Global Rebellion Against UN Mass-migration Pact Spreads
In Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, public pressure to reject the UN scheme has been growing for weeks. Last week, the Parliament even adopted a resolution urging the government to withdraw. “Slovakia is fully sovereign in defining its own national migration policy,” reads the resolution, adding that the UN Global Compact for Migration was at odds with the nation’s security and migration policy. The resolution also noted that illegal immigration is a negative phenomenon with national security risks. And so, Slovak Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini announced that he would send the objections to the UN. Bulgarian authorities also announced this week that they would reject the pact. “At this stage, the Bulgarian government believes that the decision not to join the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration protects to the fullest extent the interests of the country and its citizens,” the government press office said in a statement released on December 5.
Here in Austria, public sentiment against the UN plot — and against mass migration — is surging. Top officials have noticed, and are now standing with the people. “We view some of the points in this agreement very critically,” said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (pictured), who was elected on a platform of stopping the mass migration and standing up to the globalist EU. “We will therefore do everything to maintain the sovereignty of our country and ensure that we as the Republic of Austria can decide for ourselves on migration issues.” Vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache with the pro-liberty, anti-establishment Freedom Party offered more specifics. “It cannot … be that any formulations are adopted that could perhaps or possibly be interpreted to mean that migration can be a human right,” he said. “That can and must not be the case.”
Poland is standing firm, too. Announcing that his nation would not participate, Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak blasted the deal and the rationale behind it. “This is not a method that would make it possible to reduce the migration crisis. On the contrary, it would only intensify the crisis,” he explained, adding that Poland was working with allies to rein in the mass migration. An official statement from the Polish Interior Ministry noted that the UN agreement is “contrary to the priorities of the Polish government, which are the security of Polish citizens and maintaining control over migration flows.” Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis, who announced last month that his nation would also refuse to join, highlighted the danger of the scheme, saying, “it, in fact, defines migration as a basic human right.”
Outside of Europe, governments are waking up as well. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morris, for instance, said that the UN plot to globalize migration policy was “inconsistent” with the best interests of Australia. He also noted that it “fails to adequately distinguish between people who enter Australia illegally and those who come to Australia the right way.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed similar concerns in blasting the UN deal. “We are committed to guarding our borders against illegal migrants,” the Israeli leader said while announcing that the Jewish state would not be submitting to the UN migration pact. “This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do.”
In virtually every Western country that has not yet withdrawn, from Canada and Belgium to the Netherlands and beyond, the official opposition is rallying to stop the UN plan, too. “Canadians and Canadians alone should make decisions on who comes into our country and under what circumstances,” Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said this week, blasting Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen and far-left Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for essentially working to erase the nation’s borders. “Instead of signing international agreements that erode our sovereign right to manage our borders, the prime minister should focus on restoring order at home.’” Other lawmakers have used even more fiery rhetoric, with Conservative Michelle Rempel blasting the UN plan as a “border-erasing policy” and People’s Party chief Maxime Bernier noting that it would “normalize mass migration.” In Belgium, the government may collapse as one of its parties threatens to pull out unless the UN pact is axed. And in the Netherlands, polls show far more people oppose the UN plan than support it.
The effort to globalize immigration policy officially got off the ground in the waning days of the Obama administration at the UN’s first Summit for Refugees and Migrants. Obama, who publicly proclaimed his goal of “fundamentally transforming” America, was an enthusiastic supporter, even hosting the Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis the next day. Those events produced the UN New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and began the negotiation process for the Global Compact for Migration. And that scheme was supposed to culminate on December 12 in Marrakesh with a global agreement that would gradually restructure immigration policy around the world to facilitate an ever-larger migrant influx from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America into the United States, Canada, and European nations.
The problem for globalists, though, was that Trump refused to go along with it. The U.S. government was the first to announce its withdrawal. “Today, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration,” the U.S. mission to the United Nations announced in a press release last December, just as the process was getting underway. “The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles. As a result, President Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018.”
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who had been a supporter of the extremist UN effort, went even further after being ordered by Trump to withdraw from the scheme. “America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe, and our generosity will continue,” she said. “But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
More recently, Trump spoke out during his speech at the UN General Assembly in September. Speaking of the massive illegal immigration swamping the United States and Europe — a key vehicle that even national leaders have said is aimed at undermining nationhood and national identity — Trump called it a threat to national sovereignty, security, and prosperity. “We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same — which we are doing,” he said, adding that the U.S. government would not participate in the UN’s new “Global Compact on Migration” or other UN migration schemes. “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.” Trump also exposed the lie that re-settling migrants in the West was humanitarian, noted that far more genuine refugees could be helped closer to home for a fraction of the cost.
Globalists at the European Union were left fuming. EU “Migration Commissioner” Dimitris Avramopoulos, for example, told the German newspaper Die Welt that he did not understand the opposition to the UN agreement. The far-left Greek bureaucrat, who has come under fire from governments across the bloc for improperly purporting to speak for Europeans on the issue of migration, also claimed, falsely, that the UN agreement does not “force” anything on anyone. In reality, the deal, known as “soft law” in globalist-speak, would seek to fundamentally re-shape immigration policy to facilitate the massive influx of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans into Europe, Canada, and the United States. Avramopoulos urged European governments to “re-think” their opposition to the pact and sign on. The increasingly unhinged EU boss Jean-Claude Juncker blasted “stupid populists” and said that if they had read the UN agreement, they would not have withdrawn.
The agreement itself demands that the media be used to propagandize populations into accepting mass migration as one of the “guiding principles” of the agreement. Among other policies, it calls on governments to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting,” including “by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology.” It also calls for government to begin “investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising.” The document then goes on to target critics, saying that governments should stop the “allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants.” In other words, the UN agreement envisions governments taking an active role in weaponizing the media and turning it into a propaganda megaphone for UN policies and mass immigration.
The New American’s William F. Jasper offered a more comprehensive breakdown of the threat posed by the agreement, ranging from criminalizing dissent to enshrining totalitarian “international law” and supposed “obligations” to obey it. Perhaps not surprising, Jasper highlighted the role played by the subversive globalist “think tank” known as the Council on Foreign Relations in seeking to strip Americans and other peoples of their sovereign right to set immigration policy. In its Global Governance Working Paper entitled “Domesticating the Giant: The Global Governance of Migration,” the CFR agenda was clear. “UN member states should agree on a normative framework for the multilateral governance of migration,” the global government-promoting outfit declared. “UN member states need to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM). As the first global comprehensive agreement, the GCM sets common standards and norms for managing migration and presents the potential to improve collective response.”
The growing resistance to the globalist agenda — the mass migration and global governance in the UN pact are both key tools of this agenda — is an encouraging sign. Trump has helped peoples around the world to resist merely by speaking out and being willing to take the heat from the increasingly discredited “fake news” media. The UN and the globalist establishment is now on defense, big time. But to stop the dangerous Deep State vision of a totalitarian and border-less “New World Order” will take much more than just refusing to submit to one UN agreement. Hopefully freedom-loving peoples from around the world can capitalize on these victories. It is not too late to save liberty and Western Christian civilization. It will take hard work. But it can be done.
ER recommends other articles by The New American
Photo of President Donald Trump with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban: AP Images