NationStates

Seems tomorrow on Dec. 10 and on the 11, nations will be gathering in Morocco to sign a worldwide pact on immigration. The pact deals with establishing a

Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

This pact is the result of 18 months of meetings. Should point out that some nations dropped out during the months of meetings. For example, the US and the Dominican Republic.

Politically, conservative groups are slamming this pact since they feel it dictates immigration policies in there respective nations. Liberal groups are also slamming this pact since it does not go far enough when it comes to humanitarian things. Even people on youtube are complaining about this. Seems they do not know that this pact is non-binding.

Seems the UN wants to help simplify the worlds migratory rules by having nations follow the same migratory rules if possible. So what do you think NS. I think this measure interferes into the internal matters of nations. But since its non-binding. Better if they just called this measure "UN suggestion on migration rules". Something like that.


Story from what seems a South African source - https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/moro ... s-20181207

I hope more countries follow those who refused to sign the migration pact.

I wish the article would clarify a little more on the actual parts and objectives of the pact, but I at least like the broad concept of trying to simplify immigration by having a worldwide agreement/standard. Though it’s hardly surprising not every country wants that, given the circumstances.

Alas, looks like we have a deal that disappoints everyone and satisfies no one.

I cant access the website properly, what exactly is going to happen as part of this pact?

Also:

Rio Cana wrote:Even people on youtube are complaining about this.

Yeah thats the norm for youtube on like everything.

I like the idea of a system which streamlines and standardizes immigration policies, depending on how the UN goes about this.

Trumptonium1 wrote:I hope more countries follow those who refused to sign the migration pact.

Why?

Genivaria wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:I hope more countries follow those who refused to sign the migration pact.

Why?

Because there's no good reason why it should be signed.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Why?

Because there's no good reason why it should be signed.

Simple laws to make things more efficient isn't a good reason?

The Huskar Social Union wrote:I cant access the website properly, what exactly is going to happen as part of this pact?

Also:

Rio Cana wrote:Even people on youtube are complaining about this.

Yeah thats the norm for youtube on like everything.

This short youtube video explains what they want to do -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... NRoDxhFCKA

This is the actual 30 page document direct from the UN - http://undocs.org/A/CONF.231/3

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Because there's no good reason why it should be signed.

Simple laws to make things more efficient isn't a good reason?

What's there to make more "efficient"?

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Because there's no good reason why it should be signed.

Simple laws to make things more efficient isn't a good reason?

Id rather that the UN not make laws.

It seems that a battle between the sovereign cultural nationalists and the intergovernmental global liberal authorities is ensuing.

I see no negative points about the migration pact. But of course, people will believe that the immigrants are potentially going to swarm Europe and make it into a caliphate

Trumptonium1 wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Simple laws to make things more efficient isn't a good reason?

What's there to make more "efficient"?

The immigration system.

The world is facing an immigration crisis, with so many people being immigrants in these trying times. It only makes sense that such a global issue would require a global, collaborative response. If we don't work together to create solutions, then we're all hurt by continual issues.

This is disgusting. The UN is vastly overstepping its mandate and ruining the world for everyone.

Purpelia wrote:This is disgusting. The UN is vastly overstepping its mandate and ruining the world for everyone.

By making a non legally binding agreement. Isn’t that exactly their mandate?

Purpelia wrote:This is disgusting. The UN is vastly overstepping its mandate and ruining the world for everyone.

By making a non-legally binding mandate, that nations aren't required to be a part of, and doing their job in acting as an international agency?

Stellar.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This is disgusting. The UN is vastly overstepping its mandate and ruining the world for everyone.

By making a non legally binding agreement. Isn’t that exactly their mandate?

Kannap wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This is disgusting. The UN is vastly overstepping its mandate and ruining the world for everyone.

By making a non-legally binding mandate, that nations aren't required to be a part of, and doing their job in acting as an international agency?

Stellar.

There is certainly a great deal of hysteria over this isn't there?

I think the easiest way to spot how little this will do is to review the messages that the liberal governments of Europe send to their right-wing, often nationalist, supporters. It's a non-binding treaty, that only offers a framework for immigration for the governments that want it. I.e. governments that would already act this way will continue to do so, while governments that wouldn't won't.
This treaty is the essence of UN indecision.

Sign it for appearances' sake, but in invisible and self-igniting ink.

So let me get this straight: the UN proposed a pact that could never meet its mandate, is legally non-binding, has countries rejecting it even though it is legally non-binding, pissed off the Liberals and Conservatives, and held regional meetings for consultations in places where regional powers reside, and has numerous asterisks, addendums, and additions, on one of the most controversial issues of the day, while lacking the funds to enforce it, even on paper?

This should work out splendidly! Can we put Hungary in charge of its implementation?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This is disgusting. The UN is vastly overstepping its mandate and ruining the world for everyone.

By making a non legally binding agreement. Isn’t that exactly their mandate?

International agreements are very upsetting to some people, I've noticed.

Shofercia wrote:So let me get this straight: the UN proposed a pact that could never meet its mandate, is legally non-binding, has countries rejecting it even though it is legally non-binding, pissed off the Liberals and Conservatives, and held regional meetings for consultations in places where regional powers reside, and has numerous asterisks, addendums, and additions, on one of the most controversial issues of the day, while lacking the funds to enforce it, even on paper?

This should work out splendidly! Can we put Hungary in charge of its implementation?

I work in admin, can I put in a bid for producing the prodigious stack of ineffectual memorandums of disapproval that this pact will require disseminating in the future?

Ifreann wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
By making a non legally binding agreement. Isn’t that exactly their mandate?

International agreements are very upsetting to some people, I've noticed.

Silly nationalists, they're walking in the wrong direction!

Teachian wrote:I wish the article would clarify a little more on the actual parts and objectives of the pact, but I at least like the broad concept of trying to simplify immigration by having a worldwide agreement/standard. Though it’s hardly surprising not every country wants that, given the circumstances.

Alas, looks like we have a deal that disappoints everyone and satisfies no one.

I agree but theres a bit more.