to the so-called “progressive” party.

If you read documents at the UN from the Human Rights Council, you will find the same language being used by Obama officials and their friendly media. At present, the doors are wide open on the big house that is the U.S. You can bet anti-U.S. interests have taken note.

Featured Photo: Cartoons like this were run as part of the UN Human Rights campaign aimed at informing migrants about their rights when crossing international borders. Note the bureaucratic nature of the message—“Do you know the difference between ‘illegal migration’ and migrants in an ‘irregular situation’? (UN HRC)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/July 24, 2014)

Please help us continue to keep our site online by donating a small amount via the PayPal link in the right column. We don’t run ads from major search engines on this site. Follow us on Twitter @DayontheDay. Please ‘like’ our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/DayontheDay.

About Kay Day

Kay B. Day is a freelance writer who has published in national and international magazines and websites. The author of 3 books, her work is anthologized in textbooks and collections. She has won awards for poetry, nonfiction and fiction. Day is a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Authors Guild.

This entry was posted in Countries, National Security, Obama and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to UN’s aggressive policy on state sovereignty helped cause U.S. border crisis

  1. Pingback: Actions by rioters in California fit federal definition of terrorism | DAY ON THE DAY

  2. Pingback: In immigration speech, President omitted full scripture and UN policy | DAY ON THE DAY

Sound off!