Nutjobs and the UN Global Migration Pact

Written By: - Date published: 8:35 am, December 7th, 2018 - 123 comments
Categories: act, australian politics, Iain Lees-Galloway, International, labour, making shit up, national, nz first, Propaganda, same old national, Simon Bridges, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, United Nations, us politics, winston peters, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

National and ACT have both come out against the UN Global Migration Pact.  National has even started a petition.

Simon Bridges gives the reasons why:

National would pull New Zealand out of the UN’s Global Compact on Migration because of its potential to restrict New Zealand’s ability to set its own migration and foreign policy, National Leader Simon Bridges says.

“National is supportive of global action on major issues and of migration into New Zealand because it brings skills, capital and connections and makes New Zealand a better, more diverse place. And we support the ability for New Zealanders to travel and live and work overseas should they choose.

“But immigration policy is solely a matter for individual countries and must take account of their individual circumstances – and New Zealand’s policies are already held up as international best practice. There is no automatic right to migrate to another country without that country’s full agreement, a view which the United Nation’s Global Compact on Migration, set to be signed next week, seeks to counter.

“While not binding, the Compact could restrict the ability of future governments to set immigration and foreign policy, and to decide on which migrants are welcome and which aren’t. While National is the party most open to immigration, we cannot accept this.

Was this guy really a lawyer?  How can something that is not binding restrict the ability of future governments to set immigration and foreign policy?

His twitter alter ego (is that you Hamish?) also got in on the Act:

So National wants to prevent other Governments from restricting New Zealanders ability to travel but at the same time wants to make sure that New Zealand governments have the ability to restrict other countries’ citizens from travelling to New Zealand.  Help my head hurts.

Such nuttiness is not the preserve of National.  ACT got in on the game as well and claimed that the Pact was an attack on the rights of freedom of speech.  Stephen Berry, ACT’s spokesperson put out a press release saying this:

ACT’s Human Rights Spokesman Stephen Berry says the UN Global Compact for Migration will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and the freedom of the press.

“ACT has always been an unabashed defender of free speech and a free press. This treaty has grave implications for both.

“The darkest aspect of the Compact is Objective 17 which deals with shaping public perceptions on migration through childhood education, the media, and public information campaigns.

“It implores nations to use ‘awareness-raising campaigns’ to ‘inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration.’ This provides the perfect opportunity for propagandists at the Human Rights Commission to tell New Zealanders what to do and think.

“The Compact would require New Zealand to ‘enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalises hate crimes’ without specifying exactly what constitutes a hate crime. Countries that have enacted hate speech laws show they are used to silence and bully political opponents. Those who define intolerance are always the last people you would ever want to have such power.

Clearly they cannot tolerate intolerance against intolerance.  Freedom of speech for xenophobes!

Berry is just channelling Stefan Molyneux who claims the Pact is designed to enforce propaganda.

When the Pact was passed in 2016 unanimously by all nations in the world National was in power.  Someone must have signed this off.

Other paranoid right wing administrations have already pulled out of the Pact.  Guyon Espiner reports:

Last week, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said there were concerns the Compact may be used to “undermine Australia’s strong border protection laws and practises”.

“The Compact fails to adequately distinguish between people who enter Australia illegally and those who come to Australia the right way – particularly with respect to the provision of welfare and other benefits,” said Mr Morrison.

And, surprise surprise, the Trump Administration pulled out a while ago.  Again from Espiner:

The United States pulled out at the end of 2017, when then-US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said migration was an issue for domestic policy.

“We simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders”.

Unfortunately Winston Peters is also showing signs of buckling although at this stage Labour appears to be sound.  From Derek Cheng at the Herald:

Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway and Foreign Minister Winston Peters are considering advice on the compact.

Peters said while it was not a binding agreement, there could eventually be pressure to treat it as binding.

“The only concern we would have is whether or not we were compromising this country’s sovereignty.

“In terms of morale and in terms of integrity, non-binding sometimes means binding. Why would a first-world country in a democracy sign something with no intention of abiding by it?”

Lees-Galloway said there were important values behind the compact, and did not understand National’s position, given that the compact is not legally binding.

“The reason for National’s opposition is quite unclear at this stage. It doesn’t restrict New Zealand in any way. We will continue to set out own immigration laws.”

The rationale for opposing the Pact is frankly bizarre.  As explained by UN Envoy for International Migration Louise Arbour:

The U.N. envoy for international migration said Tuesday she’s “very disappointed” that some countries are reneging on their support for a global compact to promote safe and orderly migration and reduce human smuggling and trafficking — some for “bizarre” reasons.

Louise Arbour said in an interview with The Associated Press that it’s also “puzzling” because the global compact is not legally binding and after its formal adoption next month “there is not a single country that is obligated to do anything that it doesn’t want

The former Canadian judge and U.N. human rights commissioner, who will be secretary-general of the Marrakech meeting, said the backtracking on the agreement shows a “disconnect” in some countries between their foreign policies “and some domestic pressures or national concerns that obviously were not being fed into the process.”

“Many of them have expressed it, in frankly, rather bizarre terms,” Arbour said. “Some have said, for instance, we will not sign which is rather strange because there’s nothing to sign. It’s not a treaty. Others have said we will not come. Others have said we don’t endorse the compact.”

