A pact known as the United Nations’ Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is slated to be adopted at an intergovernmental conference on December 10 and 11 in Marrakech, Morocco — but there are big problems with it.
It comprises 23 objectives for better managing migration at all levels.
Initially, all 193 U.N. member nations, except for the United States, backed it.
But now some countries have reversed course and are echoing America’s concerns about it.
The document represents an “intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, that covers all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner.” It’s the first-ever such agreement and was conceived after the biggest influx of migrants into Europe since World War II, as the U.K.’s Express noted.
But the agreement, if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework.
Among other things, governments are asked to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting … and [to stop] allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants,” as the Express also noted.
Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Israel, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland all are among the countries following the United States’ lead in refusing to sign the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, the Express reported Sunday.
And British citizens now want their government to oppose it, too.
Prime Minister Theresa May, however, has not yet issued a response to their plea, as Breitbart noted.
A petition in Britain is simply titled, “The UK should not agree the to UN’s Global Compact for Migration.”
UN's Global Compact for Migration: “Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense. And media outlets…that give room for criticism of migration can be shut down.” https://t.co/scHzIfXDON
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) December 2, 2018
The excellent decision of President @realDonaldTrump to reject the UN Global Migration Pact. I only hope that the president @DaniloMedina does not ratify and withdraw.@EscribidoraRD 🌎🌍🌏#NoToTheUNMigratoryPact
— Carmen De Los Santos (@EscribidoraRD) December 2, 2018
The new UN global pact on Migration will make it ILLEGAL for citizens and media outlets to criticize mass migration. Let that sink in. https://t.co/AELqe8hSKX
— Jim Corr (@Jimcorrsays) November 25, 2018
MEP Marcel de Graaff warns that the United Nations global compact on migration will make it a criminal offense for citizens and media outlets to criticize mass immigration. https://t.co/61e3RsG2hW
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 22, 2018
— Gina Miller (@GinaM121) December 2, 2018
As of Sunday afternoon, the petition garnered more than 62,500 signatories and was literally gaining signatures every few seconds.
If the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, Parliament will consider it for debate, according to the petition’s web page.
The legally non-binding compact was reportedly shaped largely by the pro-mass migration government of Germany’s Angela Merkel — who launched an “unusually passionate” defense of it in November — and has proved hugely controversial, with countries led by national populist governments pulling out one after another as its shape became clear, as Breitbart reported.
In late 2017 the Trump administration, via the then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, said, “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country … The global approach in the [compact] is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
Though leftists in the U.S. wholeheartedly embrace pro-immigration initiatives, there’s one objective in the compact that reaffirms the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants that they may find particularly troublesome.
In support of Objective 1, “collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies,” paragraph “G” reads, “Improve national data collection by integrating migration-related topics in national censuses, as early as practicable, such as on country of birth, country of birth of parents, country of citizenship, country of residence five years prior to the census, most recent arrival date and reason for migrating, to ensure timely analysis and dissemination of results, disaggregated and tabulated in accordance with international standards, for statistical purposes.”
When the controversial decision to include “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” as a question on the 2020 census arose last March, many on the Left balked.
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is being sued for it — six times over.
The consolidated lawsuits comprise 18 states and the District of Columbia, several counties and immigrant-aid groups, as the Economist reported earlier this month.
Such a question, of course, raises concerns for many on the Left who fear the possibility of losing population-apportioned seats in the House and billions in population-based allocation of federal funds, if it appears in the United States decennial census.
Check out this video:
Michele Blood is a Flemington, New Jersey-based freelance writer and regular contributor to LifeZette.