Reject the UN Global Migration Compact ... by Anonymous Patriot

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Wed, 2018-12-05 01:27

On Saturday, 8th December at 2pm, patriotic New Zealanders of all political persuasions will gather in front of Aotea Square to demonstrate against the signing of the United Nations Global Migration Compact. Join us, bring a New Zealand Flag with you, and come wearing a yellow or orange high visibility vest to show solidarity with the demonstrators in France and Europe. If the weather is unkind, try bring a yellow raincoat or umbrella.

Representatives of the New Zealand Government will be in Marrakesh, Morocco, with the intention, probably, of signing up to the UN Global Migration Pact, the first of its kind for the UN in the policy area of international migration.

Several nations have already pulled out, notably counties that have their own problems with irregular (READ: ILLEGAL) migration, namely the United States, Hungary, Poland and Israel. What several of those countries have in common is the international denunciations following the implementation of hard line border control measures.

The United States received condemnation from the UN Human Rights Office for their zero-tolerance policy on illegal border crossings. Moving from a system of catch and release where immigration and asylum claims get tied up in US Courts, to one of catch and detain where illegal aliens are held before deportation, children were not incarcerated with adults. This may have led to family separation, but then who is to say when those attempting to cross the border often have no legal documentation?

Hungary received swift and severe condemnation from the EU for the construction of a wall across its southern border to stem the flow of illegal border crossings and refusal to accept the EU Refugee Resettlement Quota.

In both scenarios, the Governments of two countries acted out political mandates they had been voted into power on, and in at least the case of Hungary, held the overwhelming support of the domestic voting population.

It is in this atmosphere of emerging “Pro-Nation, Pro-Border” governments with democratic mandates receiving scorn and condemnation from unaccountable, unelectable global institutions like the EU and the UN, that opposition to the UNGMC has arisen.

The UNGMC claims to deal with the challenges of migration, cooperation with border security and addressing the drivers of migration in developing countries. What it does not deal with is the infrastructure deficit created in receiving countries or the lack of social cohesion and trust as a result of multiculturalism.

In the UNGMC it mentions the word consultation a total of 4 times, across 38 pages. In none of those instances does that reference the democratic consultation of native populations of countries affected by the influx of international migrants.This is no co-incidence. Democratic consultation in countries like Australia, US, Poland and Hungary have produced those policies of border control that are diametrically opposite to the intentions and principles of the UNGMC.

The UNGMC covers all sorts of initiatives, from stopping the allocation of public funds for media outlets that display “racism, xenophobia, or discrimination toward refugees and migrants”, to public awareness campaigns in elections. On the one hand the UNGMC covers a garden variety of globalist and humanitarian twenty dollar a piece buzzwords in a characteristically bureaucratic word salad. On the other it pays lip service to national sovereignty and the right of nations to determine their immigration policy.

The UNGMC is non-binding, and the UN at current has no means of enforcement. The key threat of the UNGMC is the legislative creep it represents, signing up Nations to a set of principles, decades of forums, conferences, reviews that slowly but surely solidifies the idea of migration as a human right into political and legal language. It empowers critics of Governments pursuing tougher border control policies and reigning in immigration, it presents itself as yet another bundle of “international obligations” for governments and NGO’s to justify unpopular immigration and refugee policies and entrenches a particular view of immigration and its impact on Nations.That view is that: Migration is a universal and essential part of human experience and that in the modern era; migration brings productivity, innovation, trade, growth and enhances Nations through diversity. Accepting the UNGMC is to accept this as norm, as a moral and factual statement.

That view completely ignores the fact that most people live in the country they were born, and will continue to do so, and many have done so for centuries now. In the case of New Zealand, after 30 years of mass immigration from over 97 different countries, NZ is still in a productivity recession, growth per capita is minimal when adjusted for population increase, exports and the tradable sector have continued to fall, and in Auckland where 60% of migrants settle, nowhere near the predicted gains in innovation or productivity have materialized. But to point this all out, you may well run afoul of the public awareness campaigns, electoral interventions, or sanctions for ““racism, xenophobia, or discrimination toward refugees and migrants”.

