Tag Archive for ‘Immigration’
Forty years after publishing his prophetic dystopia Jean Raspail is still with us, ever more resigned that our civilization is on the “road to disappearance.”
French Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls recently drew howls of politically-correct outrage. Valls, who is according to the BBC, a rising star in Hollande’s administration, said that the sociopathic Gypsy lifestyle, based on chicanery and the avoidance of socially acceptable work, is “clearly in confrontation” with the lifestyle of the French.
In response to his critics, who snidely pointed out that Valls is himself an immigrant, born in Barcelona, the admirably steadfast Interior Minister explained:
“I’ve got nothing to correct. My remarks only shock those who don’t know the subject. The majority of Gypsies should be delivered back to the borders. We are not here to welcome these people. I’d remind you of [former Socialist premier] Michel Rocard’s statement: ‘It’s not France’s job to deal with the misery of the whole world.’”
Like Valls and my friend Peter Brimelow, I also had my immigrant background nastily pointed out to me by the politically-correct cheerleaders of the New World Order. The fact that I came here legally, was of course lost on my opponents. As Brimelow pointed out in “Alien Nation”, it was oftentimes immigrants who became outspoken opponents of mass immigration. British Jew and labor leader Samuel Gompers comes to mind.
As for the Gypsies in French, it is nearly impossible to visit major tourist attractions in Paris without being assaulted by gangs of dusky, jeans-clad Gypsy girls with clipboards, which they thrust in your face, mumbling something incoherent in a mix of French, English, Rumanian, and Roma. Tourists dumb enough to fall for this ploy start looking through the petitions attached to the clipboards and are quickly relieved of their wallets and passports. These obnoxious Gypsy bands are especially prevalent in the Jardin des Tuileries and near the Sacre Coeur cathedral in Montmartre. And while not as sinister as the Arabs and Africans, the Gypsies occasionally resort to violence. A few years ago, an American tourist and her mother were knocked to the ground and stomped on by a pack of Gypsy girls right outside the cathedral.
Even before the recent victory of rightwing Catholic Tony Abbott’s Liberal-National coalition in Australia, the previous Labor government was instituting measures to stem the flow of mass immigration. Outgoing leftist PM Kevin Rudd said of the new measures:
“Asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia.”
This uncharacteristically tough stance on illegal immigration, adopted in response to his party’s sinking in the polls, was too much for the leftist leaders of Australia’s Jewish establishment, a major source of power behind Rudd’s Labor party.
“I cannot stomach voting for a government that treats other human beings in this way. A line has been crossed. Rudd’s policy, like that of [Tony] Abbott’s, is brutal. It relies on abusing the human rights of one group of refugees to deter another group.” wailed Josh Bornstein, a prominent Jewish attorney and major Labor supporter.
“I am deeply distressed and disturbed by the current hard-line policies of both major parties. The true measure of the moral level of society is how it treats its most vulnerable people.” screeched leftwing author Arnold Zable.
“Down this path lie vulnerable refugees fleeing persecution and, while deserving of our empathy, they are instead left degraded and dehumanized. As a person of Jewish faith, I have long understood what racism does to people.” sobbed Mark Leibler, the chairman of Australia’s pro-Israel lobbying group “Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council”.
But what about Israel’s hardline policies on illegal immigrants, most of them from sub-Saharan Africa? The Netanyahu government, on whose behalf Leibler’s outfit so vociferously lobbies, banned remittances, sealed Israel’s border with Egypt, and started deporting the troublesome migrants.
Why aren’t the same Jewish leftists who wring their hands and go into hysterics about the policies of gentile leaders are either silent about or openly sympathetic to Bibi’s policies? Why can Israel adopt admirably strict measures against mass immigration, but predominantly gentile western societies have to swing open their doors and allow their nations to be flooded by Third World invaders?
All of these shabby liberals also made a point of bringing up ancestors who were either victims of the Nazis or fled war-torn Europe during the Holocaust, to justify their destructive call for open borders. They refuse to realize that the destruction of western societies for which they clamor will result in a bloody destruction of Jewish life in the West.
The Australian Jewish establishment was the one that crossed a line and did so a long time ago. Bornstein, Zable, Leibler, and their leftist ilk should be treated for what they are: a bunch of contemptible traitors who seek the destruction of the very same country that gave their ancestors safe haven.
Russian authorities set up a detention camp for illegal immigrants, after 4,500 of them were arrested in Moscow during raids on garment factories and markets. The arrested illegals were Vietnamese, Syrians, Egyptians, and Moroccans, along with the usual citizens of former Soviet Central Asian republics. Raids are now taking place in St. Petersburg, where Russian police already arrested hundreds of people.
