Future chancellor says Brazil will leave Global Migration Compact
Ambassador Ernesto Araújo, who has been confirmed to take over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said today [December 10] in social media that the government of President-elect Jair Bolsonaro will disassociate the country from the Global Migration Compact. According to him, immigration should be treated according to “the reality and sovereignty of each country”.
“The Bolsonaro government will dissociate itself from the Global Migration Pact that is being launched in Marrakesh, an inadequate instrument to deal with the problem. Immigration should not be treated as a global issue, but rather according to the reality and sovereignty of each country,” the future chancellor said in his Twitter account.
The UN Global Compact for a Safe, Ordained and Regular Migration was approved today by representatives of more than 150 countries at the intergovernmental conference of the organization in the Moroccan city.
Speaking at the conference, UN Secretary-General António Guterres drew attention to “the sovereign right of states to determine their migration policies and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in accordance with international law,” insisted the Secretary-General.
On previous occasions, the future chancellor had mentioned how the Brazilian government intends to deal with the migratory flow. According to him, the country will seek to accommodate immigrants by establishing a regulatory framework compatible with national reality.
“Brazil will seek a regulatory framework compatible with the national reality and with the well-being of Brazilians and foreigners. In the case of Venezuelans fleeing the [President Nicolás] Maduro regime, we will continue to welcome them, but the fundamental thing is to work for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.”
The ambassador added that immigrants are welcome in Brazil and will not be discriminated against. However, he defended the definition of criteria to guarantee safety to all. He did not elaborate on those criteria.
“Immigration is welcome, but it should not be indiscriminate. There must be criteria to ensure the safety of both migrants and citizens in the destination country. Immigration must be at the service of the individual’s interests and the cohesion of each society.”
The video below is a German commentary on the UN migration pact that was originally posted on the channel “Ebola — Virale Lügen”. According to the commentator’s analysis, the pact was at least partially designed to retroactively provide legal cover for Chancellor Merkel’s opening of the borders in 2015, which otherwise was illegal under current EU laws.
Many thanks to Oz-Rita for the translation and subtitling:
Martin Hebner is a member of the Bundestag for the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany). In the following video Mr. Hebner addresses questions to Chancellor Angela Merkel about the UN migration pact, which Germany signed last week in Marrakesh. In the back-and-forth of their exchange, Mrs. Merkel tacitly admits that the pact she signed is legally binding on the signatories once it is confirmed by the UN General Assembly.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Seneca III wrote this piece in anticipation that Prime Minister Theresa May would survive today’s no-confidence vote in Parliament, which she did.
The Mills of the Gods Grind Slowly, But They Do Grind Exceeding Fine
by Seneca III
RIP the Conservative Party. Born in its modern form out of the 1832 Reform Act under the guiding hand of Robert Peel it, in a fit of collective madness, suicided on the 12th of December 2018.
Having produced two of the greatest Prime Ministers of the modern era it became oblivious to the necessities of good governance, put its hand on its heart, felt its wallet then voted to sustain in office what is arguably the most treacherous, asinine Prime Minister of our time and long before.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust it will be, because that is all it became fit for in the end.
Concurrently, the whole of this present (and recent) Parliament(s) is the most wretched collection of self-serving traitors, liars, unconvicted criminals, freeloaders, sexual deviants, washing machine salesmen and morally destitute poseurs assembled in the Palace of Westminster since 1653, and it is immaterial which way or how they vote, abstain, waffle, equivocate, delay and butt-cover hereafter. The United Kingdom will be neither united, a Kingdom nor sovereign and free any longer.
For over two years, month after month, day after day they have stood and pontificated, wallowing righteously in a sea of vacuous platitudes and imagined threats whilst dragging the House and this nation deeper into a Slough of Despond than even Bunyan could have imagined. Most of them cannot deliver a coherent speech without the use of copious notes, and even then their verbal incontinence (in the main, nothing more than rancid vomitus) is painful to the eye and ear of those who have steeled themselves to watch and listen.
History will record this collection of political dwarves as unfit for any purpose other than their own enrichment and the survival of themselves and their comrades in the Globalist International; they are totally without virtue and ridden with vice. My dog has more integrity and sense of patriotism than they; he would not refuse to address the grievances of his pack nor their will as expressed through a referendum, and would not sell them to the Euro-Globalists for thirty pieces of euros (or tins of dog food) and a seat at High Table in a canine Brussels or Socialist International.
