The compact itself represents the global community’s attempt to establish a common approach to dealing with international migration. Radio Sputnik discussed the growing opposition to the UN migration pact with the US-based immigration analyst — Ann Corcoran.
Sputnik: The Czech Republic is the latest country to criticize the pact and announce plans to abandon it. Why is the opposition to the agreement growing?
Ann Corcoran: Well, I think people are fond of reading the agreement and are starting to understand that when the agreement discusses controlling immigration or handling immigration to a comprehensive and holistic manner that really that it is a fascist idea frankly and leading the UN to a more global government.
Sputnik: Now we know that the Czech Republic is now following the example of Hungary, Austria and the United States on this matter. I think also Poland have actually had a disagreement to this particular agreement. Why are these particular nations so discontent with the deal notwithstanding what your previous answer was?
Ann Corcoran: Yeah, and I think Croatia I am hearing is also headed in that direction. That seems that of course, the US got out very early, I mean never even got in, frankly. And your listeners should know that the whole concept came out of Obama's idea in the fall of 2016, in September 2016 at the United Nations. And I think one of the major sticking points, leaving the US out because we got out earlier, but the major sticking points as I understand it since the time is this idea that migration will be a human right and that it will be no distinction then, if migration is a human right, there would be no distinction between those who are coming into one's country illegally or legally, there would be no reason to have any further distinction. So, I think that is, I think, those countries are seeing that this is an effort at basically a borderless world.
Sputnik: What a very interesting point you're making and this is the crux of the problem, isn't it, probably? I think Mr. Zeman actually said that the agreement does not recognize the difference between legal and illegal migration which is something that can be easily abused and practiced. But if you're saying it's a human right then it's hard for those countries to go against it and this is the divisive element of this whole agreement. Would you agree with that?
Ann Corcoran: Oh, yes, absolutely. And let me just say, supposedly, well it is supposed to be the case, that the document is not legally binding then why bother? And let me just say on that, the reason that countries should be concerned besides with borderless world idea is that this compact will certainly in the future be used as a hammer over countries' heads by contract, and it isn't, your listeners should know, has a proposal in it to illuminate all forms of discrimination including racism, xenophobia, and intolerance against migrants. So, who's going to be the judge going forward if a country is being xenophobic or discriminating in some way, somebody in some bureaucrat in New York or some bureaucrat in Geneva?
Sputnik: Well, it's a very difficult one to police in this pie at the sound of things. We are debating it now and it sounds almost impossible to get a balanced view, I mean we've got these countries already saying they don't agree with the agreement, obviously. Is it going to be something that other countries are going to follow suit and the whole agreement falls apart? So, do you agree with the justification in terms of criticism of the pact then?
Ann Corcoran: Oh, yes, let me just say, I just thought that Germany had a very contentious debate in the Bundestag over this issue with the Alternative for Deutschland saying that Germany should get out of this. And let me just say, with the US, Hungary, Austria, possibly Czech Republic, possibly Poland added these all together, why should any other country sign this document, any other, I should say, advanced first-world country sign such a document? It is going to be nothing but a hammer over these countries' heads going forward. And it's just one more little foot in the door, I believe, to a concept of a borderless world where migrants could just flow to whatever country they've felt to they wanted to go to.
Sputnik: Well, I think you have articulated the problem very well there. While not legally-binding then what effects will the pact have once it is adopted? Are you saying that basically you feel that globally countries will start going against this agreement and this agreement potentially is going to collapse, how much will it change the nations approach to migration? It doesn't look good, the policy on paper, it looks like it is going to collapse or what can be done to change this particular policy from the UN to get it embraced and accepted by all the member states?
Ann Corcoran: We have the United Nations where countries could be go together if they are having a dispute over those specific borders and fix migration in certain places. Can't those countries just go to the United Nations and have a discussion among themselves if they had a deal with this problem country by country, it doesn't have to be a worldwide compact. And as I said the compact even though non-binding it will be, that will be forgotten in the future and the compact will be used by the media to bash countries over the head that distance themselves in some way or do something that the lefts uses to say "it is racist!" This pact will just be used as a hammer to beat them over the head by the media.
The views and opinions expressed by the speaker do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.