https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/austria-sign-global-migration-pact-58870012

"There are some points that we view critically and where we fear a danger to our national sovereignty," Kurz said, the Austria Press Agency reported.

"Migration is not and cannot become a human right," added Strache, the Freedom Party's leader. "It cannot be that someone receives a right to migration because of the climate or poverty."

lucky austria for having representatives that have the will and the courage to protect their citizens

perhaps translation and language are at fault, but that's silly as an argument.

of course migration due to climate or poverty is a basic human right, its as ancient as any other human right is. it in fact most likely predates many other rights considered to be basic to humans, as it predates humanity. our predecessors all migrated freely due to lack of resources, due to climate and other factors.

the intelligent argument is to suggest we've moved past our primitive state and should then reestablish which basic rights should be upheld. such as we've consistently done with non-violent crimes, which was a basic human right before the legal code criminalized them. in 1900 you could buy a cocaine tonic, now personal drug use no longer a basic human right.

immigration into whatever country the migrant chooses is not a human right, that's what he meant. there is no legal entitlement to immigration into a foreign country to which one has no relationship whatsoever.

it is of course legitimate to say "I'm a resident of a pacific island that is about to sink into the ocean due to climate change, please let me emigrate to your country".
it is not legitimate to say "I'm a resident of a pacific island that is about to sink into the ocean due to climate change - and therefore, you, country XY, are legally obliged to take me in".

well we're mixing together a pretty toxic semantic cocktail here. human rights and legalities aren't inherently the same. legal codes generally respect basic human rights, but far from inherently, and far from universally. Russia legal code has no basic human rights protection for homosexuality in many cases. in the Philippines u smoke a joint and die for it. Saudis have no presumption of innocence in many cases. etc

but, as migration of humans predates the formation of countries, of course it's a basic human right. people simply get too buzzwordy about that phrase, and somehow assume that basic human rights should be inalienable, they're far from it. in the modern age the only thing that differs us from primitive man is the knowledge of where you're headed thanks to things like the internet, poor syrians have a basic idea what it's like in France for migrants, thus increased migration. 30 years ago they only had a vague idea, and few migrate on such unclear motivations.

if we want to leave the practices of basic primitive humans behind, fine, but redefining what it is to be a basic human is silly and laden with misleading buzzwordery. a stronger message would be to distance ourselves from the primitives, while explaining how the situation is different now. i agree with your 2 examples entirely.

but that's the crux of the situation: for quite some years, the UN, ngos and similar actors have been trying to push western countries towards the belief that universal human rights automatically imply legal entitlements against western countries.

phrased differently: the UN and NGOs are trying to dismantle the distinction between "human rights", which are universal, and "civic rights" (in the sense of citizens' rights).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 31 2018 09:54am

This is more of a fight around definition.

Short-hand, you do not have a right to migrate.

More accurately, nations have a right to resist unwanted immigration, and are not human rights criminals for doing so.

its not silly at all, just a simple way to put it
what about the human rights of those, who are supposed to take them in?

you simply cant compare modern times with the rest of human history
obviously you could go wherever you wanted 2 or 3 millennia ago, when most places were not occupied

i think you are going a bit far with that argument, yes you could buy a cocaine tonic, because nobody gave a fuck and most importantly nobody had the knowledge we have now
i get your point, but lets not mix up the present with a past, where the concept of laws or rights didnt even exist

its our call to decide, who can enter our countries and who can not
self determination is the most basic right there is and i will not accept how migration fanatics are putting the rights of migrants above my own

I agree that it's a case of redefinition. both sides constantly trying to use buzzword phraseology to illicit emotions. i just draw the line at someone calling something older than a human a non-human basic right. that to me is silly.



i agree, and at the same time I'm critical of Iran/Saudis not taking in refugees in the fallout of Syria and other nations collapsing, so i suppose im not 100% consistent.



we're mostly in agreement, but i say the term "basic human right" should be something that's the same more or less in the past and present. overall it's a bit overplayed by politicians, just to illicit emotion.

Polls are showing a Conservative lead over Labour despite the awful handling of Brexit negotiations and the strong opposition, both internally and in the EU, to Theresa May's Chequers plan.

Corbyn is finished, time for the old man to retire and let a younger, smarter and more charismatic leader take control.