(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)
It’s rather difficult to have any real sense of a border between Canada and the U.S. when neither country has full control over their affairs. An obvious example is the Safe Third Country Agreement.
1. The Loopholes Written Into S3CA
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
ARTICLE 1
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.
ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.
Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.: -at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.
This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry. If this really was just poor drafting, then it would be really easy to fix. The fact that there’s no effort to is very revealing.
2. More Loopholes In S3CA
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.
Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.
Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.
Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.
Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?
3. UNHCR Is A Party To S3CA
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
There has never been a full and proper debate on this Treaty either in the U.S., or in Canada. While the document sounds great, it has so many loopholes that it’s close to worthless.
This is a quote from the author of Uppity Peasants. During a recent conversation, she gave some really good reasons as to why people should not be allowed to enter Canada illegally and feast off the taxpayers. Rather than paraphrasing, here is a quote in its entirety in Part #2.
Initial challenge has been struck down. The Prothonotary has ruled that a citizen has no standing to make such a claim (either public or private standing), and that there is nothing that the Court can do. Pretty messed up to say that a citizen has no rights or say in having a secure border. The first level appeal is underway, which is an appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court, and more information will provided as it comes along.
2. Input from Uppity Peasants
Morally, I would say that the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. I would also say that if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into *our* country is doing no one any favours
I would further submit that we have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, and the recent semi-official declaration of the federal government’s treatment of indigenous Canadians as “genocide”, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce.
Go check out Uppity Peasants website. Some very interesting content indeed. This is a moral and philosophical argument against allowing illegals to keep sneaking into Canada (mainly via Roxham Road, QC).
Hard to disagree with a single word here.
3. Why Try To Close The Loophole?
Writing and talking about immigration — legal or illegal — is one thing. Anyone can say they oppose something, or oppose an injustice. Anyone can complain about their concerns.
But in the end, do you actually mean anything that you say?
Are you willing to make the effort?
(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)
(UN Population Division still hard at work)
(The UN Global Migration Group)
(Other important replacement migration meetings)
(Agreed outcomes on population)
1. Important Links
Other Canuck Law Articles CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Preventing/Punishing Genocide. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974. CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide. CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”. CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity. CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration. CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.
This should be obvious, but nations should look after their own affairs. It is beyond creepy that the United Nations not only has an interest, in population management, but regularly holds conferences on the subject. Shocking yes, but keep reading. The proof is undeniable.
Furthermore, this is not a one time event. It has been going on for the better part of a century now.
3. Kalergi Plan of the 1920s
This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.
The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.
Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.
4. Implementing Kalergi Via Multiculturalism
Here are some quotes from the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It was designed to prevent groups from committing atrocities against each other, and provide some means for punishment should it happen.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Now, on the surface, nothing seems objectionable here. After all, who “doesn’t” oppose measures to stop people from committing genocide against another? All of this seems sensible.
However, there is another way to look at it. Instead of committing overt violence against a group, more subtle measures could be introduced. These would be measures that would bring about the same effects.
An obvious on is replacement migration. Try to reduce the birth rate in one country by various means, such as claiming it’s to prevent climate change. Then, once the population starts dropping, introduce “replacement” migration to make up for the shortfall.
Another common technique is the concept of multiculturalism. Let’s be honest here. Multiculturalism is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Trying to get very different cultures to live together never works out. It ends with either:
Balkanization/Enclaves
Parallel societies
Erosion of the host culture
Tension and/or violence
Some combination of the above
Still one more technique is to implement laws which guarantee social cohesion will never take place. These include affirmative action or quotas in schools or employment. There can also be laws to erode or erase parts of the group identity, ensuring tension will never go away.
What if this type of system was deliberately inflicted, by trying to mix incompatible groups?
5. UN Global Migration Group
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Regional Commissions
United Nations University (UNU)
World Bank
World Health Organization (WHO)
Source is here. These organizations meet regularly to discuss global migration issues, as the name implies.
It’s also interesting the sheer number and range of UN groups involved with this “Global Migration Group”. Education, higher education, trade, research, refugees and labour all affiliated with it.
6. Rome Population Conference (1954)
World Population Conference
Rome, 31 August- 10 September 10 1954
The First World Population Conference organized by the United Nations was held in Rome in 1954 to exchange scientific information on population variables, their determinants and their consequences. This eminently academic Conference resolved basically to generate fuller information on the demographic situation of the developing countries and to promote the creation of regional training centres which would help to address population issues and to prepare specialists in demographic analysis.
World Population Conference
Belgrade, 30 August-10 September 1965
The Second World Population Conference was organized in 1965 by the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the United Nations; most of the participants were experts in the field. The focus at this international meeting was on the analysis of fertility as part of a policy for development planning. This Conference was held at a time when expert studies on the population aspects of development coincided with the start-up of population programmes subsidized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The World Population Conference was hold in Bucharest, Romania, from 19 to 30 August 1974. Representatives of 136 Member States attended (more than 1400 persons). The draft of the World Population Plan of Action, prepared by the Population Division with the assistance of an advisory committee of experts, had been reviewed by the Population Commission and discussed at the five regional meetings. The draft was amended by the working group and adopted by the plenary.
