Representatives from around 150 countries signed the United Nations migration pact in Morocco on Monday. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, as the agreement is formally known, aims to create a legal framework to handle growing migration from impoverished third world countries to the Western world — overriding the immigration policies of the individual nation states.

German Chancellor Merkel, whose open border policies drew millions of asylum seekers from North Africa and the Middle East into Europe in recent years, hailed the signing of the pact as an “important day.” It was is about “nothing less than the foundation of our international cooperation,” she added. The German leader “received a standing ovation on Monday after an impassioned speech,” the UK newspaper The Guardian reported.

Sold by the mainstream media and politicians as “entirely voluntary” and “non-binding,” the pact is designed to sweep away isolated resistance put up by individual states, German state media declared. “The UN migration pact is not legally binding, we are told. But declarations of intent can become international standards,” German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle wrote. The international institutions like the UN and the European Union will apply “moral pressure” on countries and make them “adhere to the rules,” Deutsche Welle candidly explained.

Deutsche Welle reported how the pact will work as a transnational mechanism to force countries into submission:

It’s true that the compact does not curtail the sovereignty of individual states; but the law works on many different levels. These standards are indeed non-binding, but they can have definite consequences. The set of rules comes under “soft law” — the international legal term for laws that are not currently binding. This is an instrument for standards that lie in the zone between binding legal norms and non-binding proclamations — a kind of declaration of intent that does not entail legal international sanctions if a country does not abide by the agreed terms. However, even if it’s not legally enforceable, it is not, of course, legally irrelevant. A certain pressure exists to abide by the principles of “soft law.” Countries only ever sign up to instruments like these if they endorse their contents, which is why governments generally implement the agreements at home — thereby turning them into domestic law. In addition, soft law documents provide mechanisms to ensure a degree of compliance: There is often is an obligation to report, and, based on this reporting, rankings are created. So there is moral pressure to implement the standards. Furthermore, if a legal practice is followed for many years, customary international law can be established. This can lead to “juridification.”

President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Obama-era framework in December 2o17. “America is governed by Americans,” he told the UN general assembly in September, reiterating his stance on rejecting the UN migration pact and the Paris climate agreement. “We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”

“Resistance to the compact has largely fed on fears,”the New York Times wrote dismissively, while putting the final ratification of the pact into context:

Work began after members of the United Nations, including the United States under President Barack Obama, approved a declaration in 2016 saying that no country could manage international migration alone, and agreed to work on a pact. But the Trump administration withdrew its support a year ago, saying that parts of the compact were “inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies.”

Since last December, many European countries — including Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Latvia and Slovakia — have withdrawn from the compact. Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel flew to Morocco to sign the pact despite losing the majority in the country’s parliament over the issue. Outside Europe, Australia, Israel and the Dominican Republic have also shunned the pact.

UN migration pact to ‘criminalize free speech,’ Marcel de Graaff, member of the EU Parliament (Dutch Freedom Party, PVV)



Germany’s leading tabloid Bild, which came out strongly against Merkel’s endorsement of the pact, described the UN gathering in Morocco as the “summit of absurdity.”

“Around 60,000 people come over from Morocco into Europe each year. Morocco’s Kind Mohammed VI is also the migration commissioner of the African Union,” German newspaper wrote.

Weeks ahead of the UN summit, Bild disclosed Merkel’s lobbying efforts to include ‘climate change’ as legitimate grounds for migration. The move could legitimize mass movement of people from North Africa and the Middle East into Europe on account of extreme weather conditions.

“In future, a regular drought in Africa will mean a ticket to Europe, a stretch of land flooded by the Nile river will open doors to our welfare system,” Alice Weidel, the co-char of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party said following the media disclosure.

Many on the European right regard the pact as a grave threat to their liberty and free speech. According to Marcel de Graaff, a member of the EU Parliament from the Netherlands: “The agreement wants to criminalize migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence.”

“It is declaring migration as a human right so it will, in effect, become impossible to criticise Mrs Merkel’s welcome migrants politics without being at risk of being jailed for hate speech.” de Graaff, who represents Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, added.

The globalist framework adopted in Morocco seeks to steamroll established European laws steeped in continent’s history and tradition. With the U.S. off the hook, Europe will pretty much bear the brunt of the pact alone.

“Globalist elites want to secretly turn our country from a nation state into a settlement area,” Germany’s AfD parliamentary chief Alexander Gauland (Bundestag speech with English subtitles)



[Cover image via YouTube]



