Nikki Haley stands as voice for common sense at UN on migration

To considerable pearl-clutching by global elites, the U.S. has pulled out of the United Nations' global framework for migration, known for now as the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.

And President Trump and his United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley have done it for all the right reasons, making this as applause-worthy as anything the Trump administration team has done.

Just listen to the kvetching from the Guardian in its lede:

The Trump administration has pulled out of the United Nations' ambitious plans to create a more humane global strategy on migration, saying involvement in the process interferes with American sovereignty, and runs counter to US immigration policies.

More humane? Sorry pal, there's nothing humane about letting United Nations eurocrats and thirdworldocrats decide who comes to the states over the will of the citizens. 

The humane policy is the one described by UN Ambassador Nikki Haley in a statement. She does us all proud:

In a statement issued on Saturday, Haley said: "America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our longstanding moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe … But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone."

She said: "We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty."

Because, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, that's likely to be a problem despite what the U.N. and its media minions say.  It's also just the sort of thing President Obama would sign off on, and did last year, with this framework for a pact.  We know he agreed to take thousands of Syrian refugees into our country at the behest of the U.N., and just as bad, he even agreed to take Middle Eastern refugees from terrorist-infested countries denied entry to Australia for breaking their immigration laws, rewarding them with the much bigger prize for their lawbreaking with U.S. green cards.

Because being a citizen or resident of the United States was nothing special to Obama, the U.S. was just one nation as good or bad as others.  Only being a citizen of the world was what was exciting.  So of course, it was easy to sign off on the U.N. plan for "orderly" migration at our expense.

What Haley and President Trump have likely seen is how the phony claims of respecting sovereignty have come to naught on the question of migration in the European Union.  Countries like Hungary and Poland that have sought to limit migration from backward countries brimming with angry, resentful terrorist-recruitment fodder (if not actual terrorists) have been demonized and threatened with sanctions by their overlords in the E.U.  Given the heavy overlap between the coercive eurocrats and the U.N. bureaucracy, the U.S. can expect the exact same treatment if the U.S. doesn't agree to feed, house, shelter, pay, educate, and medically treat the millions of third-worlders awaiting the opportunity to pour in, with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill and watching their hospitals and schools crumble.  And if we refuse, we will be held up to public scorn and sanctions.  This is a losing proposition.

Would a U.N. bureaucrat really care if he let a few terrorists into the States?  Given who runs the U.N., some would do it intentionally.

What's really at the back of this suspect framework is Europe's problem right now: that six millions migrants are straining to enter the European Union, drawn by its vast welfare benefits and the welcome mat put out by German chancellor Angela Merkel.  Thomas Lifson notes the story here.

The whole obsession with a framework with its German "orderliness" orientation may be because of this very six million and Europe's unwillingness to shut its doors.  Instead of taking responsibility for the mess it's made, and telling unsuitable migrants no, it's easier to fob it off on the U.S., insist it take the biggest quota, and Let Gringo Pay as the European elites virtue-signal their goodness.

Right now, the U.N. is trying to wheedle and flatter the U.S. back into the "orderly" (read: German-style) migration framework, citing America's generosity and experience.

The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world. As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome.

Experience and expertise?  Here's the experience and expertise for United Nations to learn from as it says it wants:

We are a nation of laws, and through our laws, we control our borders ourselves.  That's what works.  That's the experience, and that's the expertise.

President Trump and Ambassador Haley see the issue far more clearly than they are likely to given credit for.

To considerable pearl-clutching by global elites, the U.S. has pulled out of the United Nations' global framework for migration, known for now as the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.

And President Trump and his United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley have done it for all the right reasons, making this as applause-worthy as anything the Trump administration team has done.

Just listen to the kvetching from the Guardian in its lede:

The Trump administration has pulled out of the United Nations' ambitious plans to create a more humane global strategy on migration, saying involvement in the process interferes with American sovereignty, and runs counter to US immigration policies.

More humane? Sorry pal, there's nothing humane about letting United Nations eurocrats and thirdworldocrats decide who comes to the states over the will of the citizens. 

The humane policy is the one described by UN Ambassador Nikki Haley in a statement. She does us all proud:

In a statement issued on Saturday, Haley said: "America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our longstanding moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe … But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone."

She said: "We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty."

Because, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, that's likely to be a problem despite what the U.N. and its media minions say.  It's also just the sort of thing President Obama would sign off on, and did last year, with this framework for a pact.  We know he agreed to take thousands of Syrian refugees into our country at the behest of the U.N., and just as bad, he even agreed to take Middle Eastern refugees from terrorist-infested countries denied entry to Australia for breaking their immigration laws, rewarding them with the much bigger prize for their lawbreaking with U.S. green cards.

Because being a citizen or resident of the United States was nothing special to Obama, the U.S. was just one nation as good or bad as others.  Only being a citizen of the world was what was exciting.  So of course, it was easy to sign off on the U.N. plan for "orderly" migration at our expense.

What Haley and President Trump have likely seen is how the phony claims of respecting sovereignty have come to naught on the question of migration in the European Union.  Countries like Hungary and Poland that have sought to limit migration from backward countries brimming with angry, resentful terrorist-recruitment fodder (if not actual terrorists) have been demonized and threatened with sanctions by their overlords in the E.U.  Given the heavy overlap between the coercive eurocrats and the U.N. bureaucracy, the U.S. can expect the exact same treatment if the U.S. doesn't agree to feed, house, shelter, pay, educate, and medically treat the millions of third-worlders awaiting the opportunity to pour in, with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill and watching their hospitals and schools crumble.  And if we refuse, we will be held up to public scorn and sanctions.  This is a losing proposition.

Would a U.N. bureaucrat really care if he let a few terrorists into the States?  Given who runs the U.N., some would do it intentionally.

What's really at the back of this suspect framework is Europe's problem right now: that six millions migrants are straining to enter the European Union, drawn by its vast welfare benefits and the welcome mat put out by German chancellor Angela Merkel.  Thomas Lifson notes the story here.

The whole obsession with a framework with its German "orderliness" orientation may be because of this very six million and Europe's unwillingness to shut its doors.  Instead of taking responsibility for the mess it's made, and telling unsuitable migrants no, it's easier to fob it off on the U.S., insist it take the biggest quota, and Let Gringo Pay as the European elites virtue-signal their goodness.

Right now, the U.N. is trying to wheedle and flatter the U.S. back into the "orderly" (read: German-style) migration framework, citing America's generosity and experience.

The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world. As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome.

Experience and expertise?  Here's the experience and expertise for United Nations to learn from as it says it wants:

We are a nation of laws, and through our laws, we control our borders ourselves.  That's what works.  That's the experience, and that's the expertise.

President Trump and Ambassador Haley see the issue far more clearly than they are likely to given credit for.

RECENT VIDEOS