Jump to content

War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact


scribblet

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's non-binding.  People can express their dismay that we agree that migration should be coordinated internationally but they shouldn't blow all their energy until something concrete gets submitted.  And the fact that we're getting discussion of this now speaks to how much power the status quo has, politically.  This isn't even a thing yet.

If your dear leader of Canada has his way it will be binding and will become a thing. In case you haven't heard yet your dear leader King Trudeau and his Somali immigration minister have plans to take in another one million new third world immigrants into Canada, plus more legal and illegal so called refugees in the next three years and we are probably not adding the other bunch of refugees that the UN wants to dump on Canada and Canadians. They say one million. No doubt more will be allowed in by the liars by then.

So, what are Canadians like me supposed to do with all those million/s that will becoming my way? O, I know, I will be forced to feed, clothe and house them all and give them some play money to spend at my expense. The Canadians in need can just wait for a little while longer or forever. Whatever the king of Canada decides to do. Don't ever say to me that I do not give to the down and out. You will lose on that one. I just looked inside my wallet and I found thirty dollars. I am rich! Yahoo. 

Of course if I were King Taxme there would be a moratorium put on immigration into Canada for at least the next ten years and I would tell the UN that they can keep all their refugees for themselves. Send them all too the many African countries where there are millions of square miles of open land to live on. Why send them to Canada? We have enough already. I need a break from it all. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2018 at 2:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I shall continue to roll my eyes over these conspiracy theories.  They are, in short, retarded.

There was one about 5 or six years ago called Agenda 21 that Glenn Beck was meowing about... George W Bush signed some part of it.  It amounted to zero, as will this horse shit.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

I've been in Toronto for a week now and I see that Agenda 21 everywhere. Shared economy, stack and pack em mixed residential/commercial towers. I also experienced the technological dystopia first hand (meaning I needed to upgrade my cell phone). There are 20-30 new construction sites in a km radius of downtown Toronto. I could estimate you are looking at stuffing another half a million people in the downtown core. I guess someone is expecting a huge influx of people. These new towers going up are not small either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No what I did was show you some of the phases that the Cons and other parties have an issue with, I already explained to you that I did not have the experience or knowledge to understand all the legal speak written in the document....I also stated that I was asking questions in order to get a better grasp on the subject....since you responded I thought you were the man with the answers...but then again you have shown me wrong on that as well...I guess I'm to bucking stupid to ask questions, my bad....But thats typical liberal behavior, everyone on the right must be a retard.....

Look, the two arguments you keep repeating goes like this: (1) if we sign this document it is going to force us to do something we don't want (2) we don't need to sign this because we already do everything this document asks

If you can't see the contradiction there, I don't know what else I can add. Pick one or the other. If (1) the response is no, it does not. If (2), the response is no, we should sign as a measure of solidarity and agreement with the rest of the world on the topic

I have given you answers: this document creates no special rights, does not require us to change immigration rates, does not affect our ability (or not) to reject refugees, is entirely non-binding, was created openly, was announced months ago, was not debated in parliament simply as a matter of standard governmental practice 

I say these things and you accuse me of giving "typical Liberal answers". My only conclusion then is that your objections to the pact are almost entirely emotional, rather than rational: I would not accuse you of being "retarded" so much as accuse you of an unwillingness to hear. Ignorance, which you have to a degree admitted, is fine; we are all more ignorant than not. But ignorance combined with an unwillingness to listen or consider is faith, and it can't be reasoned with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The USA has been having an identity crisis for a couple decades now.  I always point to 'African-American' as an example of that. What's wrong with being an American who just happens to be black?

Because that label is self segregating people in to tribalistic group identity. We are a country of individuals, not a collective, as the post modern Marxist keep telling everyone. 

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

You referred to people who care about the world as narcissists.  That isn't criticism, its painting those who disagree with you as evil.

Don't deny the fact that there are plenty of narcissist on the left running around virtue signaling at every social justice issue under the sun. Your PM is a good example of one. The moment rational people call them out on it we get labeled 'bigot'. Like how naive and/or narcisitic do you have to be to think that you can fix all the problem around the world without fixing your own problem first. Are you going to take a refugee into your own home and if so is there 50 in the living room? 

Empathy alone is not a untrammeled moral virtue. I despise people who have a unquestioned assumption that just because they have more pitty for someone they are morally superior to everyone else.

