Jump to content

War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact


scribblet

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

Dasani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

Wow, you've got to make up your mind here. First, you had northern climes being invaded by climate change refugees from the south and now you're saying that Canadian territory will also be uninhabitable? None of us will be here to figure out how this situation actually turns out. Some scientific climate change models suggest the Rocky Mountains (where the big prairie rivers originate) and prairie regions will receive substantially more autumn, winter and spring precipitation but face drier summers. Overall, however, precipitation is likely to increase. I've read of one study that indicates the western and northern prairies will benefit while the eastern prairies could suffer. Canada as a whole is projected to be one of the places that could actually benefit from global warming so I'm not sure why you are so intensely pessimistic?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, scribblet said:

According to this it will be legally binding...     

Anything will be legally binding if countries pass it into law.  The article itself states it as such:

". As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted."

Given the horse-shit and lies immigration issues get from The Rebel, The Sun and so on I'm starting to think we should strengthen laws against lying in media and extend it to the web.  Of course, this will make people who love lies go purple in the face... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

Canada as a whole is projected to be one of the places that could actually benefit from global warming so I'm not sure why you are so intensely pessimistic?

That is why anyone from the south is going to move north into Canada and northern Europe. It is the reverse of what happened in the 4th century in Europe that caused the fall of the western Roman Empire, and that was a minor change in temperature. 

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is why anyone from the south is going to move north into Canada and northern Europe. It is the reverse of what happened in the 4th century in Europe that caused the fall of the western Roman Empire, and that was a minor change in temperature. 

There have been a few big changes since the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. One of these is technological progress. I think many climate change alarmists underestimate the role technology can and will play to ameliorate potential climate disruption. The political and organizational framework governing human interaction has also changed enormously, with the creation and protection of firm national boundaries becoming the norm over the past 200 years. This development occurred in conjunction with the emergence of industrialization and modern democracy and the desire of populations to create viable sociopolitical institutions to permit their citizens to lead dignified and orderly lives. These institutions will not simply disappear because globalists wish them away and if recent history is any indication people in the areas most threatened by migration will fight to maintain them. 

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

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Anything will be legally binding if countries pass it into law.  The article itself states it as such:

". As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted."

Given the horse-shit and lies immigration issues get from The Rebel, The Sun and so on I'm starting to think we should strengthen laws against lying in media and extend it to the web.  Of course, this will make people who love lies go purple in the face... 

I haven't seen anything from the Rebel posted on here,  the Sun recognizes realityand speaks for a large no. of people who don't buy into the liberal horse-sh.t.

Those with purple faces are the ones trying to justify and push something that on the face  seems to be a benign document but it is not.  Ask Australia and the other countries who have not signed on why they see it as a threat to their own sovereignty and policies. 

Maybe they didn't because while couching it in beneign terms, it's intent is to see global mass migration become a legal 'human right', along with seeking to see criticism of such policies become "hate speech".  It ‘s intention,  again while seeming benign and non binding, (see the Paris Accords) has the intent and aim of  allowing open borders along with the intent to shut down the media and anyone else who questions these policies by categorizing criticism as 'hate speech', via propaganda.    While it gives a nod to free speech a Dutch politician has issued a warning which we should listen to:  Though the pact is said to be non-binding, it is meant to establish the groundwork for an Orwellian campaign to cement mass migration as a human right legally above any and all criticism.

This is how authoritarian, totalitarian gov’t start to  oppress the people, by making it illegal to criticize anyone who speaks out against them, this is a supposedly benign document eventually becomes law. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Those with purple faces are the ones trying to justify and push something that on the face  seems to be a benign document but it is not.  Ask Australia and the other countries who have not signed on why they see it as a threat to their own sovereignty and policies. 

Maybe they didn't because while couching it in beneign terms, it's intent is to see global mass migration become a legal 'human right', along with seeking to see criticism of such policies become "hate speech".  It ‘s intention,  again while seeming benign and non binding, (see the Paris Accords) has the intent and aim of  allowing open borders along with the intent to shut down the media and anyone else who questions these policies by categorizing criticism as 'hate speech', via propaganda.    While it gives a nod to free speech a Dutch politician has issued a warning which we should listen to:  Though the pact is said to be non-binding, it is meant to establish the groundwork for an Orwellian campaign to cement mass migration as a human right legally above any and all criticism.

