This letter was sent in to Right Minds NZ by one of the supporters of the protest planned against the New Zealand government's failure to (so far) reject the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. You can RSVP and share it on Facebook. There is also a parliamentary petition which you should sign.
On Saturday, 8th December at 2pm, 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 bring a yellow raincoat or umbrella.
Representatives of the New Zealand Government will be in Marrakesh, Morocco, with the intention, probably, 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 counties 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 the international denunciations following the implementation of hard line border control measures.
The United States received condemnation from the UN Human Rights Office for their zero-tolerance policy on illegal border crossings. Moving from a system of catch and release where immigration and asylum claims get tied up in US Courts, to one of catch and detain where illegal aliens are held before deportation, children were not incarcerated with adults. This may have lead to family separation, but then who is to say when those attempting to cross the border often have no legal documentation.
Hungary received swift and severe condemnation from the EU for the construction of a wall across its southern border to stem the flow of illegal border crossings and refusal to accept the EU Refugee Resettlement Quota.
In both scenarios, the Governments of two countries acted out political mandates they had been voted into power on, and in at least the case of Hungary, held the overwhelming support of the domestic voting population.
It is in this atmosphere of emerging “Pro-Nation, Pro-Border” governments with democratic mandates receiving scorn and condemnation from unaccountable, unelectable global institutions like the EU and the UN, that opposition to the UNGMC has arisen.
The UNGMC 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 receiving countries or the lack of social cohesion and trust as a result of multiculturalism.
In the UNGMC it mentions the word consultation a total of 4 times, across 38 pages. In none of those instances does that reference the democratic consultation of native populations of countries affected by the influx of international migrants.
This is no co-incidence. Democratic consultation in countries like Australia, US, Poland and Hungary have produced those policies of border control that are diametrically opposite to the intentions and principles of the UNGMC.
The UNGMC covers all sorts of initiatives, from stopping the allocation of public funds for media outlets that display “racism, xenophobia, or discrimination toward refugees and migrants”, to public awareness campaigns in elections.
On the one hand the UNGMC covers a garden variety of globalist and humanitarian twenty dollar a piece buzzwords in a characteristically bureaucratic word salad. On the other it pays lip service to national sovereignty and the right of nations to determine their immigration policy.
The UNGMC is non-binding, and the UN at current has no means of enforcement. The key threat of the UNGMC is the legislative creep it represents, signing up Nations to a set of principles, decades of forums, conferences, reviews that slowly but surely solidifies the idea of migration as a human right into political and legal language.
It empowers critics of Governments pursuing tougher border control policies and reigning in immigration, it presents itself as yet another bundle of “international obligations” for governments and NGO’s to justify unpopular immigration and refugee policies and entrenches a particular view of immigration and its impact on Nations.
That view is that: Migration is a universal and essential part of human experience and that in the modern era; migration brings productivity, innovation, trade, growth and enhances Nations through diversity. Accepting the UNGMC is to accept this as norm, as a moral and factual statement.
That view completely ignores the fact that most people live in the country they were born, and will continue to do so, and many have done so for centuries now. In the case of New Zealand, after 30 years of mass immigration from over 97 different countries, NZ is still in a productivity recession, growth per capita is minimal when adjusted for population increase, exports and the tradable sector have continued to fall, and in Auckland where 60% of migrants settle, nowhere near the predicted gains in innovation or productivity have materialized.
But to point this all out, you may well run afoul of the public awareness campaigns, electoral interventions, or sanctions for ““racism, xenophobia, or discrimination toward refugees and migrants”.
And it has definitely cost NZ. How much no-one know because to this day, the overall economic impacts of immigration on NZ, its impact on infrastructure and productivity have gone largely unstudied. But alas, the UNGMC support “evidence based” migration governance and the collection of data. Will those fact seeking missions still have support if they come to the conclusion contrary to the principles and assumptions of the UN and EU?
And likewise, will respect for National Sovereignty, and the right of Nations to borders and to regulate their own migration policies remain if those powers are used to pursue the kinds of policies that Hungary and the US have followed, to the disdain of the UN and EU?
The ambiguity of the United Nations Global Migration Compact is exactly why New Zealand should not sign. It’s not without precedent. New Zealand chose not to sign the International Declaration of Indigenous Rights under similar pretences of sovereignty, before the National Government reversed that decision when it came to power in 2008.
The UNGMC is ambiguous; the road to where it leads is ambiguous and the positions of the UN and other global institutions of international migration, national sovereignty and borders are ambiguous.
In the current era, what people need, 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 pursue, usually navigating the immense gulf of between majority opinion of native-born citizens, and the policy preferences of a small, cosmopolitan, bureaucratic governing elite.
We need not worsen the situation by signing up to an ambiguous word salad of noble intentions and high morals that can be weaponized against us should we follow policies contrary to the designs of an unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy insulated away in the auspices of the United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan New York.
On Saturday, 8th December at 2pm, 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 bring a yellow raincoat or umbrella.
Please sign the parliamentary petition and share the event on social media.