But don’t just trust a respected International Jurist.  Read the terms of the treaty.  Particularly this passage:

This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

This is pizzagate, black helicopter, world government level nuttiness.  Being willing to trash New Zealand’s positive reputation as a responsible world citizen for political support from right wing nut jobs should not be something that any major political party should consider doing.

123 comments on “Nutjobs and the UN Global Migration Pact”

  1. BM 1

    Unfortunately Winston Peters is also showing signs of buckling although at this stage Labour appears to be sound. From Derek Cheng at the Herald:

    NZ First wouldn’t make 1% in 2020 if Peters signs up NZ to this, I’d also say Labour will take a big hit.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      Why?

      Can you point out what effect the pact will have on New Zealand? Hint the whole post is about how it won’t affect our sovereignty one iota.

      • BM 1.1.1

        If a pile of these “migrants” turn up how do we get rid of them? can we get rid of them?

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.1

          We use the existing law. The law that says that we set our own immigration policies that is unaffected by this pact. Besides they are migrants, you know people with entry visas. You are confusing them with refugees.

          • BM 1.1.1.1.1

            Correct me if I’m wrong.

            Just say a boatload/plane load turn up, we say yeah nah, sorry fellas you can’t just turn up in NZ, back home for you.

            They then hire the services of someone like Deborah Manning.
            She argues in court that we cannot send these migrants back home because we’ve signed up to the Global compact and these migrants have a right to be here.

            It’s pretty much a cert that she would win, a precedent would be set and from that point on, it’s open borders.

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Can you point out in the treaty where things are changed?

              And reconcile it with the statement that the pact is a “non-legally binding, cooperative framework”?

            • Tuppence Shrewsbury 1.1.1.1.1.2

              Jesus BM, don’t point the obvious flaws in the “but it’s not legally binding” argument.

              You’ll be first in court for criticising migrants for making best use of our legal system if you carry on being right

            • Clive Macann 1.1.1.1.1.3

              I read above ” “Some have said, for instance, we will not sign which is rather strange because there’s nothing to sign. It’s not a treaty. ” Are you saying that is bullshit and there IS something to sign?

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1.4

              The pact is about cooperation between states to better manage migrants and refugees both legal and illegal. One of its goals is to make countries better so that people don’t feel the need to flee. In other words, having less refugees and less illegal immigrants.

              One of the things it does not do is override a countries immigration policies thus it has no standing in a court of law.

              So, what you’re spreading there is pure malicious misrepresentation. As you probably got that misrepresentation from National and they would actually know what’s in it then what you’re spreading, whether you know it or not, is lies.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.5

              She argues in court that we cannot send these migrants back home because we’ve signed up to the Global compact and these migrants have a right to be here.

              So a lawyer would argue that a non-binding declaration overrules existing laws? Lawyers can be slippery, but that’s just [edit: incredibly] stupid.

        • Jenny 1.1.1.2

          BM 1.1.1
          7 December 2018 at 8:46 am
          If a pile of these “migrants” turn up how do we get rid of them? can we get rid of them?

          How about this BM, before you go round looking for a ‘final solution’, we treat them as human beings.

        • Tricledrown 1.1.1.3

          Beleagured Maori thats what Maori thought when your ancestors arrived.Belated Migrant your showing how Bowdedown Minion stiring the racial melting pot on behalf of no mates National to destroy NZ first.

      • One Two 1.1.2

        Why ever sign up to it at all?

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2

      So, tell me, are you in support of legally determining a maximum number of people in NZ equal to its scientifically determined carrying capacity taking into account being able to feed all those people while also protecting its wildlife?

      • JohnSelway 1.2.1

        I’d support that (in principle). GE crops would help us grow large with a much smaller imprint for example. We’d be able to feed a certain number as yield increases while converting old farmland to natural wilderness.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1

          I certainly think that the number should be revised occasionally as technology improves but I think we need to know what the carrying capacity of NZ is now with current practices.

          • JohnSelway 1.2.1.1.1

            I think need to adopt the scientific advances of this day and age. Vertical agriculture utilising GE crops instead of the laughably “better for the environment” organic farming (which is so ill defined as to be useless) and, I think I’ll get push back but I can argue it, nuclear power.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Fukushima would indicate that nuclear power in NZ is Bad Idea. There’s a reason why we’re known as The Shaky Isles. That said I do tend to be in favour of nuclear powered ships. Still need an adequate disposal of the nuclear waste before I’d sign on to that as well.

              We need to go to full organic farming and ban the use of artificial fertilisers. It has nothing to do with being “better for the environment” and everything to do with being sustainable. The natural system is a cycle and we need to fit within it rather than trying extricate ourselves from it.

              • JohnSelway

                Completely disagree re: organic farming. This is because ‘organic’ is so I’ll defined and the reality is organic farming uses up land to feed hundreds when GE crops could feed thousands. We can GE crops and have them resistant to many of the bligts and need for artificial fertiliser.

                Also one thing to remember about Fukushima is that is an outlier. It was hit by massive earthquakes and a tsunami and never went into full meltdown. Not an ideal situation for sure but the more modern reactors use what’s called pebble bed technology. There is no faster way to drop emissions without sacrificing our power needs than by using nuclear. Yes it’s a bitter pill but we are running out of immediate options at a time when we really need to have something in place as quickly as possible….and some of the worlds leading environmentalists realise this

                • Dennis Frank

                  Stewart Brand, for instance. Essential pre-requisite: a working model that is clean & green in all respects. Hasn’t happened yet.

