Letter to the Honorable Brian Mast

In your capacity as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight, you have authority to investigate …

Dear Congressman Mast:

In recent days, a total of more than $7.4 billion in U.S. tax dollars has been allocated to the State Department for “Migration and Refugee Assistance” in FY 2024.¹ If nothing is done to rein in the State Department, a significant proportion of these funds will be used to further facilitate unbridled illegal mass migration into the United States.

For years the State Department has been directly funding “migration”-related non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based outside the U.S. via the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The State Department also provides billions in financial support to the United Nations International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and other UN agencies which also provide grants to migration-related NGOs based outside the United States.

I have two very serious concerns regarding these State Department-funded UN migration agencies and NGOs. First, these agencies and the relief they provide under the heading of “humanitarian assistance” have been demonstrated to incentivize and facilitate the unprecedented illegal mass migration that we now witness entering through our Florida airports² and at our southern border.³ Second, these agencies and NGOs lack both the capacity and the incentive to “vet” the illegal immigrants they send to the United States.

Over the past three years, investigative journalists have exposed how NGOs in Latin America contribute to the mass migration that is destabilizing the U.S. economy, harming our national security and usurping our sovereignty. If we hope to disrupt the Venezuela- China- and Iran-backed asymmetric warfare⁴ being waged against the U.S., cutting off the U.S. funding that facilitates illegal mass migration is crucial. In your capacity as Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight, you have authority to investigate: 

• State Department-funded PRM, USAID, UN and NGO activities in Latin America and elsewhere that facilitate and incentivize illegal immigration to the U.S.;

• Amy Pope, President Biden’s former Senior Advisor on Migration, who now serves as Director General of the UN International Office for Migration (IOM); 

• Cindy Dyer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, who testified to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations that her office supports the Biden administration’s goals to facilitate amnesty for illegal border crossers instead of deportation;⁵

• Assistant Secretary of State Julieta Valls Noyes, who serves as both the head of PRM and Chair of the Advisory Commission (AdCom) for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA);⁶ and

• U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, who served as managing director at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy & Global Engagement and participated in the Refugee Admissions Project which issued two reports in 2020 on strategies to “increase refugee admissions multifold.”⁷

The Biden administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional commitment to the UN’s global border deconstruction project, and coordination between Blinken’s State Department and the UN, is demonstrated in documents such as the State Department’s December 2021 statement on the adoption of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Blinken’s statement articulates a preference for “humane migration” over the rule of law, professing that international “migration” is motivated by “climate change” and “is an inherently transnational phenomenon that no State can or should address alone.”⁸ The administration’s commitment to the UN’s vision is also reflected in President Biden’s July 2021 Collaborative Migration Management Strategy which states, “This Strategy does not seek to end migration. To the contrary … it envisions more legal pathways available for those who choose to leave.”⁹

THE PRESENCE OF THE UN ON THE MIGRATION TRAIL IS WELL DOCUMENTED

In late 2021, Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) documented UN-funded benefits offered at a shelter called Senda de Vida in Reynosa, Mexico for undocumented “migrants” on their way to the U.S. border. Bensman’s interviews with “migrants” reveal that most seek economic opportunities, and they illustrate how the availability of such benefits incentivizes illegal immigration. In a report for CIS, Bensman exposed how American immigration lawyers, “Mexican government agencies, unspecified private donors, and immigration advocates” including the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) “support all migrant needs” as would-be immigrants awaited their opportunity to enter the U.S. via the CBP One appointment process. According to the 2021 report:

The UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) hands out debit cards to U.S.-bound migrant families here every two weeks ($800 a month for a family of four, IOM officials told CIS, but even more for larger families or less for single adults). IOM officials handing out the debit cards said they have been providing the money for many months.¹⁰

Bensman shows that humanitarian assistance in the form of “UN debit cards, clothing and three square meals a day, legal coaching about American asylum,” together with the selfie effect of pictures and phone calls to friends back home detailing successful crossings, “undoubtedly attract more migrants” to Reynosa. At the time of Bensman’s visit in late November, 2021, Senda de Vida was serving roughly 3,000 “migrants” while another 4,000 were “in queue” for services while working and living in town.

