Rubio Orders Pressure on Mass Migration
The State Department will be pressing our closest allies to control their borders.
NYT (“U.S. to Press Europe and Other Allies on ‘Mass Migration,’ Document Says“):
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered American diplomats in Europe and in Canada, Australia and New Zealand to press their host governments to restrict most immigration and to file reports if the governments appear to be overly supportive of immigrants, according to a document sent to U.S. embassies and consulates.
Mr. Rubio told the diplomats to emphasize the effects of criminal acts by immigrants to encourage greater entry restrictions, according to the document, which is a diplomatic cable dated Nov. 21. The text of the cable, which was obtained by The New York Times, has not been previously reported.
Diplomats should “regularly engage host governments and their respective authorities to raise U.S. concerns about violent crimes associated with people of a migration background” and “any related human rights abuses,” the cable said. It said that those episodes were “widespread disruptors of social cohesion and public safety.”
The diplomats should send reports on crime linked to immigrants to State Department headquarters as well as analysis of how host governments handle the issues, including “policies that unduly favor migrants at the expense of local populations.”
The goal of these actions is to build “host government and stakeholder support to address and reform policies related to migrant crime, defending national sovereignty, and ensuring the safety of local communities,” the cable said.
While I don’t agree with the measures the administration has taken to curtail and even reverse illegal migration to the United States, I at least understand the rationale behind wanting to control one’s own borders. Why we would care about the immigration policies of non-adjacent states, however, eludes me.
In a speech at the United Nations in September, Mr. Trump denounced the “globalist migration agenda.” Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, and Vice President JD Vance have been equally vocal. “We cannot rebuild Western civilization, we cannot rebuild the United States of America or Europe, by letting millions and millions of unvetted illegal migrants come into our country,” Mr. Vance said in February.
I had somehow missed this speech, perhaps because it took place just before the government shutdown. The White House page highlighting Trump’s remarks just contains bullet points, and only these seem to be on that topic:
- “Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should, too often, it is actually creating new problems for us to solve… The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders… The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.”
- What makes the world so beautiful is that each country is unique — but to stay this way, every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders.”
- “When your prisons are filled with so-called ‘asylum seekers’ who repaid kindness with crime, it’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders.”
Google’s AI tells me that
The term “globalist migration agenda” refers to a political conspiracy theory that alleges a coordinated effort by global elites, often linked to the United Nations, to intentionally increase migration to undermine national sovereignty and cultural identity. This contrasts with the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” a non-binding UN agreement that aims to manage migration through international cooperation, respect for national sovereignty, and a focus on the rights and contributions of migrants. While the conspiracy theory views these efforts as a malicious plot, the Compact is framed by proponents as a pragmatic framework for addressing the challenges and opportunities of international migration.
The Compact was actually passed during Trump’s first term.
In adopting the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, the Member States of the United Nations recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to human mobility and strengthened cooperation at the global level. Annex II to the Declaration set in motion a process of intergovernmental consultations and negotiations that culminated in the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration by the United Nations General Assembly on 19 December 2018.
The Global Compact is the first intergovernmental agreement covering all dimensions of international migration. It is a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.
The Global Compact provides an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen migration governance, address the challenges associated with migration in today’s world, and harness the contribution of migration to sustainable development. The Compact is rooted in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in which Member States commit to cooperate internationally to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.
The United States was among five countries who voted against it. Twelve others abstained and 152 voted in favor.
To the extent that state sovereignty is the priority, strong-arming allies with regard to domestic policy seems directly at odds. The core principle of sovereignty, after all, is the right to control one’s domestic affairs.
To the extent that the issue is “Western Civilization,” one imagines the issue is with the flavor of the migrants rather than the volume. “Crime” is almost certainly a red herring here.
You can’t break kayfabe. Having declared immigration evil, it must be opposed everywhere and under all conditions. Except that racism is the ring that rules them all, so, as noted in another thread, white, Christian South Africans are a special case.
Many if not most European countries have tougher immigration laws than we do. The Northern countries have clamped down, especially Denmark. Spain is pretty openbut as you point out, it’s a long swim from Spain to the US, so not sure what they think they’re doing other than posturing.
40% or so of the unlawful residents in the US are visa overstays or similar. If you assume we’re sufficiently paranoid, we would worry about the wrong kind of people getting legal status in a non-adjacent ally then flying here and staying. Are the allies we’re pressuring in the Visa Waiver Program?
There are top advisors in this administration for whom paranoia is a given.
I know that there are at least a few nerds here who know Babylon 5.
Deep into the series, Sheridan comes face to face with The Shadow at Za’hadum, where they tell him that peace is nonsense, and different peoples are supposed to be in conflict, because that’s what makes the survivors stronger and more fit.
Apparently, that’s something Hitler said, too. One of his big problems with the Jews is that everywhere they had a presence, they encouraged people of different nationalities to actually get along. How dare they!
@Jay L. Gischer:
Babylon 5
You’re summoning @Kathy.
@Michael Reynolds:
I have always been here.
@Jay L. Gischer:
That social Darwinian idea is a commonplace, expressed by many conservatives in many times and places.
J. K. Galbraith was correct, but incomplete when he said in 1963,
He should have added “and cruelty”, which, as someone observed, is the point.
@Jay L. Gischer:
In the Technomage Trilogy books by Jeanne Cavelos, we’re told the Shadows also fomented chaos and conflict among the same species. One example is the Drazi custom of randomly dividing the population in two sides, purple and green, and have them fight for a year to determine the dominant group.
This is not spelled out in the show, but there was conflict between the Minbari castes, civil war in the Earth Alliance, and above all Centauri so afraid of a vain, mad emperor, they come within seconds of having their home world blown out of existence.
Let’s say a more honest rendition of the Declaration of Independence, as seen by right wing identity politics, would be “all white men are created equal.” Among this set, there’d be a subset who really think it should say “all wealthy white men.” And among this subset, you’d have the millionaires whom billionaires regard as inferiors with delusions, and the ultra wealthy like Lex and Adolf who laugh at “fortunes” of mere tens of billions.
Because these people aren’t loyal to the United States; their loyalty is to international Right Wing causes.