"On Second Thoughts . . . "

UN Migration Pact

Nations Abandon Legal ‘Framework’ Building 

Oliver JJ Lane
Breitbart London


More nations are joining the exodus from the United Nations’ (UN) controversial compact on mass migration, with legal experts now standing up to raise concerns about the drafting of the document and what legal implications signing it might have for countries party to the pact.

President Donald Trump was the first to pull out of the UN pact on migration in December 2017, a move which prompted howls of disapproval from both the mainstream media and globalist leaders.  Yet several nations from all over the world have outright withdrawn from the compact since initially ratifying it in July, or have signalled their intent to do so, as states gain confidence in opposing fashionable but dangerous deals that are not in their own interests.

 In comments that cut across the grain of the usual business and practice of the United Nations, President Trump said at the body’s New York headquarters in September: “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.  Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.”

Australia, Israel, and Poland are among the latest to pull out, all citing national interest reasons.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morris remarked Wednesday that the agreement is “inconsistent” with his nation’s best interest, and that the document “fails to adequately distinguish between people who enter Australia illegally and those who come to Australia the right way”, noting the frequent observation that the paper does not differentiate between legal and illegal migration.

The "New" World Order

Reassertion of National Sovereignty 

Globalism Rolled Back

BreitbartLondon


CANBERRA (AFP) – Australia Sunday gave 7,500 boat people until October to file a claim proving they are genuine refugees or be kicked out, declaring the “game is up” for illegal arrivals ripping off taxpayers.

Before the conservatives took power and adopted a tough line on the issue in 2013, an estimated 50,000 asylum-seekers flooded into Australia on more than 800 boats over the previous five years.  Hundreds more, many from war-torn Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Middle East, died at sea during the treacherous journey.

Of those arrivals, the old Labor government processed nearly 20,000, leaving 30,500 to the current administration.  Some 7,500 of them have yet to present their cases for asylum or are refusing to answer questions about their identity, while claiming welfare benefits, casting doubt on whether they really need protection.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said that if they fail to lodge a claim by October 1, they will be removed from the country and banned from re-entering.  “This is a very serious situation and it’s costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year,” he said.  “So if people think that they can rip the Australian taxpayer off, if people think they can con the Australian taxpayer, then I’m sorry, the game’s up.   We are prepared to support people who are legitimate refugees, but we aren’t going to support people who are just accessing welfare … and then refusing to provide any information in relation to their protection claim.”

Refugee advocates reacted furiously, saying the government had sunk to “an impossible new low.

The More Things Change . . .

Migration in the Name of Religious Belief

The Scots and the Scots-Irish had a hard time after the death of Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II in England.  After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, things were better, but the Scots continued to labour under restrictions of various kinds.  One consequence of this oppression was "voting feet": large numbers of Scots and Scots-Irish sailed for America.  

As one historian put it:

After the year 1714, their ships began to cross the sea from Ulster in a long unbroken line.  For more than sixty years they continued to come.  It was the most extensive movement ever made from Europe to America before the modern days of steamships.  Often as many as 12,000 came in a single year. . . . In the two years, 1773 and 1774, more than 30,000 came.  A body of about 600,000 Scots was thus brought from Ulster and Scotland to the American colonies, making about one-fourth of our population at the time of the Revolution.  [H. A. White, cited by Douglas Wilson, Five Cities that Ruled the World (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson, 2009), p. 144.]

These migrants were both economic and political in their motivation.  That is, they were poor and the prospects for  life were better  in the New World, than the Old.  But they were also second class citizens by dint of official policy in England.  These things have a contemporary sound about them, given the mass migration now underway from the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia into Europe and probably, eventually, into the United States.

Nothing to See Here; Move Along

Sweden: Men of Migrant Families Responsible for 90% of Gun Violence

Virginia Hale
BreitbartLondon

Almost all murders and attempted murders in Sweden using firearms are carried out by people with foreign backgrounds, according to a new study.

According to research carried out by Dagens Nyheter, 90 out of the 100 offenders and suspected offenders examined by the liberal daily newspaper have at least one foreign-born parent, the vast majority having roots in the Middle East and North Africa.