Barely any of this two-legged “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” parliamentary rabble could lie straight on the rack, never mind present as anything resembling pillars of rectitude. Betrayal is their watchword, and the adulation of their acolytes and (EU) paymasters their bread of life. However, bear in mind that if May & Co sign us up to the UN Immigration Pact, as is looking more and more likely, then the whole Brexit debacle, however it turns out, will be of no long-term importance as Muslim psychopaths from all over the world together with feral sub-Saharan primitives will soon flood in to finish us off once and for all.
The video below contains the opening remarks made by Marine Le Pen on November 27 at a press conference about “The Marrakesh Pact, the Pandora’s Box of Migratory Submersion”.
The UN pact will be signed next week in Marrakesh by an ever-decreasing number of countries. At this point it is essentially an agreement by Britain, France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and a few other European countries to take in any and all third-world migrants who want to enter. Since the Schengen Agreement will allow those migrants to disperse to non-signatory European countries, the pact will have an effect on all of Western Europe. Mind you, the signatory countries are also the preferred destinations for migrants, generally speaking, so most of them will tend to stay in the Big Five.
This is a significant event for those unfortunate enough to live in the signatory states. Ms. Le Pen provides an invaluable summary of the major features of the pact, and describes the pernicious effect it will have on France and the rest of Europe.
Many thanks to Alain Wagner for the French transcript, to Nathalie for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
For those who read French, the (untimed) French-language transcript is below the English transcript.
Video transcript (English):
|0:00||On the 10th and 11th of December, in Marrakesh, Mr Macron will get ready to sign the|
|0:05||United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.|
|0:10||All this will take place in quasi-absolute silence, a silence you, the media, are maintaining|
|0:16||with the exception of a disinformation campaign organised by the Quai D’Orsay (French Foreign Office),|
|0:20||who are peddling the so-called “harmlessness” of the pact.|
|0:23||This new silent betrayal of our nation signals the new step that our leaders have|
|0:27||taken in the orchestrated submersion of our country.|
|0:31||Those who promote it, driven as they are by a globalist ideology, have a pointless ambition|
|0:36||to make migration a boon for all.|
|0:40||Just as international law gives protective status to 25 million “refugees”,|
|0:45||pro-immigration advocates intend to give a legal status to 225 million migrants|
|0:50||whose journeys are now promoted, organised and protected by international law.|
|0:57||So, what are the Compact’s principles? The text puts in place the first stepping-stone of a|
|1:01||“Right to Migrate”, a right that would be recognised as a human right and|
|1:04||which would be enforced by international law.|
|1:07||The text includes an introductory statement, which makes no bones about its globalist beliefs|
|1:13||and its full-on pro-immigration stance.|
|1:16||In it migrations are presented as natural, as in, and I quote: “Migrations have been part|
|1:20||of human experience since the beginning of human history and we acknowledge that,|
|1:24||in the context of a global world, they bring prosperity,|
|1:28||innovation and sustainable development.”|
|1:32||There follow 23 objectives and the corresponding 137 concrete measures|
|1:35||that the signatory countries must abide by.|
|1:38||Four main ideas come to light in the 41-page document:|
|1:42||1) The active orchestration of global migrations by the signatories|
|1:47||2) The enforced pillaging of the host countries.|
|1:50||3) The institutionalisation of “parallel communities” via the institutionalisation of diasporas.|
|1:55||4) Pro-migrant propaganda and the criminalisation of those who would oppose immigration.|
|2:01||First, it aims to encourage and organise global migrations,|
|2:06||set up a global information network on possible migrations,|
|2:11||develop legal immigration pathways, thus turning consulates into|
|2:14||actual agencies for the management of migration routes and the settlement of migrants in our countries.|
|2:19||It aims to provide assistance at all stages of their migration routes and facilitate|
|2:25||their settlement into host countries by providing legal advice, customised financial aid|
|2:29||and protection, especially within their own ethnic diaspora. It aims to|
|2:34||facilitate access to rights and advice, and, it goes without saying, in their own language.|
|2:38||It aims to facilitate family reunification, to balance the influx of immigrants|
|2:42||against the demands of pro-migration business owners. To put in place the absolute right|
|2:46||for minors — and may I remind everyone that France will refuse to verify their minority —|
|2:51||to be given the right to settle in the name of the higher interest of the child.|
|2:55||To ban all measures of administrative detention. To facilitate the regularisation|