At the time the UN had 138 Member States. Family planning was being promoted by 59 countries.
The World Population Plan of Action had four parts:
-background;
-principles and objectives;
-recommendations for action, and
-recommendations for implementation.
Negotiations tended to make aspects of population policies weaker and aspects of social and economic development stronger. The Conference became polarized between the ‘incrementalist’ position of a group of Western States (including US, UK, Germany) that believed that rapid population growth was a serious impediment to development, and the ‘redistribution’ position, followed by a group of developing countries led by Argentina and Algeria that believed that the population problem was a consequence and not a cause of underdevelopment and that it could be solved by a new international economic order focusing on the redistribution of resources
Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population between 6 – 14 August 1984. It was attended by representatives of 147 Member States (the UN had 157 Member States). At the time 123 countries promoted family planning.
The Conference adopted the Recommendations for the Further Implementation of the WPPA. Several key Member States had changed positions compared to those they had in 1974. The United States now considered population a neutral phenomenon for development. Many developing countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan expressed their firm support for family planning and population programmes. Many developed countries, including Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom stated their willingness to increase their support for population programmes. The United States stated its policy of not funding any programmes facilitating abortion.
Building up towards the Cairo Conference
Population Commission as Preparatory Committee The Preparatory Committee met three times. At its first session (4-8 March 1991) the Committee set the objectives of the meeting and defined the issues to be discussed; agreed to take account of the outcomes of recent United Nations global conferences; and considered the assignment or responsibilities to United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. At its second Session (1-21 May 1993), in which observers from 185 NGOs were present, the Preparatory Committee agreed to establish a new programme of action to replace the WPPA and the Mexico recommendations to guide action on population in the next 20 years and directed the Secretariat to hold a substantive debate on the concept and structure of the proposed Recommendations of the Conference. At its third session (4-22 April 1994) the Preparatory Committee discussed the ‘Draft Final Document: Programme of Action of the Conference’ prepared by the Secretariat.
The International Conference on Population and Development
The International Conference on Population and Development was convened in Cairo, Egypt, from 5 to 13 September 1994. It was attended by 179 governmental delegations from UN Member States, 7 observers at governmental level, the European Union and several hundred NGOs. Several thousand media representatives covered the Conference.
The Conference adopted the Programme of Action, which emphasized the fundamental role of women’s interests in population matters and introduced the concepts of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. A new definition of population policy was advanced, giving prominence to reproductive health and the empowerment of women.
A series of expert meetings, has been held by the United Nations over the last 20 years. All of these involve population control and management.
13. New York Declaration (2016)
The actual text is here for the New York Declaration of 2016. Basically this is a “warm-up” to the infamous GLOBAL MIGRATION COMPACT. In fact, most of the text here appears in the 2018 UN GMC, just worded a bit differently.
Here, are the main points in the NY declaration. They were covered in a previous piece, so I won’t be going into detail here.
14. Global Migration Compact (2018)
That was also covered here, and this document is the original source material. A plan to help move some 258 million (yes, million) people from one country to another, and to enshrine new “rights” for these migrants. Of course there is the vile “OBJECTIVE 17(c)” which effectively criminalises criticism of migration and allows media outlets to be shut down.
15. Replace S. Korea Population
E. Conclusion
There is no doubt that the elderly will increase and the absolute size of the total population will decline in the future. Although the UN projected the size of net immigrants in Korea will remain constant in the future, it cannot be ensured that such maximum sizes are the most optimum in terms of the socio-economic, environmental and other factors. In other words, the criteria for projection of the numbers of net immigrants should be determined, taking into account all the factors to be included in addition to demographic factor.
However, experts agree that the change in population size and structure, specifically population ageing, will require an influx of foreign labor migrants to keep the national productivity that will help accommodate the promotion of quality of life for the whole population. Specifically, it provides an opportunity to emphasize to policy-makers that the future population policies need to be integrated with health, welfare and social security related policies.
Since the female participation in economic activity is still low in comparison with those in western countries, the policy for increasing women’s economic participation will play an important role in compensating for the expected shortage of labor, through which the support for the increasing old persons can be helped. As a matter of fact, the Korean government has made efforts to improve conditions for encouraging female’s employment; which include improvement on gender discrimination in employment and increases in compatibility of women’s work with child rearing.
The UN has been researching, among other places, South Korea. It recommends mass migration to stem the declining population, which is no surprise. Let’s get women working more, hence decreasing the amount of Korean children who are born. Of course, when the numbers drop, further replacement migration is always possible.
This report never seems to value the ethnic and cultural homogeny that S. Korea has. There is no emphasis on maintaining its identity. Instead, keep pushing for more and more replacement migration.