And it has definitely cost NZ. How much no-one know because to this day, the overall economic impacts of immigration on NZ, its impact on infrastructure and productivity have gone largely unstudied. But alas, the UNGMC support “evidence based” migration governance and the collection of data. Will those fact seeking missions still have support if they come to the conclusion contrary to the principles and assumptions of the UN and EU?

And likewise, will respect for National Sovereignty, and the right of Nations to borders and to regulate their own migration policies remain if those powers are used to pursue the kinds of policies that Hungary and the US have followed, to the disdain of the UN and EU?

The ambiguity of the United Nations Global Migration Compact is exactly why New Zealand should not sign. It’s not without precedent. New Zealand chose not to sign the International Declaration of Indigenous Rights under similar pretences of sovereignty, before the National Government reversed that decision when it came to power in 2008.

The UNGMC is ambiguous; the road to where it leads is ambiguous and the positions of the UN and other global institutions of international migration, national sovereignty and borders are ambiguous.

In the current era, what people need, what Kiwis need is certainty. We need certainty about who comes to our country, in what numbers and under what conditions and we need certainty that we the people get a say in that.

Today, it is already hard enough to hold domestic politicians to account for the migration policies that pursue, usually navigating the immense gulf of between majority opinion of native-born citizens, and the policy preferences of a small, cosmopolitan, bureaucratic governing elite. We need not worsen the situation by signing up to an ambiguous word salad of noble intentions and high morals that can be weaponized against us should we follow policies contrary to the designs of an unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy insulated away in the auspices of the United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan New York.

On Saturday, 8th December at 2pm, patriotic New Zealanders of all political persuasions will gather in front of Aotea Square to demonstrate against the signing of the United Nations Global Migration Compact.Join us, bring a New Zealand Flag with you, and come wearing a yellow or orange high visibility vest to show solidarity with the demonstrators in France and Europe. If the weather is unkind, try bring a yellow raincoat or umbrella.


Savages

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Immigration by Third World savages into the West seems to be the number one issue in the world right now. It's evidently a bigger threat to civilization than the socialists or Moslems.

Stephen Berry Speech at Anti-Compact Rally

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Act party has always welcomed migrants to New Zealand’s shores and that hasn’t been changed by our opposition to the UN Migration Pact. Unemployment levels of 3.9% are at an historic low and with shortages in elder care, dairy, construction and seasonal industries, New Zealand needs immigrants in the right areas. However, we must reserve the right to welcome those who maintain their financial independence, contribute to national prosperity and respect New Zealand values of free speech, free association and property rights.

The UN Migration Pact isn’t just about ripping away the government’s control of its own borders. It is self-admittedly a quote “Whole of government” agreement that, if implemented, will see public policy in virtually every Ministry and government department perverted by the unknown and unelected technocrats of the United Nations.

New Zealand has consistently been in the top 5 most economically free countries of the world for many years. An agreement that seeks to quote ‘harmonise’, migration policy with corrupt dictatorships will be disastrous for our country. I can safely speculate that if all nations of the world were to implement this agreement, we would not be seeing record setting waves of migration to Belarus and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The pact’s supporters say there is no need to be concerned about this agreement because it is non-binding. In that case, why sign a piece of harmless window dressing? This is a democratic country, elections are held, government’s change and who can possibly know whether a future government will shrug off the pact as non-binding or incorporate it as a paramount part of their foreign policy. I will not be a part of handing a revolver pointing straight back at me, to future governments.

There are several of the 23 objectives in this agreement that have been drawn up in the usual aspirational warm-fuzzy diplomatic language of the UN that do not survive an educated reading between the lines. Objective 15 is called: Provide access to basic services for migrants.