In around half of the cases, the men were born in Sweden whilst others migrated to the country at a young age. The study looked at 53 convicted and 47 suspected perpetrators involved in shootings in public places which have taken place since 2013.  “The fact is that street gangs, and violence are phenomena that occur in some areas, and most of the people who live in these areas are of foreign descent,” said Amir Rostani, a sociologist at Stockholm University.

Around 80 per cent of the men have roots in the Middle East and North Africa, with offenders having roots in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Somalia, and Eritrea.  “This is well in line with a study I previously conducted, on members of criminal networks,” Amir Rostami told Dagens Nyheter.

Damning EU Report

‘Rescuing’ Mediterranean Migrants Encourages Smugglers, Increases Drownings

[Most state actions have the opposite unintended consequences.  Here is yet another example. Ed.]

Jack Montgomery
Breitbart London






Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, has admitted that search-and-rescue (SAR) missions in the Mediterranean Sea are strengthening criminal migrant smugglers’ business model and increasing total drowning deaths.

The Frontex Risk Analysis for 2017 admits that:

…Both border surveillance and SAR missions close to, or within, the 12-mile territorial waters of Libya have unintended consequences.

Namely, they influence smugglers’ planning and act as a pull … Dangerous crossings on unseaworthy and overloaded vessels were organised with the main purpose of being detected by EUNAVFOR Med/Frontex and NGO vessels.

Apparently, all parties involved in SAR operations in the Central Mediterranean unintentionally help criminals achieve their objectives at minimum cost, strengthen their business model by increasing the chances of success.

Migrants and refugees – encouraged by the stories of those who had successfully made it in the past – attempt the dangerous crossing since they are aware of and rely on humanitarian assistance to reach the EU.  The end result is that crossings to Italy reached an all-time high of 182,000 in 2016, with an attendant rise in drowning deaths: 5,083, as compared with 3,777 in 2015 and 3,279 in 2014.

Frontex acknowledges “the scope of the problem is alarming”, with SAR missions forming an essential component of the people smugglers’ operations and providing them with a “distinct tactical advantage”.  Even so, the EU agency concludes that “SAR efforts will continue as long as the migratory crisis persists in the Central Mediterranean not only because they relate to international legal obligations, but also because they stem from European values.”

Australia drew the opposite conclusion from its own migrant crisis, which also saw people-smugglers sending unseaworthy vessels towards their destination with inadequate fuel, radioing ahead for them to be picked up and escorted to their target country by the authorities.

These crossings reached a high of 403 boats and 25,173 migrants in 2012-13 before former prime minister Tony Abbott launched Operation Sovereign Borders. This military-led mission sees smuggler boats either turned back to their port of origin or escorted to a third country, with migrants’ asylum applications processed off-shore. Genuine refugees are homed outside Australia at the commonwealth’s expense.

The Australian approach is unlike the European policy in that it is designed to reduce drowning deaths by strongly disincentivising illegal sea-crossings. It appears to have been successful, with the government recently reporting that it has been 900 days since the last smuggler boat reached Australia.  Tony Abbott has advised EU leaders that “If you want to stop the deaths [and] you want to stop the drownings, you have got to stop the boats”.

Speaking in Prague in late 2016, the London-born conservative said “Effective border protection is not for the squeamish, but it is absolutely necessary to save lives and to preserve nations. The truly compassionate thing to do is: stop the boats and stop the deaths.”  Abbott has also warned that “Many of those taking to boats across the Mediterranean or clamouring at Europe’s gates look set to join an angry underclass”, and the migrant crisis could, therefore, represent an “existential threat” to European societies.

“Too many are coming not with gratitude but with grievance, and with the insistence that Europe should make way for them. Some of Turkey’s leaders have even urged Muslims to take back parts of Europe, and among the would-be migrants are soldiers of the caliphate bent on mayhem.”

Will Europe See It Through?

First Steps

It looks as if Europe has taken some significant steps to seal its border from the endless progression of economic migrants making their way to Europe.  It remains to be seen how effective its policing will be of the boats and the vehicular and foot traffic.  

The immediate focus is upon migrants boating up and crossing from Turkey to Greek islands near to Turkey, at which point the migrants land de facto in Europe.  The new policy is stated as follows:

From Sunday morning, any asylum seeker who lands on the holiday islands including Kos, Lesbos and Chios with no longer be able to catch ferries to Athens, but will be swiftly interviewed by asylum officials or judges at new detention camps.

