The UN Compact on Migration Demands Illegals Get the Same Benefits as Natives, Including Voting Rights and Welfare
What do you do if you’re a supranational behemoth with a multi-billion dollar budget coupled with a vast number of subsidiary entities that focus on migration?
If you’re the U.N., you publish the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and seek to set up more supranational government entities to duplicate the work you’re already doing, at a gargantuan cost to (mostly Western) taxpayers.
The report — a subject of consternation around the world, and wisely nixed by President Trump in 2017 — is due to be signed in Marrakech on Dec. 11.
But if the latest nations to object — Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland — have anything to say about it, the document may end up in the shredders of the U.N.’s headquarters in New York.
Speaking of the agreement in late 2017, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated, “Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone … The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
It seems the rest of the world is waking up, with a U.K. parliamentary petition now nearing100,000 signatures in opposition to Britain becoming a signatory. Similar movements are springing up in Denmark, New Zealand and Belgium.
It’s not just because the Global Compact for Migration is broadly unnecessary (U.N. agencies currently already spend up to $6bn a year on migration-related study and assistance), but it is also incredibly perverse.
Opening with an invocation to 17 other United Nations agreements and treaties (including the Paris Climate Accords), the document goes on to pay lip service to national sovereignty while directly attacking the same principle with demands for regulations on both the public and private sectors, and indeed restrictions on the free press who might report skeptically on migration.