Thread: Plot to replace Europeans with refugees exposed

Plot to replace Europeans with refugees exposed

U.N. document reveals 2000 plan to push massive migration

Published: 7.21.17 21 hours ago Liam Clancy Liam Clancy is an intern at WND.
WASHINGTON – Millions of migrants mostly from Africa and the Middle East have swarmed Europe in the last three years – the result of what has been explained by world leaders as a war-driven “refugee” crisis.

Yet, a United Nations document, prepared in the year 2000 and rediscovered by WND, reveals the U.N. was already promoting the notion of “replacement migration” in Europe with the support of open-borders non-governmental organizations and “progressive” politicians.

The document – “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?” – details the plunging birthrates across Europe and identifies a solution: mass immigration.

The 17-year-old document contended mass immigration was necessary to replace the aging populations of developed countries. Without the migration of populations from the developing world, it reasons, economies will suffer because of labor shortages and falling tax revenues.

“Therefore, among the demographic variables, only international migration could be instrumental in addressing population decline and population aging in the short to medium term,” the report concludes.

The report specifically targets the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Russia as prime candidates for replacement migration. It is not an obscure study, written and then ignored, but a founding piece of the pro-migration agenda pushed by the United Nations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and open-borders advocates.

“Following the publication of the draft of this study, the Population Division of the United Nations organized an Expert Group Meeting on ‘Policy Responses to Population Aging and Population Decline’ from 16 to 18 October 2000, at United Nations Headquarters in New York,” the report notes.

“Replacement migration was one among a number of possible policy responses that were considered.”

According to U.N. documents, the meeting was attended by a host of government and non-governmental organizations and individuals, and it featured numerous policy proposals in support of “replacement migration.”

Attendees included the International Organization for Migration, a U.N. group that recently declared that mass migration is not only “inevitable” but “necessary”; the U.N. Population Fund, a group dedicated to “family planning” and the spread of contraceptives; and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Among the invited experts were two Americans, Judith Treas, a sociologist at the University of California at Irvine, and Michael Teitelbaum, former vice president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Both experts concluded that a large increase in migration would not benefit the United States, though Treas noted that immigration already accounts for about one-in-five new Americans.

“Immigrants will not prevent the long-run aging of the population, except in the highly unlikely scenario of a ten-fold increase in annual immigration levels,” Treas said.

When writing about Europe, on the other hand, many experts supported “replacement migration.”

Patrick Buchanan

Veteran political commentator and former White House adviser Patrick Buchanan told WND the fact that the U.N. “signed on to a mass migration of Third World peoples to Europe and America, to replace the native populations, is consistent with its anti-Western ideology and comes as no surprise.”

“Not long after its birth, the U.N. came to be dominated by delegates, diplomats and staff among whose operative principles was that the West was guilty of historic crimes against humanity, and that justice demanded the endless transfer of the West’s illicitly acquired wealth to a Third World it had oppressed,” said Buchanan, a senior adviser to U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and a former presidential candidate.

“Resentment, envy and hatred of the West among intellectual circles at Turtle Bay (the U.N.) – often echoed within the West itself – needs to be resisted like a disease, if the West is to remain the Great Civilization it has been,” he told WND.
Former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes told WND he views the “replacement migration” plot as “a decisive existential threat.”

“Given our form of government, careless immigration policies actually exacerbate an attack on the sovereign body of the people, whom the U.S. Constitution vests with ultimate human authority over the government it establishes, and the constitutional terms on which it is established,” he said.

On Wednesday, at a keynote to a gubernatorial forum in Minnesota, former Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann also warned that migration from Islamic countries is a vital threat to Western civilization.

“This is something that we have to be cognizant of, and not be afraid of it,” Bachmann said, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

“That’s what I see in Minnesota: too many people who are being afraid of being called racists, bigots, Islamophobes — I’m not afraid of it, because what we’ve got to do is talk about the truth of the problems that are going on in Minnesota.”
Bachmann said America should “step up deportation in the country of people who are unwilling to bear allegiance to the United States,” stop immigration from Muslim countries and prevent the creation of “parallel societies within our society.”

Ten years ago, when Europe’s demographic crisis was not as apparent as it is today, WND covered an international conference in Warsaw that warned of a coming “demographic winter” that posed an existential threat to Europe as the rejection of the “natural family” was leading to plunging birthrates and the consequent importation of millions of workers from countries with historic colonial ties who spurn Western values and refuse to assimilate.

Male-dominated migration
More than 1.3 million migrants applied for refugee status in Europe in 2015, a record number for the continent, according to the Pew Research Center.

An estimated 75 percent of Europe’s asylum seekers in 2015 were young males, many without significant training or education. Among them were Gambian (97 percent male), Pakistanis (95 percent male), Afghanis (80 percent male), Iraqis (75 percent male) and Syrians (71 percent male).

