Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer has come out swinging against a new United Nations immigration treaty that the Trudeau government will sign next week.
"Canadians want their government, not foreign entities, to be in control of our immigration system, a system that is orderly, compassionate and fair," said Scheer on Tuesday.
This is exactly right.
The UN Migration Compact is a highly controversial document, riddled with contradictions and radical claims. While many journalists accept Liberal talking points on the banality of this treaty, a close reading of the document exposes the many problems it contains.
The document promises it is "not legally binding" and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN's efforts and implement its suggestions at home.
The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law.
The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the "well-being of migrants", including illegal immigrants, must come first.
But what about the existing citizens of a country?
What about our families, our communities, our culture and traditions? What about our rules, our laws, our safety and security? What about the costs, the impact on our schools, our hospitals, our roads and our tax dollars?
The UN treaty doesn't so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.
The contradictions continue.
The treaty insists that governments must provide "access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration." That sounds good. Citizens should know about the harms and dangers associated with mass migration, as well as the potential advantages and benefits.
But wait, the sentence continues to say, "with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants."
You can either commit to telling the truth and objectively studying the issue of immigration, or, you can commit to dispelling negative perceptions about migrants.
You cannot honestly say you're doing both at the same time.
Finally, the most controversial section of this UN compact is Objective 17, which is to "eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration."
It pledges to "eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants" — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today's heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn't subscribe to Liberal dogma on immigration and multiculturalism.
It instructs governments to implement laws and harsher penalties for crimes against migrants but says nothing about crimes committed by migrants.
And, most controversially, it calls on governments to intervene in the media, to promote positive stories about migrants and to cut off media outlets that tell the other side of the story.
While outlining these Orwellian guidelines for media censorship and government intervention in the free press, the compact throws in a line about "respecting freedom of expression" and "freedom for the media." As if that's any consolation for calls to punish journalists for reporting facts and telling the truth.
Canadians should join Andrew Scheer in rejecting this radical global scheme that undermines Canadian laws and traditions while pushing for mass migration and open borders.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-the-details-are-truly-worrisome
I know very little about this. But, if the UN is behind it and Trudeau won't is on board with it, it immediately raises suspicions with me
When it comes to Canada's border woes, the last thing we need is sign onto a united Nations deal that will only further complicates our current mess.
Yet that's just what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is planning to do later this month in Morocco when he signs on to something called the un Global Compact on Migration.
It's an international agreement that will see countries cooperate to deal with the movement of migrants around the world.
We are, to put it mildly, skeptical of deals like this. The un Human Rights Council seems to do more to shield human rights abuses than it does solve problems. And all the Paris climate deal has given Canada so far is the unpopular carbon tax.
There are few reasons to believe this new deal on migration will make things better and many reasons to believe it will worsen our border woes.
One big worry is that Canada will be pressured into accepting a volume of refugees or economic migrants that is not based on what's best for us but based on what the international community demands of us, that it will obscure the line between immigrants and migrants.
Policies that deliver responsible immigration and integration should be determined by sovereign states, not by international bodies.
"Canadians must be in control of their borders and have full sovereignty over their immigration system, and refuse to allow the government to continue to cede this control to authorities beyond our borders," a Conservative motion calling on the government to reject the compact reads in part. (It was rejected by the Liberals Wednesday afternoon.)
It would be great if this compact resulted in a sharing of best practices that strengthened Canada's immigration system, but currently there is no real plan or funding to care for those who have already crossed our borders.
The united States has a mess on their southern border that's tearing at their social fabric. Europe has no handle on their borders right now.
And while it's true that Canada has until very recently had an immigration system that's the envy of the world, we now have little control over the 20,000 people a year crossing illegally over our border.
Before Canada makes further commitments, we need to fix and fund our refugee system here.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer has come out swinging against a new United Nations immigration treaty that the Trudeau government will sign next week.
"Canadians want their government, not foreign entities, to be in control of our immigration system, a system that is orderly, compassionate and fair," said Scheer on Tuesday.
This is exactly right.
The UN Migration Compact is a highly controversial document, riddled with contradictions and radical claims. While many journalists accept Liberal talking points on the banality of this treaty, a close reading of the document exposes the many problems it contains.
The document promises it is "not legally binding" and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN's efforts and implement its suggestions at home.
The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law.
The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the "well-being of migrants", including illegal immigrants, must come first.
But what about the existing citizens of a country?
