T. Belman. This Migration Pact is getting a lot of spin in the media. But what is the truth? If this Pact is non-binding, why is it needed. If it is non binding then all signatories can ignore it and do what they want. If it is non-binding why does it stipulate that the signers “commit” to doing certain things. If it is non binding why must the UN get involved? Will the nations who rejected it be required to abide by it. Once the UN passes it, all member states will be bound by it.
The nonbinding pact, aimed at fostering cooperation on migration and streamlining legal cases, backed by 164 countries at Morocco conference • Israel declined to join pact, fearing it would be forced to grant all migrants the same rights as refugees.
Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff
African migrants in Tel Aviv Photo: Gideon Markowicz
U.N. members on Monday adopted a deal aiming to improve the way countries cope with the rising rate of migration, but almost 30 countries, including Israel, refused to endorse it over fears it would interfere with their immigration policies.
The nonbinding pact, known as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, was drafted to foster global cooperation on migration. In Monday’s conference, only 164 of the 193 U.N. member states agreed to formally sign it. It now heads to the U.N. General Assembly for a vote.
Ten countries, mostly in formerly communist Eastern Europe, have pulled out of the deal. Six more are debating whether to quit, a U.N. spokesman said after the pact was adopted. He did not say whether the rest of the countries absent from the conference in Marrakesh might also pull out.
Israel recently announced that it would not be part of the agreement because it could result in courts granting labor migrants the same status as asylum seekers and refugees, ultimately forcing the state to provide all migrants with the same rights and benefits.
“I have instructed the Foreign Ministry to announce that Israel will not join and will not sign the immigration treaty,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in November. “We are committed to protecting our borders from illegal infiltrators. That is what we have done and what we will continue to do.”
With a record 21.3 million refugees worldwide, the U.N. began work on the nonbinding pact after more than 1 million people arrived in Europe in 2015, many fleeing civil war in Syria and poverty in Africa.
But U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration said the global approach to the issue was not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.
Since July, the accord, which addresses issues such as how to protect migrants, integrate them and send them home, has been criticized by mostly right-wing European politicians who say it could increase immigration from African and Arab countries.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, accused by critics of exacerbating the refugee crisis by opening Germany’s borders in 2015, said cooperation was the only answer to tackling the world’s problems.
“The pact is worth fighting for,” Merkel, one of around a dozen national leaders at the Marrakesh conference, told the forum. “It’s about time that we finally tackle migration together.”
Without naming Trump or his “America First” policy, she said multilateralism was the way “to make the world a better place.”
U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said migration needed better management and rich countries would benefit.
“In the many places where fertility is declining and life expectancy is rising, economies will stagnate and people will suffer without migration,” he said in his opening address.
“It is clear that most developed countries need migrants across a broad spectrum of vital roles, from caring for elderly people to preventing the collapse of health services,” he said.
On Sunday, Chile withdrew from the pact, while Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel saw the biggest party in his coalition quit in a dispute over the accord.
In November, Austria’s right-wing government, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, announced that it plans to withdraw from the pact, which it said would blur the line between legal and illegal migration.
Australia said it would not sign up to a deal that compromises its hard-line immigration policy.
@ Hugo Schmidt-Fischer:
They could have brought in Muslim and/or other beleaguered Christians.,,,which not only would have bolstered their dwindling population, but performed the very good deed of saving them from Muslim murder and atrocities.
Isn’t it curious.
If Europe want to bolster its ageing populations, they could have invited Chinese, Mexican or Thai nationals.
Instead, through insidious intrigues, feigning surprise external crises, such as the Arab Springs which they coaxed and initiated, or interventions in Libya and insurgencies in Syria, Europe’s governments exclusively import Muslim migrants. These mass migrations from Africa and Arabia into Europe were planned organized and carried out since the mid-1970s and until today under the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.