                  Re GE: no problem as long as correctly labelled, so consumers have a reliable choice. Voluntary guinea pigs for science experiments is a good idea, as long as they have free will and choose to be experimented on.

                  • JohnSelway

                    The problem is GE isn’t properly labeled. GMO free salt for example. Certified organic salt. GMO free seedless grapes.
                    organic and GE labeling is out of control and completely unhelpful to the consumer.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  This is because ‘organic’ is so I’ll defined and the reality is organic farming uses up land to feed hundreds when GE crops could feed thousands.

                  We need to feed the crops. No point in having GE crops if they can’t be fed. Hence my mentioning of banning artificial fertilisers. It’s a cycle:

                  plant >> human >> treatment plants >> forests >> farms >> plant

                  The carrying capacity of the land is limited to the capability of the forests to turn sewage into fertiliser that then runs onto the farms. Better treatment facilities may allow us to by pass the forests but it doesn’t ATM.

                  It’s sustainability that’s the issue.

                  Also one thing to remember about Fukushima is that is an outlier. It was hit by massive earthquakes and a tsunami and never went into full meltdown.

                  Fukushima would be an outlier pretty much anywhere that isn’t on the Ring of Fire. On the Ring of Fire, as NZ is, its guaranteed to happen.

                  Not an ideal situation for sure but the more modern reactors use what’s called pebble bed technology.

                  Pebble bed reactor:

                  The concept was first suggested by Farrington Daniels in the 1940s, said to have been inspired by the innovative design of the benghazi burner by British desert troops in WWII, but commercial development did not take place until the 1960s in the German AVR reactor by Rudolf Schulten.[2] This system was plagued with problems and political and economic decisions were made to abandon the technology.[3] The AVR design was licensed to South Africa as the PBMR and China as the HTR-10, the latter currently the only such design in operation. In various forms, other designs are under development by MIT, University of California at Berkeley, General Atomics (U.S.), the Dutch company Romawa B.V., Adams Atomic Engines, Idaho National Laboratory, and X-energy.

                  I won’t hold my breath.

                  Yes it’s a bitter pill but we are running out of immediate options at a time when we really need to have something in place as quickly as possible

                  Nuclear power isn’t an immediate option as it takes something like ten years to get a reactor up and running. Faster to get wind and solar installed which don’t come with the same safety problems.

                  • KJT

                    NZ is fortunate in that we can meet all our energy needs with renewables, without too much problems. Unlike central Europe in winter. No wind, no sun, and too flat for hydro.

                  • Dave B

                    Fastest would be to install Hele supercritical coal fired plant at Huntly. All consents in place, sitting on three coal fields, all transmission facilities in place. appropriate scale, 50% more electricity from the same amount of coal, clean, efficient, proven. As a base load generator, it would free up hydro to back up wind (and solar).

        • patricia bremner 1.2.1.2

          Too much round up mate, with GM.

  2. Antoine 2

    There are votes in this. The left can have them or someone else can

    A.

    • mickysavage 2.1

      You mean to say there are votes in deliberately misrepresenting the effect of a UN pact? There should be a punishment for this sort of misrepresentation.

      • Antoine 2.1.1

        > There should be a punishment for this sort of misrepresentation.

        There should not. We live in a country that has freedom of speech. If you want to live in a country where people can be punished for talking about politics (imprisoned? executed?), try North Korea or China.

        A.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1

          Do you think that telling falsehoods is acceptable?

          Are you a parody account?

          • Antoine 2.1.1.1.1

            Do you think the State should punish everyone who does something you consider ‘unacceptable’?

            You are a little Stalin in the making.

            A.

            • mickysavage 2.1.1.1.1.1

              You are taking my comment too literally. By “punishment” I mean consequence as in loss of political support.

              • Antoine

                Oh, well then, wait til the next poll and see how much National go down over this (hint, not a lot)

                A.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2

          There should not.

          Yes there should. People should not be able to tell lies for political gain.

          We live in a country that has freedom of speech.

          Freedom of speech != freedom to lie

        • Gabby 2.1.1.3

          Lying’s ok twonny?

        • patricia bremner 2.1.1.4

          Lying Spinning and making it up as he goes along in his blue bus, Bridges misses the stop again.
          Not one positive thing to add.
          He’s all for oil and roads, but not for humanity…

          • Dave B 2.1.1.4.1

            What’s wrong with oil and roads? They are fundamental to our prosperity and wellbeing.

        • KJT 2.1.1.5

          Politicians who spout outright lies to get votes, should be impeached.
          Wouldn’t have any National MP’s remaining, however, and greatly reduced Labour.

  3. Stunned Mullet 3

    Fuck the UN.

  4. Dennis Frank 4

    I agree with MS, but have no problem with the apprehension of the critics either. Nobody ought to assume that rational discussion will prevail. Migration cannot be separated from refugees in the minds of people who feel threatened by an uncontrolled influx of foreigners. Gut revulsion overwhelms rationality.

    We’ve seen how the open borders policy in Europe has produced decisive opposition. A borderless world sounds good in theory, I agree, but in practice it can’t work because too many people aren’t ready for it. It could only ever succeed on the basis of safeguards against invasive toxic cultures. UN decision-makers haven’t a clue how to design such safeguards. Even worse, the buggers aren’t even trying to do that.