What about our families, our communities, our culture and traditions? What about our rules, our laws, our safety and security? What about the costs, the impact on our schools, our hospitals, our roads and our tax dollars?
The UN treaty doesn't so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.
The contradictions continue.
The treaty insists that governments must provide "access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration." That sounds good. Citizens should know about the harms and dangers associated with mass migration, as well as the potential advantages and benefits.
But wait, the sentence continues to say, "with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants."
You can either commit to telling the truth and objectively studying the issue of immigration, or, you can commit to dispelling negative perceptions about migrants.
You cannot honestly say you're doing both at the same time.
Finally, the most controversial section of this UN compact is Objective 17, which is to "eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration."
It pledges to "eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants" — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today's heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn't subscribe to Liberal dogma on immigration and multiculturalism.
It instructs governments to implement laws and harsher penalties for crimes against migrants but says nothing about crimes committed by migrants.
And, most controversially, it calls on governments to intervene in the media, to promote positive stories about migrants and to cut off media outlets that tell the other side of the story.
While outlining these Orwellian guidelines for media censorship and government intervention in the free press, the compact throws in a line about "respecting freedom of expression" and "freedom for the media." As if that's any consolation for calls to punish journalists for reporting facts and telling the truth.
Canadians should join Andrew Scheer in rejecting this radical global scheme that undermines Canadian laws and traditions while pushing for mass migration and open borders.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-the-details-are-truly-worrisome
I know very little about this. But, if the UN is behind it and Trudeau won't is on board with it, it immediately raises suspicions with me
I haven't looked at the details of this agreement too closely either Seoul..
But, I've never seen this prime minister do anything but harm working families like mine, so I can understand your suspicions.
This Migration Compact will further erode free speech. I am glad Netanyahu didn't sign on to this. I am not surprised Trudeau did though.
Australia did not sign.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Australia still believes Australians and not the UN should decide what speech is permissible.
Yeah.
We're racists.
Quote
As they should.
Quote
What Justine will do.
This is subversion by countries who are happy for their people to leave and go to another country, and so ease the burden on their own bankrupt governments.
The author of this nonsense should be brought before a public forum and made to justify and explain his demands.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
The author of this nonsense should be brought before a public forum and made to justify and explain his demands.
I am just starting to look at the details of it now.
the UN Migration Compact Objective 17 basically codifies the formerly "toothless" M-103 into law
Quote
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-opposition-protests-and-a-petition-against-the-un-migration-pact
According to this
[size=150]Canada plans to "lead the charge" on the UN's global refugee plan[/size]
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-opposition-protests-and-a-petition-against-the-un-migration-pact
if you don't like what your government does re immigration you will no longer be able to say so without being punished. This is anti-free speech and anti-democracy--This is what tyranny looks like.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-opposition-protests-and-a-petition-against-the-un-migration-pact
According to this
I can't vote yet in Canada, but if I could it would not be for Trudeau.
I don't understand why Canadians put up with him putting Paris and the UN ahead of the interests of the people who elected him. Israelis would demand Netanyahu resign if he governed like a globalist infiltrator.
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-opposition-protests-and-a-petition-against-the-un-migration-pact
According to this
I can't vote yet in Canada, but if I could it would not be for Trudeau.
I don't understand why Canadians put up with him putting Paris and the UN ahead of the interests of the people who elected him. Israelis would demand Netanyahu resign if he governed like a globalist infiltrator.
Israelis, at least most of them, know in a small country surrounded by enemies they cannot afford to play around. Other places the danger is less obvious.
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-opposition-protests-and-a-petition-against-the-un-migration-pact
According to this
I can't vote yet in Canada, but if I could it would not be for Trudeau.
I don't understand why Canadians put up with him putting Paris and the UN ahead of the interests of the people who elected him. Israelis would demand Netanyahu resign if he governed like a globalist infiltrator.
If a Meretz led coalition won an election in Israel and governed like Trudeau, that would be tantamount to our nation's surrender.
It is only a political declaration, but there can be little doubt the Trudeau regime will try to make it legal after the next election. And there lies any problem with it.
Infringes on our sovereignty
By Brian Lilley
All it took to get Canada's media talking heads to notice the United Nations Global Compact for Migration was for Andrew Scheer to say something about it.
Then, they started fact checking him.
