While speaking before the UN General Assembly, Germany’s Merkel made an interesting announcement: If 2/3rds of the UN member states, totaling 193, vote for the Migration Pact, then The Pact will be adopted for ALL member states and will become legally binding. To date, there are not nearly enough countries that have opted out. Therefore, the only way to not be subject to the law of the Pact, would be to completely drop out of the UN. There are only three countries that are non-members: Vatican City, Kosovo, and Palestine.
On December 19th, the final vote will determine whether this Migration rule of law will proceed.
The legal issue is inserted because of the new definition of migration – Human Right. Therefore, while the pact loosely states it is non-binding, in fact the rule of law would pursue a violation of Human Rights against a country that does not comply. Brought before the International Criminal Court, the UN and its court can recommend sanctions, and demand reparations for ‘victims’. Acting as a mega-NGO, the UN could create a class-action of migrants that were disallowed into states that refused, and order those UN member states to pay off the migrant for violating his/her Human Right to migrate.
In addition, anyone, including the media, who thereafter references ‘illegal migration’ can be charged with criminal hate speech and subject to jail and fines.
A few days ago, the Leader of the latest Mexican Caravan demanded $50,000 for every migrant that came to Tijuana and was not permitted into the US. Currently, that would be considered extortion. Under ICC law, the UN could impose those fees and redefine them as reparation once the Migration Pact becomes law.
The members this UN/NGO would likely target first would be those who refused to sign; US, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Israel, Switzerland, and Slovakia.
While the Pact claims to be non-binding, the UN gives itself the power to ‘collectively manage’ migration for all countries so as to protect human rights whereby ‘illegal’ immigration no longer exists as borders are open to anyone and everyone. While the UN claims that member states must still ‘manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner,” and to ‘increase legal certainty and predictability of migration procedures,’ they are assuring that they, the UN, have no monetary responsibility to assure that borders are orderly. Nor will they have any financial responsibility to send immigrants to their designated country, those costs would be born by the country’s taxpayers.
Both the Pope and the UN Special Rapporteur, Felipe Morales, have stated that the US needs to buck up and take in anyone and everyone or face charges… given security should not over-shadow Human Rights.
Bottom Line: this is classic legal double-speak which means that a country is not bound to accept immigrants, however, if they don’t, they may be subject to Criminal Human Rights Violation Charges by the ICC and subject to whatever monetary and other outcomes this court determines.