UN migration pact is globalist insanity

Concerned parties may be worrying what kind of hate speech relating to immigration could lead to their incarceration under the new UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration, based on the principle that mass migration is “inevitable, necessary and desirable”, which abolishes the term “illegal immigrant”, imposes 80 obligations on host nations and makes it illegal for individuals, the media or political parties to criticize mass immigration. Here are some tentative examples:

“There are millions of people in poorer countries who would love to live in Britain, and there is a limit to the amount of immigration any country can and should take.”

Oops! Problematic. (Who said that? Could it have been, say, Gerard Batten, of Ukip?)

“When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society.”

Dodgy. Better get a good lawyer. (Who was that? Sounds as if it might have been Farage…)

“There is a huge difference between a young Syrian family fleeing the tyranny of ISIL or Assad, and a student who claims asylum once he has been discovered overstaying his visa, or a foreign criminal about to be sent to a prison in his own country.”

You’re nicked, sunshine. (Was it Enoch Powell speaking from beyond the grave?)

In fact, all three soon-to-be-criminal remarks are quotations from Theresa May’s speech to the 2015 Conservative Party conference. It was not exactly the kind of oration one would have expected to be followed, even after a three-year interval, by the speaker signing up to the UN Global Migration Pact.

Even by the standards of globalist arrogance this document, being signed today in Marrakesh, is extraordinary. It transforms migration into a human right on a global basis (emigration already was a right, but immigration should be a privilege). It constitutes an open invitation to all comers to add to the 244 million existing migrants around the world and to converge on Europe.

It is a megaphone version of Angela Merkel’s open-house invitation to one million immigrants, which has caused chaos across Europe, and goes so far as to abolish the concept of “illegal” immigration. The world and his dog have the unchallengeable right to walk into Britain or any other developed nation with a satisfactory welfare system.

The prescriptive character of the proposal is a reflection either of the globalist elites’ blind sense of entitlement, or perhaps blind panic in the face of recent challenges. Typically of that mentality, it attempts to outlaw any criticism of immigrants or immigration by individuals or the media and envisages the banning of political parties hostile to immigration.

Are those sanctions legally enforceable? That issue has become controverted by those acting as apologists for this initiative. The answer is no, not immediately, but they soon will be because this is the classic UN device of a “legal framework”, which begins life as a set of guidelines but after being used by judges in various national courts as a point of reference, and by the European courts, acquires legal force. We may be sure our own activist judges will leap at the opportunity to invoke such an instrument.

Ten years ago this ploy might have succeeded. Today it is already being rejected on all sides – though not by Theresa May. Donald Trump started the ball rolling a year ago when he repudiated the Pact on behalf of the United States. Australia, notably vulnerable to illegal immigration, has also now rejected it. So have Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Israel, Lithuania (probably), Italy, Bulgaria and Croatia. Estonia and Switzerland are reserving their positions.

The coalition government of Belgium has just collapsed and been replaced by a minority government after two Flemish political parties refused to approve the pact. Germany is supporting it, though the population is divided on the issue. Angela Merkel insisted, implausibly, that the pact will “solve global problems internationally and together”.

Well, she would, wouldn’t she? Not only did Merkel envisage the first tranche of one million migrants – her guests, but quickly boarded out to other European hosts – as a solution to Europe’s problems but, despite its United Nations branding, she has also been one of the main promoters of this latest suicide note for European civilization.

The aims chime harmoniously with the ambitions of the United Nations Population Division to change the whole demography of Europe. In 2000 it published a report entitled “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Population?” declaring Europe needed to absorb tens of millions of immigrants by 2050. This so-called pact is an instrument to crush any opposition to that plan.

The language of the Global Compact is tyrannical: “We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions… of xenophobia and related intolerance…” “Implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes…” “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information.” Expressions of dissent are the essence of democracy: these proposed measures are designed to coerce and censor all expressions of opinion relating to migration.

Britain’s heroic media, predictably, with a few honourable exceptions, have ignored this crucial issue of sovereignty and freedom. An online petition protesting the pact has attracted well over the 100,000 signatures needed to trigger a Parliamentary debate. What does it say about Theresa May’s Britain that our government is today signing a pact that is every bit as much a surrender of crucial sovereignty as May’s toxic Brexit deal, when smaller nations have rejected it?

Once more we see the contrast between the leaders vilified either as buffoons or tyrants by the liberal globalist media – Trump, Orban, Salvini – standing up firmly for their countries’ interests, while the supposedly respectable leaders – Macron, Merkel, May – yet again sell their countries down the river. A very significant component of the “gilets jaunes” protests against Macron relates to immigration. Apart from Paris, where the protests have been hijacked by ultra-leftists, there is no “diversity” to be seen among the protesters: this is France’s working class at the end of its tether.

Donald Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon recently described the UN Migration Pact as “dead even before it’s been signed”. He is right: in the new climate, too many governments do not – or dare not – support such globalist insanity for it to gain any traction. Anyone who imagines it will ever again be possible to silence criticism of immigration in Europe is hopelessly deluded.

Despite years of Conservative pledges to reduce UK immigration to “tens of thousands”, this year’s net inflow from the EU was as large as the British Army, while net non-EU legal immigration numbered 248,000 – the highest for 14 years. What was preventing the Government from reducing that shocking figure?

“There is a limit to the amount of immigration any country can and should take.”

It’s the way she tells them.