Aydan Özoğuz, the German commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only 25 percent of recent migrants to Germany would find employment in the next five years.

“Many of the first Syrian refugees to arrive in Germany were doctors and engineers, but they were succeeded by many, many more who lacked skills,” Özoğuz said.

In Sweden, the government accepted 163,000 asylum seekers in 2015. A year later, only 500 of these migrants had found any work, according to the European English-language news site The Local.

The migrants cost the Swedish government millions of dollars in financial and housing benefits from the state.

In the Netherlands, 90 percent of Syrian and Eritrean asylum seekers who entered in recent years remain dependent on social benefits.

Almost none were employed after 18 months in the country, reports Wakker Nederland, a Dutch public broadcaster.

In addition, a high percentage of so-called asylum seekers are not refugees fleeing persecution or war but economic migrants seeking to move to Europe for financial benefit.

Only 2.65 percent of migrants who crossed the Mediterranean to Italy in 2016 were deemed refugees, according to a U.N. report. Out of 181,436 migrants, a mere 4,808 were granted asylum in Italy.

The same U.N. report notes that 90,334 of the migrants to Europe did not even request asylum. Instead, they entered into the black market economy immediately.

Many E.U. officials are no longer denying that fact, with one official claiming last month, “In most of the cases, and that is actually the case on the central Mediterranean route, we’re talking clearly and manifestly about economic migrants.”

European Council President Donald Tusk agrees with the assessment, concluding the current policy toward illegal immigration is “not enough.”

Some politicians in Europe are calling for a strict crackdown on illegal immigration, placing the blame for mass migration on NGOs as well as the complicity of the European Union.

“You can’t any longer speak about immigration but about an invasion organized, funded and planned by Brussels with the complicity of Rome,” Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s Northern League party, claimed in May.

Migration ‘inevitable’
Along with the E.U., the United Nations has been a major proponent of migration to the European continent.

The U.N.’s New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees, a document adopted by the General Assembly in 2016, demonstrates the continued support for migrants provided by the U.N. It includes provisions to “strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it” as well as “strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.”

The U.N.’s views on migration are further outlined in a video created by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), a U.N. organization that provides services for migrants.

A U.N. propaganda video released in July declares: “Migration is INEVITABLE. Migration is NECESSARY. Migration is DESIRABLE.”

Watch U.N. video promoting mass migration as “necessary”: (at link)

Some believe the actions by the U.N. and NGOs are leading to what French writer Renaud Camus termed “the Great Replacement,” in which, over just a few generations, the names of places remain the same but the people and their values change.

The Roman Catholic archbishop of Strasbourg, Luc Ravel, recently stated in the French publication Valeurs Actuelles that France was undergoing such a replacement, pointing to the influx of Muslim immigrants and their high birth rates relative to the native population.

“Muslim believers know very well that their birthrate is such that today, they call it … the Great Replacement, they tell you in a very calm, very positive way that, ‘one day all this, it will be ours,'” said Ravel.

Ravel and other critics on the right provide as further evidence of an engineered “Great Replacement,” the propensity of left-wing media and politicians to decry childbirth, promote abortion and simultaneously declare that migration is needed to raise birthrates, as evidenced in the following screenshots.


But the Great Replacement is seen as a positive for many left-wing political parties across Europe, many of which have been vocal supporters of migrants and regularly court them with policy proposals.

For example in Germany, a whopping 63.7 percent of Social Democrats and 65 percent of German Green Party voters support giving residents without an E.U. passport the right to vote in elections.

A migration policy paper written by experts under the German government’s commission on migration came to a similar conclusion, declaring that migrants should be able to vote in local elections.

Germany’s commissioner on migration, Oezoguz, further believes that the length of prior residency required for citizenship should be reduced.

But the European populace overwhelmingly rejects the current rate of migration.
According to a Pew study, 94 percent of Greeks, 88 percent of Swedes, 70 percent of Britons and 67 percent of Germans report they are unhappy with the E.U.’s handling of refugees.

Prophesying a ‘demographic winter’
In 2007, at the fourth World Congress of Families, attended by 3,300 lawmakers and activists from 75 nations, Poland’s vice premier, Roman Giertych, warned of a coming “demographic winter.”

Returning to the centrality of marriage and families is the only way to avoid civilizational disaster, he insisted, declaring the family as “the hope for Poland, the hope for Europe, the hope for the entire world.”

“Without the family, there is no nation, there is no continent, there is no civilization, there is nothing,” he said.

Just eight months before the congress, Mark Steyn, in his book “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It,” warned that amid the shrinking of the European family, one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history already was making traditional views of European culture outdated.

