The UN's Annual $8 Billion Budget to Support Global Migration
Another reason to stop funding the United Nations
The mission creep of the United Nations has gotten way out of control. As just one of many examples, the UN mission to unilaterally encourage global migration has resulted in multiple avoidable political crises. It is past time to de-fund and re-organize the United Nations. In the case of the US Congress under the current executive, in the immediate future this can be accomplished through use of specific restrictions on how appropriations can be used, much as is commonly done with internal budgeting. Looking forward to a new executive administration, this should be coupled with diplomatic efforts to build an international coalition of nations which will support a major defunding and restructuring effort.
The current UN structure and charter has outlived its usefulness, and has been coopted to advance globalist, utilitarian, socialist and malthusian political objectives. This is not what the UN was created for, and efforts to create a globalist, one-world government structure by cooptation of the United Nations to serve this agenda can only be stopped by systemically reorganizing and downsizing the organization.
As just one of many examples of UN mission creep, the United Nations, through its International Organization for Migration (IOM), has launched its Global Annual Appeal for 2024. The UN wants USD 7.9 billion to “support its operations and help create a system that realizes migration’s promise as a force for good throughout the world”. Another case of a carefully crafted mission statement which obfuscates the actual intent and purpose of an initiative by using misleading feel-good wording.
The UN says it will use the money for three purposes: 1) “saving lives and protecting people on the move”, 2) “finding solutions to displacement, including reducing the risks and impacts of climate change” and 3) “facilitating regular pathways for migration.” The UN (IOM) writes that their goals include “proactive work to unlock the huge potential of migration for economic growth and human development.”
“The evidence is overwhelming that migration, when well-managed, is a major contributor to global prosperity and progress. We are at a critical moment in time, and we have designed this Appeal to help deliver on that promise. We can and must do better.”
IOM Director General Amy Pope
Who is Amy Pope, Director General of the UN’s IOM?
In October, 2023, Amy Pope was elected as Director General of the UN’s International Organization for Migration. The IOM reports that her previous job in the US government was:
“Senior Advisor on Migration to US President Biden and served as the Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to President Obama. While working at the White House, DG Pope developed and implemented comprehensive strategies to address migration, in areas such as countering trafficking in persons, resettling refugees and vulnerable people, and preparing communities to respond and adapt to climate-related crises.”
So, basically Amy Pope is the person who is directly responsible for the open border resettlement policies under President Biden. She failed to protect our towns, cities and states from receiving massive incursions of illegal aliens in our border states. She is one the people responsible for six million refuges crossing our border into the USA since Biden took office.
Now she is zealously working for the UN to continue her commitment to massive migration programs through out the world. Under Amy Pope’s initiative, the UN plans to use that 8 billion annually to further increase the massive numbers of illegal migrants through-out the industrialized world. But don’t worry sugar, these migration programs will be “well-managed” - after all, just look how Director General Amy Pope as Senior Advisor on Migration for the Biden White House “resettled” refugees in the USA. In fact, Texans are particularly proud and enthusiastic about her work <insert sarcasm>.
A bit of history on population control.
First published in 1971, ‘The Population Bomb’ was one of the most influential books of the 20th century. In it author Paul Ehrlich, who was an entomologist (eg: Ph.D. in insect studies) at Stanford University, made dire predictions that humanity had to curb its population or everyone would face “mass starvation on a dying planet.” The conclusion of his book were that the perils of overpopulation would include mass starvation, societal upheaval and environmental destruction.
This book soon became a best seller and a core college textbook across the globe. It essentially triggered a wave of anti-population growth agendas throughout governments, and spawned generations of eco-terrorists.
But it was another classic example of fear porn weaponized to support political agendas. Modernized Malthusianism (see “Why Malthus is still wrong” for more on that). How many lessons do we need to have before we can immediately recognize and reject these fear-based political manipulation methods?
The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific predicted “500 million starvation deaths in Asia between 1980 and 2025.”
In reality, the lesson of the population bomb lie is that false doomsday alarms come at a high cost, and in this case unleashed horrific outcomes. How many millions of women and couples in the U.S. and worldwide tragically followed the advice of the Malthusians that they had an ethical or moral obligation to have fewer children or even to go childless?
Much worse were the activities of repressive foreign governments in Africa, China, Egypt, India, and Central America, which bought into the primal screams of Western academics and imposed gruesome population control programs — including strapping women to metal tables and performing forced abortions and sterilizations to reduce births. China’s ghastly one-child policy led to millions of sex selection abortions and infanticides. Tens of millions of girls in China went missing.
As this chart documents, the Stanford insect scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich was completely wrong. Massive famine and starvation never happened.
“It is for your own good.”
Starting in the 1970s, young citizens of the United States were pressured into having a limited number of children. The public schools spewed propaganda that family size should be reduced to save the world from collapse. These same schools taught that careers, particularly for women should come before family. That it was important to cap population. That the only way to protect vulnerable environments, limit pollution, stop global famine and have a better standard of living was to achieve zero population growth. This was fear driven propaganda based on faulty modeling from a best-selling author applied as public policy and reinforced by a national propaganda campaign. Sound familiar?