Bensman’s interviews with shelter workers and migrants revealed that the program had induced many who had been refused entry to the U.S. under the Title 42 pandemic policy to remain in the Mexican border town to make a second attempt. They also took advantage of the services in order to avoid extortionate smuggling fees charged by the cartels and, instead, receive a chance at entering the U.S. escorted by shelter workers under the auspices of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Pastor Hector De Luna, who runs Senda De Vida, told Bensman how CBP cooperates with him directly,

communicating how many invitation slots [CBP] will grant and making sure its officers are there halfway down the international bridge for migrant handoffs under the watch of at least one of several American immigration lawyers ….

“I decided to work with [CBP] on one condition: We’re going to work together, you call on me, you tell me how many you want, and let’s walk up there …. ”

In January 2022, Bensman reported that UN money was supporting psychologists who helped economic immigrants previously rejected for Mexican asylum to harvest “repressed memories” of oppression stories that would work more effectively in legal appeals.¹¹

THE STATE DEPT. FUNDS UN AGENCIES & NGOs THAT FACILITATE “MIGRATION”

In response to Bensman’s report of this IOM “operation to hand out cash debit cards to intending and repeat border crossers,” as well as photos of the UN-issued debit cards posted to social media, Congressman Lance Gooden (R-Tx) and 11 other House Republican co-sponsors introduced the “No Tax Dollars for the United Nations Immigration Invasion” bill. Had it passed in 2022, it would have prohibited the $3.8 billion in contributions in the White House 2022 budget for the IOM, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).¹² 

Congressman Gooden’s bill was reintroduced during the current Congress as H.R. 552 and was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee where it now languishes.¹³ In a January 2023 press release, Gooden stated: “The UN is using our own tax dollars against us, and U.S. policymakers can no longer stand by while elites in the UN and Davos actively finance an invasion of our sovereign territory. Time to cut off funding to these corrupt globalist institutions until respect for our territorial integrity and appreciation for our generosity is restored.”¹⁴

Per the March 22 appropriations act, which allocates nearly $4 billion to the State Department for Migration and Refugee Assistance, “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to encourage, mobilize, publicize, or manage mass-migration caravans towards the United States southwest border: Provided … [t]hat the prohibition contained in this subsection shall not be construed to preclude the provision of humanitarian assistance.” (H.R. 2882-363). However, as Bensman and others have demonstrated through interviews with NGO workers and the “migrants” themselves, it is precisely the “humanitarian assistance” all along the migration trail that encourages people to leave their homes to make the dangerous journey. As immigration policy advisor R. J. Hauman explains:

[T]he United Nations gives tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants on their way to cross our southern border illegally — all under the guise of humanitarian relief. But what is even more outrageous is the fact that we fund this practice, essentially using American tax dollars to harm the safety and security of Americans who pay those taxes. It is time to stop financing the invasion at our southern border ….¹⁵

Additional investigative work by Bensman confirms that the UN “with the helping hands of 248 named non-governmental organizations” continues to distribute cash assistance and humanitarian services funded by U.S. taxpayers in 2024.¹⁶ In January, Bensman reported on a UN budget and planning document that brings the money trail more clearly into focus. The “Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela” (RMRP), outlines a plan to distribute $1.6 billion to refugees and migrants “of all nationalities” in 17 Latin American countries. 

