web analytics
≡ Menu

Is government complicit in forced UN World Order?

Is government complicit in forced UN World Order?

Chris Merritt writes again about the very important matter of siding with UN, ‘one size fits all immigration policy’ that they pretend is not legally binding and does not interfere with Australia’s sovereignty. Well… if that is not a lie, why even discuss the matter at all with the UN? Why waste time and money on expensive trips if any deal has no teeth? Australia has more important issues threatening to bring the government down most would believe—but not old Tin-Ear Turnbull!

UN officials were warned by Australian negotiatiors that a pact on migration was adopting requirements that threatened national sovereignty. Australian negotiators repeatedly warned officials who drew up a UN pact on migration they were adopting requirements that threatened national sovereignty.

Source: News Corp

UN migration pact ‘a threat to sovereignty’

They also warned that the Global Compact on Migration contained ill-considered policies, would endanger lives and risked giving legitimacy to “unsafe, disorderly and irregular migration”.

Eric Schwartz: No need for Peter Dutton to ‘out-Trump’ US on migration

After examining the final draft of the pact last month in New York, Australia’s negotiators read a statement of concern to their international counterparts and urged them to reconsider.

The negotiating team, mainly consisting of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs officials, also provided written copies of their statement to delegates at that session and sent a copy to Canberra.

Their concerns about sovereignty were accepted yesterday by the government, which joined the US and Hungary in withdrawing from the pact.

The statement read out by the Australian delegation in New York reveals they had continually warned against including commitments in the compact that “failed to make clear distinctions between regular and irregular migrants and between refugees and migrants”.

“We are disappointed the final draft undermines the principle that migration should be lawful,” the statement says.

“The current draft does not reflect the principles of lawful and managed migration on which our country has been built. It falls short of what a country like Australia — where one in four people was born overseas — considers necessary.”

The adverse assessment of the compact came to light as Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday dropped earlier qualifications about Australia signing the document, instead ruling it out. When asked by radio 2GB’s Ray Hadley if the government intended to sign the compact, Mr Dutton said: “No, and the Prime Minister’s been very clear on that as well. We’re not going to sign a document that surrenders our sovereignty. We’re not going to sign a document that undoes the work of Operation Sovereign Borders. We’re serious about making sure we keep our borders secure. We’re not going to allow the UN or anybody else to disrupt the hard work that’s taken place and the threat for us hasn’t gone away. The boats are still out there.”

The US withdrew from the compact in December and Hungrary withdrew last month, saying the final version of the pact was “in conflict with common sense and also with the intent to restore European security”.

The move towards the Global Compact began in 2016 with a UN declaration on migration containing provisions that the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, described in December as inconsistent with US migration policy.

Eric Schwartz, the president of Refugees International, and a former Clinton administration official, said it was “baffling and disturbing” that Mr Dutton had “chosen to parrot the Trump administration’s fearmongering”.

The statement by Australia’s negotiating team shows it had warned against including “prescriptive commitments that pose real risks to the sovereign right of states to manage and determine border policies”.

“States must maintain the sovereign prerogative to determine migration and border policies in response to their own unique settings,” they said.

Assurances that the pact was not legally binding “belies the moral and political commitment it represents”, they said.

The final version of the pact, dated July 11, subjects the migration policies of signatories to a series of requirements and encourages them to “develop, as soon as practicable, ambitious responses for the implementation of the global compact”.

Biennial reports to the UN General Assembly will compare the migration policies of signatory nations with the requirements set down in the compact.

For Australia, ratification would have confronted the nation with the prospect of adverse outcomes in reports to the General Assembly unless major changes were made to the migration system.

Under the pact’s objective 13, governments are required to review and revise migration legislation and give priority to non-custodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law. Immigration detention could not be promoted as a deterrent and could be used only as a last resort.

Objective 17 requires governments to “shape perceptions of migration” by “sensitising and educating” journalists and withholding public funding and material support from publications that “promote intolerance” of migrants. It says this should be done “in full respect for the freedom of the media”.

The compact proposes joint efforts to end the impunity of people-smuggling networks, but also that signatories “build on existing practices to facilitate access for migrants in an irregular status to an individual assessment that may lead to regular status”. Under objective 12, governments would need to subject judges to “specialised human rights and trauma-informed trainings”, along with police, border officials and consular staff.

Australia’s negotiators wrote last month that they had ­continually sought to relay the lessons from the nation’s experience — principally that only lawful and managed migration pathways could protect the interests of migrants and states.

The Australians urged other delegates at last month’s talks to “deliver a compact that champions proven and effective responses to irregular migration, promotes managed migration that reinforces the rights and responsibilities of states and migrants alike, and reaffirms the social and economic benefits of regular migration”.

{ 13 comments… add one }
  • Pensioner Pete 03/08/2018, 6:29 am

    What’s the betting on Turdball slipping a signature onto the Global Compact on Migration in the dead of night?

    • DT 03/08/2018, 8:01 am

      I read that Bishop signed a memorandum of understanding (or whatever the document was called regarding the Global Compact) in 2016 and Turnbull addressed the United Nations in 2016 regarding immigration and the Global Compact.

      We therefore must be concerned that they will find a sneaky way to deceive us, as with their carbon tax by stealth introduced quietly in 2016. And supported by Union Labor.

  • luk1955 03/08/2018, 6:49 am

    The Australian government signed away our sovereignty in 1973 by signing onto UNIDROIT, the start of the nwo illness. Australia has become more nwo than just about any country on earth, including Russian and China.