Just because I feel sorry for you doesn't make me a good person. Plenty of example in history where people who cared about the world did a great deal of evil. Hitler, mao and stalin would fit the description. 

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Taking wealth and giving back a pittance.  Supporting regimes, then invading them and refusing to take the resulting refugees.  Great again.

2) Who is more likely to upend a democracy of 300M ?  7K poor refugees or an illiterate, retarded moral degenerate president that Republicans refuse to deal with ?  I'll take my answer off the air.

3) Why don't you save your own money and stop bombing people ?  I'll take my answer off the air.

4) Your country is massively wealthy but you are brainwashed against actually having an equitable social contract.

 

 

1) by taking wealth do you mean inventing the most useful invention in human history like internet and various other innovation? 

2) try over 30 million undocumented and having to pay for their use of public resources without them contributing back.

3) we've been doing that, but it seems like everytime we try to leave well enough alone some one to stir up trouble, remember the arab spring, and ukraine, everyone was asking for american intervention.  

4) equal opportunity does not mean equality of outcome. Only a fool believe in equality of outcome.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have said both, once again, I will remind you that these are the ideas of others who claim they understand this document....listen to the links I have provided below and tell me that these guys are full of shit and why? Yes we have laws already on the books that control most of what this compact wants to implement, what others have brought up time and time again , is the language of the compact, and it's intent...They are saying that this compact although non binding, can in a short period become binding, Climate change was a non binding agreement, and yet here in Canada we are about to implement a serious Carbon tax that benefits no one, and they trace it's origins to that non binding climate change compact....It also dictates how we are going to treat them...once again how does a non binding compact dictate anything.....

So Canada already treats it immigrants fairly, and with respect, so why change anything, your answer seems to be because everyone else is....or why not...Well we as a nation have much larger fish to fry than to take time off to sign a document that you say is not worth the paper it is written on, it will not change the way we do business....and yet more than 20 countries have not signed on to it, others have signed on with restrictions, and the way the left explains this is they are just white nationalists, racists....forget the message they are putting out....sorry that does not work for me, it raises questions as to why the right rejects it, and why the left wants to speed this entire process up and get it passed....without much debate....If it was as simple as all of that why has Justin just not explained it in detail to the media....why because we, the right are to challenged to understand it or so you say.

Your confusing emotion with me challenging your answers, to which you have failed to convince me that what the other side has said is false....The more I reseach this the more I am leaning towards the rights side....

  

Here is what a university prof says about the migration compact, he's not a white nationalist, nor a white racist, shit he isn't even white....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUdk6hrNrp4

 

If it is non binding, why has Merkle announced  in front of the German Parliament that they already have 2/3 majority, and the compact will take effect across the globe even in those nations that have voted no..wow I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NON BINDING AGREEMENT, if this is true I guess we all have been fooled, or perhaps Merkle is the one full of shit...........Is this false news?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgRiyiHRNKI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

listen to the links I have provided below and tell me that these guys are full of shit and why?

I typically do not watch videos.  I will read links to text though. I got about 1 minute into the first video. He seemed reasonable until he started equating Trudeau's "post-national" beliefs with actual loss of sovereignty. Actual loss of sovereignty would require the signing of actual binding agreements and/or changes to our constitution.  We have given up some sovereignty through agreements in the past (particularly trade agreements), but not this one.

Regarding the Merkle one, I again only watched the first minute. The wording was "valid", not "binding". Meaning it will become an official UN document. OK. It is still non-binding.  Those words, along with explicitly upholding national sovereignty are part of the text. Note,  I could not find a link to Merkel's actual speech or reports of it.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

They are saying that this compact although non binding, can in a short period become binding,

They are wrong. For it to become binding a new agreement (or amendment to) would need to be signed.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Climate change was a non binding agreement, and yet here in Canada we are about to implement a serious Carbon tax

And yet it is still non-binding. If the government changes they can remove the tax with no penalty, other than to our reputation 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

that benefits no one

Not true

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and they trace it's origins to that non binding climate change compact

Its origins trace to the fact of global warming.  Canada has not and will not meet any of the commitments it's made in global warming agreements ... and will face no penalties for not doing so.  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

once again how does a non binding compact dictate anything.