  5. Gosman 5

    This to me is similar to the opposition to the TPPA. The idea that ANY international agreement impacts national sovereignty without a get out is ridiculous idea.

    • Puckish Rogue 5.1

      Yes this. The amount of times the left talk about being owned by foreign corporations but willingly sign over whatever the UN presents is just mind boggling.

      • mickysavage 5.1.1

        This is a non binding pact. The document itself says this. It is entirely different to TPPP which did affect sovereignty.

        • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1.1

          Its non-binding right up until its challenged in court you mean

        • indiana 5.1.1.2

          Sounds like it’s as binding a the Paris Climate agreement…

        • Gosman 5.1.1.3

          All international treaties are non binding in that the require each sovereign party to enforce them within their own jurisdiction UNLESS there is some external enforcement mechanism. Even in that case, short of going to war, there isn’t an awful lot nations can do to enforce the dictates. You might be able to freeze assets or even take assets of the nation not enforcing the agreement but only those assets that are easily accessible. There is nothing stopping nations pulling out of any agreement as evidenced by the US pulling out of the climate change agreement.

  6. Michelle 6

    national are desperate

    • indiana 6.1

      Desperate to make sure the current Government doesn’t make a mistake?

      • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1.1

        Opposition National party MPs say they are “holding the Government to account”, but it’s coming across as an ugly, rancorous mix of ‘hollow and desperate’, so please carry on.

        It dawned on me, ‘I know this script, I helped write this script.’ At that point, I felt bad for what I did to Todd. But that’s the modus operandi of the National Party – when people become a liability you push them out the door.

        More than a few ‘mistakes’ needing attention right there.

  7. One Two 7

    Why sign up to it then?

    SM at 3 is correct…

    The insults are churlish…

    • Puckish Rogue 7.1

      “Why sign up to it then?”

      I’m guessing because it looks good on your CV when you’re applying to the UN for a job

    • mickysavage 7.2

      You will have to ask National. They were in power when New Zealand agreed to the pact.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 7.2.1

        Is there some proof to this claim aside from Winnie?

        • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1

          Government won’t commit to pulling out of controversial UN migration agreement

          The decision to develop a compact was first made by UN Member States, including New Zealand, in September 2016.

          Are you and National now trying to say that National wasn’t in government in 2016?

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 7.2.1.1.1

            I wasn’t aware of that. thank you draco.

            shits obviously changed since 2016 with other countries pulling out along the way. So National are allowed to change their mind about the compact now. Shouldn’t be so blinded by previous decisions and declarations you don’t drop them when they aren’t working. Kiwibuild being an obvious example

            • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1.1.1

              So National are allowed to change their mind about the compact now.

              True but they need to say why and so far they haven’t. They can’t just say shit – they have to point to the clauses that do the damage that they say that the pact does.

  8. tsmithfield 8

    If an agreement is not legally binding, then why sign it at all?

    Surely, the effect signing such an agreement that is “not legally binding” is that there will be international pressure to meet the expectations we have signed up to, even though technically we may not be legally bound to do so. If that were not the case, then agreements that are not legally binding would be meaningless.

    Therefore, it is quite right that consideration is given to the effect of agreements we sign up to, and not treat it as something trite, whether such agreements are legally binding or not.

    • mickysavage 8.1

      It is aspirational. It is even more toothless than the Paris Accord.

      You will have to ask National why NZ agreed to support it.

      The point of this post is that the pact is not the evil power grab that the right say that it is.

      • indiana 8.1.1

        How much do you trust what Peters implies?

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109152868/foreign-affairs-minister-winston-peters-calls-out-national-on-uns-global-compact

        Outside the House, McClay rejected any suggestion National had signed up to an agreement in 2016 that had led to this pact.

        He said an agreement had gone through the UN that New Zealand had not spoke out against, but had not actively signed up to – only 15 countries had.

        “We didn’t attend the meetings. All countries in the UN allowed it to go through. It was open for signature, the National Government did not sign it – Peters is wrong, but that happens often.”

      • tsmithfield 8.1.2

        “It is aspirational. It is even more toothless than the Paris Accord.”

        So, perhaps it is a “foot in the door” strategy. This agreement may just be the opening gambit for all we know.

        So, if it is just aspirational and toothless as you say, then why even bother with it at this stage? Why not give it a few years and see if those aligned with the agreement move further in this direction than we are comfortable with.

        My understanding is that National didn’t agree to it. They just didn’t actively oppose it, which is a bit different.

      • shadrach 8.1.3

        For the record, National agreed to a generalised compact around migration.

        “In September 2016 the General Assembly decided, through the adoption of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, to develop a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.”
        https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/migration-compact

        The text of the current ‘agreement’ was not finalised until 13 July 2018. National, and indeed all political parties, have every right to object to the wording, now that it is available.

  9. Antoine 9

    If Peters was still in Opposition he’d be getting stuck into this boots an’ all.

    A.

    • In Vino 9.1

      He’s already got stuck in, Antoine. He has pointed out this this paper was instigated by National Govt in 2016, and that National is now opposing a paper originated by National. Clever, huh? Check it out on the Daily Blog.

      • Antoine 9.1.1

        I don’t read the Daily Blog and have no wish to do so, and what I meant, as you well know, is that if he was in Opposition he would have vigorously opposed joining the Pact.

        A.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

          So, there are records of him doing so in 2016?

          I’ve only skimmed the pact so far but I don’t see anything that would upset Winston in it.