In a nutshell, the UN and its advocacy partners are planning to spread $372 million in “Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA)”, and “Multipurpose Cash Assistance (MCA)” to some 624,000 immigrants in transit to the United States during 2024. That money is most often handed out, other UN documents show, as pre-paid, rechargeable debit cards, but also hard “cash in envelopes,” bank transfers, and mobile transfers the U.S. border-bound travelers can use for whatever they want.¹⁷

In addition to the cash assistance, “spiking numbers of ‘in-transit’ immigrants” launching their journeys north from those 17 countries in Latin America will also have access to “‘humanitarian transportation,’ shelter, food, legal advice, personal hygiene products, health care, ‘protection’ against threats like human smuggling,” and much more.¹⁸ “Despite the RMRP plan title naming Venezuelans as recipients of this aid operation, the document’s fine print,” Bensman clarifies, “says the largesse goes to ‘all nationalities.’”¹⁹

The investigative work of Bensman and other evidence was examined by Florida’s 21st Statewide Grand Jury, which investigated “immigration-related issues such as the smuggling of undocumented children into the state.”²⁰ In its seventh Presentment, published in its final unredacted form on March 28, the Grand Jury found:

[L]arge and government-dependent NGOs abuse their tax-exempt status and the trust of U.S taxpayers, encouraging migratory travel to the southern border for reasons such as economic mobility (which is not a legal basis for any claim of asylum or refugee status), using resources from federal funds. We recognize that some organizations rationalize this activity by claiming that the migration will occur anyway, and that making the process smoother and more efficient has inherent humanitarian value. However, our prior Presentments have amply documented the crime, chaos, and harm migrants experience in spite of NGO efforts. The evidence demonstrates to us that such efforts actually encourage more people to venture into harm’s way.²¹

Florida investigated NGOs that operate within the state with funding from DHS, HHS and component agencies. But the NGOs that operate outside the U.S., funded through the State Department and the UN, are in serious need of Congressional oversight. The Presentment highlights the no-interest “Refugee Travel Loan” program that incentivizes migration: NGOs “are often tasked with collecting these loans and are permitted to keep 20% of the loans they recoup, once again giving these organizations a vested financial interest in the number of refugees brought into the United States…. It is clear these acts directly encourage migrant caravans to cross the border and incentivize them to stay.”²²

Nothing illustrates the seamless nature of the relationship between the Biden administration and the IOM more clearly than the selection in October 2023 of Amy Pope, then President Biden’s Senior Advisor on Migration and former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, to the office of Director General for IOM. The mission of the IOM is to propel migration, not to prevent it: IOM “is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society.”²³ In an interview Pope said she views “migration” as “not a question of whether people move; it’s a question of how they move and whether we, as international actors, can build out ways for them to move.”²⁴ She cited “climate” as her top priority as IOM director general: “millions of people [are] displaced each year as a result of climate impacts, and we know that hundreds of millions more live in extremely climate vulnerable communities.”²⁵ Pope’s absurd worldview rests on the unsupportable myth that carbon emissions are driving global warming, and the logic-free conclusion that international “migration” is the answer. 

Pope has a “passion for changing the global narrative about people on the move,”²⁶ and that passion is reflected in the language used by both IOM and PRM to blur the legal distinction between bona fide refugees and “migrants” in order to absorb massive numbers of undocumented “migrants” into programs originally intended to provide humanitarian aid for discrete, defined groups of legitimate, fully vetted refugees. The State Department has recently turned over to IOM the operation of “major U.S. government policy initiatives in Latin America,” including management of the no-interest Refugee Travel Loan program.²⁷ Will these transfers to Geneva enable Amy Pope and U.S.-funded IOM activities to evade Congressional oversight?

THE STATE DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY FUNDS “MIGRATION” NGOs

While the distribution of much U.S. State Department “Migration and Refugee Assistance” funding is transmitted through UN agencies, direct grants from the U.S. State Department provide clear evidence that U.S. tax dollars will continue to be misused to facilitate illegal mass migration to the United States. The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) has a very close relationship with UN’s International Organization for Migration and is aligned with IOM’s values. From PRM’s 2021 General NGO Guidelines: “PRM funds NGO programs that are coordinated with multilateral institutions, other NGOs and other civil society actors to expand the reach of U.S. government assistance and complement the humanitarian assistance ecosystem.”²⁸ The PRM’s Office of Multilateral and External Coordination represents the United States on governing bodies of the UNHCR, IOM and the International Committee for the Red Cross. This includes managing the Memorandum of Understanding between PRM and USAID “and civil/military humanitarian affairs.”²⁹ In 2023, the State Department’s PRM and USAID gave IOM $1.4 billion; “PRM is also the biggest donor to UNHCR, which is among 15 different UN agencies that will spread money and aid all along the migrant trails of Latin America.”³⁰