It does not. Look, if you want to say that there might be legislation or regulations resulting from this pact then sure, there might be ... the hope would be that it would encourage non-compliant countries to enact legislation for tracking migrants, ensuring their own citizens have proper documentation, treating migrants with basic human rights, working to limit or eliminate human trafficking, exploitation of migrant labour, and so on, and so on.

Since we already largely comply, I fail to see what "scary" legislation or regulation could be justified by its implementation.  But the government could implement this legislation or regulation regardless of if the agreement is signed or not. It would have to go through the same processes that any other legislation or regulation would need to to be enacted. It would have the same force and effect regardless. It could be repealed in the same way regardless of if the agreement is signed or not.

Opposition to this in terms of "threats to our sovereignty" are a smokescreen. Opposition or support is entirely based on where the parties stand firstly on the very concept of migration and secondly how "thoroughly" human rights should apply to migrants 

 

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GostHacked said:

I've been in Toronto for a week now and I see that Agenda 21 everywhere. Shared economy, stack and pack em mixed residential/commercial towers. I also experienced the technological dystopia first hand (meaning I needed to upgrade my cell phone). There are 20-30 new construction sites in a km radius of downtown Toronto. I could estimate you are looking at stuffing another half a million people in the downtown core. I guess someone is expecting a huge influx of people. These new towers going up are not small either.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 

Agenda 21 is about sustainable development.  What do you see in Toronto's mushroomic growth that is sustainable ?  There's nothing about immigration in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.) But, in any case, there are millions of reasons to keep five cents rather than give it to help someone and many people on here can recite every one without effort.

2.) How much money does one person need ?  The answer seems to be: "all of it".

1.) For lower-income taxpayers every little bit adds up. It's the cumulative impact of constantly increasing consumption taxes and other government-driven levies alongside stagnant wages that's generating a resistance to always being asked to 'give a little bit more' by imperious and supposedly well-meaning progressives. I believe bcsapper raises a valid point when noting that too often those who tout the virtues of generosity are playing with other peoples' money rather than their own.

2.) Ordinary people need enough money to live on. In increasingly 'high cost-stagnant incomes' globalized Western economies, that's becoming a more difficult task as each day passes. Look at the situation in France, where ordinary lower-income taxpayers have been protesting for weeks against over-taxation. Although sparked by a looming carbon tax, the protests have broadened to highlight the general failure of government to consider the legitimate interests of ordinary working people. The shell-shocked Macron, another elitist boob as is becoming more apparent by the day, has at least begun to acknowledge the depth of public anger, given that polling suggests over 80 percent support the protesters' cause if not their tactics. To paraphrase the sentiments of one columnist I read last week, too often progressives focus on the end of the world while ordinary workers increasingly have to worry about managing their resources to get to the end of the month.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The USA has been having an identity crisis for a couple decades now.  I always point to 'African-American' as an example of that. What's wrong with being an American who just happens to be black?

I think Americans tend to be more attached to their American identity than are many Canadians to a Canadian one. Our form of multiculturalism encourages hyphenated identity and often it's the 'Canadian' part that's treated as secondary. We have a Prime Minister who's contemptuous enough of multigenerational Canadians and the accomplishments of their ancestors to haughtily label Canada a "post-national" state. Presumably, for him, the country is merely a blank slate, without an identity and without need of one. We face bigger problems here, by far, on the issue of identity than do our American neighbors.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this it will be legally binding...    no doubt we will still be told it is not, however it appears that it will be adopted as a rule once enacted...   no surprise

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/they-lied-the-un-migration-pact-is-legally-binding-and-could-be-valid-for-all-countries/?fbclid=IwAR1g9bb7SPXS1q-8XryPC-5SD1E8bJSb7vNHl0ppSwe3iH2M3ZldNYMDBHg
Now we know. In a frank exchange with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Hebner of the AfD drew out an admission that it is, in fact, legally binding. As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, scribblet said:

According to this it will be legally binding...    no doubt we will still be told it is not, however it appears that it will be adopted as a rule once enacted...   no surprise

Now we know. In a frank exchange with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Hebner of the AfD drew out an admission that it is, in fact, legally binding. As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted.

