Thread: Warning: The UN’s Refugee Pact is even worse than its Migration Pact and both will

ALIPAC Opposes UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

For Global Release | December 5, 2018


Share & Discuss this release & Meme on (FACEBOOK HERE) .. (TWITTER HERE) .. (GAB HERE) .. (ALIPAC HERE)

https://www.alipac.us/f8/alipac-oppo...ration-367373/

Canada is set to sign onto the UN migration pact. Here’s what you need to know

By Rahul KalvapalleNational Online Journalist Global News



WATCH: Trudeau: Canadians should feel proud to sign the UN Compact on Migration.

-In late 2015, as Europe grappled with a migration crisis of a scale not seen since the Second World War, the United Nations decided to convene a meeting to address how member nations can respond.
A year later, 193 member countries signed on to the New York Declaration, which called for the adoption of a migration pact by the end of 2018.

As a result, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was born. A draft of the pact was agreed upon by UN members — except for the United States — in July.

READ MORE: Scheer says Canada’s immigration policies must not be dictated by UN migration pact
On Dec. 10 and 11, United Nations members will gather in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh to formally adopt the pact.

Canada is expected to sign on, but several countries have expressed reservations.
Here’s a look at the UN’s unprecedented international migrant pact, its objectives and arguments for and against adopting it:

What are the pact’s objectives?

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration purports to set out “a common understanding, shared responsibilities and unity of purpose regarding migration.”

It claims to be rooted in a shared understanding that better international cooperation is needed to handle migration in a way that’s fair to states, but protects the human rights of migrants and refugees.
To that end, the pact proposes a “360-degree vision of migration” that recognizes that better cooperation is needed to facilitate safe and orderly migration.

WATCH: Poll finds most Canadians say irregular border crossings are a ‘crisis’ (Aug. 201

That “vision” is laid out in the form of 23 objectives.

Some of the objectives have to do with streamlining international migration protocols by way of offering clear information on immigration law and application processes to the public, guaranteeing legal identity and documentation to all migrants, improving “certainty and predictability” in screening processes and sharing data to encourage evidence-based migration policies.

Others cover issues of human rights, and call for the international community to combat trafficking and smuggling, reduce the reliance on immigration detention centres, stray away from discriminatory migration policies and take measures to protect refugees returning to their home countries from unlawful imprisonment, torture and abuse.

WATCH: Calls for greater legal protection for migrant children after alleged sexual assault at detention centre

There are also objectives that have to do with minimizing the factors that cause people to want to flee their countries in the first place, such as poverty, lack of food security, inadequate educational and job opportunities, climate change and gender discrimination.

Which countries are opposed to the pact?

The United States was the first country to openly oppose the pact, and the only one to not sign on to the initial agreement over the pact in July.

In late November, the Australian government said it, too, will not sign up to the pact, despite playing a key role in drafting it. Australia says it’s concerned signing onto the pact will undermine its policies to deter asylum seekers, which include maintaining offshore detention facilities and turning away boats arriving by sea.

Several former Eastern Bloc states have also renounced the UN agreement. These include Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia.

READ MORE: Hungary jails migrant smugglers over 71 suffocation deaths

Italy’s right-wing interior minister Matteo Salvini has stated his opposition to the pact, throwing Rome’s support into doubt.

Austria has said that it will not sign up; Belgium’s prime minister has said he will support the pact, but his right-wing coalition partner has opposed it and threatened to withdraw his support for the government if it signs on.

The Dutch government hasn’t said that it won’t sign, but a recent opinion poll in the Netherlands showed that 41 per cent of people opposed signing on, compared to 34 per cent in favour.

Will Canada be a signatory to the pact?

Canada played an active role in driving the agreement forward, and Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Monday that Canada will sign on, despite Conservatives’ concerns.

On Tuesday, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer rose in the House of Commons and stated that signing on would mean that “foreign entities” would be able to dictate Canadian immigration policies.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded by saying that his government would continue to stand up for immigration and support diversity.