16. Replace The Russian Population
D. CONCLUSIONS In Russia, like in most industrial countries, the balance of births and deaths will most likely be such in the first half of the 21st century that the natural population increase will be negative. If the country’s population will continue to depend largely on the natural reproduction, it will unavoidably decrease in size and will age rapidly. These two trends might be counteracted only by an inflow of immigrants, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the volume and composition of immigration flows.
Nevertheless, Russia could unlikely avoid the arrival of large immigration inflows. On one hand, their inevitability is dictated by the internal demographic situation in Russia. While unfavorable consequences of the population aging are not so dramatic as sometimes imagined, and those actually present may be largely neutralized by economic and social policy measures, the population decrease will present Russia with a very hard choice. It should either succumb to a continuous aggravation of the already meager population / territory ratio, or to widely open its doors to immigration.
Both solutions bear unwelcome consequences, so the lesser of two evils should be chosen. On the other hand, the future developments cannot be predicted without taking into account the demographic situation outside Russia, particularly the overpopulation beyond its southern frontiers. This overpopulation together with the increasing mobility of the populations in the neighbouring countries will unavoidably produce a growing migration pressure, at least in the form of illegal migration, that will become more and more difficult to hold in check and which will compel Russia to respond with expanding the legal immigration possibilities.
As with South Korea, the UN recommends that Russia replace its population in order to “save itself”. Interestingly, the solution is never to have more local births. It is always mass migration.
17. Replace The European Populations
The analysis of recent developments in cohort fertility profiles indicates that a return of European fertility levels to, or close to, replacement level is not in the making. Even if the pace of postponement in western counties slows down or stops altogether, only a modest rise in TFRs is to be envisaged. This rise, furthermore, strongly depends on the amount of fertility recuperation at older ages (i.e. past age 30), and except for the Scandinavian countries, this recuperation has been inadequate, and strongly so in a number of large EU-countries (Spain, Italy, Germany). In Eastern and Central Europe the steep fertility decline is predominantly a feature of the 1990s, and caused by a fertility reduction in all cohorts, irrespective of the stage of family building or age. Also in these countries the degree of fertility recuperation, particularly for the post-Communist generations, will be crucial in establishing more acceptable levels of period fertility. Finally, policy measures directly aimed at influencing fertility have had clear, but only temporary effects, and also sustained policies producing sometimes large income transfers in favour of families with children have not had any substantial effects either.
The prospect of long term sub replacement fertility had to revive the issue of replacement migration sooner or later. In this respect the UN-report (2000) drew widespread media attention all over Europe, but the unfortunate feature was that the media zoomed in on the results of only one simulation, i.e. the one maintaining a constant PSR at all times till 2050. Much earlier formal demographic analysis (e.g. Blanchet, 1988) had indicated that such age structure equilibration leads to impossible outcomes, in contrast to longer term views with less stringent constraints. However, the latter still lead to record immigration intakes of over 1.0 million p.a. from 2025 onward for the EU as well as for the remainder of Europe. Moreover, the efficiency of such a replacement migration remains limited if not complemented by other measures such as the rise of labour force participation rates. The latter is particularly needed in countries, both in and outside the EU, that had a considerable reduction in male activity rates above age 50 or have a small female labour force participation expressed in full time equivalents. Finally, replacement migration into the EU needs to be directed especially toward the countries with the largest fertility deficit, including Italy and Spain who have only more recently become immigration countries. Hence, the million or so extra immigrants should by no means be spread evenly within the EU territory
In this last article, Europe is recommended to ramp up their mass migration to fulfill labour shortages. It’s always the same solution, isn’t it?
18. Thoughts On The Topic
This replacement migration plan is disturbing beyond belief. It is a globally coordinated effort to replace the host populations throughout the developed world, and to maintain control over the new ones. It reads like some plot in a children’s cartoon. However, it is actually happening.
As has been thoroughly outlined and documented on this website, the United Nations is a globalist institution aiming at world domination. Under the guise of “international cooperation”, national sovereignty has been eroded for decades.
Therefore, it is quite uplifting to see that the UN has dire financial problems. Consider this a form of schadenfreude, enjoying the misery of your enemy.
3. Data On How Many Pay Up
Year
Paid In Full
Percentage
2001
135
70%
2002
117
61%
2003
127
66%
2004
121
63%
2005
140
73%
2006
139
73%
2007
140
73%
2008
146
76%
2009
136
70%
2010
138
72%
2011
143
74%
2012
143
74%
2013
145
75%
2014
144
74%
2015
142
74%
2016
145
75%
2017
145
75%
2018
152
79%
2019
127
66%
Source is right here. However, it is a little unclear why only the people who are fully paid up are listed. Is this an attempt to shame those who aren’t paying their “fair share” to erase their sovereignty?
