To migrate here is no human right

DebattÅSIKTAtt migrate hither is no human rättighetSD: It is strangely silent on the UN immigration agreements This is an opinion piece. It is the writer who stands for the views that are put forward in the text, not the newspaper Aftonbladet.Photo: TTDet is available since the earlier assessments that the majority of the millions of africans in the future will seek illegally to Europe. Most are not refugees, but migrants. Without a doubt, is GCM the first step toward making the migration as a human right, writes Kristina Winberg (SD).DEBATE

DEBATE. The UN document ”Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” (GCM) is supposed to be signed in Morocco on 11 december this year. GCM is expected to become the first intergovernmental document drawn up by the UN in order to cover all aspects of migration.

GCM is therefore not refugees but all migrants; legal and illegal. The underlying idea, which permeates the entire document, is that migration is something closest to naturgivet, ostoppbart, which thus should be promoted, supported and protected. Without doubt, it is the first step toward making the migration as a human right.

GMC takes not at all up some disadvantages of migration, such as high costs or a clash of cultures

considering the content of the GCM, it has been strangely quiet in the public debate. To highlight only some of the overall 23 objectives that are now Sweden, among others, intend to commit to, these include:

Ensure that all migrants, legal and illegal, have access to basic services as housing, tolkstöd and health care. Strengthen migrants ' access to the service, and to legislate so as the provision of services and does not discriminate against migrants. Inevitably, this would burden the welfare system and pose a cost, which we strongly dispute the notion that the Swedish tax payers want to stand for.

Promote mutual respect for cultures, traditions and habits. This without, for example, take up or take away from, where phenomena such as female circumcision and the culture of honor. GMC takes at all, not few disadvantages with migration, such as high costs or a clash of cultures.

Eliminate not only discrimination and racism, but intolerance against migrants, through support to certain media, and influence and educate professionals in the media. Furthermore, not public aid granted to the media, which systematically support the intolerance or discrimination against migrants. What media would dare to question the official image that the migration should be promoted,
without risking to appear as intolerant and get the least indentation? This might already explain the silence in the media around the GMC?

We who are foolish enough to talk about this may find us to be called racists, xenophobic and populists

Sweden has participated actively in the drafting of the GMC. On the other hand, countries such as Hungary, Poland, Australia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Israel, the Czech republic and Austria, with reference to national sovereignty stated that they do not intend to complete their participation. The united states has not even participated in the negotiations. Conversely, it can be noted that saudi Arabia, Syria and Eritrea learn to sign.

Even if GMC is not formally a legally binding agreement, committed the signatory states, extensive moral obligations. Everything indicates, however, that the contents of the document go forward to become international law.
It is available since the previous assessments to several million africans in the future will seek illegally to Europe. Most are not refugees, but migrants.

What is the reality we live in? Total self-denial or only partial? How will future generations look at our present if we do not even dare to talk about these issues? Who is going to pay? We who are foolish enough to talk about this may find us to be called racists, xenophobes and populists.

the UN wants to irregular (illegal) migration shall be prevented, i.e. it is not stopped. But when it is a matter of fact, when individuals without the right of residence and illegally entered in a country, then the interest to support such a migrant, in principle, go before the competing interest – namely, that this country takes care of its own sick, poor and old; and its own judiciary and its own school. This is the harsh reality; that we no longer allowed to talk about.

There is already the option to apply for and obtain a work permit. It requires a
the offer of a real job first, but maybe it still is reasonable?

We are not silent, how loud and how long must we cry out?

Kristina Winberg (SD), Mep

Join in the debate and comment on the article
– like Aftonbladet Debate on Facebook.

Read the full debate here