Patriotic New Zealanders of all political persuasions can unite on this issue

Representatives of the New Zealand government will be in Marrakesh, Morocco, probably with the intention of signing up to the UN Global Migration Pact, the first of its kind for the UN in the policy area of international migration.

Several nations have already pulled out, notably countries that have their own problems with irregular (READ: ILLEGAL) migration, namely the United States, Hungary, Poland and Israel. What several of those countries have in common is international denunciations following their implementation of hard-line border control measures.

The United States was condemned by the UN Human Rights Office for their zero-tolerance policy on illegal border crossings. They moved from a system of catch and release, where immigration and asylum claims get tied up in the US courts, to one of catch and detain, where illegal aliens are held before deportation.

Hungary received swift and severe condemnation from the EU both for the construction of a wall across its southern border to stem the flow of illegal border crossings and for their refusal to accept the EU Refugee Resettlement Quota.

In both scenarios, the governments of these two countries acted on political mandates for which they had been voted into power, and in at least the case of Hungary, had the overwhelming support of the domestic voting population.

It is in this context of emerging ?Pro-Nation, Pro-Border? governments, with democratic mandates, receiving scorn and condemnation from unaccountable, unelected global institutions like the EU and the UN, that opposition to the United Nations Global Migration Compact has arisen.

The United Nations Global Migration Compact claims to deal with the challenges of migration, cooperation with border security and addressing the drivers of migration in developing countries.

What it does not deal with is the infrastructure deficit created in those countries that receive the immigrants or the lack of social cohesion and trust as a result of multiculturalism.

The United Nations Global Migration Compact mentions the word ?consultation? a total of 4 times across 38 pages. In none of those instances does it reference the democratic consultation of the native populations of countries affected by the influx of international migrants.

This is no coincidence. Democratic consultation in countries like Australia, US, Poland and Hungary has led to the enactment of policies on border control that are diametrically opposite to the intentions and principles of the United Nations Global Migration Compact.

The United Nations Global Migration Compact covers all sorts of initiatives, ranging from stopping the allocation of public funds to media outlets that display ?racism, xenophobia, or discrimination toward refugees and migrants?, to public awareness campaigns in elections.

On the one hand, the United Nations Global Migration Compact presents a garden variety of globalist and humanitarian twenty-dollar-a-piece buzzwords in a characteristically bureaucratic word salad. On the other, it pays only lip service to national sovereignty and the right of nations to determine their immigration policy.

The United Nations Global Migration Compact is non-binding, and the UN at the moment has no means of enforcing it. The key threat of the United Nations Global Migration Compact is the legislative creep it represents, signing up nations to a set of principles, decades of forums, conferences and reviews that must slowly but surely solidify the idea of migration as a human right into the language of politics and the law.

It empowers critics of the governments which pursue tougher border control policies and rein in immigration. It presents itself as yet another bundle of ?international obligations? for governments and NGOs to justify unpopular immigration and refugee policies and it entrenches a particular view of immigration and its impact on nations.

The view is that migration is a universal and essential part of human experience and that, in the modern era, migration brings productivity, innovation, trade and growth and enhances nations through diversity. Accepting the United Nations Global Migration Compact is to accept this as the norm: as a moral and factual statement.

That view completely ignores the fact that most people live in the country in which they were born and will continue to do so, as most have done for centuries. In the case of New Zealand, after 30 years of mass immigration from over 97 different countries, it is still in a productivity recession. Growth per capita is minimal, exports and the tradeable sector have continued to fall, and in Auckland, where 60% of migrants settle, nowhere near the predicted gains in innovation or productivity have materialised.

However, if you point all this out, you may well run afoul of the public awareness campaigns or electoral interventions, or suffer sanctions for ?racism, xenophobia, or discrimination toward refugees and migrants?.

Migration has definitely cost New Zealand. How much, no one knows because, to this day, the overall economic impacts of immigration on New Zealand and its impact on infrastructure and productivity have largely gone unstudied. The United Nations Global Migration Compact supports ?evidence based? migration governance and the collection of data. Will those fact-seeking missions still have support if they come to a? conclusion contrary to the principles and assumptions of the UN and EU?

The ambiguity of the United Nations Global Migration Compact is exactly why New Zealand should not sign it. It?s not without precedent. New Zealand chose not to sign the International Declaration of Indigenous Rights under similar pretexts of sovereignty before the National government reversed that decision when it came to power in 2008.

The United Nations Global Migration Compact is ambiguous; the road to where it leads is ambiguous and the positions of the UN and other global institutions on international migration, national sovereignty and borders are ambiguous.

In the current era, what people need, and what Kiwis need, is certainty. We need certainty about who comes to our country, in what numbers and under what conditions and we need certainty that we, the people, get a say in that.

Today it is already hard enough to hold domestic politicians to account for the migration policies that they pursue.

We need not worsen the situation by signing up to an ambiguous word salad of noble intentions and high morals that can be weaponised against us should we follow policies contrary to the designs of an unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy insulated far away under the auspices of the United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan, New York.

On Saturday, 8th December at 2 pm, patriotic New Zealanders of all political persuasions will gather in front of Aotea Square to demonstrate against the signing of the United Nations Global Migration Compact.

Join us, bring a New Zealand Flag with you, and come wearing a yellow or orange high visibility vest to show solidarity with the demonstrators in France and Europe. If the weather is unkind, try?to bring a yellow raincoat or umbrella.


by Anonymous Patriot