Note: In fairness, 2019 obviously isn’t over yet, so that 127 number could very easily change.
4. UN Posting On “Cash Crisis”
In a statement issue by his Spokesperson, the Secretary-General said he had written to Member States, “about the worst cash crisis facing the United Nations in nearly a decade. The Organization runs the risk of depleting its liquidity reserves by the end of the month and defaulting on payments to staff and vendors.”
Although 129 States out of 193 have now paid their regular annual dues, the most recent being Syria, UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told correspondents at the regular briefing in New York, others needed to pay “urgently and in full”.
“This is the only way to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally. The Secretary-General further asked governments to address the underlying reasons for the crisis and agree on measures to put the United Nations on a sound financial footing.”
As of the end of September, only 70 per cent of the total assessment for the year had been paid, versus 78 per cent this time last year. Up to 8 October, Member States have paid $1.99 billion towards the regular budget assessment for 2019, which means there is an outstanding amount of around $1.3 billion for the year, Mr. Dujarric told correspondents.
In the page, the UN warns that travel will have to be kept to a minimum, and new postings not filled. Okay, but why isn’t non-essential travel already stopped? The UN takes money from other nations with those “Carbon taxes”.
Those annual conferences on climate change involve flying in tens of thousands of people — each year — to talk about cutting emissions. The hypocrisy is astounding. Has no one ever heard of video conferencing?
Looking at all of the overhead and personnel involved in the UN, one would reasonably wonder how much of the waste can be cut. It seems like a horribly inefficient organization.
With all of the money coming in, and all of the “extra” sources of revenue starting up, where exactly is it going? Should the UN be audited by outside firms?
5. From The Reuters Article
He told the 193-member U.N. General Assembly’s budget committee that if he had not worked since January to cut spending then “we would not have had the liquidity to support” the annual gathering of world leaders last month.
Pardon the nitpicking, but I have to ask: if you are concerned about financing essential humanitarian efforts around the world, why are you wasting money with an annual world leaders gettogether? Seems like the money can be better spent than on photo-ops.
“This month, we will reach the deepest deficit of the decade. We risk … entering November without enough cash to cover payrolls,” said Guterres. “Our work and our reforms are at risk.”
The United States is the largest contributor – responsible for 22 percent of the more than $3.3 billion regular budget for 2019, which pays for work including political, humanitarian, disarmament, economic and social affairs and communications.
Yes, the U.S. contributes almost a quarter of your budget. And it does so every year.
Washington owes some $381 million for prior regular budgets and $674 million for the 2019 regular budget. The U.S. mission to the United Nations confirmed the figures.
Sure, let’s take a shot at the United States. But just a bit later in the article, Reuters provides some context for the American contributions:
“Overall the United States, as the largest contributor to the U.N., contributes roughly $10 billion annually in assessed and voluntary contributions across the United Nations system,” the official said.
U.S. President Donald Trump has said Washington is shouldering an unfair burden of the cost of the United Nations and has pushed for reforms of the world body. Guterres has been working to improve U.N. operations and cut costs.
Well, it’s true.
6. UN Still Has Jobs Postings
Very interesting. The U.N. still has job postings for 1678 positions. Rather incongruent with having such an extreme cash crunch. To be fair, however, there are likely many very old postings.
7. Where Does It Go From Here?
Yes, the UN still has job postings available. While this does look sketchy, let’s play some devil’s advocate and assume they are slow to update their website. Yes, it could be a total fraud.
Now, admittedly this is speculation.
While having the UN collapse and die off sounds appealing, it’s very unlikely that it would actually happen. it can always downsize parts of its operations and keep going. It can also raise additional cash, say by Soros or other globalists. Or it can just refuse to honour parts of its debts. Businesses and other organizations can survive a long time while being in the red financially.
This is definitely encouraging, but too soon to predict a collapse of the UN. Hopefully that day will come. National sovereignty is more important than “multilateralism”.
Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” won’t come clean on this.
CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention. CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan. CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement). CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974. CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.
Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Preventing/Punishing Genocide CLICK HERE, for review of multiculti/genocide. CLICK HERE, for Robert Putnam’s research on diversity & community.
UN Replacement Migration Schemes CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt) CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998). CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008). CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013). CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016) CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018) CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.
2. The Kalergi Plan
This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Codenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.
The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.
Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.
3. UN Convention On Genocide
Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.
Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.
4. Abstract Of Research Paper
Abstract:
We provide new measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization for about 190 countries. These measures are more comprehensive than those previously used in the economics literature and we compare our new variables with those previously used. We also revisit the question of the effects of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization on quality of institutions and growth. We partly confirm and partly modify previous results. The patterns of cross-correlations between potential explanatory variables and their divergent degree of endogeneity makes it hard to make unqualified statements about competing explanations for economic growth and the quality of government.
