This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of 10 December, media reports that the agreement has been "affirmed" or "agreed to" by 164 nations but notably _not_ that it has been signed. Media reports say that will come later. So data should not be presented as if the compact has been "signed".
Further, we need a source for those 164 and this article should not purport to report which 164 nations have affirmed the agreement using media releases prior to the conference. If I can't find a source then I will be modifying the article to avoid describing which countries actually signed the agreement. Curiouskiwicat ( talk) 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, this Global Compact on Refugees is a separate thing, which warrants an article.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 05:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
What is the position of asian states like China Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi-Arabia or Russia ?-- Quario ( talk) 14:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
why not pro-states, except germany? -- Petruz ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Basically this is a non-binding treaty that would have been signed by all states, except that right-wing politicians in the US, Europe, and several other places have responded to populist outrage about it. This is the only reason that media reports exist about European and other countries either signing it or not signing it. The information on this page, including the map, describes those media reports. Most states are missing just because media are not reporting their positions because there is no controversy over signing in those countries. You can expect they will sign it, but I have not been able to find a published source that actually predicts that. Ideally the article would say this, but someone would need to describe the situation in a NPOV way with sources, which I have not done here. The information will be thrown out tomorrow anyway after the actual Morocco signing and the positions countries have taken to-date will be largely superseded by what they've actually signed. Curiouskiwicat ( talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Some confusion has arisen about whether it is appropriate to make the statement, "The agreement makes no distinction between migrants, illegal or not". They've cited this source. I'm not sure about the best way to resolve this but the compact does in fact make repeated distinctions between "regular" and "irregular" migration, including preventing "irregular" migration. There is potential for controversy here so I want to appeal to other editors to ensure the facts are well-represented. Curiouskiwicat ( talk) 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The question is, what does it mean? Does it refer to "regulations", aka "illegal" and "legal"?
Because, according to the direct meaning, it would mean that migrations have to follow some certain pattern, like "from Poland to Germany every Tuesday" - makes no sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.147.150 ( talk) 15:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Le pacte, en effet, ne fait pas la distinction entre migrants légaux ou non
How about pointing out that this is really about migrants heading to "a shrinking pool of prime destination countries" [1] Yonk ( talk) 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
The map doesn't seem to follow the text. Chile: map-abstained text-rejected Romania: map-abstained text-signed Slovakia: text-rejected map-Absent(which is also true but not as relevant) Etc. Szalai.laci ( talk) 16:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of 10 December, media reports that the agreement has been "affirmed" or "agreed to" by 164 nations but notably _not_ that it has been signed. Media reports say that will come later. So data should not be presented as if the compact has been "signed".
Further, we need a source for those 164 and this article should not purport to report which 164 nations have affirmed the agreement using media releases prior to the conference. If I can't find a source then I will be modifying the article to avoid describing which countries actually signed the agreement. Curiouskiwicat ( talk) 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, this Global Compact on Refugees is a separate thing, which warrants an article.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 05:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
What is the position of asian states like China Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi-Arabia or Russia ?-- Quario ( talk) 14:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
why not pro-states, except germany? -- Petruz ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Basically this is a non-binding treaty that would have been signed by all states, except that right-wing politicians in the US, Europe, and several other places have responded to populist outrage about it. This is the only reason that media reports exist about European and other countries either signing it or not signing it. The information on this page, including the map, describes those media reports. Most states are missing just because media are not reporting their positions because there is no controversy over signing in those countries. You can expect they will sign it, but I have not been able to find a published source that actually predicts that. Ideally the article would say this, but someone would need to describe the situation in a NPOV way with sources, which I have not done here. The information will be thrown out tomorrow anyway after the actual Morocco signing and the positions countries have taken to-date will be largely superseded by what they've actually signed. Curiouskiwicat ( talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Some confusion has arisen about whether it is appropriate to make the statement, "The agreement makes no distinction between migrants, illegal or not". They've cited this source. I'm not sure about the best way to resolve this but the compact does in fact make repeated distinctions between "regular" and "irregular" migration, including preventing "irregular" migration. There is potential for controversy here so I want to appeal to other editors to ensure the facts are well-represented. Curiouskiwicat ( talk) 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The question is, what does it mean? Does it refer to "regulations", aka "illegal" and "legal"?
Because, according to the direct meaning, it would mean that migrations have to follow some certain pattern, like "from Poland to Germany every Tuesday" - makes no sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.147.150 ( talk) 15:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Le pacte, en effet, ne fait pas la distinction entre migrants légaux ou non
How about pointing out that this is really about migrants heading to "a shrinking pool of prime destination countries" [1] Yonk ( talk) 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
The map doesn't seem to follow the text. Chile: map-abstained text-rejected Romania: map-abstained text-signed Slovakia: text-rejected map-Absent(which is also true but not as relevant) Etc. Szalai.laci ( talk) 16:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)