The Obama administration announced on July 26 that it will expand in-country refugee processing for migrants who want to come to the United States from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala and will also participate in transferring some refugees to a temporary transit shelter in Costa Rica for processing.
White House Deputy Homeland Security Adviser Amy Pope made the announcement of the pending program expansion, and Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, in another statement, said that program will now allow some unmarried siblings, in-country parents, and other caregivers to move to the United States along with a child approved for the program.
“The goal is for individuals who have legitimate humanitarian claims to not take the dangerous journey [through Mexico] and to accept our outstretched arm of relief,” Mayorkas told reporters on July 26 during a conference call. He said he doesn’t know how many people will come into the United States under this expansion.
During a press briefing conducted on July 26 by the White House’s Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, AP’s White House reporter Darlene Superville asked Schultz if he could speak about the timing of the Central American refugee expansion announcement, which came during the Democratic convention, where the Democratic Party is “trying to put on a ... friendlier face in terms of immigration.”
Before answering the question, Schultz summarized what he called “three new steps” to “address the humanitarian crisis in Central America.”
The first is the in-country processing of what he described as “vulnerable populations inside El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.” He said that the processing “includes screening and interviews by officials from the Department of Homeland Security.
The second step Schultz said was announced that day was “that Costa Rica has announced a partnership with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to help address regional migration challenges. So what that means is populations that are unable to be processed in those three countries, we can now do that in Costa Rica.”
And the third step was the expansion of the Central American minors program. Schultz said the United States already has programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that facilitate their resettlement into the United States, but that “the expansion today would expand the infrastructure that governs that program.”
Presumably, expansion of that infrastructure would require spending more U.S. tax dollars.
Going back to the question, Schultz said it was the announcement of the partnership with Costa Rica — not the Democratic Convention — that determined the timing of the administration’s announcement about these expanded programs.
An important point that might be missed by many was Schultz’s revelation that Costa Rica also announced a partnership with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees “to help address regional migration challenges.” With Costa Rica partnered with the UN and also with the United States in addressing these “regional migration challenges,” that effectively make the UN a partner in the U.S. immigration program.
Some of the inherent dangers of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees’ “Transformative Agenda” were explained in the article “UN, Socialist International, Obama Design U.S. Refugee Resettlement,” by The New American’s Senior Editor William F. Jasper, last September. While that article focused mainly on the resettlement of Syrian refugees, the involvement of the UN commission with setting up the facility in Costa Rica to process migrants bound for the United States makes it equally pertinent to the resettlement of Central American refugees. In the article, Jasper observes:
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) executive director Anthony Lake are the UN point men working closely with the Obama State Department. The active leadership of both these individuals in the U.S. and EU refugee policies is cause for alarm. Even more alarming is the fact that they are not the only troubling participants; the ranks of the UN officials involved in formulating refugee “solutions” are filled with persons — including from Communist China — who have neither the interests of the refugees nor the security concerns of the West in mind. Guterres is the former Socialist Party prime minister of Portugal and former president of the European Council. Perhaps most notably, he was, from 1999-2005, president of the Socialist International, the radical Marxist organization that includes many “former” communist parties that have rebranded themselves as “socialist” or “social democrat” — without significantly changing their politics or personnel.
Although virtually unknown to most Americans, the Socialist International (SI) has been exerting enormous political influence worldwide since the 1950s, especially through its dominant influence at the United Nations.
It is impossible to review any but a small fraction of the wealth of information about the UN’s High Commission for Refugees’ “Transformative Agenda” found in that article, so we recommend that those who want to learn more about this danger to U.S. sovereignty read it in its entirety.
However, let us quote one more key point about the significance of the former president of the Socialist International serving as the UN high commissioner for refugees. The article noted:
At its 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway, the Socialist International candidly proclaimed: “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government.... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal.” [Emphasis added.]
Our nation’s refugee crisis is a symptom of what members of the Socialist International and their partners at the UN have been working to bring about for decades: the elimination of national borders, which also means the elimination of national sovereignty, and the establishment of a world government under the direction of the UN.
Having the United Nations High Commission on Refugees “help address regional migration challenges” should raise a red flag. The migration being discussed is migration to the United States and the region in question is the Western Hemisphere.
Our immigration policy should be set by, and managed by, our own government. The UN should play no role in that process.
Photo: AP Images