5. Quotes From Harvard Paper
a) On economic growth, we broadly confirm the results by Easterly and Levine (1997). In fact the negative effect of ethnic fragmentation on growth is reinforced with the new data, and we are able to highlight the differences between ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.
Here it is. These differences can be measured and contrasted.
The differences in the results between religious and linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are quite suggestive. Religious affiliation is the most endogenous of the three variables. Religions can be banned and individual can relatively easily “hide” their religious affiliation to avoid repression. Individuals and families can change from one religion to another far more easily than they can change race or language. In a sense, a higher observed measure of religious fractionalization can be a sign of a more tolerant and democratic form of government. In a more repressive regime, you can hide your religion or conform to the state-imposed religion, but hiding your racial origin, especially if it relates to skin color, is much more difficult. Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country.
(Page 13) Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country? Not really. Mass migration policies of the West do exactly that. Want to create a Chinese nation? Just import enough Chinese nationals until they dominate the area. Want an Islamic state? Import endless Muslims.
The authors are correct that it is difficult to change the ethnic composition. However, open borders activists are doing exactly that, under the guise of “diversity”.
4 The Quality of Government
One of the reasons why ethnic fractionalization may negatively influence economic success in terms of growth and level of income has to do with the potentially negative effects of ethnic conflict on the quality of policy and of institutions
No kidding. It’s almost as if forced diversity if harmful to the productivity of a nation.
5 Discussion of Individual Data Points
A cross-country statistical exercise is a crude way to summarize complex political and economic histories of countries and their constituent ethnic groups. A promising direction for future research would be for economists to do more case histories of development, economic policy, and government quality in ethnically diverse places, of the kind that the political science literature does.
How long before we start imposing more diversity as a means of generating more samples to conduct research.
The standard account of Nigeria’s ethnic conflict pits the Muslim North versus the Christian South, but this is a simplification. Firstly, the Christian South is divided between the Yoruba and Igbo. Secondly, there are substantial Southern minority groups living in Northern cities, a situation that has led to recurrent communal violence. Thirdly, fractious ethnic groups in the center of the country and in the oil-rich Niger delta keep small-scale conflict going even out of the limelight of the Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo three-way ethnic war. Table 15 shows that Nigeria has had disastrous economic policies (high black market premiums), poor infrastructure (virtually no telephone density) and high corruption.
(Page 16) Interesting how Islam is downplayed here. Muslims have been waging war for 1400 years, and millions of Christians have died because of it.
Also intriguing is the authors omit a possibility ethnic conflicts are kept from the media: perhaps the players want to keep the money rolling in, so there may be a pact to keep it on the down low.
Ethiopia also has very high ethnic and linguistic diversity (according to both new and old measures), and ethnic conflict has been at the center of Ethiopian history for centuries. Ethiopia has had one of the lowest growth rates in the world over the past half-century and as a result remains one of the least developed nations in the world
Wouldn’t this be a clear case of diversity and multiculturalism not working out?
Guyana shows up as ethnically diverse in our data because of its racial breakdown between Africans, East Indians, Europeans, and others. The Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese are the predominant groups and are almost numerically equal. Since they have mobilized politically along ethnic lines (supporting two different parties since before independence), any consensus for development has been torn apart by competition for rents between the two groups
Mobilizing along racial and ethnic lines to protect your group interests? Funny, whites are considered racist when they do that.
Chile, in contrast, is a well known Latin American success story ….. The difference in Chile was probably due to its higher level of homogeneity. In fact, after Pinochet’s departure from power the new democratic regime showed remarkable stability by Latin American standards. The relative ethnic homogeneity of the society may have made achieving support for reform and economic development easier than in Bolivia or Guyana.
In today’s lesson we learn that apples are different from oranges. Chile is seen as a success story, but it is also much more homogenous than many other places.
6 Conclusion
The question of what makes different countries more or less successful economically and what explains their quality of policies is one of the most fascinating that economists can ask, but it is also one of the most difficult to answer. Different authors have their own “favorite” explanatory variables: from purely “economic” ones, to geographic ones, to legal ones, to political, cultural, religious and historical ones. In this paper we have considered closely one such set of variables: measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.
(Page 20) Thank you Harvard, for proving that multiculturalism and diversity do not work when objectively measured.
6. Asking The Obvious Questions
This paper is from 2002, 17 years ago.
The detrimental effects of multiculturalism and forced diversity have been researched extensively, and the same trends keep coming back. People want to live and work with others who are like themselves.
One can sing the praises of diversity endlessly. Fact is, however, an awful lot of people want nothing to do with it. They prefer close knit, homogenous communities.
Despite all of this being obvious, and despite the research done, multiculturalism and diversity are still pushed in Western nations. Why is that? Why push for policies that are clearly and blatantly harmful? Is this sheer stupidity, or is there malice involved? Who is behind this push in the West?
Why is it that some nations can protect their national cultures, heritages, traditions — and yes ethnicities — but others are pressured into being diverse? Why these double standards?
