Does international law trump national law? The United Nations (U.N.) believes it does, as it hosts member countries in Morocco on December 10 to sign the Global Migration Compact, which holds the potential to create a borderless world that allows any person from anywhere to enter any country and making immigration law obsolete. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was agreed to in July 2018 by all U.N. member nations, except the United States, when President Donald Trump declared, “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country… The global approach in the [compact] is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
Despite European Union (E.U.) Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker urging member states to back the U.N.’s migration pact, and calling opponents “stupid populists”, at least six E.U. states have already shunned the accord to regulate the treatment of migrants worldwide.
Human rights are not respected internally in the majority of countries across the globe, and the ability for international entities to enforce their human rights standards nationally does not have a track record of accomplishment. Europeans across the region increasingly disapprove of accepting refugees and migrants following the greatest uncontrolled influx of people into Europe since World War Two beginning in late 2014, which continues to turn public opinion negatively.
Globalist policy continues to create resistance toward legitimate refugees in otherwise tolerant and open western societies, with political ramifications. There are great misgivings from opposing countries, who question the implications of the thirty-four-page document, which outlines a foreign national’s right to access to work, education, and healthcare, as well as their families, regardless of skill. Will a country’s native citizens be financially required to pay for the services migrants benefit from? In accordance with the compact, if international law takes precedence for migrants then they are essentially an elite group above national law, putting them in opposition to a country’s native citizens by holding them to different legal standards, whereas a country's native citizens would not have the same level of legal representation as they continue to abide by national law.
National responses to the Compact:
· An official petition urging the British government to reject the compact has over 90,000 signatures, which becomes an issue for debate in Parliament at 100,000.
· The issue has led to a government crisis in Belgium where the left-wing Premier wants to sign but the right-wing N-VA party threatens to bring down the government’s ruling coalition if he does.
· Austria has said it will not sign, in addition to Italy.
· In the Netherlands, a recent opinion poll showed 41 percent of people are against signing the pact versus 34 percent in favor.
· In the German Parliament, Alternative for Germany (AfD) Leader Alexander Gauland said, "Millions of people from crisis-stricken regions around the world are being encouraged to get on the road. Leftist dreamers and globalist elites want to secretly turn our country from a nation state into a settlement area." The German government is under no obligation to ask for the parliament's approval to ratify the non-legally binding compact.
· Eastern European countries including the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia have renounced the compact.
· Australia has also quit.
· Canada appears ready to sign the compact, as they are sending a representative to the December 10 meeting.
On creating two tiers of citizenry, of native nationals versus foreign nationals
"Facilitate access to procedures for family reunification for migrants at all skills levels through appropriate measures that promote the realization of the right to family life and the best interests of the child, including by reviewing and revising applicable requirements, such as on income, language proficiency, length of stay, work authorization, and access to social security and services."
On shaping and controlling public discourse, dialogue, criticism, and opinion by using language to define specific meaning:
"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.”