A search of CBC'S website showed no coverage from a Canadian point -of-view about the compact until this week. They had some stories about Germany and Austria debating the issue but nothing about Canada.Then, Scheer said he was against the compact and a Conservative government would not sign on. Suddenly, Canadian media outlets were interested in this international agreement.
It is an odd habit of the media that cover Parliament Hill, they seem to put more effort into fact checking the leader of the opposition, the guy not in power, than the prime minister.
Soon, a former Harper-era cabinet minister was found to dispute Scheer and CBC and the rest of the Laurentian elites were off.
Campbell Clark at the Globe and Mail is claiming that opposition to this treaty is all about anti-immigrant right-wingers fanning flames.
Like CBC, and others, Clark points to a tweet by former Harper Immigration minister Chris Alexander as proof Scheer is wrong.
Nothing like showing a fight between Conservatives while ignoring the actual issue, the actual document. So let's back up a bit.
What did Scheer say that got the media so incensed that they finally paid attention to this agreement Canada will sign onto next week?
"What we're saying today is that by signing on this compact that our sovereignty to make those decisions ourselves as a country will be eroded," Scheer said.
Not true said the media, and Alexander!
"Scheer's statement is factually incorrect: this Compact is a political declaration, not a legally binding treaty: it has no impact on our sovereignty," Alexander tweeted.
Well, Scheer said it will be eroded. He didn't say it would end.
All treaties, all international agreements, erode sovereignty to a degree and some are more welcome than others.
Does Scheer have a point? Absolutely — one he explained in his news conference.
"There's many examples where agreements and pacts and accords signed onto are used as justifications for rulings in our own courts," Scheer said.
On this, he is absolutely correct. And don't think a judge here in Canada won't look to the text of the agreement and say Canada must do more to implement it.
The compact calls several times for signatories to change their laws such as when it says countries should "determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact."
This agreement doesn't, as some claim, give everyone in the world the right to immigrate to Canada but it does spend a lot of time talking about rights.
"Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times," the document reads.
How will an activist judge interpret that clause in the future?
Or what about the calls for governments to re-educate the media?
"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," the agreement says.
Will criticizing illegal border crossers in the media be problematic in the future? Especially as Trudeau moves forward with his multi-million dollar media bailout?
Supporters of the deal in the media say it means nothing and changes nothing.
If that is the case, why sign it? Supporters of the deal in the government say the agreement has "ambitious goals" and is "full of promise." So which is it?
As countries across Europe walk away from the deal, as Australia already has, perhaps it is time for Canada to reconsider.
We have a long and proud history on immigration and protection of refugees. Some problems in the past, yes, but we have nothing to learn from the UN.
Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives have raised legitimate concerns and Trudeau has replied with claims of racism and xenophobia.
Canadians shouldn't listen to that, they should look to the facts.
And the facts say Canada should step away from the Global Compact.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-opposition-protests-and-a-petition-against-the-un-migration-pact
According to this
While I think we take in too many immigrants every year, we had a system that worked. We took in the third world's best and brightest. Trudeau raised the cap on immigrants and is moving away from skilled migrants that benefit this country to family class and refugees who are pure charity.
Expect to learn that "Little Italy" in your neighbourhood will now turn into "Little Eritrea" under UN plans for current global migration patterns... Of course our PM is willing to sign on.
More about the UN Migration Compact. It' s the possible effect on free speech that has me concerned. I realize it's voluntary, but when Trudeau is re-elected he will use the voluntary agreement as a justification for making it law.
The Trudeau government and the mainstream media are not telling the truth about the UN Global Compact for Migration.
Both are casting opposition to the UN agreement as conspiratorial, far-right, and even racist, while leaving out important facts and details about the compact.
Trudeau's top aide Gerald Butts — sometimes referred to as the co-prime minister, because apparently he does the behind-the-scenes heavy lifting — led the attacks this week.
The ad quoted Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer saying, "Canadians and Canadians alone should make decisions on who comes into our country and under what circumstances. Not the UN."
In response, Butts scolded the Conservatives and unleashed a deranged criticism. "This is a flat-out lie being spread by the far-right in Europe, the alt-right in North America, and now the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada."
This story line appeared throughout the mainstream media.
Many journalists chose to leave out the fact that the UN compact is being met with heavy opposition throughout the Western world.
According to a Canadian Press news article, "almost all UN member states are poised to sign it, except the United States and Hungary."
Other journalists have echoed this talking point, stating that only a small handful of countries — all run my right-wing populist governments — are opposed to the migration compact.
It is this claim that is flat out untrue.
