Saturday, July 14, 2018

The U.N. migration compact is toxic

A few days ago, the representatives of 190 U.N. member states agreed with the

(full PDF text of the draft; press release).
The document is intended to legitimize mass migration and encourage all countries of the world to adopt the same rules how to deal with the migrants and refugees. This document has been planned since September 2016 when Obama, in the final months of his tenure, made sure that the U.S. was a part of it.

At this moment, it's a draft and the final version of the rules is supposed to be codified in Morocco before the end of the year.

As the media report, the draft was adopted "by consensus". That probably means that a herd of brainless sheep, one sheep representing one nation, was pushed to some meadows near Manhattan.

A strange aspect of the word "consensus" is that the U.S. – which is a rather important country in the New World, if you haven't heard of it yet – doesn't want to be a part of it and Hungary, disagreeing with the key points of the document (as Szijjártó Péter, the minister of foreign affairs, pointed out), plans to disassociate from that treaty soon, too.

I find it shocking that only America and Hungary clearly distance themselves from such a far-reaching deal. Even the Czech government – that often presents itself as an anti-immigration one in front of the Czech electorate – apparently decided to be a bunch of obedient puppies fulfilling the EU and U.N. orders. Mr Babiš finds the EU subsidies in the following years to be much more important than the existence of the Czech nation in the future.

(Update: On Saturday afternoon, thankfully, the Czech ministry of foreign affairs said that it couldn't give its consent to illegal migration – a statement that hopefully means that we will follow in the Hungarian footsteps. However, the temporary minister Hamáček seems to defend the pact because it's "non-binding".)

I've tried to read the 34-page-long text of the "compact" and I am rather terrified by it. Some of the formulations are clichés trying to promote migration (mass migration is the first thing that is implicitly praised) as a fundamental human right and a source of well-being; most of the pages are detailed lists of stunning rights and entitlements that the migrants should have, and new duties that the nations organized in the U.N. are obliged to do for the migrants.

Concerning the first group, page 2 says:
...Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance...
Oh, really? Do the U.N. apparatchiks plan to spread these extremely controversial views as the common wisdom? Should the politicians in the U.N. member countries be prosecuted when they point out that the writers of the sentences above were absolutely full of šit?

Individual migrants – and perhaps isolated families – have occasionally moved to another country and they were sometimes successfully integrated and assimilated. But what about the mass migration that was clearly the reason why this "compact" has been negotiated in the first place?

The first thing one must say is that mass migration has almost universally been accompanied by skirmishes and wars. For one nation to try to take the territory inhabited by another nation is clearly a hostile act and the nation of the original settlers must be expected to react rather violently or defensively – and the history is full of wars resulting from one nation's efforts to increase its presence at a certain territory. The people who don't see that the asymmetrically driven changes of the ethnic composition at a territory are the primary cause of wars understand virtually nothing about the mankind's history.

But even when the hot wars are avoided, things aren't too pretty.

Look at Czechia. Thankfully, we remained a rather uniform society since the 7th century when the early Western Slavs took this territory as their own – relatively peacefully because the previous inhabitants were mostly absent at that time. Nevertheless, there have been several groups of ethnic groups whose presence at the Czech territory might be considered a consequence of mass relocation programs.

First, let's pick the most civilized non-Czech ethnic minority that has lived here, the Sudeten Germans. Between the 9th and 13th centuries, Czechia was almost completely inhabited by ethnic Czechs and no one else. We were politically integrated to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation – a predecessor of the EU – as a kingdom that was almost entirely ethnically Czech and Slavic. However, since the 13th century, the Czech kings decided that they may increase the prosperity by inviting German settlers, especially to the Sudetenland.

And yes, make no mistake about it, I think that this particular – cherry-picked – ethnic group has helped to increase the prosperity and civilization's achievements on the Czech territory. Our ties with the West were strengthened, the Germans could manage to do agriculture in the more challenging mountainous areas, they established lots of the family business and "light industry", lots of the achievers born on the Czech territory were Germans. Does the kings' program still look like a win-win situation?

Well, you know what the answer is, don't you?

They have never been quite integrated to the country whose capital was Prague for more than 1,000 years. The differences – and the Czech-German differences are much smaller than the Christian-Islamic differences – survived and exploded in the 1930s when Hitler became popular among Germans. A big psychological wall was re-erected to separate the Germans from the Czechs. Over 90% of the Sudetenland Germans supported the regional branch of NSDAP right before the war. This particular minority – which had better rights and "national life" in Czechoslovakia than any other German minority in the world – was arguably the minority that was most responsible for the Second World War. In 1945, they had to be expelled because the amount of their wrongdoings and the mutual hostility was too high and incompatible with a peaceful co-existence on the recreated Czechoslovak territory.

