We’ve written about the International Organization for Migration (IOM) before because they get big bucks from us (the taxpayers) to process refugees into the US.  They are also largely responsible for teaching refugees abroad how to live in the West.  In its sixtieth year this year, they do more than that according to the New York Times.

The way I see it, the IOM is funded largely by US taxpayers to help manage the flow of labor for businesses around the world—they are kind of like glorified ‘head hunters.’  The article tells us in glowing terms how they have come to rescue various nationals when the labor situation went sour —like Bangladeshis sent to Libya to work and needing to get back home when Obama’s Libyan war broke out.   We pay for this.

This article shows how frustrating it is for the average US voter to understand who is running the international migration racket and get a handle on it.  It’s  not like you can call your Congressman and say stop the funding because we are dealing here with a body that is operating outside US jurisdiction (even though the NYT says the US calls the shots).  Add IOM and the UN and it’s no wonder immigration is out of the control of our federal government.

From the New York Times:

DHAKA, Bangladesh — As global migration has rapidly expanded, so has the influence of a little-known group whose eclectic work shapes migrants’ lives across six continents.

[….]

Part research group, part handyman crew, the International Organization for Migration has become the who-you-gonna-call outfit for 132 member countries grappling with the surge in migration, both legal and unauthorized. Its rapid growth is a sign that migration has outgrown most countries’ ability to manage on their own. “I haven’t made it to a country yet where migration hasn’t been high on the list of priorities,” said William L. Swing, the director general.

Yet even as its duties grow, the group operates under tight constraints that reflect the special worries migration can arouse. The United States [who in the US calls the shots?] and other rich donors largely dictate its agenda and ensure that it does not erode their power to decide which migrants they admit and how many.

“It helps them bring in the people they want and keep out the people they don’t,” said Joseph Chamie, a researcher at the Center for Migration Studies in New York.  [It looks like they want cheap third world laborers and not well-educated Europeans or other westerners—ed]

[….]

The migration group was formed in 1951 under a different name to resettle Europeans displaced by World War II. It had plans to quickly disband, but migration kept growing. Starting in the 1970s, it helped resettle 1.5 million Indochinese refugees, and brought home 218,000 workers during the first Persian Gulf war. In the past two decades, the group has added 89 member countries and undertaken increasingly varied work.

What!  Who decides immigration policy these days—governments or meatpackers (or both in collusion)?  Canadian readers should find this next paragraph interesting.

Canada tapped it to recruit meatpackers. Britain used it to screen would-be migrants for tuberculosis. The United States used it to run a jobs program in Haiti, deterring Haitians from illegally immigrating.

Gee, I wonder how that jobs program worked out for Haiti because if it was successful in keeping the Haitians home, maybe Obama could import it to the US!

IOM: The movement of people causes more concern than the movement of money or goods!  You got that right!

“If the range of our activities has expanded, it’s because migration has taken on much more importance in our globalized world,” said Gervais Appave, a senior official at the group’s headquarters in Geneva.

But the movement of people causes more concern than the movement of money or goods, and Western powers are unwilling to cede authority to an international group.  [sounds like they already have to a large degree–ceded power!]

I’ll bet you a buck that the average US Senator or Congressman has never heard of the International Organization for Migration.  LOL!  We are always surprised every time we learn another Member of Congress has NEVER heard of the Refugee Resettlement Program even.

Big budget funded with boatloads of your money:

Virtually all its work is financed on a project-by-project basis, giving donors control. Together, the United States and Europe provide half the $1.4 billion budget, and every director has been American.

A few years ago I was able to find at USA Spending our “contribution” to the IOM and it stood at over $301 million (before Obama).  Today I can’t find anywhere what the US gives the IOM.  Readers:  Let me know if you find it.

Then there is the UN

I’ve had this article kicking around for days, so just to save the link, I’ll note here that a Republican bill in the US House of Representatives is seeking to scale back our contribution to the UN and bring its policies more in-line with US policy.  The bill would limit funding to the special UN Palestinian refugee agency:

The legislation also would limit the use of U.S. contributions to only the specific purposes outlined by Congress and would withhold U.S. funding for any UN agency that upgrades the status of the Palestinian observer mission or any agency that helps Palestinian refugees.