        • In Vino 9.1.1.2

          How very fastidious of you Antoine. It amazes me that you bother coming to this site.. And can you answer Draco’s question?

          • Antoine 9.1.1.2.1

            I have largely given up on arguing with Draco

            A.

            • OnceWasTim 9.1.1.2.1.1

              What about arguing with him just a little eensie teensie bit with a little
              a.
              Doesn’t have to be bigly.
              I’m sure he’ll love the littley challenge
              ?
              .owt

              • Antoine

                Can I just comment that you write like a drooling imbecile. Even worse than Gabby. I am sure there is some good reason for it however

                A.

  10. OnceWasTim 10

    “Was this guy really a lawyer? ”
    I’m afraid so @ Mickey, but I think it was under some positive discrimination/affirmative action plan. And a prosecutor at that.
    Subsequently, he’s been taking lessons from Paula Bennett in the art of pulling up ladders. I think they’re considering finding ways of having the art included in the school curriculum – maybe even making it a paper for study in one of the sciences at tertiary level.
    The biggest stumbling block though is that there doesn’t seem to be enough interest from international students, so the plan is to get it picked up by one of the universities first before rolling it out to the private tertiary sector.
    Bakshi Singh and Jian Yang are already looking at marketing opportunities in India and China for international students to come and study “Lawyering and Ladder Pulling” in the hope it might boost our declining rankings.

  11. Antoine 11

    The time and money the Government spent on this Global Migration Pact, could better have been spent on figuring out how to cut immigration to this country, like they promised they were going to do last year.

    Why do we even need to be in a Global Migration Pact. It sounds creepy and I have not yet seen a decent case for what benefits it will deliver us.

    A.

    • Antoine 11.1

      (Where’s SaveNZ when you need him?)

      • veutoviper 11.1.1

        Try ‘her’?

        • Antoine 11.1.1.1

          You know that she is a she, or you are indicating that I should not assume that a person of unknown gender is necessarily male?

          I assumed a he from the tone of voice but am happy to be corrected.

          A.

    • Gabby 11.2

      Our cafe scene will become ever more vibrant twonny. Our indigenous organised crime scene will be invigorated by the bracing effects of competition. Our driving will be enlivened by delightfully diverse interpretations of the keep left rule.

    • Tricledrown 11.3

      So Antione migration is down by 20,000 a year and your still not happy yet your master of debate simple Soimon reckons its damaging the economy cutting low value unskilled workers and students.

      • Antoine 11.3.1

        If you are referring to Simon Bridges, he’s not mine and I lay no claim to him.

        Where do you get the 20,000 stat? (genuine question)

        A.

  12. Dave B 12

    Since Australia is rejecting this Compact, so hould NZ; otherwise Australia will likely review the right of free passage to Australia for Kiwis.

    • Jenny 12.1

      Dave B 12
      8 December 2018 at 12:08 pm
      Since Australia is rejecting this Compact, so hould NZ; otherwise Australia will likely review the right of free passage to Australia for Kiwis.

      The trouble with that statement Dave, is that you seem to think that free migration should only be enjoyed between the inheritors of British colonialism and imperialism.

      Yes there is free passage between the two white majority settler nations of Australia and New Zealand. But why, you might ask yourself, is this right not extended to our other close Pacific neighbours. (You know the, (non-white), Polynesian peoples that used freely roam the whole face of the Pacific before the arrival of European Empires into the region).

      Oh yeah, that’s right the Pacific Island nations are not white majority nations, so why should they expect the same free passage as us.

      All migration controls are based on racism and notions of racial purity and superiority, and manufactured fear of ‘the other’.

      Some of first modern immigration controls in the world, were imposed by Britain to control the immigration of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe.

      Think about that for a moment.

      • solkta 12.1.1

        Polynesian peoples that used freely roam the whole face of the Pacific before the arrival of European Empires into the region

        What bollocks. When Europeans arrived these here islands were divided up between Iwi with alliances only between some of them. Too much roaming would lead one to be another’s dinner.

        • Jenny 12.1.1.1

          Solkta, interesting (as well as repugnant) that you use the charge of cannibalism to justify 21st Century discriminatory immigration polices

          The racist meme that Polynesians were/are savage cannibals is not just thrown up to humiliate and oppress and marginalise indigenous peoples, but also to justify the racist imperialist and colonialist policies of the Western Colonial powers, from slavery, to genocide, to cultural genocide, to racist migration control laws imposed by the Western Imperial states.

          You can be sure that the accusation of them being savage cannibals was used to justify the systematic genocidal extermination of the native population of Tasmania.

          But who are the real savages?

          European imperial conflicts have piled up such mountains of bodies that they have to buried by bulldozers.

          In your view imperial invasion, war, genocide, blackbirding, was all necessary to bring enlightenment to the savage cannibals.

          Frankly, I find your views disgusting and racist.

          • solkta 12.1.1.1.1

            In your view imperial invasion, war, genocide, blackbirding, was all necessary to bring enlightenment to the savage cannibals.

            Now where the fuck did i say this? All i was doing was pointing out that you were talking absolute bullshit. Cannibalism was a thing. I made a bad joke about it to emphasise my point that Maori were staunchly territorial. Nothing there is a justification for colonialism.

            Now why don’t you get some integrity and admit that your statement:

            Polynesian peoples that used freely roam the whole face of the Pacific before the arrival of European Empires into the region

            is false.