A recent funding opportunity for NGOs provides evidence that the State Department is collaborating with NGOs to facilitate mass illegal immigration. In March, PRM issued a Notice of Funding Opportunities (Notice) for NGO programs “benefiting vulnerable PRM populations of concern in South America.”³¹ According to the Notice (Funding Opportunity Number: DFOP0009901),³² PRM anticipates spending approximately $24.3 million on “Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for the Western Hemisphere” in four Latin American countries in FY 2024. Two-year programs are anticipated. The Notice indicates these programs are intended to operate in four Latin American countries for the support of “refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants”³³ primarily from Colombia and Venezuela. PRM prioritizes these grant awards for “organizations that can demonstrate a working relationship with” the United Nations’ High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR).

Significantly, unlike other recent State Department programs and grants I have reviewed — including USAID Office of Transitions Initiatives programs operating in the Northern Triangle states of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — the March PRM Notice does not contain language stating an objective to mitigate or discourage illegal “migration” to the U.S. southern border. On the contrary, these new grants are designed not to discourage illegal immigration but rather to facilitate it.

The countries specifically targeted in the State Department’s 49-page Notice are Ecuador, Peru, Brazil and Colombia. “In Ecuador and Peru, proposed activities should primarily support Colombian and Venezuelan refugees, asylum seekers, and vulnerable migrants.” In Brazil and Colombia “proposed activities should primarily support Venezuelan refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants.” Proposals must align with one or both “program areas” defined as “Humanitarian Protection and Assistance” and “Interim and Durable Solutions.” The “programmatic sectors” targeted include “capacity strengthening,” cash and voucher assistance, education, sexual and reproductive health, nutrition, mental health and psychosocial support, shelter and settlements, “water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH),” and “protection” which is classified as “legal, child protection, gender-based violence” and “socio-cultural inclusion and social cohesion.”³⁴

Reflecting the parlance of United Nations “migration” agencies, this State Department Notice concerning aid for “refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants” makes no distinction between economic migrants versus bona fide refugees. Moreover, the Notice states that NGO proposals for all four targeted countries “must align with the 2024 Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela”³⁵ (RMRP), which likewise comingles “refugees” and “migrants.” The country-specific guidelines for Colombia explicitly prioritize programs that incorporate Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA) “as a modality, including multi-purpose cash assistance,” and references Interagency Group on Mixed Migration Flows’ (known by Spanish acronym GIFMM) Cash Working Group guidelines.³⁶ Jointly led by IOM and UNHCR, Colombia’s GIFMM “serves as platform for collaboration and coordination” among 81 member organizations which include international NGOs and the Red Cross Movement members.³⁷

PRM’s “humanitarian assistance funding” contains no requirement that the aid delivered must be aimed at stemming dangerous, illegal “migration” to the United States. On the contrary, it is evident that the assistance will provide shelter and services that will make “migration” more attractive. This is in line with the Framework for Cooperation between the PRM and the UNHCR, which spells out the relationship and joint strategic objectives: “Under this Framework, PRM and UNHCR will continue to work together to increase the efficiency of our working relationship and strengthen UNHCR’s capacity for efficient, effective and accountable operational delivery.”³⁸ One “Strategic Objective” of the Framework is to strengthen NGO partnerships and advance localization: “Maintaining effective partnerships with NGOs … is essential for UNHCR to deliver on its mandate and achieve our shared goals of assisting and protecting all forcibly displaced and stateless people….”³⁹ The UNHCR also seeks to “continue to substantially raise the profile and visibility of the United States as a donor. Deepening public understanding and informed commitment is a part of the global humanitarian response efforts.”⁴⁰

Nothing illustrates more vividly how U.S.-funded NGOs facilitate illegal mass migration than the large, full-color folding maps distributed across Latin America “that detail the routes to take to the U.S. and where to cross the U.S. border.” The online publication Muckraker has identified maps created and distributed by IOM, Amigos del Tren, the International Committee of the Red Cross for Mexico and Central America, Doctors Without Borders, the Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela (RV4), the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), the Norwegian Refugee Council, and the UNHCR.⁴¹ The UNHCR map is described as showing

incredibly detailed … routes from Colombia into Panama. And then shows the route from Panama to the Costa Rican border. 