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for piece on Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on sanctuary cities. CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on Islamic blasphemy laws upheld by ECHR. CLICK HERE, for previous piece on New York Declaration of 2016. CLICK HERE, for previous piece on Global Migration Compact.
CLICK HERE, for the UN admitting it has an agenda to promote the “caravans” into the US. CLICK HERE, for a Fox article on Bill for new DNA testing on so called “family units” seeking asylum at U.S./Mexico border. CLICK HERE, for HILL article on lawsuit to allow illegal immigration. CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for CBC article on Roxham Road crossings. CLICK HERE, for Epoch Times article on ICE Director Homan’s comments about sanctuary cities. CLICK HERE, for an article on Sweden conducting “age tests”. CLICK HERE, for France’s “bone tests” ruled constitutional. CLICK HERE, for France’s bone test ruling itself. CLICK HERE, for Atlantic article, ECHR upholds blasphemy conviction. CLICK HERE, for child marriage case in Germany. CLICK HERE, for NXIVM cult, Allison Mack case. CLICK HERE, for a Trudeau friend sentenced for child porn.
3. Context For This Article
Pardon the rather scattershot nature of this piece. It will cover a range of different topics all within the context of human trafficking and child exploitation. Links provided, and so will be relevant screenshots.
There will be follow up articles to come
4. Child Trafficking Across US/Mexico Border
(The UN is partially responsible for efforts to overrun the US/Mexico border)
(The UN demands the “rights” of all migrants be respected, regardless of their status. This means, regardless of whether they are in the country illegally)
(Officially, the UN condemns “smuggling of migrants”)
(Children used as props for “family units”)
Senate Republicans this week introduced a bill to implement DNA testing of migrants claiming to be part of family units — a move aimed at cracking down on child trafficking along the southern border.
Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa., introduced the End Child Trafficking Now Act that would require DNA testing to verify relationships between adult migrants and the children they claim are part of their family. The senators say it will help prevent children from being exploited by drug traffickers and gang members.
“It is horrifying that children are becoming victims of trafficking at our southern border,” Blackburn said in a statement. “By confirming a familial connection between an alien and an accompanying minor, we can determine whether the child was brought across the border by an adult with nefarious intentions. The current crisis at our border is multifaceted and requires a holistic approach. By tackling these problems piece by piece, we will get this situation under control.”
Blackburn’s office said more than 5,500 fraudulent asylum claims have been uncovered since March by the Department of Homeland Security.
The FOX article delves straight into a disturbing topic: children are being used as shields. Adults cross with children they allege are theirs, but it is a ruse to be declared a “family unit” which will lead to an easier time staying in the U.S.
The UN and George Soros are helping to facilitate packs, or “caravans” of Central American migrants into the United States. This is despite the explicit orders of Donald Trump to stay away, and the overwhelming opposition of the American public.
Of course, there is often no way to tell what the true circumstances are. is the child being “recycled”, and used to help multiple “families”? Is there smuggling going on? Are the children being physically or sexually exploited?
5. Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;
NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
There is a loophole, in that the agreement covers official ports of entry. It has been taken to mean, however, that simply bypassing those ports and crossing elsewhere means an expedited entry into Canada.
This has been covered in other articles. The point being that both Canada and the United States are safe countries, and offer generous protections to people seeking asylum. It circumvents the intent of the agreement to go “asylum shopping” and hop around. Legitimate refugees should attempt to seek asylum in the first safe country they get to.
The U.S., as noted, is a safe country. People attempting to cross into Canada illegally should immediately be turned back. Simply passing through is not an excuse. Fearing being deported (if in the U.S. illegally) is also not a valid fear of persecution.
Instead, not only has the Federal Government not done anything, they have fought outside efforts to close the loophole. More on that in another article.
6. Sanctuary Cities Mask Child Trafficking
(Thomas Homan, Acting Director of I.C.E.)
“So we can’t arrest them in the jail, we can’t arrest them at their homes because they won’t open their doors and cooperate with us because they’ve been trained not to—what option does that leave us?” Homan said. “And when you’re in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago, chances are, when you pull that car over, you’re within a block or two of a school, or a church, or a hospital.”
Homan said sanctuary cities entice more illegal aliens to enter the United States and hide out in those cities. “Sanctuary cities are alien smugglers’ best friend. You don’t think the alien smuggling organizations are using that as an enticement?”
Homan said the United States spends billions of dollars a year on border security, detention, immigration courts, attorneys, and appeals courts.
So called “sanctuary cities” are Municipalities that have decided not to cooperate with Federal officials in removing illegal aliens. People without legal status are allowed access to public services such as health care, education, library privileges, and other social services. Of course, these are services that taxpaying citizens have been contributing to.
Worth noting: many jurisdictions that have such policies are done so without any democratic mandate from the people. Objectors may be gaslighted as being racist or far-right.