In the U.S., both Republicans and Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, oppose the deal. It was Clinton herself who helped popularize the term "alt-right" — referring to both internet pranksters and racist white nationalists who have been excommunicated from the conservative movement.
Mainstream conservative voices in Canada, including Maxime Bernier, Michelle Rempel and Danielle Smith all oppose signing the UN compact.
And as for "far-right" opposition in Europe? Austria, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and even neutral Switzerland have all backed out of the compact.
In Latvia, the country's government held a debate and a vote on the issue, ultimately deciding not to sign the UN compact. That's what a democracy is supposed to look like.
Outside of Europe, Australia, Israel and Japan have backed out of the deal, while New Zealand is engaged in a public debate and leaning towards not signing the compact.
In other words, a growing plurality of refugee-receiving countries have chosen to reject the UN Compact for Migration.
Why? Well, according to Australia's public safety Minister Peter Dutton, Australia is not willing to "sign a deal that sacrifices anything in terms of border protection policies."
"We're not going to surrender our sovereignty — I'm not going to allow unelected bodies to dictate to us, to the Australian people."
Where's Gerald Butts to call him a far-right racist? Unlike the citizens of most Western countries, Canadians have not been told the truth or been given a chance to debate the issue.
Instead of having an honest discussion about how the UN scheme will affect our immigration system and our democracy, Trudeau and his cadre of government-funded journalists have pushed lies and bullied Canadians.
The Trudeau government will ratify the UN compact on Tuesday in Morocco, signing away aspects of Canadian sovereignty without so much as an honest public debate.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-opposition-to-the-un-migrant-compact-is-broad-and-far-reaching
Did Odinson's country sign on to this? I would imagine they did. NW Europe is globalist.
Actually, that was the model which was followed during the last Syrian refugee crisis.
People were muzzled from stating their own viewpoints which contradicted the staus quo.
And the mainstream media fell in lockstep to tow the party line of what the establishment asked them to print.
Former PM Stephen Harper was vilified for being anti refugee even tho he pledged to accept 20,000 Syrian refugees. But that wasn't good enough for the establishment even tho Harper's revised pledge far exceeded the 7,000 or so the UN initially requested that Canada accept.
I think there is some truth that the UN or certain individuals/groups within it don't want sovereign nations to have independent control over their immigration policies.
Britain is another nation which was vilified for pulling out of the EU largely over the issue of refugees.
The British accepted over 300,000 Syrians for resettlement as a member of the EU
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer has come out swinging against a new United Nations immigration treaty that the Trudeau government will sign next week.
"Canadians want their government, not foreign entities, to be in control of our immigration system, a system that is orderly, compassionate and fair," said Scheer on Tuesday.
This is exactly right.
The UN Migration Compact is a highly controversial document, riddled with contradictions and radical claims. While many journalists accept Liberal talking points on the banality of this treaty, a close reading of the document exposes the many problems it contains.
The document promises it is "not legally binding" and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN's efforts and implement its suggestions at home.
The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law.
The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the "well-being of migrants", including illegal immigrants, must come first.
But what about the existing citizens of a country?
What about our families, our communities, our culture and traditions? What about our rules, our laws, our safety and security? What about the costs, the impact on our schools, our hospitals, our roads and our tax dollars?
The UN treaty doesn't so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.
The contradictions continue.
The treaty insists that governments must provide "access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration." That sounds good. Citizens should know about the harms and dangers associated with mass migration, as well as the potential advantages and benefits.
But wait, the sentence continues to say, "with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants."
You can either commit to telling the truth and objectively studying the issue of immigration, or, you can commit to dispelling negative perceptions about migrants.
You cannot honestly say you're doing both at the same time.
Finally, the most controversial section of this UN compact is Objective 17, which is to "eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration."
It pledges to "eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants" — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today's heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn't subscribe to Liberal dogma on immigration and multiculturalism.
It instructs governments to implement laws and harsher penalties for crimes against migrants but says nothing about crimes committed by migrants.
And, most controversially, it calls on governments to intervene in the media, to promote positive stories about migrants and to cut off media outlets that tell the other side of the story.
While outlining these Orwellian guidelines for media censorship and government intervention in the free press, the compact throws in a line about "respecting freedom of expression" and "freedom for the media." As if that's any consolation for calls to punish journalists for reporting facts and telling the truth.
