U.N. Links From Article CLICK HERE, for REPLACEMENT MIGRATION Main Page. CLICK HERE, for the Cover and Preface. CLICK HERE, for Overview of the Issues. CLICK HERE, for “Conclusions and Implications”. CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt)
Other Canuck Law Articles CLICK HERE, for tracing the steps of UN population agenda. 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 mass migration at 1M/year in Canada. CLICK HERE, for migration programs in Canada. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04. CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence. CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program. CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain. CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment. CLICK HERE, for CANZUK review.
2. Cover And Preface
The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs at the United Nations Secretariat is responsible for providing the international community with up to-date and scientifically objective information on population and development. The Population Division provides guidance to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Population and Development on population and development issues. The Division undertakes regular studies on population levels and trends, population estimates and projections, population policies and the interrelationships between population and development.
In particular, the Population Division is concerned with the following substantive areas: patterns of mortality, fertility and international and internal migration, including levels and trends, their causes and consequences, and socio-economic, geographic and gender differentials; spatial distribution of population between urban and rural areas and among cities; estimates and projections of population size, age and sex structure, spatial distribution and demographic indicators for all countries of the world; population and development policies at the national and international levels; and the relationship between socio-economic development and population change.
Does this not strike anyone as strange? A global body collecting information on population, and making recommendations about how to “correct” the issues.
There is far too much research being done for this simply to be a passing interest, or academic exercise.
Spoiler: these U.N. reports never make recommendations that a nation increase its birth rate. Nor do they think that some decline is okay. The solution is always the same — mass migration, from the 3rd World to the 1st World.
3. Overview Of The Issues
As part of its regular work programme, the United Nations Population Division continuously monitors fertility, mortality and migration trends for all countries of the world, as a basis for producing the official United Nations population estimates and projections. Among the demographic trends revealed by those figures, two are particularly salient: population decline and population ageing.
Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the present study addresses the question of whether replacement migration is a solution to population decline and population ageing. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in the size of population and declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population.
Eight countries and two regions that are treated as individual countries have been selected for this study. All of them are relatively large countries that have below-replacement fertility. The countries and regions are France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Europe and the European Union. Through the technique of population projection, calculations are made of the amount of replacement migration that would be necessary for each of the eight countries and two regions to offset the expected declines in the size of the total population and working-age population, as well as to offset the overall ageing of the population.
Straight from the horse’s mouth. The goal is to study population trends and make recommendations about how much replacement migration will be needed.
The U.N. isn’t focused on higher local birth rates, or admitting that some decline isn’t that bad. Instead, the solution is always the same: REPLACEMENT MIGRATION.
4. Literature Review
in theory, two possible ways of retarding or reversing demographic ageing. First, a reversal of declines of fertility would lead the age structure of the population back towards a younger one, thus slowing down the ageing process. However, the recent experience of low-fertility countries suggests that there is no reason to assume that their fertility will return anytime soon to the above-replacement level (United Nations, 2000c; Lutz, 2000). Although Governments in those countries have introduced, instead of explicit pronatalist policies, a variety of social welfare measures favourable for higher fertility (Demeny, 2000), the long-term effectiveness of such measures is often called into question.
Hence, as a second option, the potential role that international migration could play in offsetting population decline and population ageing has been considered. International migration has become a salient global phenomena in recent years, with a growing number of countries being involved as sending or receiving countries, or both. Given the possibility of attracting larger numbers of immigrants into affluent developed economies, virtually all of which are experiencing low fertility, it appears appropriate to consider the impact that international migration may have on the demographic challenges of ageing. In formulating migration policy, it is also likely that the demand for demographic considerations will increase, as the rapid ageing process in those countries can give rise to rigidities in the labour market and social security (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1991).
Yes, don’t even both trying to boost local birth rates. Instead, import a replacement population instead. The U.N. talks about “age” often, yet rarely mentions race, culture or ethnicity. Why? Because unique racial, ethnic, or cultural identities are not important. It is all about the numbers, and erasing those differences. It is in fact the Kalergi Plan in action
5. Conclusions And Implication
V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The present study focuses on the question of whether replacement migration is a solution to population decline and population ageing. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in the size of a population, and declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population.
The present study investigates the possible effects of international migration on the population size and age structure of a range of countries that have in common a fertility pattern below the replacement level. In the absence of migration, all countries with fertility below replacement level will see their population size start declining at some point of time in the near future, if this is not already the case today. In some countries, the projected declines in population size during the first half of the twenty-first century are as high as one quarter or one third of the entire population of the country.
