Migration without Borders

Forget the EU, forget the nation state. The UN is about to rule national borders to be extinct.The world’s people will, by right, be able to move anywhere they like, just as you or I might move to another town in Britain. You will have the same rights, so when the entire population of Somalia moves to Britain, followed by 4 million from Ethiopia and 7 million from Latin America, you can move to Somalia. It’s just a matter of Britain signing the accord in a few weeks time.

We won’t sign? We won’t have to. If the UN declares free movement to be a right, almost all immigration appeals against deportation will succeed, just as the right of free speech, the safety of a person, religion, family life etc are now a given in our courts.

Fantastic, fantasy, scare mongering ? Cast your mind back to 1980. Would you have been able to envision Britain in 2018 ?

 Also read    Conservative Woman

Rebel Media reports:

In less than two weeks, the United Nations is convening a secretive conference in Marrakech, Morocco.

They are meeting to create a new “human right” for foreign migrants to come to Canada (or any other country that signs the deal).

The full name of the agreement is the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: Intergovernmentally Negotiated and Agreed Outcome”. And that tells you a lot about it — it’s already a done deal; the outcome is pre-determined; and it normalizes mass immigration, turning it into a human right.

It’s terrifying — which is precisely why the mainstream media are ignoring it.

  • the word “right” appears more than 100 times in the agreement
  • the word “democracy” doesn’t appear once
  • migrants are given legal rights to everything from social services to health care
  • migrants are given the legal right to bring all family members with them, no matter their skill or fit

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to erasing international borders, this UN deal also targets any local citizens who might object to their country being turned into a massive refugee camp.

  • it requires pro-migrant information to be part of school curriculums
  • it requires governments to “sensitize” and “educate” the news media, and to punish any media that don’t support mass migration

There is almost nothing that this deal doesn’t touch — and Justin Trudeau, and his immigration minister Ahmed Hussen, have sworn that he plans to force it onto Canada!

Here’s a terrifying interview I did today with Guidy Mamann, a Canadian immigration lawyer with 30 years experience. The more Guidy told me about this deal, the more afraid I became. Click here to watch it:

Free speech isn’t free – Make a donation to the Salisbury Review . 

Subscribe

12 Comments on Migration without Borders

  1. There are some 2000 million people in Africa. Probably not more than 1 million would voluntarily stay in Africa – watch out Europe!

  2. It is noticeable that all the main news agencies now use the terms migrant or migrants. Even when said folk are found in the back of a lorry, or damply walking up a beach at midnight. It is as if they were swallows, or barnacle geese. The more accurate term ‘illegal immigrants’ isn’t used. Is that due to a UN edict also, maybe part of a softening up process for the removal of borders? Should the UN manage to force countries to comply with this insane scheme, the consequences for the world, and the people involved will be horrific. To use the modern terminology it will be truly unsustainable.

    • Perhaps – but if they can all come here, what’s to stop us going there; as we once did in the past until they chucked us out.

      • Imagine if white Europeans were to migrate in their hundreds of thousands to Africa. They would almost certainly make a greater success of the continent than its present population. Correct me if I’m wrong but in post-colonial Africa, where the negro has been liberated from oppressive white rule for decades, he does not seem to be thriving. Does he even know how to thrive?

      • Criminals are not “offenders”. No, they are merely people with low self-esteem.

        I remember a case involving an escaped convict some years back who was identified in the APB (“All Points Bulletin”) as – “male, white, 5-11, scar on left cheek, low self-esteem.”

  3. When we talk about mainstream media we must surely be referring mainly to television. Our television channels (news as well as entertainment) serve democracy very badly. To maintain the appearance of balance they might occasionally give a platform to conservative opinion but the prevailing tone is always the same: wise, caring, compassionate, progressive and above all INTELLIGENT people are of the liberal left while conservatives are just backward-looking folk of sadly limited outlook who (let’s face it) belong in the dustbin of history.

    Moral cowardice perpetuates this culture of misinformation. TV investigation of the effects of mass migration never dares to venture much beyond the level of caring-and-compassionate versus selfish-and-xenophobic. Discussion of any problems is restricted to consideraton of our overstretched public services (subtext: are we doing enough to accommodate the migrants?) and worries about whether unrestricted migration is fueling racism and/or populism.

    Democracy has no influence when it comes to mass media. We can’t vote for an alternative media class. Careers in the creative industries are much coveted and those who gain employment and success in that world are those who “fit in”.

  4. Good insight mana.
    The newspaper editors are just as bad as TV as they use the same stereotype to further their pernicious dogma. The FT under Barber keeps up its daily tirade about “xenophobes”, “nativists”, “anti-immigrants” (their mislabelling for anybody who questions unrestricted immigration, which is not the same thing), while the The Economist describes Australia’s points-based immigration system as “ruthless”. The West is destroying itself from the inside.

  5. All I can say is that it’s a pity that ‘illegal’ migration wasn’t enforced before the European peoples decided that they’d migrate to the Americas, Australia & New Zealand. I’m joking but its’s an interesting historical counter-point to the debate on migration today.

    • It’s an amusing but pertinent point, Mozibur. Opinions on migration need to be consistent across history. It appears as though the only lesson that can be drawn is that might is right, which strengthens the case for strong borders.

      North America, Australia and NZ were sparsely inhabited parts of the globe that had been pre-invaded/occupied by migrants from across the Bering Strait, Indonesia and the Pacific.

      The Chinese and the Dutch forewent the opportunity to occupy Australia, the latter deeming it un-settleable. The British only succeeded thanks to convict labor, maritime power, and a bit of help (and hindrance) from the few locals. The Chinese are making up lost ground rapidly though! Won’t be long before we are waving to the crew on Chinese aircraft carriers off Sydney Heads!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.