|2:59||of illegal immigrants. The second objective|
|3:03||is to put into place the pillaging of the host countries,|
|3:07||to implement the portability of social security benefits|
|3:10||for those migrants who choose to leave the host countries.|
|3:14||To support massive transfers of funds to the countries of origin|
|3:18||To encourage salaried migrants to transfer the technologies they acquired|
|3:22||in industrialised countries to businesses in their own countries of origin.|
|3:27||To institutionalise the existence of parallel societies.|
|3:31||It notably proposes to acknowledge the work of diasporas|
|3:34||in the support of migrants and in defining|
|3:37||and implementing immigration policies. What it comes down to, in violation of all the principles|
|3:41||the French Republic stands for, is delivering the country into the hands of|
|3:44||parallel societies of alien origin by granting diasporas, i.e. the communities of origin,|
|3:48||full legal recognition, and then give them the means of public action|
|3:52||and their own financial capacity such as the creation of investment funds for those diasporas.|
|3:59||The third objective is to implement, in all signatory countries|
|4:04||the criminalisation of all opponents of immigration.|
|4:07||Their aim is, for instance, to promote the benefits of immigration via “sensitisation”|
|4:12||and “education” of the news media… It is you who will get “reeducated”, so to speak…|
|4:19||and via a reformatting of public opinion, starting in schools;|
|4:22||a presentation document does not shy away from stating:|
|4:25||“We must reframe the discourse on migration so that it no longer conveys misleading or|
|4:30||skewed ideas and gives an exact picture of the importance of migration|
|4:35||and the positive role it can have in the contemporary world.”|
|4:39||The coarsest of all propaganda will be rolled out.|
|4:43||And all the more, since they mean to implement the criminalisation of those who oppose immigration,|
|4:48||especially during electoral campaigns.|
|4:51||Fourthly, by signing the compact the country commits to an irreversible future.|
|4:57||This pact was conceived as an important step towards a generalised global nomadism.|
|5:03||Contrary to what the powers that be insist, those powers who would conceal its true significance,|
|5:08||the pact has legal value and is legally binding on the signatories.|
|5:13||Each and every paragraph begins with a statement which leaves no room for ambiguity:|
|5:17||“We commit to…”. The signatory states agree to be summoned|
|5:22||at different stages in the process to report on the measures they explicitly agreed to carry out.|
|5:28||But, above all, the pact contains a binding commitment to the effect that the conditions|
|5:33||of entry into the host countries cannot ever be altered. What this means is that|
|5:36||the signatory countries put themselves under a binding interdiction never to redefine,|
|5:39||and thus harden, their immigration policies.|
|5:42||Not only is this compact legally binding, it allows no room to reverse those|
|5:46||Policies, and blocks the signatory countries from ever restricting|
|5:50||the conditions of entry into their lands.|
|5:54||We now understand better why more and more countries have refused to sign|
|5:57||this insane document. To date, they are Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Switzerland,|
|6:02||Croatia, the USA, Israel and more recently Italy under Matteo Salvini…|
|6:07||There are more, but off-hand I cannot remember them all.|
|6:10||The French president, fossilised as he is in his obsolete ideological dogma,|
|6:16||had nothing better to say than this: “It seems to me that the proposed solutions are|
|6:20||in agreement with both European values and European interests.”|
|6:25||The Rassemblement National [formerly FN] asks of the president of the Republic, who is on the verge|
|6:29||of signing the Marrakesh compact with a glorious disregard for consequences,|
|6:33||to renounce this act of betrayal. If this text were to be signed,|
|6:36||let me make it clear that the Rassemblement National would fight each measure therein|
|6:40||every inch of the way. And once the two main parties are no longer in power, we will|
|6:45||view this document as a worthless piece of paper.|
|6:49||Ladies and gentlemen, the objective of this press conference was to draw attention|
|6:57||to a document which, once more, was totally ignored and was not commented upon,|
|7:02||contrary to what happened in neighbouring countries, which saw a very lively and|
|7:10||well-represented national debate. This was obviously the case in Belgium,|
|7:16||and in the Netherlands, and of course in Italy.|
|7:22||Do feel free to ask me any follow-up questions.
The UN Migration Pact will be signed in a few days in Marrakesh. At the rate potential signatories are dropping away (Bulgaria announced against it yesterday), the nawabs of the UN will be able to seat the assembled delegates around a couple of card tables for the ceremony.
Before her name became public, Heidi Mund was known as “the brave German woman” who got ejected from a church for objecting to the presence there of an imam who offered Islamic prayers. Later she became associated with PEGIDA and other groups in the anti-Islamization movement.