  • Graham Richards 03/08/2018, 8:30 am

    The Abbott government was not involved & that’s why the leftist media were unleashed, & Turnbull, ex Goldman Sachs a NWO / Globalist protagonist were forced on us. It’s the same mob trying to kill off Brexit, it’s the same mob trying in vain to get rid of Trump, it’s the same mob trying to take over our immigration policies which Abbott rejected. They also tried it with USA. Obama signed he immigration agreement with UN but Trump ripped it up & wiped he floor with it. Our Canberra traitors are on the verge of signing!! All this to get their their badly damaged agenda back on track.

  • Lorraine 03/08/2018, 9:22 am

    Turnbull and Bishop traitors to our Country . Soros funding their lifestyle , Get up in their pockets. NWO is a disaster ,giving into the left…….LOVE TRUMP the only man that sees this crap for what it is, and what it means

  • DT 03/08/2018, 9:27 am

    The Australian published a great cartoon recently of Donald Trump sitting on a Kangaroo that had a face looking like Chairman Mal.

  • Michael Beach 03/08/2018, 9:27 am

    Solution –
    i) leave the UN.
    ii) leave the Paris Ciimate agreement
    Michael

    • DT 03/08/2018, 10:30 am

      Follow the Trump example.

      And he also addressed the UN and told them to stop meddling in the affairs of member nations.

  • Kevin Moore 03/08/2018, 11:13 am

    Section 44 of the Constitution states:
    .
    44. Any person who –
    .
    (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
    .
    …………..shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
    .
    .
    Is government complicit in forced UN World Order?
    .
    Chris Merritt writes again about the very important matter of siding with UN, ‘one size fits all immigration policy’ that they pretend is not legally binding and does not interfere with Australia’s sovereignty. Well… if that is not a lie, why even discuss the matter at all with the UN? Why waste time and money on expensive trips if any deal has no teeth? Australia has more important issues threatening to bring the government down most would believe—but not old Tin-Ear Turnbull!
    .
    UN officials were warned by Australian negotiatiors that a pact on migration was adopting requirements that threatened national sovereignty. Australian negotiators repeatedly warned officials who drew up a UN pact on migration they were adopting requirements that threatened national sovereignty. [More]
    .
    http://morningmail.org/87324-2/#more-87324
    .

    DISRAELI AWARD FOR TURNBULL
    .
    Malcolm Turnbull will be awarded a prize for maintaining Australia’s non-discriminatory immigration program.
    .
    The Disraeli prize, awarded by the British centre-right think tank Policy Exchange, is named for Britain’s first prime minister from a minority background, Benjamin Disraeli.
    .
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/07/malcolm-turnbull-to-be-awarded-prize-for-immigration-program

    • DT 03/08/2018, 4:46 pm

      I read somewhere that electricity supply is a state responsibility and therefore federal interference is unconstitutional, and therefore National Energy Guarantee proposed is too.

      And that the Paris Agreement signed and ratified was essential to enable the federal government to be involved?

      And what about Renewable Energy Target and related boosting of profits for private enterprise businesses?

      • DT 03/08/2018, 4:52 pm

        These comments are from the JoNova Science website:-

        TdeF
        August 3, 2018 at 9:35 am · Reply
        It is interesting whether the states have a case to get the Federal government out of energy. Of course energy was not part of Federation. Defence, trade, customs between states. The Federal government had no role in minerals and there was no concept of energy. So since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2001 the Federal government has tried to seize control of this new subject, but in doing so has wrecked the minerals business which is the States exclusive right. Gas is another. Onshore is definitely a States rights issue but offshore should be Federal, except that it isn’t except for defence.

        So we have Turnbull trying to control coal (indirectly), oil, gas and energy distribution between the states. Fertile ground for interference in what were State specific issues. Gillard tried to control State education mainly but also the police and the same energy market. Her mining tax was illegal but structured to try and get around this problem. The same with her a carbon tax on minerals. The most deceitful legislation though was the RET, the world’s biggest carbon tax and did not mention carbon and in fact is not a tax but a government enforced payment direct to third parties, illegal under Westminster tradition.

        This is where they need the big international agreements to argue that it is part of the Federal government’s purvey to interfere in previously State issues like coal, gas, oil. They need the Paris Accord to give them power.

        You get the feeling the country is being run by the massively indulged mandarins in Canberra in concert with the Merchant Banks like Turnbull’s Goldmann Sachs. We are simply the deer in the headlights. Even the explanations for their decisions do not make any logical sense and the pretend science is absurd. We need Abbott back. He is the only one making good sense and he is not a merchant banker or party animal or Union stooge or calculating Green opportunist.

        70
        #
        TdeF
        August 3, 2018 at 10:48 am · Reply
        The Federal government may not have the power under the constitution to legislate the NEG. When the Act appears, if it appears, it will be important to look at the quoted part of the constitution. I would guess they draw on their international obligations and they in turn would be enabled wholly by the Paris Accord.

        So walk away from the Paris Accord and any NEG based on it would be come null and void. That must be the first move of an Abbott government after repealing the RET which was never legal.

  • Graham Richards 03/08/2018, 5:42 pm

    If you do some comparisons you’ll soon recognise that Turnbull is the Obama of Australia. Just as Obama showed distinct favour to organisations like the Muslim brotherhood, the Mullahs of Iran, Turnbull favours the leftist policies of the UN, the EU.
    He’ll sell us sell down the river using the Paris Accord unless we rid ourselves of this virus very soon. He’s hanging in to achieve a tipping point, past which, it’ll be virtually impossible to return. We’re in very dangerous territory right now.

Leave a Comment