Translation: wealth redistribution — and the $2.7 billion is only part of a larger (fleecing) plan.

The UN's first-ever International Organization for Migration (IOM) "seeks funding to save lives and protect people on the move, drive solutions to displacement, and facilitate safe pathways for regular migration."

You see where this is headed, right? Here's more from the IOM:

Irregular and forced migration have reached unprecedented levels and the challenges we face are increasingly complex,” said IOM Director General Amy Pope, launching the Global Appeal in Geneva. “The evidence is overwhelming that migration, when well-managed, is a major contributor to global prosperity and progress. We are at a critical moment in time, and we have designed this Appeal to help deliver on that promise. We can and must do better.

Rhetoric from globalists who seek nothing less than massive worldwide wealth redistribution, from wealthy Western countries to "still developing" [previously: "underdeveloped"] countries — and what better scheme by which to attempt to justify such redistribution?

In addition to the $2.7 billion, the IOM is also seeking:

• USD 3.4 billion for work on saving lives and protecting people on the move.   
• USD 1.6 billion for work on facilitating regular pathways for migration. 
• USD 163 million for work on transforming IOM to deliver services in a better, more effective way.

Pope explained the lengths to which the IOM will go to secure the nearly $8 billion total.

Getting the job done requires greater investment from governments, the private sector, individual donors, and other partners. This funding will address the large and widening gap between what we have, and what we need, in order to do the job right. For this reason, we are for the first time proactively approaching all partners to fund this vital appeal.

Let's read closely, for a minute.

The UN refugee agency claims that in 2022, 84 percent of refugees and migrants seeking asylum fled from highly “climate-vulnerable“ countries, compared to 61 percent in 2010.

Note that the refugee agency's statement didn't say that 84 percent of refugees left their home countries because of climate change — just that they fled those countries. Is it reasonable to assume that many or most of them fled because of corrupt governments and/or unsustainable economies? Of course, it is. 

That said, why is it the responsibility of taxpayers in countries with stable governments and stable economies to subsidize "refugees" from the aforementioned unsustainable countries? It isn't.

Incidentally, "climate refugees" are defined by the UN as people fleeing “persecution, violence, and human rights violations occurring in relation to the adverse effects of climate change and disasters.”

Yet, according to the UN, international law doesn't recognize climate refugees. The 1951 Refugee Convention allows for the granting of protections only for individuals fleeing war, violence, conflict, or persecution.

Can someone get a memo to Joe Biden on the international law thing?