This is how authoritarian, totalitarian gov’t start to  oppress the people, by making it illegal to criticize anyone who speaks out against them, this is a supposedly benign document eventually becomes law. 

Reportedly, Merkel admitted last weekend that the pact's provisions will be binding on nations that sign it. We have to ask why democratic countries like the U.S. and Australia, which, like Canada, receive lots of immigrants, didn't sign it? Their concern, above all else, surely relates to maintaining sovereign control over immigration and border policy.  It's naive to believe this isn't a major concern for Canadians as well, even if many in our political elite and the MSM adamantly deny it.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Reportedly, Merkel admitted last weekend that the pact's provisions will be binding on nations that sign it.

I did a search and sure, right wing media, a la The Rebel and Voice of Europe, are reporting that.  Reliable and credible media report nothing of the sort, just the opposite in fact

But she (Merkel) also stressed that the pact is not legally binding and does not affect national legislation.

And here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I did a search and sure, right wing media, a la The Rebel and Voice of Europe, are reporting that.  Reliable and credible media report nothing of the sort, just the opposite in fact

 

Well, perhaps you might consider what Merkel actually said when answering questions on the pact in the Bundestag. When confronted on whether the pact is binding, she refused to say it isn't and in fact countered that when approved by enough EU member states its provisions are binding on all EU members whether or not their national parliaments agree. Seems pretty credible and definitive to me. The fact that Canada's MSM outlets appear to have avoided covering Merkel's comments doesn't render factual reportage on other sites 'opposite in fact', as you hold to be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZ-FK4YESM

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

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

We can stop diverting water to the USA. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right, so I'm guessing your Agenda 21 comment was dry humour, sorry.

Yeah I know this is off topic for this thread,,, my bad,   but I will do one more then get back to the topic at hand ..

There was no humour about it at all.  I just don't think the UN's sustainability program will result in any kind of sustainability. It's nothing more than a cash grab for some while telling us we need to stack and pack and be part of the shared economy and live in areas that are close to public transit systems.

Take a look in Ottawa and see what is going up right near many LRT stations.  For example at Blair.  The mall was demolished to put up a stack n pack em hie rise condo unit. You can bet in the next year you will see small shops going up right beside it. If not , then another hi rise of mixed commercial/residential.   I see that in SPADES down here in Toronto. 

The monstrosity that is The Aura.  7-8 floors retail/shops/food court,,, and the rest going up is all condos.  Not cheap ones either. From the start it's not sustainable because of the ridiculous prices on these units.  These units are not catering to the average income earners. And definable not catering to people who desperately need affordable housing. 

These are not even being built to house immigrants if that is the case.  Canadians living here cannot really afford them, do you really think immigrants will be able to? 

https://condos.ca/toronto/aura-at-college-park-386-388-yonge-st

image.png.a2e83ec18490459e37d557f8fbfe1e29.png

 

Now if those prices scare you, check out Pier 27. You have dedicated bike lanes, dedicated walk lanes, and several tram stops... 

https://condos.ca/toronto/pier-27-39-queens-quay-e

image.png.bc769c728b88b95895cd30be9c17cf25.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Well, perhaps you might consider what Merkel actually said when answering questions on the pact in the Bundestag. When confronted on whether the pact is binding, she refused to say it isn't and in fact countered that when approved by enough EU member states its provisions are binding on all EU members whether or not their national parliaments agree. Seems pretty credible and definitive to me. The fact that Canada's MSM outlets appear to have avoided covering Merkel's comments doesn't render factual reportage on other sites 'opposite in fact', as you hold to be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZ-FK4YESM

The term reported was "valid", not "binding". Regardless, should the EU decide to make binding regulations on its member states, that would be the decision and prerogative of the EU, and not anything inherent in the document; the EU makes binding rules on its member states all the time ... that is one of the points of the EU.

Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

Preamble:

...

7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

...

Guiding Principles:

...

15. We agree that this Global Compact is based on a set of cross-cutting and interdependent 
guiding principles: 

...
International cooperation: The Global Compact is a non-legally binding cooperative framework that recognizes that no State can address migration on its own due to the inherently transnational nature of the phenomenon. It requires international, regional and bilateral cooperation and dialogue. Its authority rests on its consensual nature, credibility, collective ownership, joint implementation, follow-up and review. 

National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law.

...

 

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TTM said:

The term reported was "valid", not "binding". Regardless, should the EU decide to make binding regulations on its member states, that would be the decision and prerogative of the EU, and not anything inherent in the document; the EU makes binding rules on its member states all the time ... that is one of the points of the EU.

Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

Preamble:

This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

Guiding Principles:

15. We agree that this Global Compact is based on a set of cross-cutting and interdependent 
guiding principles: 

...


International cooperation: The Global Compact is a non-legally binding cooperative framework that recognizes that no State can address migration on its own due to the inherently transnational nature of the phenomenon. It requires international, regional and bilateral cooperation and dialogue. Its authority rests on its consensual nature, credibility, collective ownership, joint implementation, follow-up and review. 

National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law.

...

 

You'll note that Merkel inserted the term "valid" when responding to a direct question about whether the pact is binding. Although I don't speak German, in English such a response would be interpreted as upholding the assertion or premise of the questioner. And the questioner also noted that the conference chair in Morocco stated the pact was binding on signatory countries, which Merkel didn't apparently refute. The countries that have opted out of the pact, including the U.S., Australia and Italy (hardly despotic states) have done so on grounds of its impact on their sovereignty and ability to independently craft and administer their own policies and programs.

It's interesting that you cite the "International cooperation" provision, which holds that "no state can address migration on its own" and thus asserts the collective "authority" of the pact. And I'm also amused that you assert the primacy of "national sovereignty" by quoting verbiage which stipulates that signatory nations retain their sovereignty to the extent that they remain "in accordance with international law." Hmmm... You do understand the implications of this limitation, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This explains in part why Australia et al didn't sign...   now the Belgian PM has resigned over this

"Although the text is not legally binding and is regarded as more of a declaration, the pact is worded in a way that encourages domestic courts and authorities to consider it when making decisions based on interpretations of their laws.

Such provisions have prompted Austria, Hungary, Israel and several other countries to reject the pact. Critics claim that the deal is inadequate for managing global migration flows and might negatively affect their national immigration policies."

 

 

Edited by scribblet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

I haven't seen anything from the Rebel posted on here,  the Sun recognizes realityand speaks for a large no. of people who don't buy into the liberal horse-sh.t.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/12/13/news/press-council-comes-down-toronto-sun-serious-breach-after-false-report-about-goats

"Press council comes down on Toronto Sun for 'serious breach' after false report about goats"

I will say this about Trump, Ford and the rest of those baying nothings with dull-eyed followers: they have made me truly appreciate Canadian Conservatism as it used to be.  I apologize, in retrospect, to many of them.

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

Those with purple faces are the ones trying to justify and push something that on the face  seems to be a benign document but it is not.  Ask Australia and the other countries who have not signed on why they see it as a threat to their own sovereignty and policies. 

It is NON binding. Whether you sign or not makes no difference to your country's laws.  You could not sign it because it doesn't go far enough.  Like Agenda 21, this is more crackpot horseshit that people copy/paste from retarded news sites.

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

Though the pact is said to be non-binding, it is meant to establish the groundwork for an Orwellian campaign to cement mass migration as a human right legally above any and all criticism.

It's non-binding.  Come to me when the government of Canada tables a law.  

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

This is how authoritarian, totalitarian gov’t start to  oppress the people, by making it illegal to criticize anyone who speaks out against them, this is a supposedly benign document eventually becomes law. 