“Welcoming people through a rigorous immigration system from around the world is what has made Canada strong, and indeed something the world needs more of, not less of like they want to bring in,” Trudeau said, pointing a finger at Scheer.

WATCH: Scheer asks Trudeau not to support UN Global Compact on Migration


Scheer said he was especially opposed to Objective 17 of the agreement, which states that countries should “promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets… including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology.”

However, the pact also says signatories must commit to protecting free speech, “recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.”

ARCHIVE: Trudeau says world migration will be the norm not an exception (Nov. 2015)



The Trudeau government has been flooded with letters from Canadians asking that a national debate be held on the matter before the agreement is signed.

The letters, an example of which was provided to The Canadian Press, claim the UN agreement is attempting to eliminate criticism of the accommodation of migrants and would effectively “label those who complain as racists or haters, thus stifling any freedom of discussion.”

Is it legally binding?

No — the pact sets out a “non-legally binding, cooperative framework,” meaning it’s more of a declaration rather than a legally binding treaty.

Indeed, the pact’s preamble states explicitly that it “reaffirms the sovereign right of states to determine their national migration policy,” meaning governments will not sign away their rights to design their migration policies by signing onto the pact — contrary to Scheer’s criticisms.

Indeed, Scheer’s characterization of the pact’s legal authority was dismissed as “factually incorrect” by a former Conservative immigration minister.

Chris Alexander, who served as immigration minister under Stephen Harper, tweeted that the pact “is a political declaration, not a legally binding treaty.”

READ MORE: Each irregular migrant costs the Canadian government between $10K and $34K, parliamentary budget officer says,

Anne Peters, director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Germany, points out that the text of the agreement “does not contain short and clear obligations,” and is more akin to the 2000 Millennium Declaration in terms of legal obligation than it is to, say, the Paris climate change pact.

Writing for the European Journal of International Law’s blog, Peters described the text of the pact as “soft law,” meaning that it is not legally binding.

WATCH: One migrant in 18 crossing Mediterranean in 2018 died, UNHCR says

However, it’s not completely legally irrelevant either. The pact is worded in a way so as to encourage domestic courts and authorities to consider it over the course of their interpretations of the law.

Immigration agencies could also draw on the pact in making discretionary decisions.
“So overall, signing the migration compact will not be irrelevant in legal terms,” Peters concluded.

What do supporters of the pact say?

Louise Arbour, the UN special representative for international migration, has argued that signing on to the pact will equip countries to better reap the economic benefits of migration.

“There are many, many countries in the world today that will need to import a part of their workforce,” Arbour said last week. “The demographics are suggesting that if they want to maintain their current economic standards or even grow their economy, they’re going to have to receive well-trained foreigners to meet the labour market demands in their countries.”

She also criticized countries who pulled out or are threatening to pull out of the deal, saying that reneging on the pact “reflects very poorly” on them and goes against the spirit of multi-lateralism.

READ MORE: Donald Trump reportedly urged Spain to build a wall across the Sahara desert

The European Commissioner for migration, Dimitris Avramopoulous, has said that adopting the pact would send a “clear signal” to African countries that European states are willing to cooperate them to address the migration challenge.

“It is in the interest of Europe, all the member states and of all countries directly or indirectly involved in migration,” Avramopoulous said on Tuesday.

WATCH: EU official urges support for U.N. migration pact as resistance grows


The World Economic Forum (WEF) has argued that the pact will benefit all countries.

In August, the WEF published an article by Anne Gallagher, president of the International Catholic Migration Commission, in which she argued that wealthy countries who don’t sign on to the pact will effectively be shooting themselves in the foot.

Gallagher wrote that it was in the best interests of countries to sign on to a pact that places a heavy focus on fighting migrant smuggling and human trafficking.

“Failing to cooperate on these urgent issues effectively means giving up: abandoning hope of any long-term, sustainable solution to irregular, exploitative migration,” she wrote. “This would be a universal disaster, but with a particularly vicious impact on wealthy countries of destination.”

