President Donald Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán are currently the only two national leaders to stand against the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, which is scheduled for formal adoption in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10 and 11. As it now stands, 191 nations are set to sign on to the agreement, but there are rumblings that other countries — Poland, Austria, Italy, and Australia — may also drop out of the controversial pact.
Get ready for a steady barrage of globalist bilge in the weeks ahead aimed at demonizing President Trump and his “heartless inhumanity” for refusing to join the UN’s parade of dictators, mass murderers, and kleptocrats who will trek to Marrakech for sumptuous feasts and sanctimonious speeches — while caring nothing and doing nothing to help the refugees and migrants they claim to be championing.
The push to enshrine the UN Global Compact in “international law” is accelerating. It took its first great leap forward on September 19, 2016, with the UN’s first-ever Summit for Refugees and Migrants. President Barack Obama followed up that mega-event by hosting an additional spectacle of his own the following day called the Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis. (For our report on those events, see, Obama-UN Refugee Plan: More Chaos, Conflict, Terror.)
Out of that two-day globalist extravaganza came forth the UN’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It also launched the two-year negotiation process to produce the Global Compact for Migration, which culminated on July 11, 2018 with the production of the final draft of the document. While all 193 UN members signed the New York Declaration (President Obama endorsing for the U.S.), only 191 have committed to the Global Compact: the U.S. and Hungary being the only holdouts, thus far.
In December 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. State Department to leave the Global Compact negotiations, overruling his UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who wanted the U.S. to remain. He was blasted by the Democrats, globalists, the professional compassion lobby, and the Fake News pundts, for that, of course, much as he was for announcing his intention to withdraw the United States from the UN’s Paris climate accord, UNESCO, and other UN programs.
However, as the new “migrant caravan” marches closer to the U.S. border, with its blatantly anti-American, flag-burning activists demanding their “rights” as migrants and refugees to enter the United States on their own terms, more and more Americans are likely to be grateful to President Trump for having taken the stand that he has.
What’s So Bad About the Compact?
Now what could be so bad about a document with a beneficent-sounding title such as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration? Well, we should all know by now that UN politicians and bureaucrats, like grasping-for-power politicians and bureaucrats everywhere, know how to craft nice titles. Think UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Law of the Sea, etc. Or, closer to home, recall the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act — ObamaCare.
The problems with the UN Global Compact for Migration (GCM) begin with the very first sentence of the document text — then continue throughout. Here’s the first sentence of the text they will sign in Marrakech: “We, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, meeting in Morocco on 10 and 11 December 2018, reaffirming the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants … have adopted this Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.”
So, before we examine the actual text of the Compact, it behooves us to drop back for a quick look at a few of the shocking claims of the New York Declaration (see full text here) that the GCM “reaffirms.” Among the Declaration’s many problematic assertions are the claims of the “rights” of children of “migrants” to full welfare and education benefits, food, housing, and more. Naturally, we must also provide, it declares, “health care, including sexual and reproductive health.”
Equally troubling are the Declaration’s stigmatizing of opponents of mass migration as racist, xenophobic, and hateful, and its call for using hate-crime legislation to stamp out expressions of opposition. An additional problem is its many references to “international law” and nations’ “obligations” to adhere to and implement its agenda.
According to the Declaration (which President Obama endorsed), “We reaffirm our commitment to protect the human rights of migrant children, given their vulnerability, particularly unaccompanied migrant children, and to provide access to basic health, education and psychosocial services.”
Additionally, the Declaration asserts, “We will comply with our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We will work to provide for basic health, education and psychosocial development and for the registration of all births on our territories.”
It further proclaims: “We are determined to ensure that all children are receiving education within a few months of arrival, and we will prioritize budgetary provision to facilitate this, including support for host countries as required. We will strive to provide refugee and migrant children with a nurturing environment for the full realization of their rights and capabilities.”
And it commits signatories to “Assess and meet the essential needs of refugees, including by providing access to adequate safe drinking water, sanitation, food, nutrition, shelter, psychosocial support and health care, including sexual and reproductive health.”
Then there are the numerous references to “international law,” which has become code for derogation of national sovereignty and destruction of true respect for the genuine rule of law under our U.S. Constitution. The Declaration calls for “full respect for human rights in accordance with obligations under international law.”
Here are a few more examples:
• “We underline the need to ensure respect for the dignity of migrants and the protection of their rights under applicable international law, including the principle of non-discrimination under international law.”
• “Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.”
• “Large movements of refugees and migrants must have comprehensive policy support, assistance and protection, consistent with States’ obligations under international law.”
Criminalizing Opponents of Mass Migration
The Declaration warns that “we are witnessing, with great concern, increasingly xenophobic and racist responses to refugees and migrants.” In “progressive” parlance, that means anyone who, for any reason, opposes the globalist schemes for mass migration must be singled out for defamation as a racist, then marginalized, and then prosecuted under “international law.”
“We strongly condemn acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against refugees and migrants,” the Declaration states. It then goes on to proclaim that“we deplore all manifestations of xenophobia, racial discrimination and intolerance. We will take a range of steps to counter such attitudes and behaviour, in particular with regard to hate crimes, hate speech and racial violence. We welcome the global campaign proposed by the Secretary-General to counter xenophobia and we will implement it in cooperation with the United Nations and all relevant stakeholders, in accordance with international law.”
The GCM, remember, states in its pre-Preamble opening sentence that it “reaffirms” all of these dangerous, unconstitutional, subversive globaloney pronouncements in the New York Declaration. Then, the first sentence of the GCM Preamble declares: “This Global Compact rests on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
We won’t take space here to dissect and explicate the many dangers inherent in the UN Charter, something we have covered extensively in past articles. The second sentence of the GCM Preamble illustrates a peril that we find in virtually all UN agreements, i.e., that they are loaded with citations of previous agreements, covenants, treaties, and declarations that are intended as stealth reinforcements of so-called international law that will be used to ensnare us in “obligations” that will override our national, state, and local laws, and even our Constitution.
The second sentence of the GCM says that it “also rests on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the other core international human rights treaties; the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, including the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air; the Slavery Convention and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; the Paris Agreement [on climate change]; the International Labour Organization conventions on promoting decent work and labour migration; as well as on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the New Urban Agenda.”
Whew! As you can see, they don’t leave anything out! The GCM commitment to the UN’s monstrous 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development should provide, all by itself, more than sufficient cause for any reasonable American to give a vigorous thumbs-down on this pact. But there’s much, much more.
As to be expected, all the globalist think tanks, Wall Street moguls, and Big Media talking heads insist that the UN’s Global Compact for Migration is the only thing we can do to deal with the migrant crisis. Not surprisingly, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the principal globalist brain hub, is leading the charge. In its Global Governance Working Paper entitled “Domesticating the Giant: The Global Governance of Migration,” the CFR asserts: “UN member states should agree on a normative framework for the multilateral governance of migration. UN member states need to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM). As the first global comprehensive agreement, the GCM sets common standards and norms for managing migration and presents the potential to improve collective response.”
Likewise, the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Global Business Dialogue, the Migration Policy Institute, and dozens of other “world order” organizations are exploiting the refugee/migrant situation and beating the drums for the UN’s GCM “solution.” If the Pelosi-Clinton-Schumer-Waters-Warren-Booker Democrats retake control of Congress in November, President Trump may still be able to hold off U.S. adoption of the Global Compact, but he will have a much more difficult time stopping its agenda from being implemented piecemeal by Congress.