Finally, the new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include (a) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and healthcare benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants. In this context, it should be noted that immigrants to one country are emigrants from another country. As such, international migration must be seen as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries. While orderly international migration can provide countries of origin with remittances and facilitate the transfer of skills and technology, it also may entail the loss of needed human resources. Similarly, international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions. Effective international migration policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin
Forcibly trying to remake a society is genocide. Despite having specific rules against it, the multicultural and mass migration policies the U.N. advocates are a form of genocide against the host nations.
Interesting how assimilation is just ONE OF the factors and not the main one. Research into forced diversity has been extensively conducted, and it has shown that multicultural and multiethnic societies are not cohesive.
The topic of remittances has been addressed before. People enter a nation, often of a “temporary” nature, as it is supposed to aid economic growth. The problem is when large amounts of workers’ take home pay is actually sent out of the country to provide for relatives. From the host country’s point of view, it actually drains money.
The conclusion talks about the cultural and political changes that take place as a result of replacement migration. While this is true, it’s not mentioned that it can frequently be a bad thing. Nothing dilutes host culture faster than having a “replacement” grow and eventually overtake it.
Also, the hypocrisy should be noted. The U.N. sees fit to implement various Carbon tax schemes, yet sees nothing wrong with importing large numbers of people from a low-consumption environment to a much higher-consumption one.
6. We Must Find Another Way
The U.N. constantly pushes mass migration and replacement migration. Why? Because it is used to forcibly change the fabric of society. In short, replacing the population means that you eventually change the nation. A country “is” its people. It is far more than just a piece of land and some laws.
Meet Viktor Orban, Hungarian Prime Minister. He introduces a policy get women to have more children. Hungary, facing a population decline of its own, has decided replacing its population is not the answer. Instead, they will try to grow organically.
“We don’t need numbers. We need Hungarian children.”
That is the kind of attitude that we need to see more of. A leader who thinks not just in terms of overall numbers, but who values a cohesive society. It is not bigotry to want to preserve your identity. However, Orban is vilified by those who seek to eliminate actual Hungarians.
(Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)
1. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.
Major findings of this report include:
— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.
— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.
– 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000
— Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.
— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.
— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.
— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.
— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.
— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,
– 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000
in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.
3. The Hungarian Alternative
Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.
By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.
Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.
Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.
4. Conservatism & Libertarianism Fail
In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.
Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.
(The U.N. admits it helps “migrants”, regardless of their legal status)
(Mastercard and MercyCorps)
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
Of course, CBC promoting globalism is nothing new. Here is a recent cover of a “non-profit” calling itself Century Initiative. Their goal was to boost Canada’s population to 100 million people by the year 2100. Of course, logistical details, or incompatibility of cultures is not discussed.
On November 23, Jonathon Gatehouse of CBC released this article. It contained a story whining about how Europe enforcing its borders was putting migrant lives in danger.
The present article is extremely biased and one sided. It takes issue with Europe protecting its own borders, and denying unending immigration from the third world. It is amazing how an article can both be factually accurate, yet so completely miss the point. CBC is being extremely selective in what information is presents.
Throughout the article, Gatehouse repeatedly implies that these migrants have the right to reach Europe and live there. The right of European Nations to defend their borders is mention is looked down upon. Let’s go through the article:
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
What CBC leaves out is that these are “ILLEGAL” migrants, who do not have permission to enter Europe, let along live there. This point is omitted throughout the article.
“The European Union’s success in cutting deals to close off the sea routes from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya to Italy, has resulted in an overall drop in the number of migrants arriving on the continent — 128,265 so far this year, compared to almost 187,000 in 2017, and 390,000 in 2016.
Some are now even arriving in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago 100 kilometres off the Moroccan coast. At least 36 migrants have died trying to make that crossing in 2018, compared to one the year befoore”
The European Union is not trying to cut off one route for the sake of being a jerk. They are genuinely trying to control their borders with this move. Migrants are trying circumvent this by finding other ways to get into Europe.
“Yet despite the concerns over the rising death toll, many European nations seem focused on enacting even tougher anti-migrant policies.
This week, prosecutors in Sicily moved to seize a migrant rescue vessel operated by Medecins Sans Frontières and another aid organization, accusing the groups of illegally dumping of 24 tonnes of “potentially toxic waste” during stops in Italian ports.”