Gallagher also dismissed concerns that the pact would undermine the sovereignty of signatories, stating that countries agreed from the get-go that the pact would not impose legal obligations.

READ MORE: Woman arrested for trying to smuggle migrant into Spain in suitcase

The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that the pact does not create a “right to migration” as some critics charge, and indeed doesn’t create any new rights for migrants at all, seeking only to strengthen and protect existing rights.

WATCH: French president Macron supports ‘laudable’ UN migration pact

The International Federation of the Red Cross said the pact has promise in fixing an existing approach to migration that isn’t working.

“Too many people are dying every day. Too many people are suffering. And too many people are being exploited by traffickers and smugglers who are all too happy to capitalize on the lack of an effective and humane global approach to migration,” the IFRC said.

“We urge all governments to come together, to sign this agreement and, more importantly, to work with us to turn its ambitions into policies and laws that make a difference on the ground.”

— With files from Reuters and the Canadian Press

https://globalnews.ca/news/4728831/g...-un-explainer/

We will need to build a Wall on our Northern Border next.

What about their Visa's coming here?

We need bio-metric scanning up and running NOW!

And it needs to be made available to our law enforcement to apprehend and detain Visa overstays, illegal aliens and foreigners!

All foreign criminals need to be handed directly over to ICE...out of the local and state jurisdiction!

Federal Tent City on Federal Land with a panel of Federal Judges for ALL foreigners, illegal aliens, refugees, visa overstays, TPS, green card holders, asylum liars who VIOLATE our Federal Immigration and Visa laws.

RedPill Factory - Make Britain Great Again

The UN’s Global Compact for Migration, which will BAN deportation of ILLEGAL immigrants, will be signed by many world leaders next week without consulting their citizens.




58 Comments
308 shares
7.1K views

Video https://www.facebook.com/redpillfact...7902638829052/

Justin Trudeau’s Canada Embraces a World Without Borders

Canada’s agreement to sign the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration next week will have serious consequences for Americans on the other side of the world’s longest open border.

December 6, 2018
By Salim Mansur

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is set to sign the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration at an intergovernmental meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10, 2018.
Few Canadians are aware of what this UN Global Compact represents; even fewer have been consulted, and without any mandate except for a parliamentary majority, Justin Trudeau is committed in signing Canada into an agreement with far-reaching consequences -- not only for Canadians. Canada agreeing to abide by the agreement will also have consequences for Americans, as among migrants entering Canada might well be those intending to sneak into the United States across the world’s longest open border.