The amount of detail given for the Darién Gap crossing routes is incredible, we have not seen any other map that displays the jungle crossing routes with this amount of clarity. It also shows lesser used routes across the jungle into Panama.⁴²

In addition to routes, these maps identify humanitarian aid stations that offer “free services” such as overnight accommodations, food, medical assistance, free phone calls, internet services, transportation, orthopedic care and more.⁴³ Investigation of Blinken State Department grants previously awarded for “Migration and Refugee Assistance,” either to UN agencies or directly to NGOs such as the Red Cross, will likely reveal funding has gone, and continues to support, NGOs that facilitate illegal mass migration through Latin America and to our southern border.

SECRETARY BLINKEN’S POSITION ON UNBRIDLED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

It’s worth noting that Secretary of State Antony Blinken served in the State Department and in senior national security roles throughout the Clinton and Obama administrations. When President Trump took office, and made a radical departure on refugee and immigration policy from the prior administration, Blinken moved to the private sector and served as Managing Director for the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement⁴⁴ where he was involved with the Refugee Admissions Project, an initiative of the Penn Biden Center and the National Conference on Citizenship. The Refugee Admissions Project issued two reports in 2020 on how the next Democrat administration should overhaul the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in order to “increase refugee admissions multifold.”⁴⁵

The Penn Biden Center’s 2020 report titled, “A Roadmap to Rebuilding the U.S. Refugee Admission Program” (Roadmap) presents a detailed plan to expand the refugee resettlement capacity of the USRAP. The Roadmap states: “Considerable innovation is required to reimagine the domestic resettlement system as a world-class model of successful refugee integration, including reorienting resettlement around long-term social and economic outcomes and launching a national private sponsorship program to expand community involvement.”⁴⁶ The “First 100 Days Agenda,” as outlined by the Roadmap, includes:

• Improve the efficiency of overseas processing to facilitate refugee admissions at much greater scale;

• Improve the efficiency of refugee security vetting;

• Rebuild and grow multiple referral pathways into the USRAP pipeline, both inside and outside of UNHCR.

The Roadmap’s objective of expanding USRAP in order to achieve “a goal of admitting at least 125,000 refugees” is not supported by any explanation of who those refugees would be, why they would require refugee status, or how the authors arrived at the 125,000 number. While the Roadmap seeks to “achieve a rapid increase in refugee admissions in the near term and put the program on stronger footing over the long term,”⁴⁷ no justification is provided other than an anticipation of future “protracted crises.”⁴⁸

With respect to vetting, the report emphasizes efficiency and the avoidance of “massive backlogs” once refugee admissions targets increase: “Significant automation and process improvements are required in order to maintain a high level of quality for refugee vetting while removing opportunities for backlogs to develop.”⁴⁹ A second Penn Biden Center report, titled “Restoring U.S. Global Leadership on Refugee Protection,” sets out a “diplomatic strategy for reasserting U.S. leadership” resting on three “Pillars”: “Reinvigorating Global Ambition on Resettlement; Driving a Protection and Inclusion Agenda; and Planning for the Future of Migration.”⁵⁰ These objectives, and the emphasis on efficiency over security, must be read in light of the State Department’s adoption of the Global Compact and the commitment to “support humane migration” and to “develop[] welcoming strategies that promote integration, inclusion, citizenship, and the full participation of the newest U.S. citizens in our democracy.”⁵¹