In the above article, I.C.E. Director Homan raises another interesting point. Sanctuary cities are perfect targets for human smuggling. And why wouldn’t they be? police officials have been instructed not to enforce the law.
In these instances, sanctuary laws are not helping children. Instead, they are being used to provide cover to predators engaging in smuggling. Curiously, Liberals will never get into this side of it.
7. Flooding Europe With Fake Refugees
(Mass sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, by “refugees”.)
In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to open Germany’s, and by extension Europe’s borders to the world. Over 1 million people came in just the first year.
Note: she was never elected to do this, nor did she ever attempt to seek a democratic mandate. Many “refugees” repaid the kindness with acts of violence and sexual assaults towards the German people, particularly the women.
Loads of this information is readily available online, so this will be skipped over for this article.
8. Pretending To Be “Child” “Refugees”
Jamal, who arrived in Sweden in August with his 16-year-old brother, isn’t the only one who noticed some rather seasoned-looking men among the 1,000-2,000 unaccompanied minors who were arriving in Sweden each week over the summer and fall. Now, in the midst of a fierce debate over asylum policy that saw Sweden backtrack on its generous open-door position late last year, Swedes are also weighing how to treat migrants who claim to be children but lack identification.
The government and the country’s Migration Agency have long been reluctant to medically test unaccompanied minors’ ages as a standard procedure. “The government has been hoping that silence about age cheating will solve the issue,” said Johansson. But now as part of the recent reversal of its open-door asylum policy, the government is considering making age-determination tests standard practice for unaccompanied minors. The test, which involves dental and wrist-bone X-rays, can usually determine a young person’s age within a one-year margin. A Justice Ministry spokesman told Foreign Policy that a proposal is expected within the next six months.
There are also videos available on the subject. The Swedes are right though. There needs to be a crackdown.
Why pretend to be a child? A few reasons. First, children are virtually impossible to deport. This means that a minor who arrives in a Western nation (whether the child claim is genuine or not) is essentially guaranteed to remain there. Another reason is that there are more financial benefits available to children, which adults would not have access to.
9. France’s Bone Scans Ruled Legal”
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED THAT:
l. Article 388 of the Civil Code, in its formulation resulting from the aforementioned Act of 14 March 2016, stipulates:
“A minor is an individual of either sex who has not yet reached the full age of eighteen years.
“Radiological bone scans used to determine age in the absence of valid identification documents and when the alleged age does not seem to correspond, can only be carried out by decision of the judicial authority and with the consent of the party concerned.
“The conclusions of these scans, that must specify their margin of error, cannot by themselves be used to determine if the party concerned is a minor. Any doubt benefits the party concerned.
“In case of doubt as to whether the party concerned is a minor, age may be evaluated through a pubertal development exam of primary and secondary sexual characteristics.”
To be fair the language is a bit sticky when it comes to consent. However, it can reasonably be seen that a refugee claimant can have an application refused if they won’t give their consent.
10. Push For Child Marriage in Europe
“Religious or cultural justifications obscure the simple fact that older, perverse men are abusing young girls,” said Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.
Monika Michell of Terre des Femmes, a women’s rights group that campaigns against child marriage, added: “A husband cannot be the legal guardian of a child bride because he is involved in a sexual relationship with her — a very obvious conflict of interest.”
The Justice Minister of Hesse, Eva Kühne-Hörmann, asked: “If underage persons — quite rightly — are not allowed to buy a beer, why should the lawmakers allow children to make such profound decisions related to marriage?”
Others said the ruling would open the floodgates of cultural conflict in Germany, as Muslims would view it as a precedent to push for the legalization of other Islamic practices, including polygamy, in the country.
This is just one instance of efforts by Muslims to have their “marriages” overseas recognized in other countries. Typically, it is of an adult man married to an adolescent or teenage girl. Muslims predictably make cries of discrimination.
However, there is a very legitimate concern for the welfare of the child. If the girl is below the age of consent, and unable to make mature decisions, why should she be getting married? Is child sexual exploitation mitigated simply by cloaking it in religion?
On the flip side, the European Court of Human Rights is making it more difficult to criticize such acts. An Austrian woman had her “religious defamation” conviction upheld, on the grounds it would upset religious peace.
Yes, don’t bother protecting children from pedophiles and exploitation. Instead, let’s prosecute people who upset the pedophiles’ feelings. Much better approach.
11. UN Global Migration Compact Enables Smuggling
This non-binding agreement was signed by Canada back in December 2018. While touted as just a “framework”, the Compact has many chilling provisions.
OBJECTIVE 17(c) 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
So the UN GMC has provisions to “educate” media on the terminology and issues. And it also has the power to pull the funding for media it deems offensive. This is blatant censorship and propaganda, and flies in the face of a free media.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
20. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.
This really needs to be clarified. Will the UN be working with other nations to ensure that identification papers will be available? Or will the UN just go ahead and provide their own papers to people based on who they claim to be? And why would 1st world countries want to take in large numbers of people who haven’t had proper ID before?
