A further thought, in protests like has been happening overseas where
the yellow vests are protesting they need to realise on this subject
the police are on the side of the protestors because they are the very
last who want to see more Africans from Somalia etc on our streets.

I don't quite understand what all the objections
are about. Apparently the compact is non-binding
and has a provision stating that countries
retain sovereignty over their migration programs.
Why are Scott Morrison and Dutton objecting?

Stupid question perhaps. It appears that
the final draft of the compact
includes a commitment to review legislation and
policies to ensure "migrants are not detained
arbitrarily, that decisions to detain are based
on law, are proportionate, have a legitimate
purpose, and are taken on an individual basis,
in full compliance with due process and
procedural safeguards..."

There's more at the following:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/21/australia-refuses-to-sign-un-migration-pact-citing-risks-to-turnbacks-and-detention

Foxy,

I'm sure you remember our government stating that whatever they sign they abide by. That was in reference to the Paris Accord, which is also 'non binding’. There are also the comments about activist judges, which are not just my personal observations, but ones based on past performances by unelected officials.

ttbn,

Thanks for that.

Good discussion.

The fact that that the UN makes no distinction between illegal and legal immigration is also unnerving. We do have that distinction. We must not have our right to decide who comes here negated by the UN or anyone else.

The 'reeducation' of the media, and thus the rest of us, is also a huge worry, I think.

I fail to understand what all the objections are to immigration?