Given the stated objectives of President Biden’s executive orders at the outset of his administration, to “manage migration throughout North and Central America and to provide safe and orderly processing of asylum seekers at the United States border,”⁵² the role of the State Department and of Secretary Blinken in funding and facilitating unbridled illegal mass migration through Latin America should be examined, and ways to curtail such funding should be explored immediately. The investigation by Florida’s 21st Statewide Grand Jury revealed that although NGOs that serve “migrants” in Florida receive “millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars for their work,” they operate with very little oversight or transparency, and some NGOs “even refused to appear to testify about their activities, citing concerns that they could lose funding or contracts from the federal government.”⁵³ 

Those NGOs that operate outside the U.S., funded by the State Department, are similarly incentivized to continue their work without regard for its legality or for the harm it does to U.S. sovereignty and our local economies. A recent Supreme Court decision, United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), upheld as constitutionally valid a federal statute that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for purposes of financial gain. Before expending resources investigating and prosecuting NGOs, a more expeditious approach to curbing illegal immigration would be to remove the financial incentive. Aside from its illegality, the global ambition of mass migration tends to remove individuals who are dissatisfied with the political and economic conditions of their home countries — those most motivated to make change — to the eternal detriment of the nations and societies they leave behind.

Sincerely,

A. S. Martin, MA JD

cc: Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Scott Perry, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Tim Burchett, Rep. French Hill, Rep. Mike Waltz, Rep. Cory Mills, Rep. Nathaniel Moran, Speaker Mike Johnson, Rep. Clay Higgins, Rep. Lance Gooden, Sen. James Risch, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rand Paul

1. On March 23, President Biden signed into law the $1.3 trillion appropriations package (H.R. 2882) allocating $3.928 billion to the State Dept. for “Migration and Refugee Assistance” in FY24. On April 22 the Senate approved the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2024 (H.R. 8034) which allocates an additional $3.495 billion to the State Dept. for “Migration and Refugee Assistance” in FY24.

2. Todd Bensman, “The Florida Gateway: Data Shows Most Migrant Flights Landing in Gov. DeSantis’s Sunshine State.” Center for Immigration Studies, 1 April 2024.

3. David Grantham, PhD, “Weaponizing Networks (Part One): Venezuela’s Asymmetric Attack on Texas.” Transregional Threats Journal, Texas Series, Issue 5.

4. See, generally, Kelly M. Greenhill, Weapons of Mass Migration. Cornell University Press, 2010.

5. Jordan Boyd, “Biden’s Trafficking Czar Ignores Human Trafficking on U.S. Border.” The Federalist, 24 April 2024.

6.  All Palestinian refugees (5.9 million) are under the mandate of UNRWA, while the world’s remaining refugees (29.4 million) are under UNHCR’s purview. The recent exposure of UNRWA’s ties to Hamas and subsequent efforts to pause or end funding to UNRWA is documented in a new report from CIS, which explores how UNRWA operates as a quasi-governmental institution “taking on responsibilities traditionally assigned to national governments in numerous fields such as education, health and social services.” See Nayla Rush, “The UN’s Palestinian Refugee Agency: Funded and Advised by the State Department’s Refugee and Migration Bureau.” Center for Immigration Studies, 15 April 2024.

7. The Refugee Admissions Project. Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy & Global Engagement.

8. U.S. Department of State, Revised National Statement of the United States of America on the Adoption of the Global Compact for Safe Orderly and Regular Migration. 17 December 2021.

9. United States [President Biden]. Collaborative Migration Management and Strategy. July 2021.

10. Todd Bensman, “Inside a Most Unusual Mexican Migrant Camp: Local officials, U.S. activists, the UN — and DHS — entice thousands by offering cash, food, and legal prep.” Center for Immigration Studies, 22 November 2021.

11. Todd Bensman, “UN Funds Harvesting of ‘Repressed Memories’ of U.S.-Bound Migrants in Mexico.” Center for Immigration Studies, 24 January 2022.