So in 1945, the 700-year-long experiment with Germans that were systematically relocated to Bohemia and Moravia had to be declared a failure and it had to be almost completely reversed. Sorry, Czech kings, but with hindsight, we may see that your rosy, U.N.-like interpretation of the mass relocation program was an example of myopia. If you were able to think in the long term, you could have known that it was a rather dangerous idea. And Czechia is one of the "most peaceful" examples of the Germans' co-existence with others. Czechs have mostly admired Germans since they elected the Frankish merchant Samo some 1500 years ago, they voluntarily integrated into the First Reich (Holy Roman Empire) and the Fourth Reich (the EU) and semi-voluntarily to the Third Reich. There was almost no hot fighting on the Czech territory during the Second World War. But even in the absence of the hot wars, the co-existence looks messy.

Now, after 1945, the Sudetenland was rather depopulated after the Germans were expelled. Lots of new people had to be moved to the Sudetenland to replace the Germans. See my Quora answer if you want to see many details about the ethnic and geographic composition of these new inhabitants. Poor Czechs from the mainland, Czechs and Slovaks returning from Romania and Volhynia, Slovak gypsies, ethnic Hungarians, Macedonians, and Greeks were involved, among others, not to mention 200,000 ethnic Germans who could stay because they could have shown some anti-Nazi credentials.

Well, this program has been successful to some extent. The harvest proceeded almost flawlessly already in 1945, among other things. But the Sudetenland automatically became the part of Czechia where – even as of 2018 – the people have the weakest attachment to the country; the part of Czechia where the unemployment rate was highest (the color maps with the Sudetenland and those depicting the unemployment rate look almost identical), and so on. So in some long-term perspective, the result of these mass relocation programs wasn't "too good", either.

We've got lots of Slavic migrants – from the post-Soviet (especially Ukrainian) and post-Yugoslav countries – and they integrated rather well. It's really because their language is close enough – and they see Czechia as a superior country relatively to their homeland which is why they simply "upgrade" themselves and don't try to bring too much from their old habits.

But most of these migrants got here pretty much individually, without any big plans. And the same is true for most of the Vietnamese – although the first wave of the Vietnamese came here as "students" in a communist program. The Vietnamese immigration has been sort of successful so far. (Problems may still arise in the future.) But there have been many big programs to deal and relocate the gypsies and the co-existence still looks like mess. In the interwar Czechoslovakia, gypsies were supposed to live near the borders of towns and villages. They were moved to special concrete blocks. Communists systematically moved gypsies from Slovakia to Czechia etc. None of these big schemes has ever made the things much better than before. The co-existence problems have never disappeared.

There's some mixed experience, a sufficient number of lessons to learn, even in a country like ours that remained rather uniform. But according to most citizens of my country, the overall sign of the big migration events involving our territory is probably still negative. On top of that, the Czechs are carefully watching what's going on in Western Europe and the experience there – especially with the mass migration from Africa and the Muslim world (those overlap) – seems to be much worse than everything we know here.

So how can a sane responsible politician approve a document claiming such unequivocally positive appraisal of the mass migration?

Concerning the second part of the content of the "compact", look at a random page in the middle, e.g. Page 11 where "Objective 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration" begins. What follows are several pages of far-reaching entitlements. There has to be mobility agreements, access to the Academia for migrants, skills matching programs, diverse spectrum of visas, and lots of other things.

These pages read like some promises of a left-wing populist party. Millions of promises and entitlements. You know what? I think that even the politicians who promise all this socialist garbage to the citizens belong to the political cesspool. They're no good. This is a recipe to build a really big government and that's just wrong. What should I say about politicians that want to guarantee all these socialist achievements to illegal migrants? I am not sure what should I say – the very idea leaves me utterly speechless.

Individual refugees – whose number simply cannot be high, pretty much by definition – and perhaps a couple of economic migrants that are generally wanted by employers due to some pre-existing demand may be integrated, become citizens, and the standard civic rights apply to them. When the influx is large, it has to be countered because it's a conflict between countries of some kind. Illegal immigrants must be treated as criminals or prisoners of a sort. One may call them differently – we use the word "detention facilities" for the prisons for illegal immigrants – but it's clear that every country that is supposed to survive must have some restrictions on the flux of humans through its borders – so the violators, especially if their number becomes large – simply have to be treated as a serious problem, a serious violation of the law.

It's just insane to think about the approval of such a document. Maybe at some places, it tries to sound moderate. It tries to suggest that too fast migration could have bad consequences. Maybe human smugglers shouldn't be supported, we read. But it's clear that the bulk and the core of the document have been written by radical multiculturalist activists. Responsible politicians in every nation that works well and wants to work well in the future simply have to refuse this offer unequivocally. Too bad that only America and Hungary seem to have responsible politicians at this very moment.

No comments:

Post a Comment