U.S. State Department Rejects UN Migration Declaration

On Monday, the U.S. State Department announced that it will not endorse the International Migration Review Forum’s declaration, which claims progress in migration management. They also criticized the United Nations for its attempts to push for alternative migration solutions in the U.S. and other Western nations.

The U.S. did not take part in the Second International Migration Review Forum, which took place from May 5-8 at the UN Headquarters in New York, and clearly stated its disapproval of the resulting declaration.

The U.N. Migration Network defines this forum as a key global platform for member states to discuss the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. It was anticipated that the 2026 forum would produce an accepted “Declaration of Progress” among governments.

During President Trump’s first term in 2017, the U.S. ceased its involvement in the U.N. migration negotiations, a stance that, according to the State Department, remains unchanged.

The Global Compact for Migration, adopted in 2018, came after the U.S. chose to withdraw from those discussions. Both the U.N. and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) describe it as a collaborative framework designed to enhance migration governance among countries.

The State Department’s statement echoed Secretary Rubio’s sentiments, labeling mass immigration as a significant error that jeopardizes societal cohesion and negatively affects Americans. There were mentions of increased crime, emergency declarations in major cities, and vast expenditures on resources for immigrants.

It further claimed that this situation, driven by UN agencies and their affiliates, enabled an influx of migrants into the U.S. while redistributing resources from Americans to individuals from some challenging regions around the globe.

According to the department, there’s nothing “safe, orderly, or regular” about this situation, asserting the financial burden largely falls on working Americans who are then forced to compete for limited jobs, housing, and social services.

The statement expressed frustration about the lack of attention from the United Nations regarding these domestic issues.

The State Department emphasized its goal was not to “manage” immigration but rather to facilitate “re-migration.” It also criticized the UN for allegedly fostering mass immigration even as citizens called for tighter restrictions.

Every four years, the forum provides an opportunity for nations to assess their migration policies and determine future actions, according to the IOM, which coordinates the UN Migration Network. This group comprises 39 UN agencies that aim to help countries tackle migration challenges.

The State Department claimed that UN agencies, allied with NGOs they support, have created a migration corridor from Central America to the U.S. while Americans faced an overwhelming wave of immigration.

Moreover, it pointed out that some UN agencies condemned deportation plans, further complicating the immigration landscape in countries like the U.K., where illegal crossings have surged.

The agreement itself is described as “non-legally binding,” reiterating countries’ rights to set their own immigration policies while making distinctions between legal and irregular migrants.

Ultimately, the framework is intended to ensure migration agreements are “safe, orderly, and regular.” However, the State Department argued, mass immigration has traditionally posed security risks, financial burdens, and challenges to societal cohesion.

In conclusion, the U.S. firmly stated it would not endorse any global agreement that would facilitate mass immigration into the nation and other Western countries, reiterating the need to prioritize American interests.

Fox News Digital has sought comments from the United Nations regarding this matter.