Gatehouse seems to miss the point of this entirely. European nations are sick of mass illegal immigration and are trying to stop it. If migrants are endangering themselves by finding innovative ways to break immigration laws, then it is not the responsibility of said nations to provide assistance. There is no obligation to aid law-breakers.
“And soon, Italy’s parliament will vote on a new immigration law proposed by the populist government that will remove humanitarian protections for migrants and block asylum seekers from accessing services. These are moves that UN human rights experts have said will “certainly” violate international law.”
Gatehouse omits the key detail that these new laws are meant for ILLEGAL immigrants. He seems to think that just showing up against Italy’s will entitles people to free benefits.
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
Actually, the EU and UN do provide financial assistance for migrants, regardless of their legal status. See this page, from the U.N. website, regarding the “caravan” demanding access to the U.S. See this previous article. Handing out prepaid credit cards to finance “migration” actually is happening.
“Anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably on the rise in Europe.
This week, the Guardian newspaper crunched the voting results from 31 European elections over the past 20 years. It found that populist parties have tripled their support and managed to put their leaders into positions of power within 11 different governments.”
This is true, although Gatehouse bypasses the fact that mass, illegal and uncontrolled immigration directly leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and policies. Throughout the article, there is no mention of European nations having the right to decide for themselves who enters their borders.
“”I [Hillary Clinton] admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”
To date in 2018, 2,075 migrants have drowned or gone missing while crossing the Mediterranean.”
This quote is accurate. However, the connection seems to be lost on the author. And while 2075 may have died, they were trying to get into Europe ILLEGALLY. This is a point Gatehouse avoids altogether. Why should Europe assist those trying to break their laws?
This is a theme in the entire article: that these migrants have a “right” to enter Europe, and that Europe is causing a humanitarian crisis by not assisting them.
However, Gatehouse does deserve credit for one thing: not once does he refer to them as “refugees”. he acknowledges that they are migrants looking for a better life.
And apparently, financing for this has largely come from George Soros. Not as a humanitarian venture, but as a business venture. See here, and there are many other articles available online.
The 20,000 refugees (mostly military aged men) in the above article were not trying to seek refuge in Croatia. It was merely a transition point, as they wanted to get to Germany or Northern Europe. Those countries have more generous welfare.
This actually does answer a big question. People had been wondering why all of these so-called ”refugees” all had new clothes, phones, and looked so well cared for. The invasions had been paid for by credit cards.
The U.N., starting on this page, does answer at least 5 more questions.
First, the U.N. is directly responsible for aiding and abetting the 7,000 strong migrant ”caravan” travelling from Honduras to Guatemala to Mexico, with the intention of demanding access to the United States. This was covered in this article.
Second, the U.N. knows full well that these ”refugees” are attempting to enter illegally, and in essence, overwhelm the host country. More to the point, the U.N. doesn’t care.
The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.
All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico
Third, one of the U.N.’s directives is ensuring that people have some form of identity documents, and getting them issued from the host country. While this sounds great at first, keep in mind the U.N. doesn’t care if the people it moves around are actual refugees. So the U.N. likely wouldn’t put much effort into determining if they are getting identity documents for who the people really are.
Fourth, the U.N. makes it clear that they support fraudulent cases. A refugee is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country, not shop around.
Fifth, and most importantly, the U.N. demonstrates repeatedly that it does not respect national borders. That could not be more clear with the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. is an enemy to the individual nation states, the same way the E.U. is an enemy to European nation states.
Send tens of thousands of men to completely different cultures, with: (a) new clothes and phones; (b) fake I.D.; (c) prepaid credit cards. What could possibly go wrong?
But hey, nothing like Trudeau style gender quotas, because it’s 2018.
However, while the above article is bad. Here is some good news. More and more countries are refusing to endorse the U.N. Global Compact for Migration. Once again, the U.N. doesn’t get it.
(Paris, the last time there was a ”European Army”)
(Macron, lobbying last year for a single European (1) army; (2) budget; (3) tax structure)
(Macron admits France would have voted to leave EU if referendum held)
Where to begin with this one? French President, Emmanuel Macron is calling for the formation of a European Army, to protect Europe from the U.S., Russia and China. He also calls out rising nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe, such as with Hungary and Poland.
Aside from the the arrogant tone Macron has, there are a number of flaws with this move. I am tempted to classify it as ”satire”.
(1) Macron completely whitewashes France’s history as an imperialistic and colonising power.
(2) The U.S. and Russia helped defend France from a German invasion in World War I (1914-1918).
