U.N. Secretary General seeks to promote global migration pact amid objections

a reply to: AtlasHawk

For your viewing pleasure, I present . . . . my response to the UN

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
I find it rather amusing that your rather defending it.

I'm not defending it, but I also don't see it as an evil thing.

It is indeed population replacement. And no the current UN pact is not about the people already living in the countries receiving migrants. Its the opposite. Its replacing the current population of a country with migrants because of its low birth rates and population.

Regardless of what it may be called, to me, "replacement" means take something and replace it with something else. In this case it would mean remove the population of those countries and replace it with people from other countries, but that's not what they are talking about.

And that has happened many times during the last centuries (migrations are natural), but at a slower rate.

a reply to: ArMaP

but I also don't see it as an evil thing

Plenty of others do see it as evil, as do i. Not considering the facts the UN has gone as far by suggesting that the African migrants who had being human trafficked by NGO smugglers as Necessary and are Desirable, thats quite of a orwellian statement by the UN if you ask me.

Migration is Necessary
Migration is Desirable

originally posted by: Willtell
This is very stupid and I don’t blame Europeans for feeling swindled.

Do the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, and Saudis let immigrations in?

Hell no

Every country should be allowed to take immigrants in on their own decision, not any UN or EU compulsion

It's not universal since the above countries are letting no one in.

So this idea is BS

Yep, you are 100% correct. The country that wishes to close it's borders should be allowed to do so. Seems only the Communist or Socialist ones are allowed a closed border

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Yes, what the world needs, increased population and then shipping them to the countries that have things under control to create chaos.

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
Plenty of others do see it as evil, as do i. Not considering the facts the UN has gone as far by suggesting that the African migrants who had being human trafficked by NGO smugglers as Necessary and are Desirable, thats quite of a orwellian statement by the UN if you ask me.

I'm not asking you.

a reply to: ArMaP

migrations are natural

Legal migrations are fine. Being smuggled by "NGOS/Traffickers" is another topic. Majority of the African/Arab migrants that recently came into Eupore and Italy these past five years have being all males.

Only 10% those have being only women. But majority overall males.
So ask a question why all the military fit looking males?
Why does the Mainstream News Media continue to lie that they are all women and children? for what propose are they doing that?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AtlasHawk

For your viewing pleasure, I present . . . . my response to the UN

Exactly the response they deserve.

I'm not sure it really matters anyway.

The UN has no actual power and the accord is non-binding. It's more of a suggestion than anything else.

If the goal is to improve peoples lives, the UN would be more in tune with the idea of working towards change where people live, not moving them. This is clearly about moving the poor to rich countries to redistribute the wealth. Most of these people would be far better off if they stayed where they are and where they are changed. Forcing people from incompatible cultures to live together is a very bad idea. Cultures often don't mix.

About a dozen years ago I got to know a refuge from the Sudan quite well. Motivated guy who started a successful business and loved it here. He ran head on into issues though when he started trying to bring his wives and children here.

He looked upset one day which was odd for him, always with a smile on his face and a person who brightened up the room when he came in. He was floored when he found out he could not move two of his three wives here and his children. He disappeared after that and I never saw him again. I suspect he went back.

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
Legal migrations are fine. Being smuggled by "NGOS/Traffickers" is another topic. Majority of the African/Arab migrants that recently came into Eupore and Italy these past five years have being all males.

When people migrate to a different country looking for work it's the males that do it. If things go well then they may bring their families to the new country.
Portugal has been a source of migrants for several European countries (mostly France, Switzerland and Luxembourg, where a large part of the population is from Portuguese descent), and that's how it worked: a man went to another country, got a job, got money, sent money back to his family, then, when things were better in his new country (conditions at the beginning were usually very bad) he sent for his family to join him. After a few more years they usually bought or built a house in is village of origin, with the idea of moving back to Portugal after retirement. Some made their whole new life in the new country and never came back.

Why does the Mainstream News Media continue to lie that they are all women and children? for what propose are they doing that?

