Ken Isaacs once proposed building a wall in the Alps to keep out migrants. Trump wants him to lead the world’s principal migration agency.
Some things should go without saying. One of them is that no one would ever leave their front, back, and side doors, and their windows, open to anyone who wishes to enter their homes.
Every productive, law-abiding immigrant who has been through the necessary process of vetting understands the reasoning behind the two-way street principle of immigration.
In the case of those claiming to be refugees, if they’re genuine refugees the emergency creates a different situation, but it is still basic prudence to consider the well-being of the citizens of the nation to which the refugees are arriving, and not just that of the refugees alone.
Groups such as the Islamic State and al Qaeda have already infiltrated the refugee stream. It is the the duty of authorities to protect their citizens against these “refugees.”
For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness.
Isaacs should not be apologizing for his prior concerns about public safety, given the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe and the subsequent well-documented ills that followed. Isaacs is unwittingly sending a message that leaders who care about their populations, and who have opted to try to curb or block the streams of unvetted refugees, are wrong or offensive for doing so — including President Trump, who has caused “offence” over his temporary Muslim ban from countries of concern for jihad activity.
Muslims are not being targeted worldwide, except by fellow Muslims. Over 11 million Muslims have been murdered since 1948 by their coreligionists. It is infidels and apostates who are being victimized by Muslims, not the other way around.
Responsible immigration policy is essential, and Isaacs should be advocating for it. Concern for the victims of Islamic supremacism and jihad is valid, no matter how loudly the media claims that such concern renders one evil. There is a systematic war being waged against free societies. The first step in effectively fighting it is to stand firm on Judeo-Christian values and genuine human rights for all people, including, of course, genuinely peaceful Muslims. No apologies are needed for protecting human rights and the free societies that protect those rights.
“A Trump U.N. Pick Tries to Make Up for Anti-Muslim Tweets,” by Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy, April 26, 2018:
If there were ever a candidate for Twitter purgatory, it would have to be Ken Isaacs, who upended his White House-backed campaign to lead the U.N. migration agency with a series of tweets denigrating Islam.
For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness as he tries to rescue his bid by persuading foreign dignitaries, including Pope Francis, that he is not the sum of his tweets and that he can be trusted to lead the International Organization for Migration (IOM) without religious bias. In a sign of the importance of his candidacy, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will host a reception on May 3 to introduce U.N. ambassadors to Isaacs in New York.
The State Department declined to make Isaacs available for an interview. But Isaacs agreed to respond to written questions.
“I have apologized publicly for social media comments that have caused hurt,” he writes. “I ask people to judge me on my professional record and the decades of work I have done to help people in need around the world.”
Despite persistent misgivings about the U.S. candidate’s temperament, Isaacs maintains the edge as the front-runner because key powers, particularly in Europe, are unwilling to challenge the Americans’ traditional hold on the job out of concern that it might provoke the United States to pull IOM funding or cost them Washington’s support for other national priorities, several diplomatic sources say.
The United States is the single largest donor to IOM, contributing more than 30 percent of the some $1 billion the organization receives in voluntary donations each year.
“We are not going to take the fight [to the United States] out of fear of pushing the U.S. away and [damaging] our bilateral relations,” one senior European diplomat says. That view, the diplomat says, is “fairly widely held” among European governments.
The nomination of such a controversial candidate will serve as a test of the United States’ ability to maintain its leadership position on the multilateral stage at a time when the White House has expressed disdain for international institutions from the International Criminal Court to the World Trade Organization. It will also determine whether the United States will be forced to pay a diplomatic cost for imposing sharp budget cuts on key agencies, including the U.N. Population Fund and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency…..