The migration of peoples throughout the world is a natural phenomenon that has taken place since time immemorial. It is why if one looks at history, one will find generally homogeneous populations in a given area, but almost always there is one or two groups that does not seem to “fit” but definitely is established there. This is because at some point, the ancestors of that group migrated to that area.
Because of the fact that migration necessarily changes an area to some extent, it can cause tensions between people. One only needs to look at the US with the immigration of the Irish to the US beginning in the early 19th century but especially through the Potato Famine of 1840, where American nationalists viciously persecuted them with groups such as the “know-nothings” and the infamous “No Irish Need Apply” signs in businesses. However, the Irish eventually settled into the US and are now as much a part of the culture as are the Italians, Polish, Germans, Greeks, Chinese, and so forth, and the same process has steadily been repeating with the peoples of Central and South America, and with those from India (predominately South India, as they are the predominate bloc among the Indians).
These tensions caused by migration can and are historically exploited for political purposes, even over small differences. One only needs to recall National Socialist Germany’s outright attempts to annihilate the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe through genocide, and that even in spite of the fact that they are Germany’s neighbors and are so completely mixed that the cultures and even looks of the people are almost impossible to distinguish, they said they were “inferior.” Likewise, one can also take the opposite approach, which is to be so “pro-migrant” publicly because one wants to secretly use and abuse the migrants for a cause at a later point, thus acting no differently than the “anti-migrant” bloc.
It is a fact that Germany is using the mass population transfer of peoples from Africa and the Middle East to drive nationalism beginning in 2015. Migration to Germany has since greatly slowed down, but curiously after the US repeated the same example as her German ally with the “migrant caravan,” Germany signed a major UN migration pact that potentially will give Germany an permanently “no-borders” approach to migration:
It has sparked a split of opinions among politicians in Germany. But on Thursday the Bundestag voted in favour of the controversial UN migration pact.
In the ballot 372 MPs voted in favour of signing the pact, 153 voted no and 141 abstained following a debate on the pact.
As part of the vote, a motion was also raised which states that the pact has no “law-altering or legislative effect” so that Germany can decide its migration policy itself. However, as the pact is legally non-binding, countries who sign it are under no obligation to take in extra migrants or refugees.
The United Nation’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration marks the first time the world organization has agreed on a list of global objectives to tackle the challenges involved in migration for individual migrants, and at the same time to maximize benefits for the countries taking in immigrants.
The agreement is being formed to deal with the huge number of people from across the world who are leaving their countries to seek refuge elsewhere because of conflict, poverty or other reasons. Germany played a key role in the height of the refugee and migration crisis in 2015, which has resulted in a polarization of opinions across the country.
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and speakers from the centre-right Union, centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, Left and pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) defended the pact against criticism from politicians, including those within the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Maas (SPD) said the pact aimed to reduce migration and its negative effects.
“That is why we in Germany also benefit from the fact that it will be adopted. This pact is also in Germany’s interest,” he said.
National sovereign rights would “neither be restricted nor transferred anywhere,” he added.
In a tweet later Maas added that the pact was a response by the international community and that there could be “no national solution”.
“Migration is as old as humanity, global in nature and affects us all. Managing and regulating it is in our interest,” he added.
An invitation for migration
AfD MEP Gottfried Curio sharply attacked the government. The pact was “nothing other than an irresponsible invitation to the worldwide migration of people to Germany without an upper limit,” he said.
The AfD had previously called the pact a “Trojan horse” that promotes the “unrestricted and chaotic” expansion of migration.
Meanwhile, FDP deputy faction leader Stephan Thomae said that the pact might encourage other countries to take more responsibility, therefore easing the burden on Germany.
“If others also commit themselves to it, this will reduce the migratory pressure on Germany,” he said.
Petra Pau from the Left party (Linke) said that no state would lose its sovereignty, no border would be abolished. And that anyone who claims otherwise confuses members of the public, she said.
Agnieszka Brugger of the Greens emphasized the protection of human rights. It was “sad to have to stress that human rights apply to all people”, she said.
Andrea Lindholz (CSU), said migration remains a global phenomenon that can only be solved globally and not nationally.
Bundestag backs the pact
In the adopted resolution, the Bundestag welcomed the fact that the international community had drawn up the pact, which was intended to help regulate, manage and limit migration more effectively.
However, the stipulation is that Germany is still in charge of laws and enforcement as well as migration policies.
The UN migration pact is to be adopted at a meeting in Morocco on December 10th and 11th.
The legally non-binding agreement is intended to help organize migration more effectively. However, not every country supports it. Among others, the U.S., Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, Switzerland and Slovakia have spoken out against the pact. (source, source)
Now consider that a UN “pact” is, while legally binding, also “non-binding” because countries routinely refuse to either sign or follow them. One only needs to look at America’s antics concerning anything regarding what she feels is her national interest, or the fact that Israel routinely ignores UN resolutions and does not care at all what others say.
That Germany has signed this pact, and is causing major consternation among people in Germany is not only going to result in increased nationalism, but a hatred of the UN.
This is not to say that the UN is all good. There are many things about the UN that are not good, just as with the EU. However, just as with BREXIT, the reason for fracturing the EU was not about “protecting national sovereignty,” but about breaking up the relations between nations to allow for remilitarization on behalf of Germany.
This seems to be a potential attempt to break Germany from the UN and also to split the UN along the lines of the migrant issue, so that the nations of Europe could say “look at what migration has done to us, we need to protect ourselves,” and thus allowing Europe to return to militarism in other nations as well, and by doing so to veritably expand their presence in the world.
It has a striking semblance to Bernard Connolly’s warning in 2009, where he said that Europe will use global crises to re-assert herself in the world:
This is not about “helping migrants”.
This is about stirring up anger and then transferring that anger to a revived imperialism.