We have far more to worry about than non-binding UN ideas.  This is fantasy stuff and deserving of mockery in every way,  just as the non-binding Agenda 21 was.  People who are interested in news should find something real to spend their time on.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

The countries that have opted out of the pact, including the U.S., Australia and Italy (hardly despotic states) have done so on grounds of its impact on their sovereignty and ability to independently craft and administer their own policies and programs.

"sovereignty issues" are a convenient political smokescreen, nothing more

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

"no state can address migration on its own"

By definition migration involves at the very least two countries: the country being migrated to, and the country being migrated from. 

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

"in accordance with international law." Hmmm... You do understand the implications of this limitation, right?

It means in accordance with international law.  Is it your belief that there is no current international law on the subject? if so you would be wrong

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - Ha ha is noted. 

 

Here's @Scriblett talking about the threat of another gun registry.

"After some reading I now believe that the actual threat is in fact another ‘Gun Registry’ as this treaty wants signatories to track all information including value and destination of all imported and exported guns."

Yes that was five years ago, folks... Let's make sure to keep these non-binding UN statement threats organized... 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that someone has to back years to troll for other posts...

The fact that they say it isn’t legally binding is not enough to assure numerous countries including the U.S.,  Australia,  Austria and Hungary, who did not sign.

These gov’ts  have made numerous objections, among which the compact mixes up the rights of asylum-seekers with those of economic migrants.  They also believe that multl tinational agreements and in particular this one, do go against the sovereign power of individual gov’ts.    

 I guess these countries and all those who oppose it are also ‘mouth breathers’, as is, I suppose, anyone who disagrees with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TTM said:

1.) "sovereignty issues" are a convenient political smokescreen, nothing more

2.) By definition migration involves at the very least two countries: the country being migrated to, and the country being migrated from. 

3.) It means in accordance with international law.  Is it your belief that there is no current international law on the subject? if so you would be wrong

1.) And you know this how?

2.) What, exactly, is your point?

3.) My point is that such pacts become part of the body of international law, which is defined as "a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another." Under the Westphalian sovereignty model, which has governed the relations between states since the 17th century, all international law, except perhaps the Geneva Conventions, is theoretically non-binding except to the extent that sovereign nations voluntarily agree to in act in accordance with the multilateral agreements into which they enter. In other words, sovereign states cannot be bound to comply with international pacts, which are thus non-binding, but by entering into such pacts essentially agree to in good faith comply with their provisions.

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

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It is NON binding. Whether you sign or not makes no difference to your country's laws.  You could not sign it because it doesn't go far enough.  Like Agenda 21, this is more crackpot horseshit that people copy/paste from retarded news sites.

It's non-binding.  Come to me when the government of Canada tables a law.

And what, exactly, do you know about any of this? Why have several countries, including quite a few democracies, refused to sign the pact on grounds of its potential impact on their laws and sovereignty? I suspect they employ well-educated lawyers who've warned them of the pacts implications.

I think that apologists for this pact, who defend it on grounds that it's non-binding, don't actually understand the practical meaning of the term. As I noted in response to another post, all international law, with the possible exception of the Geneva Conventions, is theoretically non-binding. Under the Westphalian sovereignty model that's governed the relationships between countries since the 17th century, international law is non-binding except to the extent that the sovereign states voluntarily agree to comply with the stipulations of the pacts, treaties and agreements into which they enter. In other words, sovereign states cannot be bound or compelled to enter into or comply with international pacts, which are thus voluntary and non-binding, but by entering into such pacts signatory states essentially agree to in good faith comply with their provisions.

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

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's non-binding.  Come to me when the government of Canada tables a law.  

Won't it be too late then?

We already have laws regarding immigration that we are ignoring and refusing to enforce.  That tells me that this government agrees with the Pact - that all countries should be required to open their borders to anyone at any time for any reason and the existing population must provide for all their needs/wants/desires.  Once it becomes law that anyone, from any part of the world can walk into any country at any time  and expect to be given housing, healthcare and social assistance for life, it will be too late to challenge.

From the Pact, it appears that this is the goal - open borders across the world, the rights of economic migrants coming before all else, with the native populations only having the right to STFU and pay for it all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...