The beautiful Mexican resort city of Puerto Vallarta was recently the scene of the 4th Annual "Global Forum on Migration and Development", attended by 200 representatives of governments and NGOs from 160 countries.
This expensive confab was sponsored by the United Nations, that meddling globalist organization which receives 22% of its funding from the United States, i.e., the U.S. taxpayer. China, by the way, kicks in a whopping 2.667% of the UN budget.
Just to hear the title—"Global Forum on Migration and Development"—pretty much tells you where this gaggle of international bureaucrats is coming from. I mean, really, what do you expect a United Nations forum to tell First World countries swamped with immigrants to do—control their own borders?
Our own Obama Administration sent a high-level representative, Eric P. Schwartz, "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration". (More on his contribution later).
Was the forum a useless gabfest? Would that it were! The people who attend these events are globalist bureaucrats whose policy prescriptions may well wind up being enacted in, among other countries, the U.S.A.
This was the fourth Global Forum on Migration and Development (hereafter referred to as the GFMD). The previous ones were held in Brussels (2007), Manila (2008) and Athens (2009).
The GMFD's official website contains a description of what it's all about:
"The Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) is a recent initiative of the United Nations Member States to address the migration and development interconnections in practical and action-oriented ways. It is an informal, non-binding, voluntary and government-led process that marks the culmination of more than a decade of international dialogue on the growing importance of the linkages between migration and development. It reflects the progressive acknowledgement of the limits of a strictly national approach to migration questions and implications at global level in an intergovernmental framework. In view of the societal implications of these issues, civil society representatives have also been involved from the outset in this process."
Notice the globalist doubletalk. On the one hand, we're assured that the GFMD is "an informal, non-binding, voluntary and government-led process". On the other hand, it "reflects the progressive acknowledgement of the limits of a strictly national approach to migration questions and implications at global level in an intergovernmental framework".
According to the website, the Mexico GFMD was considered a raving success:
"Thanks to the collective efforts and active participation of varied stakeholders, the Mexico GFMD has advanced the international discourse on the complex issues of migration and development and the interplay of these two policy fields. Sensitive issues such as irregular migration, protection of migrant families and children, gender and climate change, were spotlighted in the interests of strengthening the human development potential of migration. "
In case you were wondering, "irregular migration" is a euphemism for illegal migration.
But there's more …
"More importantly, this year's GFMD focused on building partnerships – between governments, public and private sectors, migrants, diaspora, civil society, international organizations, and other actors. Two new innovations were introduced—the Common Space aimed to foster understanding of common issues between governments and civil society, while the Platform for Partnerships aimed to promote the implementation of GFMD recommendations and outcomes by governments, in partnership with international organizations, international foundations, and the civil society.
"Both initiatives were widely welcomed by the participants."[Links added]
Yeah, I bet they were…
So what sorts of policy prescriptions did the folks at the GFMD have for the World? According to this summary
"The 4th Global Forum on Migration and Development kicked off in Puerto Vallarta by calling for the decriminalization of migration and criticizing xenophobia."
(By "xenophobia", I assume they mean the quaint idea that a nation or culture has a right to protect itself from being swamped by foreigners.)
"Peter Sutherland, UN representative for Migration, warned of rising xenophobia in some parts of the world, and stated that in these times of economic crisis and unemployment, the creative role of migrants is crucial to improve the planet."
By way of fuller disclosure, according to Wikipedia (November 26, 2010), Irish former Eurocrat Sutherland is also a Bilderberger, a leader of the Trilateral Commission, and non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
Needless to say, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico gave a speech at the forum. How could he not? After all, the forum combined two of his very favorite activities: (1) hobnobbing with UN/globalist types; and (2) bashing U.S. immigration policy.
The speech was vintage Calderon. The Mexican president called migration "a positive force for the development of the peoples" and spoke of "the millions and millions of Mexicans" who have emigrated, "the millions and millions of descendents who in other countries [i.e., the U.S.A.] still bear Mexico in the blood and in the heart". (My translation)
Calderon defended the contribution of Latin Americans to the U.S. economy, going so far as to say that "I affirm that the economic growth of the biggest economy of the world in the Twentieth Century [the U.S.] is inexplicable without the careful and competitive workmanship of the Latin American migrants to the United States."