From April 4, once Greek law has begun, deportations to Turkey will begin with leaders hoping within weeks that the process will take no more than days.  Those that appeal their removal will be brought before Greek judges in rapid-fire court hearings, under an operation costing €20 million a month involving 4,000 staff.  [The Telegraph]

We predict that the flow of migrants via Turkey to Europe via Greek islands will cease, rapidly.  It remains to be seen whether the flow from North Africa across the Med, or the vehicle and foot traffic from Eastern Europe will be similarly interdicted.  To date, lax and easy European policy has created the migrant crisis, proving a beacon and magnet for those wanting to better their lives (which is the case for most people on earth).

Only when the borders are shut to volitional migrants can a sustainable genuine refugee programme be put in place and developed.  As one commentator put it, Europe has finally decided to adopt the Australian solution.  Anything less swamps and drowns a genuine refugee programme with a flood of economic migrants.

Yet it is still an open question as to whether Europe has sufficient commitment to such a policy to see it carried out fairly and justly.

Reality Shock

Paper Tigers Face Up to Jihad

World views matter.  Tacitly believed world views are as profoundly influential as the world view of the self-aware.  When however the tacit believer is confronted by an alien world view most often confusion results.  A normal reaction is for the tacit believer to retreat to the old "certainties", like "Nobody believes that", or "What an extreme view", or "Everybody agrees that's wrong".

We are seeing this every day in the confrontation between Islamic world views, on the one hand, and sophisticated secular humanists in the West who have spent most of their adult lives in the thrall of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.  Everyone believes the mores and principles of secular humanism, so it must be right.  Islamic believers are a devastating threat because they don't give a fig for the Western world-view.  Moreover, because Islamic believers are far more self-conscious about the foundations and fundamental principles of their world-view, their militancy comes as a great shock to the fellow-travellers of Western secular humanism.

Here is an example of one writer expressing his bewilderment over the behaviour of Islamic migrants:  Karl du Fresne opines--

Immigration Will Crush European Equal-Treatment Rights

Europe's Nutcracker Problem

Stopping the flood of migrants into Europe is a relatively easy matter.  What is far more difficult is the lack of political will throughout Europe to do it.  In addition there are some complicating factors which mean that permitting migration to Europe is fraught with much, much higher costs, disruption, and negative outcomes than what used to be the case.

These "complicating factors" are philosophical and ideological in nature.  But they make an enormous difference.  The explanations are not hard to find.  It has to do with radical, novel beliefs about intolerance, and a recently manufactured "human right" to be treated equally in the market place.

A window into what is wrong can be found in a published report entitled, Europe: The Problem of Intolerant Equality Laws.  In it, we read the following:

Serving a Bloody God

Sacrifices Must Be Made

Naive, vacuous humanitarianism--the West's prevailing ethic--makes us easy prey.  The established wisdom in the West is that mankind is without sin.  All human beings are intrinsically good.  All evil, if it exists anywhere, is environmentally caused--insufficient food, clothing, shelter; inadequate education; disease, and so forth.  A change in fortunes or circumstances, and, hey presto, more perfect, immaculate, sinless creatures emerge from the cocoon.  It's a case of "build it (right) and they will come (to righteousness)"

In facing the mass migration from (often) war torn devastation in the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Africa, European nations are easily gulled.  The world-view of humanitarianism sets them up.  None of this, of course, is to gainsay charity and compassion.  But humanitarianism is a denial of genuine love and compassion.  Genuine love is always based upon truth.  Humanitarianism, however, pushes away truth and realistic assessments based upon its view of evil as being a mere irritant caused by superficial, environmental, circumstantial trivialities.  Evil is easily overcome according to a naive and foolish West. Throwing money at the "problem" goes a long, long way to achieving redemption.

The West can be compared to a gullible householder responding to a knock on the door, late at night.  The visitor at the door pleads for help.  "I need protection.  If you have a gun, please give it to me."  The gullible householder hands over his varmint gun, whereupon, the visitor promptly shoots him, and ransacks the house.

There have been voices raised questioning the wisdom of allowing masses of migrants being able, literally to walk into a country.  Some stubborn recalcitrants have even suggested that amidst the masses, serious, committed jihadis might be infiltrating as enemy agents.  And they were right.