(3) The U.S. and Russia (the Soviet Union) defeated Hitler and the German army, in World War II (1939-1945). Incidently, France has surrendered after just 6 weeks.
(4) From 1945 to 1989, the U.S. presence kept the Soviet Union from pushing further into Europe. Macron seems to forget about NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which both the U.S. and France are part of.
(5) Macron is not the first arrogant French President in this type of case. Charles de Gaulle was a constant embarrassment, and eventually forced NATO headquarters to be removed from Paris, and relocated in Brussels, Belgium.
(6) Macron omits that the U.S. has had tens of thousands of troops in Europe for decades, and could have conquered France at any time.
(7) Macron omits that European nations gutted their military budgets in the 1990s, to focus on social spending.
(8) Macron denigrades ”nationalists”, but those leaders, like Viktor Orban in Hungary are actually very popular. Macron is the one acting against his people’s wishes.
So what is the real motivation for the army? Is it to stamp out any anti-EU factions? Is it to ”expand EU influence” into other regions? Macron is not Napoleon, and France is no longer a military power. Get real.
This agreement, though it sounds harmless enough, should send chills down the spine of anyone who values having a nation, and a national identity.
For some perspective, the European Union, (E.U.) decided to impose migrant quotas on memberstates, with or without their consent. Last September, the European Court of Justice rejected challenges brought by Hungary and Slovakia. Poland and now Hungarynow face the loss of voting rights. The E.U. will punish member states who dare to act in accordance with their constituents’ wishes
Victor Oraban of Hungary has become a de facto leader of defending nation’s rights in Europe. See here, see here, and see here.
For those of you interested in the topic of nationalism, Steve Turley is a YouTuber and conservative author I frequently watch, and here is a review of one of his latest books. Check him out.
As for the UN Global Compact on Migration, it would in essence be the global version of what the E.U. is already doing to Europe. Member states are having their arms twisted and threatened with loss of voting rights and other sanctions for not complying.
This is in fact referring to hundreds of millions.
Today, there are over 258 million migrants around the world living outside their country of birth. This figure is expected to grow for a number of reasons including population growth, increasing connectivity, trade, rising inequality, demographic imbalances and climate change. Migration provides immense opportunity and benefits – for the migrants, host communities and communities of origin. However, when poorly regulated it can create significant challenges. These challenges include overwhelming social infrastructures with the unexpected arrival of large numbers of people and the deaths of migrants undertaking dangerous journeys.
The full text of the agreement is about 34 pages. It lists 16 ”preambles”, and a further 23 ”objectives”. Here are a few:
4. Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times. However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law. This Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.
On the surface this sounds harmless enough. But remember, Trudeau (with Conservative support) is for letting people stay in the country, even if they sneak in under false pretenses. Remember, you get a hearing as long as you ”claim” to be a refugee.
7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on thencommitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and
Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.
At least on paper, this is an improvement over the E.U. migrant quota scheme (which punishes dissent). However, we will see how ”voluntary” it really is.
11. This Global Compact offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that
a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination. No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own. With this comprehensive approach, we aim to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, while reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration through international cooperation and a combination of measures put forward in this GlobalCompact.
The UN document is using the same dishonest language of ”irregular migrants”. They are illegal immigrants, and border hoppers. I also don’t like when it says that no country can address the problem on its own.
National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law.
Again, referring to ”illegal aliens” as ”irregular migrants”. This manipulation of language is infuriating. Reiterating that this is voluntary, but it will be interesting to see how much pressure is applied later.
OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies
17. We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data.
This sounds creepy and Orwellian. Will nations be forced to give up personal data to international agencies? See the last article here.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate
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.
The wording of this is troubling. How exactly will the UN help people gain identification? Will they take them at their word? Also, does this document refer to migration as a human right?
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 implementborder 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.
Arguably the worst of them all. ”Manage borders in an integrated manner”? This would destroy national sovereignty.
Okay, here is the full list of the 23 objectives:
Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
This global compact will undermine if not destroy what it means to be a nation.
If Canada (or any other nation) has to coordinate or integrate its border policies with the United Nations, then we don’t have borders.
Further, while under the pretense of ”helping refugees” the UN seems to want to have a say in how national migration policies IN GENERAL are handled.
Side Note: See here for a piece on ID requirements to vote in some Common Law countries. It is true.
Overall, the UN Global Compact for Migration is a frightening agreement. Anyone who values the sovereignty and independence of their country should be aware of, and opposed to this.