The Marrakesh Pact: an invitation for even more migration from the Third World to the First

Almost all UN member states will sign the Declaration of Marrakesh in December 2018. Among growing resistance against the declaration, fully titled Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, in many countries the establishment is pushing forward regardlessly – waving away protests by emphasizing it is a ‘non-binding’ treaty, but still curiously adamant to sign. Objections include the declaration’s approach to migration as an inevitable or even positive / necessary phenomenon, its making migration a de facto human right, and its equating economic migrants with war refugees.

The “Wir schaffen das”-effect

Under the new declaration, deporting illegal immigrants or rejected asylum seekers will become increasingly difficult (while most Western governments already struggle with this, and illegals are rarely actually deported). The declaration may be legally non-binding, but by signing, nation states do signal their acceptance of migration as a human right.

Anyone in ‘difficult circumstances’ could be coming to Europe, and ‘difficult circumstances’ could mean anything. Not just war, famine or political persecution, but also poverty (to any degree) or ‘climate change’. Many on the right are warning that hundreds of millions of Africans may feel invited to undertake the journey to Europe. Let’s not forget the “Wir schaffen das” effect in 2015, when Angela Merkel triggered the migrant crisis by symbolically opening Europe’s borders in her infamous speech.

Cui bono

To whom is this a benefit? Whose interests are being served? While the left’s business model consists mostly of painting the right as evil for disagreeing with them, the left tends to ignore the real-world consequences of their revery.

Related reading:

Why the feel-good vote is a left-wing vote. And why that’s wrong.

The West is seeing surging costs of welfare and the financial burden of the increased security measures that inevitably come with being in a state of war, not to mention the emotional toll of seeing innocent people dying in our streets and concert halls. The cultures of our cities are changing beyong recognition and we are now, in the 21st century, dealing with customs and diseases that were decades or more behind us. The West has been sending billions in foreign aid to Africa every year for decades and that won’t end any time soon. Surely that was never the idea behind foreign aid?

Africa is being drained of able-bodied, working-age men. Its economies are certain to collapse under this pressure. If the First World collapses under the strains it is putting on itself, that will remove a global source of economic stability and support. As Judith Bergman pointed out for Gatestone Institute last May:

No one seems to ask how draining Africa of skilled labor, such as businessmen and researchers, is going to help the continent develop and thus stem the trend of migration?

The Hungarian government appears to be the only government that considers whether the citizens it was elected to serve would support the declaration. Other European governments appear to think that asking their electorates what they think about African migration into Europe is irrelevant.

By now, Hungary, the US and Australia have withdrawn from the pact. Denmark, Austria and Poland are still considering.

No debate

One of these countries is The Netherlands. Motions urging the government not to sign the treatise were rejected by parliament twice. The first motion came from Geert Wilders’ Party For Freedom (PVV), the second from Thierry Baudet, leader of Forum For Democracy (FVD). Both motions received support from PVV, FVD and the conservative Christian (reformed) party, SGP.

The Dutch parliament will not be having a debate on this subject. While a debate would likely not change the vote on whether or not to sign, it would be informative for the electorate to know where each party stands on the subject. For the political class to force through a decision on one of the biggest political issues of our time without even allowing the representatives of the people to have a formal debate on the matter, and without allowing the people to be informed of the consequences of this decision, is of an arrogance that is rarely displayed.

The aforementioned Thierry Baudet has said one of his concerns is that ‘activist’ judges in The Netherlands will elevate these non-binding agreements to the level of binding policy decisions (which happened recently when environmental activists sued the government for not doing enough about climate change – and the courts agreed with them. Even without precedent, this is a formal pact that the Dutch government will officially sign, expressing its intentions to approach immigration this way. No government will casually cast their own intentions aside unless there are profound changes of insight. And if they would, why draft and sign a pact at all?

Political leaders clueless about the Marrakesh Pact

MP Vicky Maeijer (PVV) asked two fellow-MP’s of ruling parties for their opinions about the pact, but neither was able to give an answer. Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) spoke out in Parliament in favor of ‘more legal and desirable migration, but only if that replaces irregular migration’, stating that would result in (among other things) more manageable numbers of immigrants coming to The Netherlands. When Baudet pressed him on what would be ‘manageable’, the Prime Minister declined to give a number.

Deputy Prime Minister Hugo de Jonge (CDA) was asked about the Marrakesh Pact during a press conference on a different subject, and did not even know what the pact was: “The Marrakesh Pact? I’m going to need your help here…” After a short explanation from the journalist, De Jonge left the subject with a vacuous, almost unintelligible answer that had little to nothing to do with the immigration pact.


The political class doesn’t want us to know about the Marrakesh Pact. Many of them don’t even know what’s in the pact. Many others don’t realize that non-binding intentions will have binding results in the real world, or even deliberately want to make it seem as if they won’t. This is a pact concerning one of the defining issues of our time, one of the most polarizing and divisive subjects – yet almost all governments are ignoring the interest of their own populations, and refuse to inform their populations about the intentions expressed in the document and their possible consequences for the realities of the people they supposedly represent.

Those living in the countries choosing not to ratify the pact should count themselves lucky. All others should realize that they are merely a hindrance in the path between the political class and their ideology – a hindrance that is easily bypassed by an elite that owns all the relevant institutions in our society. This document, in spite of its legally ‘non-binding’ nature, could transform the world beyond recognition – and not for the better.