The UN Plan for Global Migration
Part 1
by Berit Kjos - June 4, 2006

"The implications for state sovereignty are also complex.... All states should establish coherent national migration policies that are ... consistent with international treaty law."[1] UN's Global Commission on International Migration

"Why, oh why, is Bush so stubbornly rejecting the advice of his supporters even though that advice is consistent with the thunderous message from public opinion surveys?"[2] Phyllis Schlafly

A borderless world! Social solidarity! Economic equality! Housing and health for all! The feel-good togetherness of serving the greater whole.... The list of utopian promises stretches the imagination. How can this dream be fulfilled? What will it cost? Why is migration vital to this process? How free is our president to block this transformational plan?

This dream of a New World Order was born long before socialist visionaries (including Franklin Roosevelt and the leaders of the Federal Council of Churches) enthroned Communist Alger Hiss as the first head of the United Nations.[3] [See The Revolutionary Roots of the UN] Hiss was the primary author of The UN Charter, which summarized its vision in noble terms that few could criticize. "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS," it began,

"DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained... and for these ends to practice tolerance and... to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all.... Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco... do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."[4]

It took the Second World War to make the new system acceptable to the people. In the wake of that useful crisis, the masses willingly embraced the UN promise of "economic and social advancement of all" under the guiding hand of the new "international machinery."

In the decades that followed, most people seemed to dismiss UN treaties and declarations as "soft laws" and policies with little effect on national sovereignty. They didn't know the many ways UN declarations would permeate national laws and policies. [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules] The mainstream media didn't tell us. So when the The Global Commission on International Migration was launched by the United Nations Secretary-General and a number of governments on December 9, 2003, few saw the red lights.[5]

But America is awakening. An immigrant-friendly nation, it has welcomed grateful immigrants from around the world into its system. Now, it faces something something new. The word immigration implies people moving across a national border into another country. In contrast, migration simply means people moving. No border! It supports the vision of a borderless global society, and it intentionally clashes with national sovereignty, laws and independence. Thomas Sowell summarizes some of its current problems:

"Under affirmative action, combined with amnesty, [illegals] would have preferences in jobs and other benefits. Those who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences in getting government contracts. Their children would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications. ... [I]f an illegal alien gets stopped for going through a red light... in many communities the cop is forbidden to arrest him.... Under a provision recently passed by the Senate, illegal aliens who forged Social Security cards not only get a pass, they get to collect Social Security benefits. ... We have seen what havoc such notions and practices have created after mass immigration under 'guest worker' programs in Europe...."[6]


This legalized lawlessness fuels the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept mass surveillance, universal data collection, and other intrusive strategies for worldwide control. And it gets worse:
"Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each."[7]

"The immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants.... CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today."[8]

"When Sept. 11 hijackers Hani Hanjour and Khalid Almihdhar needed help getting fraudulent government-issued photo IDs before embarking on their suicide mission, they hopped into a van and headed to the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Falls Church, Va. That's where scores of illegal alien day laborers ply bogus identity documents to other illegal aliens from around the world.... Nearly five years later, illegal alien day laborers like the ones who unwittingly assisted the 9/11 hijackers have virtually no fear of being arrested."[9]

A web of secrecy and a flood of misleading propaganda hides the truth from taxpayers who cover the costs. For example, the title of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" may sound good, but it actually undermines both security and prosperity for ordinary citizens. Wondering why their elected leaders ignore their pleas, many face rising lawlessness, unthinkable litter, lost jobs, and continual fear of violence.[10]

The reasons are simple. International regulations have already bound nations around the world to regional as well as global laws and policies. To understand their aims, let's look at the United Nation's Report of the Global Commission on International Migration [GCIM]. Chapter 6 warns us that "international migration is a complex phenomenon," and most states (nations)

"recognize the importance of international migration and seek to address it in a way that enables them to respect their international obligations."[1] What does that mean? Might the word "respect" actually imply "obedience" to international guidelines?

An illusion of national sovereignty

The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any "sovereign" action that might oppose UN policies. The UN Declaration on Human Rights illustrates this manipulative language well. Its Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression...."

But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, its promise of "human rights" does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God's "offensive" truths -- or refuse to follow UNESCO's Declaration on the Role of Religion.[11]

The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground. In the numbered items below, notice the GCIM's promising assurance -- followed by a clear denial of traditional sovereignty:

"8. First, state sovereignty is the very basis for international cooperation....

"9. Second, with sovereignty comes responsibility. As the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) has observed, recent years have witnessed a reorientation 'from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties.' Sovereignty as responsibility has become the minimum content of good international citizenship. Just as individuals have rights and responsibilities as citizens of states, so states have rights and responsibilities as members of the international community. [Note: That responsibility falls primarily on the "rich" developed nations considered capable of hosting, funding and managing the world's migrating human resources.]

"10. ...The European Union (EU) can be viewed as an example of a group of states that have retained their sovereignty [Have they?]...

"11. ...States establish international bodies when certain issues – or ‘common goods’ – warrant a more formal and collective form of governance."[1]

The following points show some of the ways nations must cooperate with regional and global policies:

"15. If states are to address the issue of international migration in a coherent manner, they must have... criteria for the entry and residents of non-citizens that are consistent with international law. ... [T]hey should at minimum address the following issues:
• family reunion, asylum, refugee protection and resettlement;

• the prevention of irregular migration and the promotion of regular migration [The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation's population];[8]

• integration, including the rights and obligations of migrants, citizens and the state...
"17. All states should adopt a coherent approach to international migration that is consistent with international law and other relevant norms....

"21. ...This in turn requires effective data collection, policy analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation....

"23. ... develop an infrastructure that provides social, educational and legal assistance to migrants, and that helps the host society adapt to the presence of migrants;• ensure that resident foreign nationals are effectively represented by migrant associations... [A partnership between U.S. and Mexico provides such legal protection of "human rights" for illegal immigrants in the U.S. Small wonder it's hard for U.S. courts to deal with foreign criminals] [12]• build up a capacity for data collection and analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation."[1]

Regional integration

Regional integration, such as the European Union (EU), was planned long ago as a stepping stone toward global governance. Since the regulations for regionalism are established at the UN level, this initial merger of nations -- such as Canada, United States and Mexico -- redefines sovereignty and submits everyone to international controls. Ashley Mote, an independent member of the European Parliament, explains how this revolutionary system would swallow up any representative form of government:


"Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits.... We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them....

"The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road.... The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states... are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.

"...officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers.... But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government. ... The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure... designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

"...the EU’s parliament... is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. ... In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide."[13]

Today's euphemistic propaganda for regional governance continues to mislead the public. These statements by GCIM show only the positive side of the issue:

34. In the EU, for example, citizens of member states can move with relative ease from one country to another, enjoying the benefits of a common labour market....

35. Efforts have also been made to establish various types of economic integration and related freedom of movement agreements in other regions of the world, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)....

The Commission commends in particular the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), which aims to establish an integrated socio-economic development framework for Africa."[1]

In Parts 2 and 3, we will look more closely at how the beliefs, cultural values, poverty and lawlessness inherent to the migration crisis create a public mindset that welcomes other UN goals: universal surveillance, universal data tracking, a new kind of "human settlement," and collective participation in the dialectic process. With the Canadian, anti-Christian UN leader, Maurice Strong, as one of the guiding lights behind this revolution, my biggest concern might be the UN "laws" that ban Biblical outreach to this new "mission field" in our midst.

Meanwhile, study this chart [www.crossroad.to/charts/paradigm_shift.html] and remember God's promise to His people:

"...in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:37-39

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/migration-un.htm