Posted on 12/15/2018 6:49:41 PM PST by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
They lied.
For months proponents of the UN Migration Pact told us that the pact was non-binding. The response to the many citizens of nation states worldwide having signed country specific petitions was that it was non-binding so there was nothing to worry about, it was going to be good.
The immensely opposed and disastrous document declares unlimited migration to be treated as a human right, thereby deprecating the term ‘illegal migrants’, and criminalises any criticism of migration as hate speech.
The points that raised alarm for most was that it seeks to eliminate all forms of dissent. Media organisations for example, should they criticise anything to do with migration would lose access to state funding. People would be labelled as racists or guilty of hate speech which will now be criminalised. This pact will literally erase our borders.
The question I’ve been asking is if the countries that refused to sign, are they still bound to it being members of the UN. Most people were of the mind that it would only affect the signatories.
Now we know. In a frank exchange with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Hebner of the AfD drew out an admission that it is, in fact, legally binding. As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted.
Mr. Hebner asks: “You can see for yourself clearly that during the conference, the spokesperson for Morocco emphasised that the agreement was legally binding. He said clearly, in a literal sense, that there is a corresponding legal bond for all nations taking part as well as an obligation of implementation. You and your delegation did not raise a single word of objection to that statement but idly accepted it. I would like to emphasise that the parliamentary motion was not presented at the conference."
Ms. Merkel’s response not only confirmed what we at Voice of Europe have been suspecting all along, the claim it is indeed binding, but that once voted and accepted it will be valid for all:
“So then, during the UN General Assembly next week, the pact will once again be up for debate and a decision will be made on whether to accept it. At this time, a member state can demand a vote. When two-thirds of the represented countries agree then it is valid for all. That’s how majority decision-making works.”
So renege. tell them to do their worst.
It means that, for Canada, the Truedumb liberals will probably take in 20 million migrants. That’s pretty much doubling the country.
Million man march (armed) to deliver grievances to elected officials, stopping short of DC border (this time). That will get their attention.
The USA needs to kick the UN to the curb like an ex on meth.
Commies ALWAYS lie.
The UN is welcomed to try enforcing this treaty against the United States. We didn’t agree to it, so it doesn’t apply to us.
who takes the un seriously besides the third-world cr@p holes who want money?
Could this be the catalyst for the US leaving the UN?
Trump would do it.
Would the UN continue to exist as more than a debating society without our money?
They could relocate.
The UN is non binding.
Burn the UN down. Confiscate the assets of NGOs. Remove every evidence it ever existed.
Sounds like we would have to leave the UN to escape this, what a pity........
I can totally get behind this!
Hijrah.
The UN of Islam is on the march,
Their largest single voting block is the OIC, so their agenda is the UN’s; Hardly biased.
International binding agreements aren’t binding.
Nonsense!!! Nothing the UN says, ptoclaims or mandates is binding on any state, sovereignty, or individual.
They need to send their army to enforce it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.