United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon insisted, in a statement released on September 8
th, that European nations open their doors to the many thousands of Middle Easterners and North Africans said to be "fleeing war and violence, who have a right to seek asylum without any form of discrimination." The statement said that he had called the leaders of Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia to emphasize "the individual and collective responsibility of European states to respond responsibly and humanely" to the migration crisis.
Notably, there was nothing in the Secretary General's statement calling for the wealthy Gulf State countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to welcome the refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq, for example, to their countries.
Peter Sutherland, the UN Special Representative for International Migration, spoke to the press in Geneva on September 8th, reinforcing the Secretary General's message. Elaborating on the theme of non-discrimination in handling requests for asylum, he specifically rejected religion as a criterion for determining refugee status.
As usual, UN officials--starting at the very top--are making things worse with their loose rhetoric, however noble their professed intentions may be. They are wrong about what international law requires and they are oblivious to the practical effects of an open door policy for hundreds of thousands of migrants. Excessive generosity only invites wave after wave of additional migrants, with images of devastation and desperation appealing to emotion rather than to reason and common sense.
UN bureaucrats notwithstanding, religion is a legitimate filter to use in separating out those migrants whom have a bona fide claim to refugee status and to consideration for being granted asylum.
The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines as a refugee a person:
"(who) owing to (a) well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."
In other words, the trigger for determining refugee status is an individual's "well-founded fear" of persecution because of discrimination based on such criteria as race,
religion or nationality. To ignore that individual's religion in determining whether he or she is eligible for refugee status is thus an oxymoron.
Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim adherents, such as Yazidis, are the ones most at risk of being targeted for killing and persecution in their homelands, including in Iraq and Syria. They are being forced out of their homes and given a stark choice of death or conversion to Islam. They are targeted
because of their religion. Therefore, they deserve special protection in their countries of destination
because of their religion.
A dramatic example of the risk to Christians targeted for violence because of their faith, even as they were trying to flee from their homelands, was the drownings last April of twelve Christian migrants at the hands of Muslims with whom they were sharing the same boat. The genocide, rapes and forced displacements of Christians in Iraq, Syria and Libya because of their religion speak for themselves.
Some Muslims leaving their homelands in Iraq, Syria and Libya are economic migrants, looking for a more stable environment and a better life for their families. However they are not seeking to escape persecution because they are Muslims. Generalized violence arising from a civil war, as dangerous as it may be to innocent bystanders, does not automatically confer refugee status on anyone choosing to leave that country who does not specifically have a demonstrable "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
Those Muslims who can demonstrate that they have left their countries of origin because they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted--Shiites or so-called apostates in ISIS-controlled territories, for example--can be considered eligible for refugee status and asylum. However, there must first be a rigorous examination to make sure they are not jihadist terrorists in disguise, as difficult as that may be to accomplish. Such vetting is necessary. Every country has an inherent right to protect itself and its citizens from a foreign invasion. Earlier this year, ISIS threatened to ship half a million migrants from Libya alone to Europe.
However, United Nations officials want virtually everyone migrating from one country to another to be welcomed into their destination country. They just want it to be done in a more orderly, uniform fashion, under the watchful eye of the UN.
Peter Sutherland, the UN Special Representative for International Migration, asked rhetorically: "What happens to the one third, or two thirds, who are determined to be economic migrants?  We need to put in place a system where they are dealt with humanity. Many of them living under dire conditions which fall short of persecution."
In addition to Europe, Sutherland called for the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America and the Far East "to take their fair share."
Fair share of what? All those whom have left Syria, Iraq and Libya, claiming they are "refugees" even if they do not meet the definitional requirements of the refugee treaty? Actual or threatened persecution, not dire economic conditions or generalized violence, is the condition that triggers treatment as a refugee and eligibility for asylum. Otherwise, national borders and national sovereignty have no meaning. But then again, that is precisely what some at the UN would like to see happen as they laud the virtues of "global" citizenship.
