Officially, the paper is legally non-binding, but it is binding, so it does not count. What would happen if it did, though? What if it was enshrined in the constitutions of European countries? After all, it was voted by the overwhelming majority of them, with only Ukraine, Russia and Georgia abstaining and according to the United Nations it does “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN member states to move in certain directions”.
Much of the document deals with the discrimination suffered by indigenous people due to imperialism or colonialism, nonetheless, just like any other declaration of the UN, it has the pretense of universality, it speaks for every indigenous people, thus including indigenous Europeans.
Let’s go through the declaration. Article 8 is of particular interest and it reads:1)
Let’s apply this article to the context of Europe, mass migration from the rest of the world, and the attempt by the liberal European elite to build a “multicultural and diverse society”. Let us analyze the document point by point: “Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture” and then confront it with the declaration of EU leader Frans Timmermans speaking about the rebellious Visegrad Group: “Any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future”.2)
Isn’t Mr. Timmermans violating the right of indigenous Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovakians and forcing the destruction of their culture, by making it more diverse, hence less Polish, less Hungarian, less Czech and less Slovak accordingly? It gets uglier.
Point two: States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities.
Key words: any action, aim or effect. Under this point, the entirety of the immigration policies adopted by Western European governments would be a violation of the human rights of indigenous Europeans as they have significantly changed the ethnic and cultural composition of European countries. Whether it was purposeful or not and it often was, the effect is observable. The current demographic trend for many Western European countries says that indigenous British will become a minority within their own country by 2066,3) followed by indigenous Dutch4) and the Italians5); similar trends are observable all over Western Europe. The ongoing attempt by the Italian government to change the citizenship law from “Ius Sanguinis” to “Ius Soli” and naturalize 800 000 migrants overnight and an additional 50 000 a year could be in effect an additional violation of the rights of indigenous Italians to retain their cultural and ethnic identity.
Let’s continue with the other items of the second point, which lists other policies states should refrain from: any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources: while in charge, former Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt explained how he believed that Sweden did not belong to ethnic Swedes but to immigrants and he was basing his open border immigration policy on that belief.6)Wouldn’t it be another violation?
Comma c: any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights: this could be once again applied to any form of replacement migration ongoing in Europe for the past decades, including Merkel’s open door policy, and in particular the agency of all those left-leaning parties that hoped they could replenish their voting base with mass migration and mass naturalization, all of which undermines the (voting) rights of indigenous Europeans.
Comma d: any form of forced assimilation or integration; sometimes, you will hear pro-immigration advocates saying that natives should integrate with migrants and not vice versa. Wouldn’t this be another violation of the human right to an ethnic and cultural identity of indigenous Europeans?
Democrats in the state Senate managed to pass the bill on a 33-29 vote, despite losing all six of their Long Island members over fears the bill could prove politically toxic in their swing districts.
“We are treating the people who have broken our law, who are criminals [like law-abiding citizens]. This legislation will lead to more illegal immigration,” Sen. Thomas O’Mara (R-Chemung) fumed as he voted against the measure.
The Assembly OK’d the bill last week, and it now heads to Gov. Cuomo’s desk for his signature.
NYPost reports: The Senate vote came after days of intense talks that were largely wrapped up over the weekend — and despite continued opposition from Long Island Democrats representing potentially competitive districts and an MS-13 gang crisis.
A recent Siena poll brought those fears home when it reported that voters statewide opposed the measure 53 to 41%, with 55% of independent voters against it.
The regional breakdowns weren’t much better: Only 40% of suburban voters favored it and upstate voters hated it even more with just 35% support.
Republicans pounded the Long Island Democrats before and during the Senate debate in a likely preview of political attacks to come in 2020 elections.
“Shame on the Democrats for bringing this bill to the floor — and the Long Island Democrats,” Senate Minority Leader John Flanagan (R-Suffolk) told The Post before the vote.
“The Democratic senators said they would get here and protect the interests of Long Island and they wouldn’t allow New York City to control and dominate the agenda. They have failed miserably.”
A supporter of the new bill holds a sign promoting “Green Light NY.”
Monday’s vote moved the fight over driver’s licenses from the Assembly and Senate chambers to the governor’s office, where the bill awaits either Cuomo’s signature or veto.
Cuomo professed his support for the proposal for years, but threw supporters a last-minute curveball when he asked the state’s top civil attorney, Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, to review the measure for possible safety concerns — threatening to veto it if he didn’t like her assessment.
“You could create a database for the feds to use to actually track down undocumented people,” Cuomo said on WAMC radio. “California passed a law, and they are now in litigation.”
Underwood’s boss, Attorney General Tish James, released a statement amid the Monday-night vote arguing that the bill is legally sound.
“The legislation is well-crafted and contains ample protections for those who apply for driver’s licenses. If this bill is enacted and challenged in court, we will vigorously defend it,” she said.
The Counsel to the Governor, Alphonso David, later released a statement saying “the governor will sign the bill.”
Still, Cuomo’s last-minute move left supporters livid.
“None of these concerns were relayed to us. Why now?” bill sponsor Luis Sepulveda (D-Bronx) said Monday.
Proponents have long argued that the bill would improve safety on the roads by ensuring drivers are properly trained and licensed and that it would help better integrate New York’s estimated 265,000 illegal immigrants into the state’s economy and society.
Twelve other states and the District of Columbia already allow them to get licenses.
Republican opponents claim the bill could allow the illegal immigrants to register to vote.
“We can’t even get citizens to the polls to vote,” quipped supporting state Sen. Kevin Parker (D–Brooklyn), referring to the nation’s traditionally dismal voter turnout.
The vote was the culmination of a fight that first began in 2007 when then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer attempted to use his executive power to undo a requirement imposed after the 9/11 terror attacks that applicants must have a Social Security card to qualify for a driver’s license.
Spitzer backed down in the face of a massive rebellion from upstate Democrats and Republicans who assailed the move, which sent his poll numbers tumbling.
Bloody good point about violations of rights of indigenous people everywhere, by forced migration.
Straight from the horses mouth...
Well, you don't say, your welcome...