“Well-spaced children will starve, vaporize in thermonuclear war, or die of plague just as well as unplanned children”
Paul Ehrlich, “The Population Bomb”
In the United States, just like many other industrialized nations, the citizenry responded in mass to this “clarion” call. Hence, the American-born population in the United States has remained at under 300 million for the past 50 years. Virtually all of the massive growth in population in the United States in that time has come from recent immigrants and their children, which means there are 336,000 million people in the U.S., of which the foreign-born population has reached a record 46 million in 2022.
Many economists believe that high levels of illegal immigrants now residing within the U.S. has resulted in a loss of employment opportunities, higher rates of imprisonment and a worsening labor market for American born workers.
…labor market research has found that, indeed, immigration hurts U.S. workers. In a 2003 study, Harvard University economist George Borjas reported that increased immigration over the past two decades had “substantially worsened the labor market opportunities faced by many native workers,” reducing the wage of the average U.S.-born worker by 3 percent and the pay of high school dropouts by 9 percent. A 2010 paper by Borjas and other economists found that a 10 percent rise in workers due to immigration reduced the employment of black men by 6 percent and resulted in higher rates of imprisonment.
Such outcomes make economic sense; given a certain level of demand for labor, increased supply intensifies competition for jobs and exerts downward pressure on earnings. “By keeping labor supply down, immigration policy tends to keep wages high,” writes economist Paul Samuelson in his classic textbook Economics, commenting on restrictions on immigration in place until the mid-1960s.
Now we have the new golden calf of globalism which is being used to mask World Economic Forum-supported “Corporatism” (in other words globalized Fascism), which includes as a central feature support for massive migration strategies which are being exploited both as a tool and a weapon of the transnational corporations seeking greater return on investment by reducing labor costs. These WEF-associated globalists strive for worldwide economic control and low wages.
Do not fall for their propaganda. The United States is not better off for these massive migration waves.
Changing the economic model: National Sovereignty
The cure for this UN globalist disease is really quite simple. By returning to the model of the “nation state”, in a decentralized manner each country becomes responsible for itself. If anti-Imperialism is the objective, then a commitment to decentralized national sovereignty is the cure. Not a migration to a globalized corporatist command economy run by some sort of one-world government that uses the language of feel-good socialism and various flavors of marxist cultural transformation to mask what is really modernized techno-fascism.
The United States does not need, nor should it accept every immigrant who passes over its border. On this, the vast majority of Americans agree. This is not racism or bigotry. It is just a fact that it is hurting our economy and our way of life. Americanism is important - we have a culture that is worth preserving.
Furthermore, the 14th amendment, which allows anyone to become a citizen if born in the USA or its territories, must be re-defined to exclude children born to illegal immigrants. Under current 14th amendment interpretations, an illegal immigrant who give birth to a child in the USA can then collect entitlement benefits (welfare) for that child. The anchor baby strategy is one reason why so many people want to immigrate into the USA. The Center for Immigration Studies found that “54 percent of households headed by immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used one or more major welfare program". This compares to 39 percent for U.S.-born households.”
Reforming this loophole could be accomplished through a simple act of Congress, to the effect that non-citizens can not collect benefits for children born in the USA. Even better would be an adjustment to the 14th amendment or a new amendment defining a citizen as someone who was born on American soil or its territories to parents who are in the USA legally.
Follow the money:
The UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) receives funding from the United States Department of State for migration and refugee assistance. This monetary conduit from the US Department of State to the IOM has been expanded by the Biden White House in October, 2023. As Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken wrote:
IOM is an essential partner of the United States in promoting safe, orderly, and humane migration management and providing humanitarian assistance.
The United States is and remains IOM’s largest bilateral donor…
The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration recently renewed a five-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with IOM to continue our long-standing partnership on the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
Congress may not be able to stop the US Government from funding the UN at this point in time; due to a lack of support from members of the democrat party and republican party allies (Republicans In Name Only). However, they may be able limit where that money to the UN is going.
There is growing bipartisan support to stymie illegal immigration. Therefore, Congress must find the courage to “fence” off (or otherwise restrict) funding to the IOM from the State Department budget.
Both Trump and Kennedy have vowed to close the US Border, and view the current Biden/UN open border policies as extremely dangerous to our national security and to our nation. This is a great first step, but whoever is elected POTUS must go further than this.
The mission creep of the UN has gotten out of control. Frankly, their stance on migration being a universal right, as stated in Agenda 2030, will only lead to more war. Because the truth is that national borders and territory are what most wars are fought over.
It is past time to de-fund and re-organize the United Nations.
Because a nation is only as strong as its boundaries.
“Who is Robert Malone” is a reader supported publication. Please consider supporting our work by subscribing.
Anyone familiar with wilsons league of nations knew darned well what the u.n. was going to be. Too bad our senate suffered brain drain post wilson
My "confidence" in all these "institutions" has utterly collapsed. They all need to go away. Like yesterday.