In the following video Heidi Mund gives a brief report from Marrakesh ahead of the signing of the UN pact. Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Seneca III weighs in at Britain’s future, which looks to be grim, regardless of how the House of Commons votes on the Brexit deal.
Two Letters and a Morbid Prognosis
by Seneca III
On December 11th, after five days of debate, the British Parliament will vote on the draft Brexit agreement with the European Union. This agreement has already been accepted and approved by the EU Heads of State; the European Parliament has yet to vote. If the EP and the UK Parliament also approve it then the United Kingdom will remain bound to the EU under more restraints and with fewer rights than if we had remained a full member, and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will effectively be broken away and ceded to the direct control of Brussels and Madrid respectively.
Furthermore, rumour has it that also during December the UK (PM) will sign up to the Merkel/United Nations’ so-called ‘Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’ which so many rational and patriotic governments have refused to do.
The level of treason, both extant and latent, in the Mother of Parliaments and throughout the Establishment is mind-numbing and without precedent since the reign of Elizabeth I. There is little the unarmed man in the street can do at this point except write to his MP… for all the good that will do.
A Letter sent three weeks ago to my MP and forwarded to the Minister of State for Immigration but still awaiting a reply from the Minister:
I am deeply concerned about the future physical safety of the United Kingdom, particularly our (in)ability to independently feed ourselves and sustain our essential public services even at this early stage of the occupation process. In the news today two things give me cause to write thus to you:
1. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the UK’s population in mid-2017 was bigger than ever at an estimated 66 million people, and is projected add another seven million over the next 23 years. Effectively, the UK’s population will grow by an average of more than 300,000 a year, mostly from immigration and a high birth rate in immigrant enclaves. 2. More and more governments are declaring their intention not to sign up to the UN Migration Pact*, a devious plan designed to move vast numbers of non-indigenous, indeed often very alien and backward non-contributing cultures, into already overstretched Western economies under a thin guise of humanitarianism.
Essentially, the UK is full, indeed bursting at the seams, and more and more green-belt and arable land is being built over to provide living accommodation; we have a population density of 420+ per square kilometer and this includes what is left of our wilderness areas in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere which are essentially unfit for development on any major scale even if we did try to destroy them; this means that population density in those areas that can and are being developed is much higher than 420+ sq/km — a formula for chaos, internecine conflict and retrogression into barbarism.
It has long been known that rats left to breed in a closed biome with finite resources will reach a point of population density where to survive they must turn and start consuming each other. We are already seeing signs of a similar human situation developing in parts of the UK.
The latest op-ed from the popular German columnist Hans Heckel concerns the growing ranks of countries that are refusing to sign the UN’s migration pact (Bulgaria declared against it today, if I’m not mistaken).
Many thanks to JLH for translating this piece from Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung:
The Crap Is Out Of The Bag
How the Austrians are messing up Berlin’s plans; Why foreigners are racists; And why the Italians need to be knocked for a loop.
The Week in Review, with Hans Heckel
November 10, 2018
It’s really annoying. The plan was to be quiet and secret, under the radar: sneak the “Global Pact for a Secure and Regular Immigration” into position with no attention paid publicly. No debating! That would answer questions that can only be answered evasively, if the cat is to be kept in the bag.
Now this plan is in tatters. Is anyone surprised that that it was those devious Austrians again? They pulled the plug, and a flood of unpleasant questions spewed into German public attention.
To be sure, the USA and Australia had already rejected the “Immigration Pact” that was to be signed on December 10th in Marrakesh. Hungary followed suit, and doubts grew in Poland, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia and Switzerland. But who are they really? All rightist populists!
Austria is more complicated. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz is considered a fellow party member of the German CDU/CSU. As is Hungary’s Viktor Orbán — at least officially.
Only when Kurz formally rejected the pact did Berlin really get nervous. Then, the first CDU politicians found things a little too hot. The Interior Affairs expert Marian Wendt does not want the federal government to sign the pact. Instead, he asks for a “factual debate.” A “factual debate” — that would be something new. He offers the best of reasons for this daring stroke. Because otherwise the rightist populists would set the tone of the debate. The title of this situation should be: If the “rightists” hadn’t created the opportunity, no one would be asking about it at all.
The Foreign Office under Heiko Maas intends to take the field against “false claims” about the pact. One such false claim is that the pact contains obligations. Well, sure, some persnickety analysts searched the text and turned up the words “obligate” or “obligation” used 87 times. Which, however, in no way obliges Heiko Maas to admit such obligations. And in a sense, he is right. Rather than an obligation, the UN Immigration Pact is more a kind of chute on which the countries of Europe and North America will slowly slide into accepting anyone at all, en masse.