            • joe90 12.1.1.1.1.1

              is false.

              Nope.

              The great Pacific wayfarers were masters of the earth’s largest ocean.

              Although there are a few theories about how the Polynesians spread out among the islands, there is linguistic, anthropological, and DNA evidence to support that the first Polynesians originated from seafaring Austronesians, who trace their prehistoric origins (somewhere between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago) back to present-day Taiwan. From there they spread through the entire Polynesian Triangle, a huge part of the Pacific Ocean including over 1,000 islands, with the three main “points” at New Zealand, Hawaii, and Easter Island. Lacking instruments like compasses or astrolabes, wayfinders were still able to navigate and discover islands thousands of miles away, then return exactly to their points of origin. This allowed Polynesians to migrate to and travel between island groups with relative ease, expanding their population across an area that spans a total distance of 10 million square miles of water, slightly larger than the size of Canada.

              http://nautil.us/blog/dragons-memory–navigating-the-globe-using-only-your-wits

              • solkta

                Not sure if you have grasped the context of this discussion Joe. It is not about how Polynesian’s migrated across an uninhabited Pacific but rather whether having done this and settled all across that after many generations they then became territorial. Maori were staunchly territorial and wars between Iwi over the boundaries of those territories were common place.

                  • solkta

                    Still beside the point that Jenny was trying to make. She has been trying to suggest that before European contact Polynesians were free to live anywhere they wanted.

                    • joe90

                      European contact brought external compulsion, and put an end to their self determination.

                    • solkta

                      Yes it did. Still beside the point that their self determination determined who from what Iwi and Hapu could live where.

                    • joe90

                      Jenny’s original premise was that Polynesian peoples [that used] freely roam[d] the whole face of the Pacific before the arrival of European Empires into the region. You shifted the goal posts, these here islands, to intimate that Jenny’s premise was false.

                      ~Fin~

                    • solkta

                      Well these here islands are part of the Pacific eh. So whole face of the Pacific is false, eh. AND the whole fucking point of her babble is to talk about NZ immigration policy.

                    • Jenny

                      solkta …
                      9 December 2018 at 11:49 am
                      Well these here islands are part of the Pacific eh. So whole face of the Pacific is false, eh. AND the whole fucking point of her babble is to talk about NZ immigration policy.

                      I was talking about immigration, it was you Solkta who brought up the dirty racist meme of cannabilism to try and explain the disparity between the free passage between white Majority settler nations Australia and New Zealand and the rest of Oceania.

                      “Too much roaming would lead one to be another’s dinner.” Solkta

                      I pointed out that this same racist meme has been used to justify all sorts of horrors and crimes, up to and including genocide, committed by the Western Imperialist nations against the people of the Pacific. Exposing your ignorance, you describe this as “babble”.

                      The crimes and horrors of imperialism dwarf by sheer magnitude and savagery any recorded acts of ritual cannibalism practiced by warring Polynesians. Whenever you are challenged racists like you have thrown up this accusation again and again to humiliate and oppress Maori and Pacifica and Aboriginal people and commit all sorts of horrible racist crimes against them.

                      Solkta I have no hesitation in saying that you are an insensitive and ignorant racist who has got himself in too deep, and has no idea what he is talking about. I am somewhat surprised that despite the deeply racist and offensive nature of your original statement you didn’t cop a ban.

                    • solkta

                      Fuck off Jenny, just fuck off.

                      Cannibalism as part of traditional Maori custom is a fact. It doesn’t really bother me personally as i find it only slightly more disagreeable than eating pig or dog meat.

                      You are the one who is ignorant, trying to claim that tribal societies were not territorial, and it would seem also denying cannibalism. Get yourself an education.

                    • Jenny

                      solkta …
                      9 December 2018 at 11:01 pm
                      Fuck off Jenny, just fuck off.

                      Cannibalism as part of traditional Maori custom is a fact. It doesn’t really bother me personally as i find it only slightly more disagreeable than eating pig or dog meat.

                      You are the one who is ignorant, trying to claim that tribal societies were not territorial, and it would seem also denying cannibalism. Get yourself an education.

                      So you are profane as well as racist. Who would have guessed it.

                      As to claiming the tribal societies were not territorial or denying cannibalism.

                      I made no such claims.

                      You are using a false equivalence to justify discrimination based on race.

                      Years ago I was watching TV and an old documentary came on.

                      It was in black and white and must have been made in the 1950s at a time when World War Two was still a traumatic recent past.

                      The story was of a young Jewish man in his twenties who had survived the concentration camps as a child and had come of age after the war and had made his way to America and settled there. The story begins when he makes a journey back to his home town and his old neighborhood in Germany to try and and make sense of the traumatic events that shaped his childhood.

                      A Jewish man had been accused of molesting a little blond German girl. There was a huge sensational trial, that Nazis made great propaganda use of to demonise the Jews. At the end of this show trial the man was found guilty and sentenced to the concentration camps and to his death. Haunted by what had happened to his community in the aftermath of this trial. This young man felt that he desperately needed to know if this man was guilty or not. But no one would talk to him. His Jewish neighbours, his Jewish school friends, his family, the whole community in the wake of this trial had been rounded up and sent to the gas chambers. He was the only survivor. In his old home street he encountered the, now grown women, who as a child had been allegedly molested, and asked her if it was true. She refused to answer and fled from his desperate questions. Finding no answers, from his former German friends and neighbours, he eventually approached the judge who had presided over the trial. The judge agreed to talk to him. He asked the judge; Was the man guilty? The judge replied that he appeared to be. He asked the judge why he had let the trial be used by the Nazis to demonise a whole community of people. The judge claimed that he had nothing to do with that. The young man pointed out that the Judge had had a huge swastika hanging on the wall behind him thoughout the trial. The judge rather weakly said, but every one did, it was just the way it was..

