Light for the Last Days

UN Migration pact. Welcome to the New World Order

Written in January 2019

The United Nations, in a non-binding agreement that almost all UN member states signed at a ceremony in Morocco in early December, is making migration a human right.  The agreement propagates that migration for any reason is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.    Migrants are, evidently, citizens of a new world, in which all countries must spring to the assistance of anyone who has chosen to travel and reside there for whatever reason. Borders may exist in theory, but the UN is working hard at making them disappear in practice.

Migrants, according to the agreement, must also be “empowered to realize full inclusion and social cohesion” in their new countries (objective 16). This means, among other things, that countries must:  “Promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of communities of destination and of migrants by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programmes and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion.”

In practice this means that countries which have a predominantly Christian culture, must submit that culture to the one of the new arrivals, who if they are Muslim will soon demand not just equal rights, but that the host country must submit to their demands.

The agreement goes on to enumerate the work that states must initiate to accommodate migrants.   The effect of this is that newly arrived migrants in, say, Europe, should have the same, or at least very similar, rights to education, the labour market and health care, as Europeans, who have worked hard and paid taxes for half a century to gain access to those very same things. Europeans, of course, will have to pay for all of this out of their tax money.

The authors of the agreement evidently do not expect it to go down all that well with their populations.  The agreement therefore clearly signals that any disagreement with the agenda will not be accepted and that the signatory states will work to dispel “misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.”  This means that any media outlets which are critical of mass migration into their countries should be censored. 

The signatory states commit to:”… eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law.” (Objective 17).  ‘Related intolerance’ could mean criticism of UN migration policies, and so become another way of suppressing freedom of speech.

The United States, Italy and most east European states have refused to sign up to the agreement. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto described it as “entirely against Hungary’s security interests,” and added: “This pact poses a threat to the world from the aspect that it could inspire millions (of migrants). Its main premise is that migration is a good and inevitable phenomenon. We consider migration a bad process, which has extremely serious security implications.”

According to a worldwide survey, Gallup found that 15 percent of the world, in other words, 758 million people, want to move.  158 million chose the U.S., 47 million Canada, 42 million Germany, 36 million France or Australia, 34 million the United Kingdom, 24 million Saudi Arabia, 21 million Spain, 17 million Japan, 15 million Italy.  Obviously people from poor countries want to migrate to rich countries not the other way round.  The problem is people coming in their millions would overwhelm the country they are heading for, which then collapses into poverty and strife itself. 

Maybe that is what the UN wants.  Then it can declare a world government for a borderless world united as one in desperation.

Tony Pearce