What is the great objective? The late Immigration Commissioner Peter Sutherland divulged it years ago: The national cultures of Europe are to be overcome — that is, semi-hollowed out and flattened (as PAZ reported). Since not everyone wants to hear that, the slide path has been chosen for the Immigration Pact.
It will be crucial to keep the “factual debate” free of critical objections. That’s the way to go. According to the AfD’s constitutional expert Dietrich Murswiek even using the expression “overwhelmed by immigrants” could lead to being accused of anti-constitutional actions. So be careful of what you think out loud, when you have not heard a single German word on the march through your own city district.
The following brief clip shows the reaction of Jean-Claude “Drunker” Juncker, the president of the European Commission, to Austria’s decision not to sign the UN’s migration pact. Mr. Juncker is obviously miffed with his Austrian colleagues for not joining the European consensus.
Mind you, this initiative is not a European one; it comes from the United Nations. Why should the European Commission take it upon itself to enforce knee-jerk compliance with ukases emanating from Turtle Bay?
And his vow that he will “talk to [his] Austrian friends” about their decision seems a bit ominous. Is he planning to make them an offer they can’t refuse?
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
RTL is the only major independent broadcaster in Germany. In the following clip from RTL, the commentator Jörg Zajonc expresses doubleplus ungood thoughts about the United Nations’ proposed migration pact.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
The Austrian government has decided to join the United States and Hungary in not signing the UN’s migration pact. Many thanks to MissPiggy translating this brief news report, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
MissPiggy also translated the following article from Die Presse:
Austria is leaving the UN migration pact
In Trump’s and Orbán’s footsteps: The turquoise-blue government does not join the United Nations Global Agreement.
Vienna — Following the United States and Hungary, Austria will also withdraw from the global migration pact, which diplomats from more than 190 U.N. member states reached agreement on in July. Then the turquoise-blue government agreed after several weeks of wrestling. Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl is expected to submit a proposal to the Council of Ministers on Wednesday, which is available to the press. Accordingly, the Federal Government will not send a representative to the conference in Marrakesh, where the agreement is to be officially launched on 10 and 11 December. At the formal vote in a later-planned UN General Assembly, Austria wants to abstain and present its concerns in a so-called vote statement.
Why the UN migration pact is controversial
“We see some points of the migration pact as very critical, such as the mingling of those seeking asylum with labor migration,” said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Austria would therefore not join the pact and thus prevent any possible future binding by customary international law. “This will ensure that Austria decides for itself in the future who will be allowed to immigrate and who will not,” said the ÖVP boss. Similar concerns were suggested by FPÖ vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, the driving force behind the “no” to the migration pact. “Austria must remain sovereign and self-determined on the migration issue,” he explained.
Legally non-binding anyway
If you study the UN paper more closely, your worries about a loss of sovereignty seem unjustified. Already in the preamble of the 34-page document it is stated that the agreement is not legally binding. It explicitly affirms the “sovereign right of states to determine their national migration policies themselves.” And migrants and refugees are well-distinguished. “Only refugees are entitled to specific international protection,” says the document.
The signatories also agree to coordinate border management in order to prevent irregular migration and smuggling of people. And they are committed to taking repatriated migrants home. All this is not mentioned by the turquoise-blue Council of Ministers. For this purpose, the draft for the declaration of intent before the UN states that the Austrian legal system deems a “human right to migration” as foreign. However, there is no trace of such a “human right to migration” in the UN agreement. It simply states that human rights are also valid for migrants.
Social Justice: An Analysis
by Richard Cocks
Who gets to be a student?
In the 1980s in New Zealand, university students tended to be the children of parents who had also been university students. This was at a time when only five percent of the population was admitted to college. Universities were funded by the government at great expense and reserved for the academically capable. Standards were high, with no grade inflation. Every student was literate and/or numerate and tended to be interested in his studies. Nearly every student pursued his own reading agenda and most would take an interest in classical literature and foreign (i.e., difficult) movies.
This fact about the parentage of university students was presented as a problem.
However, far from being unfair, it only stands to reason. The children of academically successful people are likely to have inherited a higher genetically derived intelligence. They are more likely to be exposed to a larger vocabulary from their parents, along with relatively sophisticated concepts. Their parents are likely to read to them and to treat education as valuable and important. There will likely be easy access to books with frequent trips to the library. The parents are more likely to be exemplary role models in their own reading habits. Academic subjects might be treated as interesting and discussed around the dinner table.