                      The point of this story Dave, is that like the charge of cannabilism that racists like you thow up to slander Polynesians, (especially Maori) the nazis in their propaganda used this case of child molestation to slander the Jews as sexual deviants, as somehow, sub-human. Not entitled to the same rights as “Aryans”

                      Just as you seem to think that people from Polynesia should not have the same freedom of passage to this country as people from White majority Australia because, – cannabilism.

                      You claim that you were just making a joke. I don’t think it was funny. Like most racist jokes you would not tell it in person to someone of Maori descent.

                      If you go back far enough Dave you will find cannabilism was practiced by most peoples at some time in the their past it is only racists like you with an axe to grind against Maori and Polynesians who continually and repeatedly throw this accusation up as if it was uniquely their failing. Even if this was true. Which it is not. As I have pointed out, the crimes of European colonial and imperial powers have created mountains of corpses, in their invasions and rival imperial warfare atrocities dwarfing anything Polynesians ever did. As so called enlightened Europeans we didn’t eat these corpses, we burnt them, or bulldozed them into mass graves.

                    • solkta

                      As to claiming the tribal societies were not territorial or denying cannibalism.

                      I made no such claims.

                      You say at 13.1.1 below:

                      For millions of years human beings have freely roamed the whole face of the planet, it is only since the rise of imperialism and colonialism in the 19th Century that these powers sought to impose control of human migration and travel.

                      And at 12.1 above:

                      (You know the, (non-white), Polynesian peoples that used freely roam the whole face of the Pacific before the arrival of European Empires into the region).

                      If you go back far enough Dave

                      You are not replying to Dave. Though you did put words in his mouth too.

                      I haven’t made any statement on open immigration for Pasifika people versus Australian people. All i have done here is point out that restricting migration was not something new that came with colonisation.

                      Your powers of miscomprehension are truly stunning. Have a nice day.

      • KJT 12.1.2

        I think you should ask a Tongan about that.

      • Dave B 12.1.3

        I dont need to think about that for a moment – I agree there should be greater freedom of entry for Polynesian peoples. From your posts, Jenny, you seem to specialise in putting words in other people’s mouths so that you can excoriate them for views they do not hold..

        • Jenny 12.1.3.1

          Hi Dave, you accuse me of putting words in other people’s mouths, did you not read Solkta’s statement?

          “Too much roaming would lead one to be another’s dinner.” Solkta

          Don’t you agree that this comment is deeply offensive and racist?

          Yes I have excoriated him for it, do you think it was not deserved?

          Surely Dave you are aware of the history of this charge of cannibalism, and its use to justify the genocidal crimes of Western colonialism and imperialism throughout the world, not just here in the Pacific but even against the indigenous peoples of North America and Africa?

          Are you not surprised and sickened that such an argument should be used in a debate about immigration inequality in the 21st Century?

  13. Jenny 13

    I spotted a protest sign in a rally against Trump’s persecution of immigrants, it read:

    MIGRATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT

    Simple but true.

    • solkta 13.1

      Is it true? We should have to let anyone and everyone come here?

      • Jenny 13.1.1

        Why not?

        For millions of years human beings have freely roamed the whole face of the planet, it is only since the rise of imperialism and colonialism in the 19th Century that these powers sought to impose control of human migration and travel.

        Divide and rule.

        Imperialism defined in three words.

        • Antoine 13.1.1.1

          You have no comprehension of what open borders would do to NZ.

          I have lived in countries where tens of millions of people would gladly migrate to NZ tomorrow if they could.

          A.

        • solkta 13.1.1.2

          Again you talk absolute crap. The only situation in which humans were able to “freely roam” was when there were no other humans yet in that area. Your assertion that tribal societies were not territorial is just nonsense.

    • Dave B 14.1

      What happened to idealist John Lennon will happen to nations if they adopt open borders. Look at the mess now in countries such as Sweden, Belgium, France, Germany, UK due to uncontrolled immigration. Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia have got the message, and remain safe and peaceful

      • Jenny 14.1.1

        Dave B 14.1
        9 December 2018 at 1:32 pm
        What happened to idealist John Lennon will happen to nations if they adopt open borders…..

        Dave B channeling the menacing message of the European Identitarians and Donald Trump.

        • Dave B 14.1.1.1

          Utter Nonsense. Jenny seems to specialise in drawing false comparisons, in an attempt to pin derogatory labels on those who do not agree with her dewy eyed vision of the world. There are literally thousands of articles in media sources of every type which detail the consequences of uncontrolled migration in the countries I mentioned and others; with which she can open her eyes to what is happening in the real world. Not to say that we should close our hearts and borders to the genuine victims of terrorism and discrimination, such as Asia Bibi and surviving Iraqi Yazidis. That is what our refugee quota exists for. The Global Migration Pact is a cynical ploy by a subgroup of UN members, to push an open borders agenda by backdoor means; and should be totally rejected.