Canadians should join Andrew Scheer in rejecting this radical global scheme that undermines Canadian laws and traditions while pushing for mass migration and open borders.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-the-details-are-truly-worrisome
I know very little about this. But, if the UN is behind it and Trudeau won't is on board with it, it immediately raises suspicions with me
The more I read about this, the more I think it's a bad idea for Canada. If Trudeau endorses it, it has to be bad for Canadians.
UN Global Compact on migration a type of Trojan horse
The danger of the Global Compact on migration, which international delegates will sign next week in Marrakesh, Morocco, is not that it will enable some clandestine international bureaucracy or judiciary to dictate immigration policy over the objections of sovereign states. It's that it will enable "progressives" within each nation's government to liberalize domestic refugee and immigration laws using the excuse that the UN made us do it.
The United Nations has no real ability to force any of its treaties, accords, conventions or compacts on individual nations. There are no black helicopters of conspiracy fame. Outside the western world, countries sign UN agreements all the time then promptly ignore them.
The UN could decree tomorrow that no country — Canada included — could deny entry by any foreigner on any grounds. And Canada could ignore that edict, so long as Ottawa had the courage to withstand criticism from the forces of political correctness.
There has been a 20% rise in refugees and migrants around the world in the past five years; 277 million last year, up from 232 million in 2013.
The Global Compact claims all it wishes to do is "foster international co-operation among all relevant actors on migration" while upholding "the sovereignty of states."
It claims to be merely a symbolic agreement on how future international co-operation on migration might work. Details to follow later.
But that's the sneaky part of the UN process. Delegates from member states agree to these motherhood declarations, which they reassure opponents are largely meaningless. Then they get busy fleshing out the real rules and inserting them into their own nation's laws, all the while insisting they have to because of a UN treaty.
The compact deliberately confuses two distinct classes of newcomers — political refugees and economic immigrants. It lumps under one label — migrants — both those seeking asylum from repression and violence and those looking for better job and income opportunities.
It is desirable to admit both classes of immigrants, but they do not have the same needs. For instance, those seeking a better economic future for themselves are clearly the kind of hard-working newcomers that generation after generation have helped build Canada. But there is not the same urgency to admit them as there is for genuine refugees who are under threat of torture or execution in their home countries.
The UN compact blurs that distinction, leaving the impression that what the diplomats who negotiated the deal (including those sent by the Trudeau Liberals) are truly after is easier access for any and all people wanting to head for the West.
The "progressives" who drafted the compact also seem to believe most terrorism concerns are really anti-muslim prejudice in disguise, so it's bigoted even to suggest security is a problem.
While the compact is non-binding on signatory countries, the second it's signed, the Trudeau Liberals, the Toronto Star and CBC, most of our foreign service bureaucrats and a host of pressure groups will begin advocating for its rights for migrants to be codified in Canadian law.
The UN will set up a secretariat for the compact that will add in details not in the original, then send investigators to each member country to report on where those countries are failing to live up to UN standards. Lib-left national governments (such as ours) will use that as an excuse to push implementation in Canadian law.
Domestic courts may even reason that because we are signatories to these conventions, our governments are obliged to abide by them, even if they are not yet ratified. Our Supreme Court has already done this with other international agreements.
That's how these things work: not an international assault on sovereignty, but the internal creep of political correctness.
By former finance minister Joe Oliver
Next week in Marrakesh, Morocco, Canada will sign the U.N. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said our government was actively involved in drafting.
Canada will then be politically and possibly legally committed to migration principles that could erode our sovereignty, weaken our borders and cost billions.
Yet the government intends to embark on this radical lurch to an uncertain future without a debate in Parliament, let alone any public consultation.
We cannot say the prime minister didn't forewarn us. In a moment of candour, he proclaimed, "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada", which he described as the world's first post-national state. It was a stunning admission that he wants the country he leads to be subsumed in a kind of idealized globalism.
The government is treading on dangerous ground because polls indicate Canadians don't want legal immigration to give way to open borders. The irony is the government risks turning a compassionate population against our historically generous policy of welcoming immigrants and refugees, who in turn have strengthened Canada economically and culturally.
So far, the United States, Australia, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Israel and a number of Eastern European countries have refused to sign an agreement they believe would compromise their sovereignty and endanger their traditions and economic well-being.
It is also causing political convulsions in Germany, Belgium, Holland and elsewhere. But not in Canada, whose very own Louise Arbour is leading the charge for the UN and who claims the compact is non-binding.
Serious issue
But that may not be true for Canada. Our Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act section (3) states that, "it is to be construed and applied in a manner that ... (f) complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory." Since the Compact declares that migrants, including economic migrants, are entitled to universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, there is a serious issue of whether our laws and policies have to conform to its principles. Furthermore, even a non-binding agreement, like the Paris climate accord, can impose irresistible political pressure on signatory states. Finally, it would be naïve to assume the compact will not, over time, impose more intrusive obligations on signatory nations.
The compact acknowledges a benign obligation "to fulfill the human rights of all migrants irrespective of their migration status", which is tied to a commitment "to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration". Can migrants therefore go where they want, without pretending to be refugees, and assert a human rights claim to stay? This would represent a fundamental departure from the historical responsibility of nation states to protect their sovereignty, territory and the safety of their citizens.
Population grows
An estimated 250 million migrants, about 10 times the number of refugees, would have the right to move to wealthier countries offering superior social assistance. These numbers could rise dramatically, as the global population grows and more people try to escape poverty, limited opportunity and political oppression.
What discourages overseas 'irregular' refugees from travelling to Canada is distance and the concern they will be rejected after a hearing, like 91% of Haitian claimants recently. If that concern is eliminated, only cost would stand in the way of mass migration. However, the price of a one-way ticket may be affordable for millions of economic migrants or provided by countries wanting to reduce the much higher cost of housing migrants indefinitely or by sympathetic NGOS.
Since demography is destiny, the stakes for Canada could not be higher. Trudeau should not sign this attempt at international social engineering without extensive public consultation and a debate in Parliament.
I wonder who is the architect and author of this madness.
Oh wait...
SHE is a CANADIAN!!!
//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Arbour
Nice work, guys.
"Austria,[9] Australia,[10] Bulgaria,[11] Chile,[12] Croatia,[13] the Czech Republic,[14] Dominican Republic,[15] Estonia,[16] Hungary, Italy,[17] Israel,[18][19] Latvia,[20] Lithuania,[21] Poland,[22] Slovakia[23] and Switzerland[24] won't attend an international conference in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh to sign the agreement. The United States did not participate in the negotiation of the agreement, at the behest of President Trump.[9] "
"The Australian government has criticized the agreement, claiming that it does not distinguish between legal and illegal migrants, particularly when it comes to welfare. They have also claimed that the compact could impose obligations to support migrants even when they have returned to their country of origin. The Australian government believes that the compact would undermine their current migration policies"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look... Its not legally binding.
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look...
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
I'm aware of that, but like Seoul said our prime minister treats these voluntary international agreements like they were treaties.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look...
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
I'm aware of that, but like Seoul said our prime minister treats these voluntary international agreements like they were treaties.
Its a good thing you are behind the atlantic then..
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look...
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
I'm aware of that, but like Seoul said our prime minister treats these voluntary international agreements like they were treaties.
Its a good thing you are behind the atlantic then..
What do you mean by that?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look...
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
I'm aware of that, but like Seoul said our prime minister treats these voluntary international agreements like they were treaties.
It's the loss of free speech that has me concerned. It's voluntary, but will Trudeau make it law? That's the sixty four thousand dollar question.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look...
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
I'm aware of that, but like Seoul said our prime minister treats these voluntary international agreements like they were treaties.
Its a good thing you are behind the atlantic then..
What do you mean by that?
The atlantic ocean stops the biggest refugee swarms from coming to N-America.
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Odinson"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They are planning on it..
Look...
Certain elements have taken this as their flagship to gain political power.
The same politicians here whom are supporting this compact, are at the same time writing new laws that will cause near all of the refugees to get deported..
We are deporting 70-80% of immigrant applicants now... Thats straight away..
The number will increase in the near future.
I'm aware of that, but like Seoul said our prime minister treats these voluntary international agreements like they were treaties.
Its a good thing you are behind the atlantic then..
What do you mean by that?
The atlantic ocean stops the biggest refugee swarms from coming to N-America.
Oh, I see what you mean.
I'm interested by the fact that the architect of this socialist nonsense is a Canadian, yet none of you Canucks seem fit to comment.
How can an UNELECTED Canadian be given the responsibility to influence nations like this?
What is it about the Canadian psyche that generates this kind of nonsense right through to it's own PM.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
How can an UNELECTED Canadian be given the responsibility to influence nations like this?
What is it about the Canadian psyche that generates this kind of nonsense right through to it's own PM.