Many of these New Zealand students grew up wanting to be educated and knowledgeable. Some of it was just vanity and fear — not wanting to be the only person at the party who did not know about, say, Freud.
In my own case, long before attending university, “The Academic Calendar,” a bound book in which all university courses were listed along with their reading requirements, would be eagerly examined. Practically salivating at the books that would be read and discussed, fantasies of alternative course loads ensued. Imitating a friend of the family meant wanting from the age of seven to be a philosophy professor, before even knowing what philosophy really was.
The advantages of having university-educated parents were ones of class, family and genetic inheritance. Are those advantages fair? They are neither fair nor unfair. They are certainly an undeserved good fortune a.k.a. luck.
Crucially, what is the alternative to such a state of affairs?
Social justice would require “fixing” these advantages. One problem with this is that a student who is less able, less literate, less motivated, less interested, with a smaller vocabulary, having read fewer books would take the other’s place. This is a poor use of resources and creates its own unfairness. The other problem is that social justice attempts a kind of unknowable counterfactual — one of putting someone where they would have been had not social, familial and genetic factors counted against him. Sowell points out that social justice requires non-existent God-like abilities to determine what might have been.
Unintended consequences of social justice
One thing that was attempted in many countries to try to counteract disadvantages acquired “through no fault of their own” was to take children away from parents who were poor, unemployed, perhaps drug- or alcohol-addicted, unsuccessful, with bad attitudes towards education and industriousness and to put those children in more middle-class and successful households. This happened to Australian Aboriginal children and to Native American children among others. This attempt at cosmic justice is now regarded as an abomination, though it was well-meaning. Ripping such children from their birth home changes their likely educational and employment attainments positively, but destroys families and the parent/child bond. It is now completely out of fashion and widely condemned.
However, the desire for cosmic justice continues in other forms and similar sorts of things result from it.
In the 1960s liberal judges argued that amateur criminals often implicated themselves in ways that professional offenders would not. Bizarrely, the judges wanted to even the playing field for the amateurs and instituted the Miranda Rights rule. This means more violent criminals wandering the streets, getting off on technicalities, and more difficulty in prosecuting them. A certain number of extra victims will have died as a result of judges’ wanting amateur criminals to avoid conviction as often as the professionals. Those living in high-crime areas such as inner cities will have particularly suffered, and a very high proportion will have been black. Similarly, justices wanted hard-luck stories concerning murderer’s childhoods to be considered, even though there is no way to tell how much this contributed to their offending. These kinds of considerations mean murder trials commonly extend for three years at great expense, while violent criminals are out on bail.
“Social justice” for criminals means more victims, rapes and deaths, especially among the poor.
Traditional justice means one rule for all. Social justice for vicious murderers means the punishment will vary depending on how bad the killer’s childhood was. This means a different punishment for two criminals who commit the same crime. A criminal who could prove he had a particularly harsh childhood could expect a reduced punishment. Reducing the punishment means there is less of a disincentive to offend. If anything that contributes to his greater chance of offending should mean a lighter sentence, then the rule that criminals with bad childhoods should get lighter sentences will justify giving criminals even lighter sentences, thereby reducing the disincentive to offend, ad infinitum.
Affirmative action programs in California, for instance, were shown to actually reduce the graduation rates of blacks and Hispanics. By putting such students in colleges for which they did not qualify based on their grades, the students found themselves outgunned and at the bottom of their classes. This discouraging state of affairs tends to undermine self-confidence and reduce graduation rates. When the University of California system was forbidden by legal decisions to engage in affirmative action admission policies, the graduation rates of blacks and Hispanics rose by 55%.The number of doctorates among that group in the sciences went up 25% after affirmative action policies were banned. 
The United Nations has proposed that member states sign a pact that would regularize illegal immigration and manage the process of global migration.
European Commissioner for Migration Dimitris Avramopoulos is working with the UN to implement the proposed migration plan in Europe. Needless to say, Hungary is vigorously resisting the plan, and says it will not be involved in the process of devising the pact, nor will it abide by it.
The following video from the German-language edition of Epoch Times discusses the UN pact and its likely effects on Germany. It also analyzes the long-term consequences of German asylum laws and procedures, which combined with the inflow of more migrants will turn Germany into a Muslim-majority state within two generations.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling: