The document demands migrants get the same rights as natives, immediately, including voting rights and welfare
What do you do if you’re a supranational behemoth with a multi-billion dollar budget coupled with a vast number of subsidiary entities that focus on migration?
If you’re the U.N., you publish the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and seek to set up more supranational government entities to duplicate the work you’re already doing, at a gargantuan cost to (mostly Western) taxpayers.
The report — a subject of consternation around the world, and wisely nixed by President Trump in 2017 — is due to be signed in Marrakech on December 11.
But if the latest nations to object — Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland — have anything to say about it, the document may end up in the shredders of the U.N.’s headquarters in New York.
Speaking of the agreement in late 2017, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated, “Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone … The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
It seems the rest of the world is waking up, with a U.K. parliamentary petition now nearing100,000 signatures in opposition to Britain becoming a signatory. Similar movements are springing up in Denmark, New Zealand and Belgium.
It’s not just because the Global Compact for Migration is broadly unnecessary (U.N. agencies currently already spend up to $6bn a year on migration-related study and assistance), but it is also incredibly perverse.
Opening with an invocation to 17 other United Nations agreements and treaties (including the Paris Climate Accords), the document goes on to pay lip service to national sovereignty while directly attacking the same principle with demands for regulations on both the public and private sectors, and indeed restrictions on the free press who might report skeptically on migration.
Hidden amongst the 38 jargon-laced pages, the compact affirms the “entitlements” of migrants and refugees; including but not limited to additional job training, diaspora “trade fairs,” assistance sending money to their countries of origin, and a commitment to “educating” native communities on the benefits of multiculturalism and increased immigration.
The document insists it is based on “human rights law” and “upholds the principles of non-regression and non-discrimination.”
This means a nation-state is agreeing to not alter its own internal immigration policies after signing up to the compact. What supranational governmental organizations call “pooling sovereignty,” and what the rest of us call “giving up sovereignty.”
The document demands migrants get the same rights as natives, immediately, including but not limited to voting rights and access to welfare.
It states that the U.N. (well, someone in an office there, anyway) will develop a “comprehensive strategy for improving migration data” but that national and local governments across the Western world will be expected to pick up the tab.
It even suggests that signatories should “invest” in such pro-migration schemes through “trade preferences” — another attack on nation-state sovereignty and government policy dictated by respective electorates (I think we call this democracy?).
Curiously, the document even calls for a “civil registry” of migrants, including identification through national censuses. When the Trump administration suggested a citizenship question on the U.S. census, the liberal media lost its collective (and it really is collective) mind. But the U.N. wanting a global register of migrants seems fine. The compact even calls for “biometric data-sharing.” That’s not creepy at all, right?
There are a great many things deeply flawed about the compact. Too many for one article (for instance, the idea of forcing nations to “reduce visa and permit processing times” again at a cost to domestic taxpayers) but the largest problem of all is that the document even exists.
Its advocates maintain that is “not legally binding” (of course it isn’t; nothing the U.N. does actually is) and that the implementation is entirely voluntary. But here’s the problem: Why would any nation-state sign up to a non-legally binding arrangement that it doesn’t intend to enforce, in the short-, medium- or long-term?
The truth is the globalists in governments across the Western world are devout in their mission to — as the compact says — “support multicultural activities … that will facilitate mutual understanding and appreciation of migrant cultures” and all the policy-related stuff that goes along with it.
Targeting the free press (Objective 17, 33c of the compact) is just one of the mechanisms by which they hope to get there.
And if you really fancy a laugh (and you kind of hate yourself) read the “Implementation” part of the document, on the last three pages, where the U.N. dedicates itself to dedicating itself to founding new institutions to work alongside existing institutions with the aim of creating institutional dedication through a framework of consultative, dedication institutions.
Oh, you think I’m joking? Go on, read it. I dare you.
Raheem Kassam is a fellow at the Claremont Institute and the Middle East Forum. He is the author of two bestselling books: “No Go Zones” and “Enoch Was Right.”
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller or TheWatchTowers