The proposed United Nations agreement on migration, according to reports, would make migration a “human right.”
‘The UN agreement[…]notes:
“Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times.” (Preamble, section 4)
It cannot be stressed enough that this agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.
Although most of the member states of the UN have agreed to sign the agreement in December, a few countries are declining.
The UN has avoided acknowledging that the agreement would make ‘migration’ a human right, though details of the plan make it obvious that this is the practical effect of the plan. The linked article describes the plan as ‘non-binding’, but even if it were not put into effect, the proponents of the agreement would hardly be likely to give up. After all, this ‘immigration as a human right’ proposal has been around since the early 1960s, at least, as indicated here:
And an article from the Center for Immigration Studies, dated 1995,
noted that in 1965, Democrats advocated for passage of the 1965 Immigration Act as part and parcel of the Civil Rights movement. In the wake of their success in passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Democrats attempted to sell unrestricted third world immigration as an extension of ‘civil rights’. John F. Kennedy himself, during his term in office, spoke of immigration restriction as an act of discrimination, something which demanded correction. Discrimination, that is, choosing who gains entry to our countries, is in and of itself an evil, according to the UN plan.
The same arguments are still being used; the left (and the ‘open borders’ faction on the ‘right’) parrot the words of their 1965 counterparts.
Some of the countries which are opposed to signing the agreement are Eastern European countries, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic.
However it’s not too encouraging that the Czech Deputy Prime Minister Brabec says
“The Czech Republic has long favored the principle of separating legal and illegal migration.”
Why does that shortsighted attitude persist all these years? How does possession of documents assure that the immigrant is automatically good for our countries? It would seem obvious that legal immigration is not necessarily beneficial to us, while illegal is the only bad kind of immigration. Does it make our displacement any less a bitter pill if the immigrants have papers, or ‘official permission’ to live here amongst us? Many immigrants who ”did it the right way,” going through official procedures, have gone on to commit violence in our country, or to be caught in various illegal acts, such as fraud, people-smuggling, and other serious crimes. (One example: Fort Hood?)
The legal immigrants, generally, are from the same kinds of dysfunctional, ‘failed’ countries, and they often have similar education levels as the “undocumented”, despite what pro-immigration media say, for example the libertarian or ”conservative” think tank articles.
The author of the Gatestone article emphasizes that the UN plan would give country-shopping migrants the right to pick the countries that provide what they want, appearing to give them the prerogative of choosing. As it is now, the citizenry of Western countries have no say about who comes to our country, and it seems we are obliged to accept the migrants, just as we are seeing with the many thousands of ‘caravans’ from Central America. What is to protect us from another Marielito situation, in which the have-not countries empty out their mental hospitals and jails, freeing occupants to come knocking at our doors? It did happen, so why is the idea of it happening now considered a wild-eyed theory? I believe it also happened with Merkel’s Millions, too, and is happening.
But just as there is now a newly-discovered ‘human right’ to come and demand entry to other people’s homelands, I suppose there is no right for the people of the host country to notice the significant downside to these mass movements of whole populations into what were our homelands.