Take Ireland for example. Ireland’s National Planning Framework (NPF) as part of the National Spatial Strategy, for the purposes of Section 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended, and reaffirmed by the Government on 29th May 2018, calls for bringing in 1 million migrants into Ireland, that will increase the population from 4,7 million to 5,7 million by 2040.
Meaning the Irish population will receive a 20% injection of Muslim residents.
I have not seen it said yet…..”that yes, countries with dwindling populations need immigrants……..but COMPATIBLE immigrants. (with all, or most of the components which define or lead towards compatibility)……
Policies of common Nation Building through mass population transfers are not a new concept. Ethnic migrations were practiced by the Assyrians, Persians, Greek and Romans.
The EU for some time had been acting to build a new common Federation, with one single army, weakened member state parliaments and fading local national identities. Welcoming a mass of new immigrants fits well in this respect.
It is interesting to co-relate the phenomenon of modern migration with the disintegration of the European nation states, coinciding with the demise of the former Soviet Union.
During the 1980s, EU politicians had gotten together with Gorbachev to promote the idea of the so called ‘Common European Home’. The vision was predicated on reformed communist parties convening with social-democratic western parties.
In 1990, Coit D. Blacker, Stanford Scholar and US-Russian foreign relations policymaker, predicted that Soviet leadership “appeared to have believed that whatever loss of authority the Soviet Union might suffer in Eastern Europe, would be more than offset by a net increase in its influence in Western Europe.” Gorbachev in any event, went along for it.
In 1992 Vladimir Bukovsky, the former Soviet dissident exiled in the UK, was given unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents. He was invited as expert witness involving crimes of the former Soviet Union for trials that took place only during a short spell of time. These classified documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home”.
In a 2006 interview, Vladimir Bukovsky, exiled in the UK provided more detail: “The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe.“
The same is true in the EU today Bukovsky said. They are trying to create a new people. Bukovsky explains, they call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated.”
As a dissident in Moscow, Bukovsky had been forcibly committed to Soviet psychiatric prison-hospitals, labor camps, and prisons for twelve years.
Following his release in 1976 and subsequent settlement in the UK, Bukovsky eventually became an outspoken critic of the EU. Again, he had to pay for his recalcitrance, dearly.
Bukovsky’s fate, now in the West was bitter. In 2015, British police broke into his flat, accusing him of holding indecent images of children on his PC, charges he vehemently denies. Shortly thereafter, he underwent emergency surgery on his heart requiring a long period of ‘induced coma’. Following which, conveniently, charges against him were withdrawn. But he never recovered his health, he is frail and physically seriously damaged.
The so-called alleged Migrant Crisis of 2015 is certainly not the spontaneous outcome of uncontrolled streams of refugees. Most migrants to Europe do not even come from war torn regions. They are migrants from Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco and other countries. They arrive well equipped with instructions, food, clothing, maps, smartphones, debit cards and legal and logistic support by state-funded NGOs. Few arrive from Syria. Persecuted Christians need not apply.
Facilitating NGOs, for their part are largely funded by governments with vast infrastructures that have for a long time planned to attract and absorb these migrants. On the receiving side, the hosting governmental institutions have vested interests to extend and maintain their own existence.
Private media enterprises meanwhile, relying on 25% of their dwindling income on governmental advertising revenue are beholden to report on migration ‘responsibly’. State owned public broadcasters are operating on strict orders. The public is not informed properly.
At the same time, social media that allow for independent citizens reporting and commenting on the subject are being shut off.
Citizens of Europe should be made well cognizant of the infamous Final Report of the Directorate-General Home Affairs of the EU, dated 2010. (JLX/2009/ERFX/PR/1005). This STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A MECHANISM FOR THE RELOCATION OF BENEFICIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION, finds that EU-27 nations, presently harboring 495 million subjects, is suitable to hold 3,8 billion people, to which end the EU is preparing for diligently. Concerned citizens are urged to reflect on the tables depicting the millions feasible for absorption in each country, on page 112, in particular. Read it, as long as the document is still available for public perusal.