Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, October 24, 2018

Without borders, civilization would disappear. According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 14 percent of the world’s adults, including almost a third of Africans, would emigrate if they could. That is about 710 million people — almost equal to the population of Europe. If everyone who wanted to leave could, the First World would be overwhelmed by the Third, and the end of white nations would smother the global engine of scientific advancement, economic growth and human progress.

The United Nations “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration” therefore menaces the West. It almost sounds like a threat:

With 244 million people on the move, migration is inevitable, necessary, and desirable: https://t.co/oJT8snspYt #ForMigration pic.twitter.com/F9JkWL7BGm — IOM – UN Migration (@UNmigration) June 12, 2017

But the Global Compact has two views on migration. It says it is “part of the human experience throughout history” and “a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world.” At the same time: “This Global Compact aims to mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin, and so compel them to seek a future elsewhere.” Likewise, “we must work together to create conditions that allow communities and individuals to live in safety and dignity in their own countries.” There would be very little migration if conditions were improved, but when people do move, it “should never be an act of desperation” and must be “safe, orderly, and regular.” Thus, the rich countries should make migration easier and also eliminate the conditions that cause it; the responsibility for all of this falls on us.

The compact stresses that it is not legally binding — which means it is hardly a “compact” — and acknowledges that nations can regulate immigration. At the same time, it issues “objectives” for receiving countries:

“Provide access to basic services for migrants”

“Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion”

“Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits”

“Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants”

The last “objective” would presumably ban any tax on remittances, which some have argued could fund President Trump’s border wall. It would also keep Liberia, Haiti, and Gambia dependent on remittances. Honduras and Guatemala get almost 20 percent of their GDP in remittances, a key reason why they have don’t stop “caravans” to the United States. Another objective is for host societies to “create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries,” which assumes there will be entire foreign communities.

The compact says governments should “eliminate all forms of discrimination” against migrants. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen is a form of “discrimination,” so this would end nationality. The compact also wants governments to “promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.” This sounds like control over public discussion of immigration, which already exists in unfree nations such as the Britain.

White advocates would welcome “evidence-based public discourse” about racial differences in intelligence, the impact of mass immigration on wages and government spending, and imported practices such as female genital mutilation. Instead, what the UN probably has in mind is campaigns like those by the American State Department against nationalist governments like that of Hungary.

The compact also wants an end to “public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants,” but claims to want “full respect for the freedom of the media.” The compact even wants governments to enforce a pro-immigrant tone “in the context of electoral campaigns.”

The United Nations has already promoted disposession. In a report called “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” the answer was a resounding “yes.” Of course, since the global fertility rate is decreasing, mass migration is only a temporary solution, pushing back the expiration date on pyramid-scheme “social security” that requires a constantly growing working-age population. The resulting crunch for welfare programs would only be postponed. “Replacement migration” also assumes newcomers will work, whereas 95 percent of migrants in Germany are on welfare.

The United States has already pulled out of the compact; so has Hungary. Austria and Poland may follow, but most countries have signed up. It is non-binding, but it gives moral legitimacy to impossible demands. The only prosperous societies that survive will be those that defy the United Nations.