He predicted Europe “will be semi-Islamic in its politico-culture character within a generation.”

While it takes a fertility rate of at least 2.1 children per woman for a nation to replenish itself, countries once known for big families, such as Greece and Spain, had fertility rates of 1.2 and 1.1 respectively at the time. The current rate in Greece may be as low as 1.1. Italy’s fertility rate is 1.4, while the country’s Muslim population has grown from about 2,000 in 1970 to 2 million today.
By 2050, Steyn wrote in September 2006, 60 percent of Italians, for example, will have no brothers, no sisters, cousins, no aunts, no uncles.

“The big Italian family, with papa pouring vino and mama spooning out the pasta down to an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews, will be gone, no more, dead as the dinosaurs,” he wrote.

Italy is currently the gateway for migrants into Europe, and over 180,000 migrants entered Italy in 2016.

A paper by European Union representative Constantinos Fotakis concluded that “replacement migration” would be beneficial for the entire E.U.: “There is a growing awareness that restrictive immigration policies of the past 25 years are no longer relevant to the economic and demographic situation in which the Union now finds itself. Some European policy makers think that it is now the appropriate moment to review the longer term needs for the EU as a whole, to estimate how far these can be met from existing resources and to define a policy for the admission of 3rd country nationals to fill those gaps which are identified.”

French official Georges P. Tapinos expressed support for mass migration as a humanitarian consideration. Interestingly, the recent massive wave of “refugees” was justified almost purely on the basis of humanitarianism.

Earlier this month, President Trump hinted at the demographic decline in his speech in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, arguing the survival of the West rests ultimately not on armies and economies but on “strong families and strong values.”

“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost?” Trump asked.

“Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Trump then emphasized: “We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/plot-to-r...ugees-exposed/

I believe that there are several articles on this in the archives search "UN migration".

6/30/2006

THE UN PLAN FOR GLOBAL MIGRATION

More reason to get out of the U.N. They have their own agenda to destroy and weaken our Constitution every chance they get. One World Government is all they care about no matter what they destroy to get it. Power, Greed is all they know.

We need to BOOT the UN off our soil.

Do they own the building? Lease the building? Get them out of here.

I believe that there are several articles on this in the archives search "UN migration".

msm didn't publish then and will not now either. Should be a special on tv, major newspapers, etc. In fact, msm hid the truth & spouted lies.
https://www.alipac.us/f12/study-germ...nestly-348985/

Lot of people have come to the conclusion open borders doesn't happen w/o gov't ok. Would like to see the UN org destroyed for their evil destruction of our western civilization on our dollar.

Trump Opposes U.N. Plan to ‘Replace’ U.S. Population

July 23, 2017 Editor 120 Comments

(Liam Clancy, WND) WASHINGTON – In the last year of his presidency, Barack Obama and his administration worked tirelessly with the United Nations to expand the definition of “refugee” to include economic migrants and drastically increase the numbers being resettled in the United States.

U.N. flag

And he found a willing partner in the Republican-controlled Congress, which funded not only more refugees but provisions for record numbers of unaccompanied minor children, so-called UACs, showing up at the border from Central America.

In the fall of 2016 Obama hosted the U.N. Leaders’ Summit on Refugees in New York, where he and other world leaders used rhetoric strikingly similar to the concept of “replacement migration,” a U.N. plot to replace the population of a given country with migrants and “refugees” from the developing world.

WND recently reported on the scheme, revealed in a U.N. document prepared in the year 2000 entitled “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?”

The report details the plunging birthrates across Western Europe, Russia, Japan and the United States and identifies a solution: mass migration from the Third World into these “aging and declining” nations.

The 17-year-old document makes the case for mass immigration as necessary to replace the aging populations of developed countries. Without the migration of populations from the developing world, it reasons, economies will suffer because of labor shortages and falling tax revenues.

“Therefore, among the demographic variables, only international migration could be instrumental in addressing population decline and population aging in the short to medium term,” the report concludes.

Obama’s stated goals before the Leaders’ Summit last fall were to increase financing for global humanitarian appeals, as well as double the number of resettlement slots and use “alternative legal pathways,” such as student and family-based visas, for refugees to enter the United States.

A report by the influential Brookings Institute included reasons to support Obama’s plan to increase resettlement, stating: “For receiving countries, migration has already become the most important source of demographic growth and renewal for wealthy societies.” This is the goal of “replacement migration.”

“The so-called benefits of replacing a country’s population with Third World migrants is bogus and imaginary,” said Leo Hohmann, author of a 2017 investigative book, “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.”

Hohmann said that while the costs of refugee resettlement are understated, often ignoring refugees’ heavy use of public assistance programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, refugee advocates also like to overstate the economic impact of refugees in the work place.

