UN Migration Pact: evidence for the multiculturalization of Europe being by design?

The influx of non-European migrants into Europe has been at such a scale it has led to claims that the phenomenon cannot possibly be an accidental one, writes Christopher Goff.

Violent protests outside the EU Commission building in Brussels last Sunday [16 December 2018] I think took Europe's ruling elite by surprise. The various Flemish organizers of the demonstration put the number of participants at around 10,000, wheras the media said about half that number actually took part. Either way, the protestors certainly made a statement, with their actions somewhat unexpectedly being broadcast far and wide by the controlled media, albeit with the usual smattering of half-truths and falsifications.

One of these half-truths related to the reason behind the staging of the protest, since it was the case that some media organizations were incorrectly claiming the demonstration was a protest against 'immigration'. This when the media knew full well that the protest was not inspired by ill feeling towards migrants, but was instead organized in opposition to the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, or to give it its Soviet-sounding full name, the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, or GCM for short. The pact was recently formally agreed on by 164 nations, including as one might expect the UK, at the United Nations General Assembly held in Marrakech.

Unsurprisingly, President Trump has been outspoken in his criticism of the GCM. Last year he withdrew the U.S. from negotiations laying the groundwork for the pact, calling the GCM a "no borders plan" and adding, "America is a sovereign country. We set our immigration rules. We don’t listen to foreign bureaucrats".

Speaking before the meeting in Marrakech, Hungary's Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó condemned the United Nations for attempting to, what he called, "legalise illegal immigration" and announced his country's intention to vote 'no' on the agreement. Mr Szijjártó said: "The goal of the UN Global Compact for Migration is to legalise illegal immigration, which is totally unacceptable and violates the sovereignty of member states, including that of Hungary". He continued: "The UN is making the same mistake as the European Union, which wants to base its own migration policy on mandatory resettlement quotas" adding, "The UN Compact is more dangerous, however, because it is a global initiative, meaning it will have a greater effect than [European] policy, and represents a risk to the whole world".

Australia, Chile, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Switzerland, Italy, Poland and Slovakia have all joined the U.S. and Hungary in rejecting the agreement. Interestingly, the decision by the Belgian government to back the GCM has led to the resignation of Belgium's Prime Minister, Charles Michel, after the far-right New Flemish Alliance withdrew support for his government in protest.

But what is there not to like about the UN Global Compact for Migration? Critics cite two major concerns: first, they say the agreement attempts to confound legal and illegal immigration, and secondly there are claims the pact poses a threat to free speech in as much as it seeks to criminalize political opposition to migration.

The GCM seemingly attempts to classify all migrants as the same, regardless of whether or not they might have entered a country illegally, and regardless of the reason why they chose to migrate in the first place, like for economic or humanitarian reasons. This reclassification of migrants is considered dangerous because it has the potential to grant illegal immigrants a whole raft of extra rights, and so therefore greater legal protection, in the end making it more likely that illegals will be allowed to stay in whatever countries they might happen to enter. In other words, the more the process of migration is formalized the more it seems the system becomes loaded in favour of migrants. And people are concerned that these changes will result in the act of illegal entry into a country being decriminalized, as well as the scrapping of powers allowing the detention and subsequent deportation of illegals.

But equally as worrying is how the GCM threatens legitimate political opposition to migration, and this because of how it cynically frames such opposition in terms of 'racism' and 'xenophobia'. While free speech is protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment, the right of people to say things they believe in is not afforded any similar type of legal protection in Europe, or indeed in many other parts of the world. Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact for Migration seeks to 'Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration', and includes the following text:-

"We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law".

And to realize this commitment, the United Nations suggests that states should do the following:-

"Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims".

That Europeans living in Europe, North America and Australasia increasingly view migration in terms of a process of forced multiculturalization is not surprising. And that the United Nations thinks that ordinary Europeans are somehow at fault, or even criminal, for viewing migration in this way is not only highly objectionable, but it is also very worrying. If the way of life, or even as some might claim the very existence of Europeans is under threat, well then the GCM only serves to reinforce that threat. Marine Le Pen said of the pact: "The country that signs the pact, obviously signs a pact with the devil". While Alice Weidel, the AfD's leader in the Bundestag, said: "In effect, illegal migration is being legalised".

Many are holding up the United Nations Migration Pact as evidence for the multiculturalization of Europe being by design rather than accident, and this is something that fits with the far-right narrative which says the multiculturalization of Europe is predetermined. Indeed, the influx of non-European migrants into Europe in the post-war period has been at such a scale I think it inevitable for people to think that there must be some kind of conspiracy at work.

By way of example, the decision of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to allow over a million Syrians into her country was arguably anything but accidental, with Merkel claiming that migrants are needed to offset the low birth rate of ethnic Germans and to provide labour. However, it might come as a disappointment to Mrs Merkel to learn that recent figures suggest that more than half (55%) of the recipients of unemployment benefits in Germany have a migration background, something thought attributable to the lack amongst migrants of basic language or other workplace skills. Pass rates for Syrians on German language courses have been astoundingly low.

According to some, a plan lies behind the multiculturalization of Europe. The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, as it is called, is said to have been the brainchild of the Austrian diplomat Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, and who died in 1972. Coudenhove-Kalergi was reputedly the original proponent of a Unified Europe, and for this reason he is recognized as the founder of the first popular movement for the creation of a pan-European government.

In 1925, Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote in his highly influential book, Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), of the future racial composition of Europe, saying:-

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals".

Coudenhove-Kalergi also proclaimed the need to abolish the right of nations to self-determination, and proposed the break-up of nations through the use of ethnic separatist movements and the destruction of nations by way of mass migration. His end aim being a subjugated Europe which can more easily be controlled by a ruling elite. And if we look around us today, who could argue against Coudenhove-Kalergi's plan being successful?

Copyright © Christopher Goff
Tag: Migration
Uploaded: 23 December, 2018.