12. Todd Bensman, “United Nations Grantee Uses U.S. Tax Dollars to Fund Illegal Immigration.” The Federalist, 16 December 2021.

13. No Tax Dollars for the United Nations’ Immigration Invasion Act, H.R. 552, 188th Cong. (2023).

14. Gooden: Stop the Taxpayer Funded Invasion. 26 January 2023.

15. Quoted in Gooden, ibid.

16. Todd Bensman, “UN Budgets Millions for U.S.-Bound Migrants in 2024.” Center for Immigration Studies, 24 January 2024.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., par. 3.

20. Jim Saunders, “Florida Supreme Court Approves DeSantis Request for Grand Jury to Investigate Trafficking, Sanctuary Cities.” Fox 13 News (Tampa), 29 June 2022.

21. Supreme Court of Florida. Seventh Presentment of the Twenty-First Statewide Grand Jury Regarding Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Case No. SC22-796, March 28, 2024, p.6. 

22. Ibid. p. 8.

23. Mission. UN International Organization for Migration.

24. Eric Reidy, “‘People need migration’: A Q&A with IOM’s new director general.” The New Humanitarian, 2 October 2023.

25. Ibid.

26.  “Biography: IOM Director General Amy Pope.” International Organization for Migration.

27. Todd Bensman, “Biden Admin. Sends Millions to Religious Nonprofits Facilitating Mass Illegal Migration.” Center for Immigration Studies, January 30, 2024.

28. U.S. Department of State. General NGO Guidelines, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Effective November 2021, p. 3.

29. See U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) regulations for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration at 1 FAM 523.4 (Office of Multilateral and External Coordination [PRM/MEC]).

30. Todd Bensman, “Biden Admin. Sends Millions.” 

31. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO programs benefiting vulnerable PRM populations of concern in South America. [Funding Opportunity No. DFOP0009901].

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid., p.5.

34. Ibid., p.11 (“Protection: Priority will be given to programs that include an objective to assist underserved groups — to include separated, undocumented, and unaccompanied children, minors and adolescents, LGBTQI+ individuals, persons with disabilities, and Indigenous persons.”)

35. Ibid., pp. 9, 11, 14 and 17.

36. Ibid., p. 19.

37. Liss Dayana Romero et. al. “Mapping cooperation: insights into Colombia’s humantarian response to migration from Venezuela.” Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 22 February 2024.

38. U.S. Department of State. A Framework for Cooperation Between the United States Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2023-2025, p.3.

39. Ibid., p. 11.

40. Ibid., p. 15.

41. Thomas Hicks, “Illegal Alien Invasion Maps Exposed.” Muckraker, 2023. 

42. Ibid. See also: https://x.com/realmuckraker/status/1738684394259316942?s=61 

43. Ibid. (see “Map #2 - Distributed by the Red Cross.”)

44. Antony J. Blinken, “Trump’s Huge Mistake on Refugees” [op-ed]. The New York Times, 11 September 2018 (“Antony J. Blinken, a deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration, is a managing director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy, a co-founder of WestExec Advisors and a contributing opinion writer.”)

45. The Refugee Admissions Project. Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy & Global Engagement.

46. Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy & Global Engagement, A Roadmap to Rebuilding the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Joint Initiative of the National Conference on Citizenship and the Peen Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. October 2020, p. 5.

47. Ibid., p. 9.

48. Ibid., p. 10.

49. Ibid., p. 26.

50. Penn Biden Center, Restoring U.S. Global Leadership on Refugee Protection. October 2020, p. 2.

51. U.S. Department of State, Revised National Statement of the United States of America on the Adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 17 December 2021, p.3. 

52. U.S. Executive Office of the President [Joseph R. Biden]. Executive Order 14010: Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework To Address the Causes of Migration, To Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and To Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border. 2 Feb. 2021. Federal Register, Vol. 86. No. 23, 5 Feb. 2021, pp. 8267-8271.

53. Jessica Vaughan, “Florida Grand Jury Presents Options for State Action on Illegal Immigration.” Center for Immigration Studies, 25 April 2024.