I saw a report on the weekend about Ms. Merkel's position. Of course, she's not running for reelection so is now free to tell the truth, something we won't easily get from our preening emperor-PM - unless at some point he flubs the lines his advisors write for him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I think Americans tend to be more attached to their American identity than are many Canadians to a Canadian one. Our form of multiculturalism encourages hyphenated identity and often it's the 'Canadian' part that's treated as secondary. We have a Prime Minister who's contemptuous enough of multigenerational Canadians and the accomplishments of their ancestors to haughtily label Canada a "post-national" state. Presumably, for him, the country is merely a blank slate, without an identity and without need of one. We face bigger problems here, by far, on the issue of identity than do our American neighbors.

Pretty ridiculous and I don’t believe Trudeau for a second, considering his roots go back to early New France when the family owned a seigneury. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Pretty ridiculous and I don’t believe Trudeau for a second, considering his roots go back to early New France when the family owned a seigneury. 

I think Trudeau exemplifies a form of elitist narcissism that holds itself as being inherently and rightfully privileged and therefore obligated to bestow benefits on those it deems worthy of consideration. It rejects community with and among other, lesser, Canadians (too common and uninteresting) and feels it must apologize on their behalf for disadvantages and past misdeeds faced by others even where the majority had little or nothing to do with any of this. But elitists like Trudeau express assumed guilt because, well, it's the 'right thing to do' while absolving themselves and others in their class from any specific liability for the exploitation of others. It's a convenient calculus, of course, that allows these elitists to glibly take credit for giving away other people's livelihoods and money while burnishing their own self-styled reputation for fairness and generosity.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is time for all of us to take a breath. I want Canada to reduce our population to about 10 - 15 million. Gues what? That is not going to happen. In the near future, as South and Central America begin to dry up, as well as Mexico and the southern United States, a couple hundred million people who share a need to eat, are going to be crossing our borders and there isn't a gosh darn thing we can do about it. This document may provide some order to the flood. 

"Mi casa es su casa," anyone?

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is time for all of us to take a breath. I want Canada to reduce our population to about 10 - 15 million. Gues what? That is not going to happen. In the near future, as South and Central America begin to dry up, as well as Mexico and the southern United States, a couple hundred million people who share a need to eat, are going to be crossing our borders and there isn't a gosh darn thing we can do about it. This document may provide some order to the flood. 

"Mi casa es su casa," anyone?

Dystopian fantasy. Americans continue to move south, as do a lot of Canadians if they can manage to do so. There's no sign any of this will change soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 

Agenda 21 is about sustainable development.  What do you see in Toronto's mushroomic growth that is sustainable ?  There's nothing about immigration in it.

Actually I don't see it being sustainable. These towers are going up like crazy. The housing market here is super inflated for many reasons. Lots of people and land holding companies are simply buying up new units to flip then sometime later and resell them. Factor in the high number of them of them that are AirBNB, which creates an artificial housing crisis that hyper inflates the cost of these units. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is time for all of us to take a breath. I want Canada to reduce our population to about 10 - 15 million. Gues what? That is not going to happen. In the near future, as South and Central America begin to dry up, as well as Mexico and the southern United States, a couple hundred million people who share a need to eat, are going to be crossing our borders and there isn't a gosh darn thing we can do about it. This document may provide some order to the flood. 

"Mi casa es su casa," anyone?

Why would you want to have less than half of the current population of Canada living here?  Are you going to be one of them that contributes to the shrinkage of the population? Meaning you are going to not have kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

According to this it will be legally binding...    no doubt we will still be told it is not, however it appears that it will be adopted as a rule once enacted...   no surprise

Per my response to Army Guy: 

15 hours ago, TTM said:

The wording was "valid", not "binding". Meaning it will become an official UN document. OK. It is still non-binding.  Those words, along with explicitly upholding national sovereignty are part of the text.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Why would you want to have less than half of the current population of Canada living here?  Are you going to be one of them that contributes to the shrinkage of the population? Meaning you are going to not have kids. 

I will have no grandchildren. The signature feature of Canada is its wilderness and we are seeing it disappear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Dystopian fantasy. Americans continue to move south, as do a lot of Canadians if they can manage to do so. There's no sign any of this will change soon.

As the earth warms up, drought will expand. We will see it within the next couple of centuries. Saskatoon is planning for a population of half a million, yet the source of water (glaciers in the Rockies) are disappearing. What are all these people going to do for water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...