Without immigration, said Calderon shamelessly, many state governments in the U.S. would go broke!
Calderon boldly proclaimed that "…migration has been a natural phenomenon that cannot be erased by decree nor much less by fomenting hostility and adverse sentiment of citizens of one country to another".
Translation: The U.S. can't stop Mexican immigration and Americans shouldn't even complain about it. Of course, this doesn't apply to Mexico.
Calderon spoke of the "necessity of arriving to a migratory accord between the countries of origin, transit and destination, that permits the regularization of the migrants [amnesty]…"
And he said that "…we should work with shared responsibility…a global phenomenon cannot be confronted with unilateral policies…."
Another dig at the U.S.
Calderon boasted to his fellow globalists of the 50 Mexican consulates in the U.S. and even had the gall to claim that these Mexican consulates have been opening up health care facilities for Mexicans in the U.S., because, said Calderon, "...in many places the migrants are not attended or are not granted or recognized any right to health".
Oh really—how about the fact that Mexican illegal aliens routinely use American emergency room facilities for free?
Calderon shed crocodile tears over the approximately 400 illegal aliens who die crossing the border annually, "They die in the desert, of thirst, drowned in the river, and also, killed by [U.S.] border authorities on the other side, as has occurred, disgracefully, in more than a dozen cases of Mexican migrants".("…muertas por las autoridades fronterizas de aquel lado, como ha ocurrido ya, por desgracia, en más de una decena de casos de migrantes mexicanos. ") [VDARE.com note: This apparently refers to illegals who attacked Border Patrol and Customs officers and were killed in self defense. The Border Patrol has lost ten agents in five years, and many have been wounded by "migrants."]
Guess what—if all those Mexicans had stayed in Mexico, they´d be Calderon's responsibility, wouldn´t they?
Typical Mexican government arrogance and hypocrisy. What else is new?
But surely the U.S. representative, Eric P. Schwartz, "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration" defended the honor of United States, right?
On the eve of his departure to Puerto Vallarta, Schwartz gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. The speech was entitled "Respecting the Dignity and Human Rights of people on the move: International Migration Policy for the 21st Century" . Here are some excerpts:
"International migration policy concerns the array of national practices that apply to the treatment of citizens and non-citizens who cross borders, and constitutes the effort, by the United States and others, to share best practices and develop common principles, approaches and initiatives toward these populations. And while domestic immigration policy remains the sovereign right of each individual nation, how each of us addresses migration at home will inform any effort to develop common international understandings.
"…My remarks today come against the backdrop of the fourth Global Forum on Migration and Development taking place this week in Puerto Vallarta. I will lead the U.S. delegation to the Forum, where our goal will be to articulate principles and policies that serve the broad development objectives of receiving, transit and sending countries, while respecting the dignity and well-being of people on the move—as well as the sovereign rights of governments to determine their domestic immigration policies.
Somehow, Schwartz's references to "sovereign rights of nations/governments" don't sound too convincing when you stack it up against all that other globalist mumbo-jumbo.
So how did Eric P. Schwartz, the U.S. "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration", defend the United States from such an unwarranted attack?
Not to worry. Schwartz's defense was that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had both opposed SB 1070, because the contribution of migrants "is crucial" for the U.S., and that more must be done (to promote that agenda) at the state and federal level.
"Schwartz, secretario de Estado adjunto de Población, Refugiados y Migración de Estados Unidos, respondió que el presidente Barack Obama y la secretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton, se han manifestado en contra de la ley Arizona, con la certeza de que la contribución de los migrantes "es crucial" para ese país. Reconoció que "es necesario hacer más" a escalas estatal y federal." [Impulsan migrantes el progreso de países receptores, admiten en foro mundial, By Fabiola Martínez, La Jornada, November 11, 2010]
Well, there you go. With representatives like "Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration" Eric P. Schwartz defending America in international forums, do we need enemies?
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.