“For example, even after five years in America, 60 percent of refugees use food stamps, compared to 15 percent for native-born Americans,” Hohmann said, citing statistics provided by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Yet, when Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and the other resettlement agencies show up in a city to inform leaders of their intention to send refugees, they talk about how the new arrivals will open businesses and boost the local economy, Hohmann said.

“It’s a bunch of lies and half truths,” he said. “They’re never told the rest of the story.”

Minnesota, for instance, earlier this month approved an additional $600,000 to treat a measles and tuberculosis outbreaks mostly within its Somali and Hmong refugee communities, and that was on top of the $1.5 million the state had already allocated for these outbreaks this year.

Another hidden cost, which is almost never talked about, is that of educating the refugees’ children, most of whom require expensive tutors and translators, Hohmann said, pointing to migrant-heavy school districts like Wichita, Kansas, where students speak more than 50 languages.

None of these costs are subtracted from the supposed economic benefits of importing refugees to come up with a net economic impact, Hohmann said.

The official pledge given by the United States at the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees included the following statement:

“The United States admitted 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 – 15,000 more than in FY 2015 – and pledged to increase its refugee admissions to 110,000 in FY 2017. The United States also increased alternative pathways of admission into the United States, providing special immigrant visas to more than 11,000 people at risk from Iraq and Afghanistan in FY 2016 – an increase of over 4,000 from FY 2015.”

A day before the Leaders’ Summit, the U.N. convened at the U.N. Summit for Refugees and Migrants 2016, and statements from top U.N. officials at the event revealed that “replacement migration” continues to be a top priority for their global agenda.

“Replacing populations in the West with those from the Third World is also seen by the globalists as a great way to redistribute the world’s wealth,” Hohmann said. “We ship many of our manufacturing jobs to the Third World and they ship us their poor masses who can take advantage of our generous welfare programs while working in the factories that have not yet been outsourced. That’s a double whammy used against the American middle class, impoverishing Americans while improving the financial lot of those in poor countries.”

Expanding the definition of ‘refugee’

H.E. Peter Thomson, president of the U.N. General Assembly, made remarks at the 2016 summit that the U.N.’s commitment toward migrants is not restricted to refugees, but toward economic migrants as well, declaring that those migrants “in search of opportunity and a better life for their children” deserve the same rights as those “fleeing armed conflict and the brutal effects of war.”

The U.N. included the economic rights of migrants in a major document for the first time with its Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.

Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson echoed that sentiment at the summit, saying that “Development programs are crucial and a key priority. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognized the contribution migration makes to economic progress. We must harness that positive energy.”

The summit also produced the New York Declaration, a document signed by all U.N. member states that makes alarming promises to protect not only legitimate refugees fleeing war zones, but migrants as a whole – even those who would not qualify as “refugees” under the Geneva Accords.

For example, the New York Declaration includes a promise to “Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status,” as well as a statement to “Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.”

The International Organization for Migration is a radically pro-migrant U.N. group, and has declared emphatically that migration is both “necessary” and “inevitable.” The group was formally added into the U.N. system at the conclusion of the 2016 summit.

The New York Declaration reveals a plan for the future, including a commitment to “Start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018… migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.”

With the election of President Donald Trump, the United States has lowered refugee admissions from Obama’s 2017 goal of 110,000 to just over 50,000, a move that drew intense criticism from pro-migrant groups – and possible push-back from the U.S. State Department.

This is not surprising, given that the State Department under Obama was extremely pro-migrant as evidenced by its actions at the two U.N. migration summits, and the department remains staffed predominantly with Obama holdovers.

“There is still many, many holdovers from the Obama administration the State Department,” Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, told WND.

Mehlman said Trump has left many top positions in the State Department unfilled, and this is stifling the president’s agenda. “If you want to have your agenda carried out, you need people in place to carry it out.”

However, with the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s “travel ban,” it appears Trump has stopped the refugee flow to the United States, at least temporarily. His refugee cap to 50,000 was reached on July 12, and with the travel ban in effect, refugees cannot be admitted until the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, unless they can prove they have a “bona fide” family tie in America.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a final ruling on Trump’s travel ban in October.

“The latest travel ban ruling says he can limit the number of refugees entering the United States, but what will happen remains to be seen,” Mehlman explained.
Republished with permission from WND.com via iCopyright license

http://www.libertyheadlines.com/trum...tion/?AID=7236

"Yet, when Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and the other resettlement agencies show up in a city to inform leaders of their intention to send refugees, they talk about how the new arrivals will open businesses and boost the local economy, Hohmann said."

----------------------

Let them open businesses and BOOST the economy on THEIR soil.

No more people! They should have a good life on their soil.

STOP THIS INVASION! KEEP THEM ON THEIR OWN SOIL!