The UN Global Compact spells out, in 34 pages of fine print, requirements for member-states to adopt as policy accommodating unfettered mass migration from the global South to the North.
Human migration is as old as human history. But in modern times, especially in the period following the end of the Second World War, resulting in massive dislocation of the European population, settlement of migrants was arranged and conducted by national governments with support of their citizens. The Global Compact, instead, is a UN top-down arrangement to deal with the migration problem turned into the most disruptive global crisis in recent years. This time, the crisis is the result of the massive failure of UN-engineered policies of socio-economic development of post-colonial societies in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America.
What we have witnessed since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold War in 1992, is a spike in wars, genocide, failed states, and terrorism. These have cumulatively resulted in mass migration as an escape from the collective failure of people in those countries to build and administer an orderly society, despite trillions of aid dollars provided by countries of the North, directly or through the UN agencies.
And despite this record of the failure of UN-driven development policies, the UN remains insistent on demanding more of the same in its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Global Compact is a critical part of this agenda, based on the notion that “Migration contributes to positive development outcomes.”
There is little or no evidence of migration from the global South providing for positive development in the developing countries of that global South. Instead, the Global Compact turns migration into a human rights issue and confers “rights” on migrants that are the same as those of the citizens of the host countries, “rights” those governments are obliged to “respect, protect and fulfil.”
Any relationship at a minimum has two parties involved. The Global Compact claims for itself “a 360-degree vision of international migration…to optimize benefits of migration.” But it focuses entirely on the needs and rights of one party, the migrants, without taking into account the rights of the people of host countries, given the mounting evidence of how costly, unsettling and disruptive the “invasion” of migrants from the global South to the North has been.
The so-called Arab Spring of 2011, heralding demands for democracy and overthrow of repressive authoritarian governments, very rapidly turned into Arab nightmare. Civil wars in Libya and Syria, with poorly planned interventions by the UN, became uncontainable and spread anarchy. As central authorities collapsed, internal movements of people turned into a mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa, and joined by people from Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa as economic migrants, headed for Europe.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s invitation in 2015 to Syrian migrants was a detonator of what has now become the migration crisis from the global South to Europe and North America.
The current wave of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa might only be the harbinger of an approaching tide gathering force to head north in the near future. It is expected that the African population will double to 2.5 billion by 2050. Africa will remain the poorest continent, and this doubling of population will make it the most crowded continent with a military age cohort of young men ready to march. The trajectory of African migration can only be in one direction: due north.
The answer to this ballooning migration crisis came from Angela Merkel in Berlin in the week when the world marked the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One. In speaking to an audience of German parliamentarians and foreign guests, Merkel said, “In this day nation-states must today – should today, I say – be ready to give up sovereignty.”
And to whom, we may ask?
Since nation-states are obsolete in Merkel’s view, they should fold up and make way for a world without borders administered by multinational organizations under the authority of the UN. But, ironically, Merkel’s advice is primarily directed to the long-standing old and stable nation-states of Europe and North America, and not to the newly established post-colonial states of the global South, such as China, India or South Africa.
The Global Compact that Justin Trudeau has already committed to sign is one among the many agreements the UN has been pushing in the making of a borderless world, including also the Paris Agreement for climate change and R2P or “Responsibility to Protect.”
The UN needs advanced democracies of the North to become signatories and help finance UN-prepared agreements and treaties as international laws, regardless of the customs and legal traditions of these long existing independent sovereign nation-states.
There are, however, a number of developed countries – Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, the United States – that have indicated they will not sign the Global Compact in Morocco.
The Global Compact is also Shariah-compliant, since the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest bloc of member-states in the UN. And OIC partnership with the EU in the UN makes for a formidable Red-Green alliance in European and North American politics of the traditional Left joining hands with the Shariah-promoting Islamic organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
In accordance with the OIC demand at the UN, the European Human Rights Court has ruled any criticism or insult of Islam and its prophet is not protected free speech, and it might be penalized under “hate speech” provisions of criminal codes.
Similarly, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal parliamentary majority in 2017 adopted motion M-103, which condemns any critical discussion of Islam and Muslims as “Islamophobia,” and under the “hate speech” provision of the human rights commissions in Canada might be subject to prosecution.
Moreover, the Global Compact requires, in terms of UN-speak a controlled media that abides by the UN norms and censors any critical discussion of UN policies relating to migrants as not “ethical.”
The recently announced hand-out of $600 million to the Canadian media over 5 years by Justin Trudeau is in keeping with with the Global Compact’s requirement for a docile media trained in UN-speak to enable the making of a UN-envisioned borderless global order.
Justin Trudeau’s readiness to sign the Global Compact comes as no surprise, since in his publicly stated view, Canada is a post-nationalist state with no core identity. Hence, in Trudeau’s version of Canada, there is no tradition to revere, no sacred values to defend, and no identity or history worth preserving.
Justin Trudeau is the poster face of the UN-envisioned borderless world. And into this UN-designed global order for the 21st century Trudeau-led “Canada without borders” is headed.
Graphoc credit: United Nations
Salim Mansur teaches at Western University, London, Canada and is the author of The Qur’an Problem and Islamism (2017).

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...t_borders.html

Let's kick start the program and give Canada a "boost"...we have 25 million illegal aliens we can send over our border!

All you illegals who do not qualify for "asylum" in USA. Sell out, pack up and head to Canada!!!

You got the green light now.

SO LONG!!!