I have never seen the media saying they are all women and children, you must be looking at the wrong media.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Most of these people would be far better off if they stayed where they are and where they are changed.

The problem is that the big companies are not interested in investing in poor countries, they are only interested in cheap work forces. If they invested on those countries people would get better education, would get better jobs and want higher pay, instead of the high pay jobs being for people from the rich countries where those big companies have the big investors.

Forcing people from incompatible cultures to live together is a very bad idea. Cultures often don't mix.

True, but nobody is being forced to any thing by the UN, as you said above. Also, what they are talking about is the fact that the population in most European countries is getting old, so the workforce on those countries has a tendency of getting smaller, which is bad for those countries' economies. By letting people from other countries to enter the job market on those countries they refresh the countries' workforce and the economy.

About a dozen years ago I got to know a refuge from the Sudan quite well. Motivated guy who started a successful business and loved it here. He ran head on into issues though when he started trying to bring his wives and children here.

I know a guy that has the same problem, several wives and children from all but one (if I'm not mistaken), the way he solved his problem was by having one official wife while the others are (officially) just some friends that live on his home. He is a Mormon.

a reply to: ArMaP

I have never seen the media saying they are all women and children, you must be looking at the wrong media.

Well i have and countless of times. At least when it comes to the matters of the migration wave in Europe.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Well, here in Europe I haven't seen that.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I'm not sure it really matters anyway.

The UN has no actual power and the accord is non-binding. It's more of a suggestion than anything else.

If the goal is to improve peoples lives, the UN would be more in tune with the idea of working towards change where people live, not moving them. This is clearly about moving the poor to rich countries to redistribute the wealth. Most of these people would be far better off if they stayed where they are and where they are changed. Forcing people from incompatible cultures to live together is a very bad idea. Cultures often don't mix.
.

The accord is non binding until your Country starts legislating them into laws as ours does. Now we have carbon tax being shoved down our throats .
UNDRIP (The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ) turned into BILL C-262
An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Now we can't get energy projects passed.
This Global Compact will be enshrined as well. Objective 17 is to muzzle the media and spin them into a positive light.

a reply to: ArMaP

I only mentioned that guy to demonstrate a real world situation where a legal refuge's culture was so incompatible he had to return to the Sudan.

I'm not commenting on why the countries they are from are so bad.

Globalism is being pushed a few generations too early. There will come a time when it makes sense, but not now. Moving people to a country with a system they hate and want to change to that of the country they left, is not rational. Far better we help out the country they are in so they can stay.

As a side note, even though I'm not a Mormon, I was raised in the Mormon church and Mormons have not had multiple wives since long, long ago. Those who do now, belong to a small group that split off, who are not Mormon's. One of the basic tenants of the Mormon faith is submission to authority and obeying the laws. I only bring that up because so many people are unaware that those people are not actual Mormons. They say they are, but it's not possible for them to be.

a reply to: fernalley

That's actually a problem with local government acting like the UN has authority over a sovereign nation, which they don't actually have.

I'm not up to speed on Canadian laws, but here only ratified treaties are binding in any way. The UN has no authority at all in the US. The UN is not really taken all that seriously.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: fernalley

That's actually a problem with local government acting like the UN has authority over a sovereign nation, which they don't actually have.

I'm not up to speed on Canadian laws, but here only ratified treaties are binding in any way. The UN has no authority at all in the US. The UN is not really taken all that seriously.

You are fortunate. Our PM is a globalist, right up there with Merkle and Macron

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Moving people to a country with a system they hate and want to change to that of the country they left, is not rational.

You are assuming migrants hate the system of the country to which they migrate to and want to change it. The large majority does not, and none of the ones I know want it either.

As a side note, even though I'm not a Mormon, I was raised in the Mormon church and Mormons have not had multiple wives since long, long ago. Those who do now, belong to a small group that split off, who are not Mormon's. One of the basic tenants of the Mormon faith is submission to authority and obeying the laws. I only bring that up because so many people are unaware that those people are not actual Mormons. They say they are, but it's not possible for them to be.

I will just say that I had evidences that he was, and in a position of power.

Wrong thread