This country is very proggy.
Clearly.
The whole "pact" smells of Trudeau like globalism, in who's world there are unicorns, people travel on rainbows and everybody is peaceful, happy and harmonious.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the enemy is still at our gates.
Here's one view on the UN plan.
Immigration, both legal and illegal, is becoming the unspoken undercurrent of Western politics. And the Global Compact on Migrants will only make matters worse.
In the past two years, populist governments have been elected (or populist parties have been given bigger roles in coalition governments) in Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Poland, Hungary and elsewhere. This has been because, unlike mainline parties, the populists have been willing to admit immigration is an issue.
Even in the recent Quebec provincial election, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) won, in part, because unlike the Liberals and the Parti Quebecois, the CAQ was prepared to say there was a problem with the large number of illegal immigrants being allowed by Ottawa to stream into Quebec from New York state.
U.S. President Donald Trump may not have won in 2016 solely because of his stance on building a wall to separate America from Mexico, but his immigration policy typified popular frustration with "progressive" politicians, regardless of political stripe.
Mainline liberal politicians refuse to admit, even to themselves, there is any problem with wide open immigration. Their policies reinforce their self-image that they are the epitome of enlightenment and tolerance.
Meanwhile, most mainline conservatives won't take up immigration for fear of being branded racists by mainline liberals and the "progressive" media, and for fear of missing out on the votes of enlarging ethnic communities.
That means voters who are worried about losing their jobs or having their cultures submerged by immigration have no traditional political outlet for their concerns. Disgruntled voters, then, fill the resulting leadership vacuum with anti-immigrant populists who over-estimate the dangers in much the same way the mainliners underestimate them.
The problem with the Global Compact — signed by nearly 150 nations at a conference in Marrakesh, Morocco, on Monday — is not that it will set up some global government to enforce free migration of hundreds of millions of people over the objections of democratically elected national governments. Rather, the compact will be used by "progressives" in Western countries to promote and defend their existing politically correct agendas.
Take, for instance, the thousands of illegal immigrants flooding into Quebec each year (and, to a lesser extent, Manitoba). The Trudeau government clearly wants to take them in. They think admitting these newcomers will prove how caring Canada and its Liberals are.
The border-crossers, most of whom come from Nigeria and Haiti, are clearly illegal. They arrive at our border without having applied or been granted permission to enter. And they are not in fear for their lives.
Yet the Trudeau government knows that if Canadians are permitted to call these immigrants "illegal," it will make the Liberals' goal of accepting them all more difficult. So since earlier this year, the Trudeau-ites have insisted they be referred to as "irregular migrants."
Not coincidentally, that is the same vocabulary used in the UN'S new compact. And now that the compact is signed, we can expect our own Liberal government (rather than some shadowy New World Order) to start using the compact to justify their actions.
The new compact might also be used to censor those who criticize immigration. (That's one of the document's stated goals, in fact.)
Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-general, speaking in Morocco on Monday, explained it was necessary to stop criticism of migrants because that dehumanizes them, and dehumanization is an early step towards fascism. Sorry, but isn't suppression of free speech also an early step towards fascism?
It's not hard to imagine, though, a Canadian human rights commission using our country's signature on the "meaningless" compact to rule that legitimate opposition to immigration policies amounts to hate speech and must, therefore, be banned.
Then imagine how popular the populists will become.
And here is another view.
Notwithstanding the hysterical campaign by often misinformed European and North American pundits and politicians, the much-maligned UN Migration Pact was acclaimed yesterday in Marrakesh, Morocco, by nearly 85% of the member countries of the UN.
The sky did not fall as a total of 164 countries among the 193 UN members approved the non-binding accord to ensure safe, orderly and humane migration.
Last week in this space I wrote about how remarks by Dutch right-wing politician Marcel de Graaff spread like wildfire and was used by numerous folks with genuine concern about the future of Canada and other Western countries in the face of millions pouring over our border.
Elsewhere, in Sweden, a website with close ties to anti-immigrant groups published several false claims about the UN Pact. Among them was a petition claiming the UN text would "consider illegal immigration to be a human right" and that "Sweden will sign the UN migration framework and open the borders."
Catherine Nicholson of the French TV network France 24 did a "Fact or Fake" segment to check into the veracity of rumours that the UN Migration Pact would 'consider illegal immigration a human right' France 24 found the postings totally fake and without merit.