Currently you have to be a resident or citizen to access taxpayer funded services from our government. For example, if you’re not a resident and you need to use a public hospital then you pay for the service which is pretty reasonable. Now if you’re like me, you welcome immigrants because they will usually take independent initiative to come here for a better life and use their own resources to make their lives better. Objective 15 tips this on its head, giving any person who crosses our borders an immediate human right to public healthcare, all levels of public education and wrap around assistance by the government to access these services. When Michael Joseph Savage the instituted cradle to grave welfare state, he could never have imagined it would become an international airport to airport welfare system to any person that shows up on our doorstep.

Objective 16 is titled “Empower migrants and societies to realise full inclusion and social cohesion” A glance across the details of Objective 16 includes (and I am paraphrasing)

Promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of communities of destination and of migrants including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion;

Establish comprehensive and needs-based pre-departure and post-arrival programmes that may include rights and obligations and basic language training, - That’s something I’d expect migrants to have already undertaken for themselves if they’re planning on moving to create a new life for themselves in a new country.

Support multicultural activities through sports, music, arts, culinary festivals, volunteering and other social events that will facilitate mutual understanding and appreciation of migrant cultures and those of destination communities; Auckland Council through ATEED and local boards already spends multi-millions on these sorts of activities while failing to provide the basic infrastructure essential to the functioning of a world class city. Council needs to return to funding the basics properly instead of increasing funding of UN mandated nice to haves

Promote school environments that are welcoming and safe, incorporating evidence-based information about migration into education curricula, and dedicating targeted resources to schools with a high concentration of migrant children for integration activities in order to promote respect for diversity and inclusion, and to prevent all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance.

It’s hard to argue against evidence-based information until you ask the questions about what evidence, whose evidence the contents of the information and why it needs to be delivered into our schools.

Objective 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

This is the biggy. Full of large words no decent person could ever publicly oppose for fear of being labelled a bigot which is what makes Objective 17 the most dangerous one of all.

Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants,

Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including Internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media;

Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers, to detect and prevent incidents of intolerance, racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas, and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns.

This goes too far. The Act party is the only parliamentary party to have consistently defended free speech especially unpopular speech which is when it really matters. Whether it be Lauren Southern, Nigel Farage, Don Brash or the hideous Clementine “All men must die” Ford. Free speech is all empowering and no oppressed people in history has improved their position without it. Free speech is self-regulating. Whatever good or horrendous thing one person may say, everyone else is freedom to congratulate or condemn it. Free speech is illuminating. Banning the expression of some opinions does not make them go away. It drives them underground where they can fester, building resentment unseen until they eventually explode in violence.

The media are a powerful watchdog against government corruption and tyranny. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they produce tabloid nonsense. Sometimes they take beltway issues you and I couldn't care less about, then blow them out of proportion. For all the flaws a free press may have, there is no better alternative. Government programmes to sensitize media and control messages in electoral campaigns are a hideous proposition and as a liberal, In find the very idea that our government still hasn’t decided whether to sign up to this agreement truly frightening.

If we pass laws preventing hate speech, who is going to regulate it? Who is going to define it. I can give you the answer to that. The last people you would ever want to. In Russia, that’s Vladimir Putin who using hate speech laws to jail LGBT activities. In Saudi Arabia, it's the medieval religious dictatorship who whips and decapitates atheists. Who will it be in New Zealand? Probably the nasty and stupid regressive left who place fake bombs in theaters with Jewish audiences, make violent threats against venues featuring controversial speakers and form gauntlets of venomous abuse outside events of which they disapprove.

I don’t want to hand over power to people like that to regulate how I may think, feel and speak. Freedom of speech is essential to maintaining a free liberal western democracy. We do not regulate free speech. We do not compromise free speech. We do not negotiate free speech and that is why Act will never support signing this UN Migration Pact

There is a petition too...

Olivia's picture

Excellent!

Olivia's picture

Thanks.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.