Dutton is right.

Ah not really the point re the UN trying to take away our sovereignty with this policy.

But...

The government has pushed up immigration figures in an attempt to get more people here spending more money. They also up the skilled migrant figures putting Australians out of work so they can collect more income tax.

I am trying to understand why we, apparently, need so many hundreds of thousands of new migrants ... they talk about The Economy, but if there aren't enough jobs for the people already here, why "import" more people?  Welfare recipients aren't going to help The Economy very much as about all they have to spend is on food and accommodation.

New migrants cannot vote in Elections until they become citizens, is that in 5 years or what? If they still cannot speak English in 5 years .... what happens then?

Dutton is right to reject this claptrap
By Chris Merritt,
August 1, 2018

The Global Compact for Migration contains an affirmation of respect for national sovereignty that would have to be the world’s finest example of dissembling claptrap. It means nothing.

Also bereft of meaning is the argument that this pact is benign because its provisions are not enforceable. They don’t need to be. They work by encouraging governments to pass laws that the UN considers to be correct.

Without change, Peter Dutton is right to reject this pact. Signing up would permit the UN to make Australia a whipping boy for deviating from the terms of the compact.

Signatories will be subjecting themselves to “inter-governmental measures that will assist us in fulfilling our objectives and commitments”.

And that includes re-educating journalists, “sensitising” them about migration-related terminology, manipulation by governments designed to “shape perceptions of migration”, the withdrawal of public funding from certain media outlets and investing in “ethical” reporting standards.

The big con is the guarantee that signatories will be free to enact their own migration policies. This promise, in paragraph 15 of the pact, is subject to the qualification that this freedom is to be exercised “in accordance with international law”.

This form of words, which is peppered throughout the compact, might seem innocent, but it’s not. It invites some UN committee of experts to decide which Australian laws are in accord with international law.

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should have nothing to do with this — unless they are happy to make the UN the arbiter of Australian law.

This is a key measure of sovereignty and it resides exclusively with those who vote in Australian elections — and that is where it should stay.