None other than Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer fell for the ruse and raised the issue in the House of Commons. His contrived anger was quickly doused by fellow Conservative Chris Alexander who was Canada's Citizenship and Immigration Minister under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.
"Scheer's statement is factually incorrect: This Compact is a political declaration, not a legally binding treaty. It has no impact on our sovereignty," he tweeted.
Yet the barrage against the Migration Pact would just not stop. Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae explained the phenomenon rather succinctly: "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Just makes it a bigger lie," he tweeted.
As a migrant in Canada, I realized that there was more to it than meets the eye. Critics running around like Chicken Little were not averse to seeing Filipinos or Venezuelans in our midst. Thousands of students from India enrich our universities while the boat people of Vietnam have long immersed into our fabric.
The fact is Canadians fear the arrival of Islamic radicals bringing anti-west values like polygamy, burka, sharia-based laws and segregation into our society, but no one wishes to be labelled 'Islamophobic.' The truth is every time a Burka-clad woman crosses our path, she triggers fear, aversion, and strengthens the 'otherness' of her presence.
As a Muslim, this is my sword to carry. The fear of the Muslim radical is real. The damage done by Islamic terrorists and Jew-hating clerics can still be undone, but not if Islamists can prove to new recruits that Western society is intolerant.
As for the pact, the words President Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone spoke on Monday may give readers an insight into the world of 25 million people rotting in refugee camps, all in Africa and Asia, not a single one in the West:
"I understand why are jittery about a loss of physical and social security or cultural and physical identities. ... As a nation, we have experienced all ends of this problem. We have suffered devastating protracted conflict and epidemics. We have been neighbours of countries embroiled in violent conflict. We have been both a country of origin and destination for displaced persons and refugees. We also understand constraints on state resources in the absence of effective and adequate international coordination."
I want the west to separate from the east. Stop giving our taxes to Quebec and Ontario. We are not responsible for their fuck ups.
Quebec wants 300 million from JT for all the migrants that came in. Keep all the migrants in the east and they can pay for it themselves. I can only imagine how much Ontario is in the hole. Theres a murder everyday there now, and they broke their record this year.
I really hope JT gets voted out next year. Scheer is ok, not the greatest, but I'll vote him to get JT out.
This
Quote
Take, for instance, the thousands of illegal immigrants flooding into Quebec each year (and, to a lesser extent, Manitoba). The Trudeau government clearly wants to take them in. They think admitting these newcomers will prove how caring Canada and its Liberals are.
The border-crossers, most of whom come from Nigeria and Haiti, are clearly illegal. They arrive at our border without having applied or been granted permission to enter. And they are not in fear for their lives.
Yet the Trudeau government knows that if Canadians are permitted to call these immigrants "illegal," it will make the Liberals' goal of accepting them all more difficult. So since earlier this year, the Trudeau-ites have insisted they be referred to as "irregular migrants."
Not coincidentally, that is the same vocabulary used in the UN'S new compact
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote
Take, for instance, the thousands of illegal immigrants flooding into Quebec each year (and, to a lesser extent, Manitoba). The Trudeau government clearly wants to take them in. They think admitting these newcomers will prove how caring Canada and its Liberals are.
The border-crossers, most of whom come from Nigeria and Haiti, are clearly illegal. They arrive at our border without having applied or been granted permission to enter. And they are not in fear for their lives.
Yet the Trudeau government knows that if Canadians are permitted to call these immigrants "illegal," it will make the Liberals' goal of accepting them all more difficult. So since earlier this year, the Trudeau-ites have insisted they be referred to as "irregular migrants."
Not coincidentally, that is the same vocabulary used in the UN'S new compact
Trudeau was already trying to make Canada's immigration system like ours and/or Western Europe's--A total disaster. And now with this UN insanity he will probably be able to pull it off.
I see signatory countries eventually having less control over who enters their countries. That is not a desirable situation.
Worse, it is NOT justifiable, except in the mind of a bonehead Canadian academic female who thinks everybody is quite capable of getting on with everybody else, and if you don't it's the white MAN'S fault, anyway.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
I get it that it's voluntary. But, as others have said, our prime minister will make it legal in Canada.
Why construct this asinine scheme in the first place, if less astute, progressive nations don't make it L A W.
This is a scheme to distribute people from less successful and affluent nations into those that have worked for, and earned, their wealth.
It's like advocating that everyone should open their doors and allow homeless people to move in...as in the early days of the Russian Bolshevik government.