What’s the Fuss About The Global Compact for Migration?
Thu, December 20, 2018 | Author: Vicki Gunn |
Riots in France! The United States, Australia, and others, refusing to sign! Protests across Canada! What’s the fuss about?
We are living through a clash of world views. People like our Prime Minister believe the best form of government is a centralized global government as evidenced by his infamous statement that Canada is the world’s first “post national state.”
I spoke about this in our Communiqué entitled “Countries Without Borders” but this critical issue deserves more discussion. We need to examine the PM’s commitment as a signatory of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM). The primary problem with this pact is that it would decrease individual country’s ability to say no to anyone wanting to enter their borders.
The preamble to the GCM differentiates between migrants and refugees. “This Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.” Those who are moving not due to their life being endangered but because they choose to migrate. According to an “Informal Analysis” put out by the UN, “The same objective also calls for cooperation on solutions for migrants compelled to leave their countries of origin due to slow-onset natural disasters.” Exactly how slow can the onset be? Who determines if it’s a “slow-onset” natural disaster? If someone migrates on the basis that their home country, in 200 years, is speculated to be too hot to be habitable, is that slow enough?
We are also called upon in Section 16:c to “Develop national short, medium, and long-term policy goals regarding the inclusion of migrants in societies, including on labour market integration, family reunification, education, non-discrimination and health,” Rather than bringing in those immigrants who meet the needs that Canada has, we are committing to integrating them into our labour market. Let’s consider the 45 year old man that immigrates to Canada with no marketable skills in Canada. We absorb the cost of training him to fit him into our labour market … let’s say 5 years. Then at 50 years of age, he enters the labour market. At 65 years of age he retires … with 15 years of contribution to CPP, we pick up the tab for the next 25 years of retirement.
According to the Toronto Sun, “Starting June 1, 2018, Canada will no longer reject immigrants based on existing health conditions. We will begin accepting sick immigrants who will immediately be a drain on our social welfare system.”
While our provinces struggle to provide healthcare to their existing population, our federal government further burdens taxpayers with an international treaty that obliges us to cover healthcare costs for anyone who crosses into our country. Obliges? Section 15:e says, “Incorporate the health needs of migrants in national and local health care policies and plans … facilitating affordable and non-discriminatory access.” Nobody wants to deny sick people treatment but we can become patsies for anyone from another country who wants to come to Canada for our taxpayer-funded health care.
These are just a few of the gems in this document that our Prime Minister has signed on our behalf.
Nations have borders for a reason but our Prime Minister has said that he does not recognize us as a nation. He sees no need to protect our borders or to preserve our culture; his admiration for tyrannies allows him to subject us to a treaty, not to preserve peace, but to propel us under the tyranny of an international agreement.
The question that has been asked over and over again is whether or not The Global Compact for Migration is binding. Is it the death knell for national sovereignty?
First of all, I have to ask why we would spend millions of dollars to sign something that is just a feel-good document? That could have been handled by a few emails being sent back and forth.
Item 7 of the Preamble says it’s not binding but it also talks about a country’s OBLIGATION under international law. As a matter of fact there are seventeen references to “rights and obligations” or “obligations under international law” in this thirty two page document.
What if, like the United States, a country says “no” to immigrants showing up and crossing the border?
With the migrants coming from Central American, a UN official sent a letter of concern, which said: “Experience shows that when armed forces are used to perform tasks that they are not trained to do, this usually leads to serious violations of human rights.”
Did the border crossings of any of the other countries stop this caravan? No! Then the US decision to block the immigrant caravan was a rational decision. Further, if the UN considers that protecting your borders “usually leads to serious violations of human rights,” then how long before the UN would be calling for sanctions against ‘rogue states’ that don’t allow uncontrolled immigration?
According to the Toronto Sun, “ . . . a growing number of countries are skeptical it will have no impact on their immigration and refugee laws and will in fact impede their national sovereignty and efforts to keep their borders secure.”
CHP Canada is concerned about the impact on our rights and freedoms, our culture, our safety, and our long term economic survival. CHP would disentangle Canada from unworkable and damaging international commitments.
CHP Canada says, “No” to this Global Compact for Migration. Join your voice with ours by joining CHP Canada today!
Other Commentary by Vicki Gunn:
- Selling Out…or Compromise?
- Are You A Liberal or a Bigot?
- Are We in Trouble?
- Group Rights… and Wrongs!
- Swept Under the Carpet
- A Canada Without Laws
- Feminism or Misogynism
- Group Hugs for Criminals
- What’s the Fuss About The Global Compact for Migration?
- Freedom of What?
- Countries Without Borders
- Due Process, #MeToo, and a Kick