          • Jenny 14.1.1.1.1

            There are literally thousands of articles in media sources of every type which detail the consequences of uncontrolled migration in the countries I mentioned and others;…..

            Dave B

            Really?

            How about putting up a link to some of these “thousands of articles” then, Eh Dave?

            My guess is that won’t do this. And the reason that you won’t do this Dave, is that the source of most of this type of xenophobic anti-immigrant propaganda, comes from extreme Right Wing, racist, and even fascist sources. And none of it is based in fact.

            However, contrary to what you claim, there are many articles from reputable media sources that prove the exact opposite to all the racist propaganda about immigrants published on the racist and fascist websites, that you would have to cite in an effort to prove your claims.

            The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant

            Anna Flagg – New York Times, March 30, 2018

            The Trump administration’s first year of immigration policy has relied on claims that immigrants bring crime into America. President Trump’s latest target is sanctuary cities.

            “Every day, sanctuary cities release illegal immigrants, drug dealers, traffickers, gang members back into our communities,” he said last week. “They’re safe havens for just some terrible people.”

            As of 2017, according toGallup polls, almost half of Americans agreed that immigrants make crime worse. But is it true that immigration drives crime? Many studies have shown that it does not.

            Immigrant populations in the United States have been growing fast for decades now. Crime in the same period, however, has moved in the opposite direction, with the national rate of violent crime today well below what it was in 1980.

            In a large-scalecollaborationby four universities, led by Robert Adelman, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo, researchers compared immigration rates with crime rates for 200 metropolitan areas over the last several decades. The selected areas included huge urban hubs like New York and smaller manufacturing centers less than a hundredth that size, like Muncie, Ind., and were dispersed geographically across the country……

            ……In general, the study’s data suggests either that immigration has the effect of reducing average crime, or that there is simply no relationship between the two, and that the 54 areas in the study where both grew were instances of coincidence, not cause and effect. This was a consistent pattern in each decade from 1980 to 2016, with immigrant populations and crime failing to grow together…..

            ……This analysis is one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies of the local immigrant-crime relationship. It spans decades of metropolitan area data, incorporating places with widely differing social, cultural and economic backgrounds, and a broad range of types of violent crime.

            Areas were chosen to reflect a range of immigrant composition, from Wheeling, W.Va., where one in 100 people was born outside the United States, to Miami, where every second person was. Some areas were home to newly formed immigrant communities; other immigrant pockets went back generations. Controlling for population characteristics, unemployment rates and other socioeconomic conditions, the researchers still found that, on average, as immigration increases in American metropolises, crime decreases.

            Undocumented immigrants commit less crime than native-born citizens
            Christopher Ingraham – Washington Post, June 19, 2018

            …..the social-science research on immigration and crime is clear: Undocumented immigrants are considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens, with immigrants legally in the United States even less likely to do so. A number of studies published in the past several months clearly illustrate the consensus.

            Is Illegal Immigration Linked to More or Less Crime?
            Robert Farley – FactCheck.org June 27, 2018

            I am tired of spoon feeding you Dave, so you are gonna have to read this one for yourself. You might find it enlightening.

            However the challenge still stands Dave, put up a link even just one of the, “literally thousands of articles in media sources of every type which detail the consequences of uncontrolled migration in the countries I mentioned and others”, that you claim exist. Let us see the source of these claims.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Ngāti Tūwharetoa passes third reading
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, today welcomed Te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu and members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to Parliament to witness the Third Reading of their Treaty Settlement legislation, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. ...
    16 hours ago
  • Crackdown on synthetic drug dealers
    Crackdown on synthetic drug dealers  The Government is responding to increased drug-related deaths by cracking down on the suppliers of synthetic drugs while making it easier for those with addiction problems to get treatment, Health Minister Dr David Clark ...
    19 hours ago
  • Milestone in Police recruitment
    A milestone in Police recruitment has been achieved with the deployment of more than 1,000 new constables around the country since the government was formed. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Police Minister Stuart Nash congratulated graduates of Wing 321 ...
    22 hours ago
  • Government ropes in livestock rustling
    Justice Minister Andrew Little today introduced a supplementary order paper (SOP) on the Crimes Amendment Bill to crack down on livestock rustling. ...
    2 days ago
  • Small business the focus of Australian talks
    Efforts to progress a seamless trans-Tasman business environment will take another step at a ministerial roundtable meeting in Sydney tomorrow. Small Business Minister Stuart Nash and Australian Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert will co-host a roundtable meeting of senior government and ...
    3 days ago
  • Andrew Little – Speech to Amnesty International event to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Univ...
    ANDREW LITTLE - SPEECH TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL EVENT TO MARK THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, PARLIAMENT, WELLINGTON ...
    4 days ago
  • Tax reforms focus on fairness
    New tax legislation has been introduced to Parliament to ensure greater fairness in the way the tax system shapes commerce, investment decisions and social policies. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has introduced the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier ...
    1 week ago
  • Preventing death and injury on our roads
    Police Minister Stuart Nash and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter are encouraging road users to be alert to a new safety campaign launched today by Police and the NZ Transport Agency in the lead up to the Christmas. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • New comms centre improves public services
    A new digital services and communications centre opened on the Kapiti Coast will help transform the way Police connect with the public and work to make communities safe. Police Minister Stuart Nash has officially opened the Police Digital Services Centre, ...
    2 weeks ago