Letter From the UK (About the Migrant Crisis)

Prepare Yourselves: The Great Migration Will Last Decades

It is not war, but money, that drives people abroad. That is not going to change any time soon

A boat with refugees sinks close to the cargo ship 'OOC Jaguar' in the Mediterranean sea  Photo: EPA/Opielok Offshore Carriers

By Fraser Nelson

The Telegraph

When the crew of HMS Bulwark first fished immigrants out of the Mediterranean, they were expecting to find the world’s hungry, wretched and destitute. Instead, they found them relatively healthy, well-dressed and carrying mobile phones and credit cards, which they intended to use upon arrival in Italy.The military learnt then what politicians are only slowly beginning to work out – that this is not simply a refugee crisis. The world’s poor are on the move because they’re not quite so poor as they used to be, and can afford to travel. A great migration has begun, and it could be with us for decades.

The photographs of the body of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy, vividly convey the human tragedy on Europe’s borders – but not the complexity. Many are fleeing war, but many are fleeing poverty. The Royal Navy found a pregnant Nigerian woman who had paid $1,200 for the journey and a father from Faisalabad, an industrial city in Pakistan.  Under European rules, they would be judged by whether they were fleeing war or poverty – but the distinction seems moot. All were prepared to risk death to give their families a better life; seeking only the right to start at the very bottom.

The Chances Are Not Good

Dealing With the Refugee Crisis

The "migrant crisis" confronting Europe hits the headlines every day at the moment.  This will not last, of course, because Western grief, outrage, and angst, mixed with guilt and pity can only be sustained for so long.  Soon other crises d'jour will demand air time.

There is no simple solution at hand to this crisis.  Like most issues of this kind there can only be ameliorating moves that lessen the problem.  Human suffering will continue to exist around the globe; people will yearn for better lives and living conditions.  Migration has taken place since time immemorial.  After, Abraham and his family were migrants.  The best Western nations can hope to do is lessen the problem.

But having a clear understanding of the problems and their causes helps.  Only then will measures to manage the crisis come more readily to hand.  Here are some considerations which we believe ought to bear upon how this crisis is handled.

Firstly, we must face up to the cause of the crises.

Australia Rights the Ship

Refugees, the Australian Government and Christian Basics

The Australian government has shown the way when it comes to the vexed question of immigration.  Things have been scandalous, prior to the election of Tony Abbott's Liberal Coalition to government.  Australia was beset by boatloads of economic migrants, mainly via Indonesia, landing on its shores demanding refugee status, together with all the entitlements attached.  Genuine refugees were squeezed out.

The Commentariat, and the Left in particular, had long employed a faux guilt and pity approach which framed  turning the boats back to be completely reprehensible, cruel, unthinkable--and so forth.  Anyone who even suggested such heresy was pilloried immediately as a moral monster.  You know the drill.  But how times have changed--and quickly.  Miranda Devine takes up the narrative:

Labour's War of the Worlds

The Martians Are Coming

Spare a thought for the NZ Labour party.  If you do, you will be rewarded with a good laugh--which, as they say, is the best medicine.  Picture a headless chicken erratically racing around, with no sense of direction, flailing without purpose, until expiration mercifully transpires.  Then, there is the Labour Party.

Several commentators have observed that the party is deeply divided ideologically and personally.  And it seems we must grant their observations to be just.  Take the matter of immigration.  Labour has always cast itself as the party of compassion, with an eye to human suffering and deprivation.  Its historical belief in class warfare and the deprivations of capitalist exploitation require such a position.  But not now it seems.  Over recent weeks, Labour has decided that populist sentiment (as discerned through the headlines of our daily newspapers) is running against immigrants.  The dirty devils are coming into our country and buying up all our houses, so our own poor and disadvantaged are suffering.  Our poor are being refused the inalienable right of every New Zealander, not only to own his own home, but take out a prodigious mortgage in the process that won't be paid off in three generations, unless housing prices continue to rise perpetually [which is fine, since everybody knows that is a natural law, a direct inverse to the Law of Gravity]. 

Every Kiwi has a right to perpetual debt servitude, and Labour is going to ensure that they get to exercise that right.  Standing for the common man, with appropriate Coplian fanfare, Labour announced a distinctly anti-immigrant policy.  It would restrict the number of immigrants coming into New Zealand, so ordinary Kiwis could get mortgaged to their eyeballs.