A brutal attack at Moscow’s Matveyevsky market, which left a policeman hospitalized with a fractured skull outraged Russians and spurred the authorities into action. The attack took place when cops tried to arrest eighteen-year-old Magomed ( the Russified version of “Muhammad”) Magomedov for raping a fifteen-year-old girl. Magomedov, who came to Moscow to help his parents sell counterfeit clothes, confessed on video that he “groped and undressed the still little, underage” girl. When officers attempted to detain Magomedov, his relative Magomed Rasulov, ran up to them and fractured a detective’s skull with a pair of brass knuckles. This outrage, perpetrated in broad daylight in the middle of Moscow, spurred Russian police into action.
The problem of “illegal migrants”, which I have described elsewhere, plagued Russia for about two decades now, since the Soviet Union collapsed and the non-Russian republics rapidly descended into poverty. Current estimates state that there are at least a million of Uzbeks and Tajiks in Moscow and the surrounding region. While citizens of other former Soviet republics like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan can be deported, Muslim migrants from the lawless autonomous Islamic republics of Dagestan and Chechnya are citizens of the Russian Federation. The two troublemaking Magomeds, for example, are natives of Dagestan, which made it very hard to keep them out of Moscow.
The measures taken by Russian cops, seem to be designed to quiet down the outrage in the Russian media and social networks, and are likely not the sign of a true, sophisticated crackdown on illegal immigration. Unlike in other countries plagued by mass illegal immigration, the Russian public would support strong measures against illegal immigrants. However, the rampant corruption prevalent in Russian government agencies and their dire ineffectiveness stand in the way of any such measures.
Looks like the British government will finally be able to rid its long-suffering citizens of the Muslim terrorist preacher (what a string of redundant adjectives!) Abu Qatada. After almost a decade of trying to throw out this troublemaker, who called for the murder of Jews and apostate Muslims and their families, Britain and Jordan have signed a treaty, which allows him to be deported to Jordan to stand trial.
This pleasant bloke, you see, arrived at the welcoming shores of Albion claiming “religious persecution” in Jordan. A Muslim preacher claiming religious persecution by a Muslim country – are British immigration officials really as dumb as their American counterparts?
The reason why a treaty had to be signed specifically to deport one individual is the scandalous leniency of British and EU judges. The jurists were afraid that poor Abu Qatada, whose stay in Britain cost the taxpayer over half a million pounds will be subject to torture in Jordan. Previously, the Bethlehem-born preacher complained that the house, which the UK government provided to him at the cost of £1,400 a month to British taxpayers didn’t have enough storage. I wouldn’t be surprised if some EU court or commission would consider it a violation of Abu Qatada’s human rights and order the British government to pay him thousands of quid in compensation.
Of course, when it comes to deporting Christians to Muslim countries, no such qualms exist in the warped minds of British authorities. The Coptic Christian Mansour family (husband, wife, and four small children) were seized by armed UK immigration officers and bundled on a plane to Egypt a few years ago. The father, Hany Ayoub Mansour fled Luxor after being tortured by Muslims and having his house destroyed. Apparently, there’s no place for Middle Eastern (or any?) Christians in Londonistan. An Arab saying comes to mind: “Better to be the Englishman’s enemy than his friend. If you’re his enemy, he will try to buy you. If you’re his friend, he will most certainly sell you.”
The intro to Justice Scalia’s partial dissent in Arizona v. United States is a perfect demonstration of today’s self-contradictory “conservatism.” It takes with one hand, then pretends to give back with the other (emphasis mine):
“The United States is an indivisible ‘Union of sovereign States.’ Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938). Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.”
Proof of this “conservative” schizophrenia can be found in Mark Krikorian’s instant reaction to the ruling, which was to call it a victory for immigration restrictionists and blame the liberal media for “spinning” the story to suggest otherwise (emphasis mine):
“The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are? Making it a state misdemeanor for an illegal alien to apply for employment would be nice, for instance, but it’s not even a federal crime yet.”
There are some real stunners in today’s convoluted ruling from the Supremes regarding Arizona v. United States. Here are some of my favorites:
“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”
“Federal governance is extensive and complex.”
“Removal is a civil matter, . . .
” . . . and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.”
“States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.”
“Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”* **
*I made that one up.
**Not really: It’s real.
There must be some reason or reasons, why the Jerk has become the archetypal American character. Without going too deep into themysteries of social history, here is a little experiment that might stand in for several hundred pages of tedious social history. Herewith a little theoretical foundation for my continuing study of Jerkus americanus.
A recent story in the Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California, gives the lie to the notion that illegal aliens are just here “to do the jobs Americans won’t do” and are largely a law-abiding class of the downtrodden, shifting where they can for work.
The redoubtable John Derbyshire had a piece at NRO this morning on how mass immigration is causing summer jobs for teenagers to disappear, and why our feckless elites think this is a good thing. The piece is well worth the read, and it may be found here.