One might think that, as an organization representing sovereign nations, the United Nations would hold in high esteem the idea of national sovereignty, and the national sovereignty of its members. When it comes to immigration, though, one would be dead wrong.

In fact, the U.N. promotes, encourages, and enables illegal mass migration, in pursuit of its anti-borders-focused agenda. The U.N. shows no regard for the sovereign rights of member states — particularly the United States — as it attempts to dictate immigration policies on an international scale. Only complete U.N. domination over the world’s refugee laws and policies, it seems, could satisfy its thirst for global control. This is an ominous agenda to anyone who believes America should have control of its own borders and immigration policies.

The U.N. plan to create a world of no borders and globalization is emphatically demonstrated in two of its compacts, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees.

The Migration Compact, a favorite of the Obama administration, blurs the line between legal and illegal immigration and grants economic migrants the same protections refugees receive under international law.

The Refugee Compact focuses on international cooperation in refugee resettlement by requiring nations to take their “fair share” of the invading migrant population while extending refugee definitions to include extended family members who would be ineligible under existing mechanisms.

It is anticipated by the U.N. that these compacts will become entrenched in international law in the long term. To its great credit, however, the Trump administration has rejected this indefensible grab for power by the U.N. to implement a globalist agenda that contradicts U.S. foreign policy and the immigration priorities of this nation.

Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., clearly expressed U.S. opposition to the Migration Compact when she stated, “No country has done more than the United States and our generosity will continue. But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

Indeed, under current law, the president has a large share in such decisions: the Immigration and Naturalization Act grants him the authority to prevent any alien or class of aliens from entering the country if he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The U.N.’s primary tool to control American immigration policy has been its High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which is providing support and assistance to the large-scale migrant caravans from Central America that have demanded entry into the U.S. Under the guise of providing humanitarian aid and assisting caravan members to register for refugee status in Mexico, the UNHCR has dispatched additional staff members to ensure that the U.S. accepts the throngs of “refugees” making their way to our southern border.

UNHCR spokesperson Charlie Yaxley was quoted saying that while the arrival of thousands of Honduran migrants in the caravan to the U.S. border will be overwhelming, closing the border is not the solution. “We wish to reiterate and underline,” Yaxley said, “that any individuals within that group that are fleeing persecution and violence need to be given access to the territory and they need to be allowed to exercise their fundamental rights to seek asylum and have access to refugee status determination procedures.”

In essence, the UNHCR is demanding that the U.S. meet its “obligations” under “international law” and allow the caravans to enter the country. But in America, it is U.S. law, and only U.S. law, that governs. There is no U.S. constitutional right to international refugee protections. Under laws enacted by Congress, refugee status can only be granted to individuals who fear group-based persecution. Refugee status cannot be demanded for other humanitarian reasons. It cannot be granted where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is a danger to the security of the United States.

As additional caravans continue to form in Central America to make their way to the U.S., the UNHCR support of and assistance to them can be viewed as making UNHCR officials complicit, along with anti-borders advocacy groups, in a massive illicit smuggling operation. Knowingly or recklessly aiding and abetting the illegal entry of an alien into the U.S. may subject one to criminal consequences. Regardless of whether criminal offenses are implicated, it is clear that the UNHCR has no standing to dictate U.S. refugee and immigration policies.

The Refugee Act of 1980 does not designate a role for the U.N. in the administration of our refugee program. Nevertheless, under current policies, applicants in most cases are not allowed to be interviewed by U.S. officials unless the UNHCR has pre-determined that they qualify for refugee status. The UNHCR improperly provides a restrictive (almost exclusive) pool of applicants from which U.S refugees are selected. Given the growing dichotomy between the UNHCR definition of a “refugee” and that same definition in U.S. law, it is especially egregious that the UNHCR is playing such a critical role in administering our refugee program.

We should never abdicate our role to make these decisions for ourselves, or transfer any portion of our sovereign right to determine who shall enter our nation to an international organization such as the U.N., which represents the interests of multinationalism and globalization, not the best interest of the U.S.

It is important to note that the recommendation to remove the U.N. from participation in the refugee program does not require congressional approval. There is no need for new legislation. What is called for is the reinstatement of immigration enforcement policies that conform with U.S. law as it is presently written.

John Rooney is director of investigations at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.