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.
Translation: we are going to expand the number of pathways available to immigrate to another country. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of nations and people in those nations want less immigration. The U.N. believes that migration is by definition, good.
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
“Regardless of their migration status” is a euphemism for people who are in the country illegally. And this managing of borders sounds like control will be taken away from the host country. Who will be managing this integrated project? The UN?
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
Find other alternatives to custody. Presumably this also includes people in the country illegally, though that is not made clear. Does the public know that this removes any teeth the laws have to protect the citizens from crimes committed by migrants?
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
This is exactly what it sounds like. Migrants will be entitled to basic public services in another country, regardless of whether or not they are there illegally. Seems like something the host population should be deciding on (and voting on), don’t you think? Shouldn’t the public get a say in the matter at all.
12. UN GMC Immunizes Migrants For Smuggling
OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
25. We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law.
Interesting. The UN Global Migration Compact claims in Objectives 9 and 10 to want to combat human trafficking, yet states that migrants participating will not be subject to criminal penalties. Does this mean that even those who are complicit will also be immune?
13. Smugglers Posing As UN Staff?
The UN claims that smugglers are targeting vulnerable people by posing as UN staff.
The Agency says that reliable sources and refugees have reported criminals using vests and other items with logos similar to that of UNHCR, at disembarkation points and smuggling hubs.
Genuine UNHCR staff are present at official disembarkation points in Libya, providing medical and humanitarian assistance, such as food, water and clothes, to refugees and migrants.
UNHCR is opposed to the detention of refugees and migrants, but has staff monitoring the situation at Libyan detention centres, aiding and identifying the most vulnerable.
However, the Agency insists that they do not engage in the transfer of refugees from disembarkation points to detention centres. The reports of criminals impersonating UNHCR staff come as the situation for refugees and migrants detained or living in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has dramatically deteriorated.
Even is this story is true, the hypocrisy is ripe. The UN aids and abets “caravans” trying to overwhelm the Southern U.S. border. It gives information on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement to enter Canada. The UN helps flood Europe with African and Muslim migrants. Sure, the UN has nothing to do with smuggling people.
14. NXIVM Sex Cult, Mack, Raniere
According to the filed complaint, Raniere (who was known in the group as “The Vanguard”) oversaw the functioning of NXIVM, which operated under an archaic system: women were told the best way to advance was to become a “slave” watched over by “masters.”
They were expected to have sex with their “master” and do any and all menial chores they were ordered to do. They weren’t to tell anybody about the arrangement and risked public humiliation if they ever revealed details to any party.
According to a Global News article, Allison Mack has pleaded guilty to 2 charges and is expected to be sentenced later. The entire sex cult is now in the public eye, and more charges are expected.
15. Ray Chandler, Epstein, Pedophile Island
(Allegedly) Bill Clinton with Rachel Chandler at 14 years old
(Allegedly) Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts at 17 years old
The question to ask in crimes or suspicious deaths is always who would benefit from this individual’s death. It was mere coincidence, of course, that a day after a federal appeals court released formerly sealed records in a defamation suit linked to accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “madam” revealing names and a Bill Clinton party on Epstein’s sexual fantasy island, Jeffrey Epstein, on suicide watch after a previous attempt, is found dead of an apparent “suicide” in a secure facility that once safely housed Mexico drug lord “El Chapo” Guzmán.
Epstein had an island which he would take underage girls and older men to. The media fittingly dubbed it “Pedophile Island”. Since the story broke, new details keep coming to light.
Luckily for many people, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide (or was “suicided) when the Court decided to unseal documents which would have implicated other people in the conspiracy. The death is widely expected to be just another Clinton suicide. Nothing to see here, people.
16. Pedo Connected To Prime Minister
Ingvaldson was reported to have told the court “I have lost many things since being arrested in June, 2010; a marriage, a career that I loved, numerous friendships, respect in the community at large,” according to the ruling.
He was caught in 2010 during an international police sting using Facebook. At the time, RCMP said 11 members of the ring had been arrested in Canada, Australia and the U.K.
Ingvaldson had previously taught at another Vancouver private school, West Point Grey Academy, with federal Liberal leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau.
The Crown had asked for a six-month prison term and two years’ probation. For the next five years after his prison sentence he is not allowed to go to public parks, swimming pools or other areas where children under 16 are expected to be present, unless he is with another adult over 21. During that same period, he is not allowed to work or volunteer with children under 16 in a position of trust or authority.
Hardly the only pedo in Canadian political circles. He won’t be the last either.
17. Final Thoughts On Article
Yes, this could have gone on for much longer, and each topic could have been more in depth. However, this is more of an introduction to what is coming ahead. So, if the coverage seems light, that’s why.
The topic is disturbing. It’s sickening to see what people are capable of doing to each other.
But as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hopefully much more will be coming.
