Displaying posts categorized under

IMMIGRATION

Multiculturalists Working to Undermine Western Civilization by Philip Carl Salzman

Unlike postmodernism, which sees Western culture as no better than other cultures, postcolonialism considers Western culture inferior to other cultures.

Rather than enhancing Western culture through the enrichment different ethnic and religious groups provide in countries with a Judeo-Christian foundation, multiculturalists have actually been rejecting their own Western culture.

The West, even flawed, has nevertheless afforded more freedoms and prosperity to more people than ever before in history. If Western civilization is to survive this defamation, it would do well to remind people its historical accomplishments: its humanism and morality derived from Judeo-Christian traditions; its Enlightenment thought; its technological revolutions; its political evolution into full democracy; the separation of church from state; its commitment to human rights and most of all its gravely threatened freedom of speech. Much of what is good in the world is thanks only to Western civilization. It is critical not to throw it out or lose it.

For the past decade, many in the West have been honing a historically unprecedented narrative — one that not only renounces the culture they have inherited but that denies its very existence. A few examples:

During a press conference in Strasbourg in 2009, for instance, then-President Barack Obama began by downplaying the uniqueness of the United States. “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Assimilation Trumps Diversity Every Time By Ben Boychuk

No offense, Twitter, but assimilation is so a bigger strength than diversity

“A mass of people who know nothing about their country, little of its history or its language, who hunker down in their own ethnic enclaves or decamp for ideological safe spaces – is this the “diversity” we want?”

“Diversity is our strength.” Says who? Well, just about everyone. It’s an article of faith, a bumper sticker mantra of human resource departments and elementary school curricula and something everybody just knows.

But is it true?

Oh, goodness, what kind of question is that?

A mass of people who know nothing about their country, little of its history or its language, who hunker down in their own ethnic enclaves or decamp for ideological safe spaces – is this the ‘diversity’ we want?

An uncomfortable one, apparently. U.S. Rep. Steve King, a conservative Republican from Iowa, tweeted the other day, “Diversity is not our strength.” Uh-oh. King then quoted Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, who said, “Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.”

Islamist Immigrants in Germany Love Hitler By Michael van der Galien

Conservative Europeans have frequently complained that the wave of immigration from the Middle East seems to have gone hand in hand with a new surge of anti-Semitism. Progressive Europeans don’t have the courage to publicly say that those immigrants admit they hate Jews.

German newspaper Bild investigated this matter. The results of the investigation show that although many immigrants are positive about Germany and its people, they’re also extremely anti-Semitic.

“Until now, this discussion about anti-Semitism among immigrants was based on assumptions,” Deidre Berger, director of the ACJ, comments. “Now we have a science-based picture: anti-Semitic resentments, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and a categorical rejection of Israel are widely held among immigrants from the Middle East.”

She adds that “the problem is bigger than we assumed previously.”

When asked by social scientists whether they believe that it’s bad for Israel to exist, the universal answer was, “yes, obviously.”

Generally, the immigrants believe that Jews are extremely powerful — pulling on every country’s strings to get their way. Manipulating and dishonest. That’s basically the image of Jews that Nazi propaganda wanted to create.

“Israel, especially Jews, are known to be the biggest financial power in the world, so they control the world with their money,” one “refugee” from Iraq told the researchers. It’s important to note that he starts off by saying “Israel” but quickly changes that into “Jews.” Israel and Jews are synonymous for these people. That’s why their “anti-Zionism” is in fact anti-Semitism. CONTINUE AT SITE

Target: New York Another terror attack in America’s biggest city reminds us of the ongoing threat—and the problems with U.S. immigration policy. Seth Barron

Two attacks on Manhattan in the last six weeks by ISIS-inspired terrorists demonstrate that the jihadi threat is serious and real. Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki national who murdered eight people with a truck on Halloween, and Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi whose pipe bomb appears to have detonated prematurely in the subway system this morning, are adherents of a radical ideology that urges armed struggle against the West. They’re also recent immigrants to the United States, each arriving around 2010 from their respective countries.

According to New York’s political leadership, these terrorists attack America—and New York City, in particular—because they hate our policy of openness to the world. “We are a target by many who would like to make a statement against democracy, against freedom,” said Governor Andrew Cuomo at a press conference this morning. “We have the Statue of Liberty in our harbor and that makes us an international target.” Seconding this theme, Mayor de Blasio announced, “the choice of New York is always for a reason: we are a beacon to the world and we actually show that a society of many backgrounds and many faiths can work . . . and our enemies want to undermine that.”

If we’re to take this logic to its conclusion, Saipov and Ullah acted in violent opposition to American immigration policy. They hate the fact that the United States, alone among the world’s major countries, admits unskilled migrants in huge numbers, and allows recent non-citizen immigrants to sponsor their family members to come here, virtually without limit. According to New York’s governor and mayor, the visa status of Saipov and Ullah is irrelevant (and unmentionable). What’s important is to recognize that these jihadis hate multiculturalism and open borders.

Trump Withdraws from Globalist Migration Compact Defends U.S. sovereignty on immigration policies. Joseph Klein

The Trump administration has decided to withdraw from participation in the United Nations Global Compact on Migration, representing another significant departure from the global governance policies of the Obama administration. In September 2016, during the waning days of the Obama administration, the United States had joined with the other member states of the UN to adopt a “non-binding “political declaration, the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. They agreed to undertake negotiations towards a consensus on international norms by September 2018 to help guide member states’ immigration policies. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said in a recent statement, announcing U.S. withdrawal from participation in this globalist compact, that “our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with US sovereignty.”

The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, Ambassador Haley said, “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles.” The Declaration says, for example, that all migrants are “rights holders,” which are “universal.” It seeks a commitment to “strengthening global governance of migration.” It calls for applying international law to a state’s implementation of its own border control procedures. It calls for migration policies that promote “family reunification” – a euphemism for chain migration. It stipulates that migrant children should receive “education within a few months of arrival” with budgetary prioritization to facilitate this, all without any consideration of cost, language issues or the impact of such prioritization on the funding of the educational needs of the host country’s own citizens.

Predictably, UN officials and open border advocates have protested the Trump administration’s decision “to disengage from the process leading to the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration,” as UN General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak put it in a statement issued by his office. They claimed that nothing in the New York Declaration or in an ultimate global compact would be legally binding. National sovereignty would be respected, they promised. If that is so, however, what did Mr. Lajcak mean when, in that same statement, he talked about a commitment to “strengthening global governance of migration,” which is also the language used in the New York Declaration itself?

How would “global governance” work if there is technically no legally binding treaty? It would work through the insidious process of using the United Nations to forge an “international consensus” among representatives of the UN member states around broadly worded “international norms.” Such norms would purport to create, or broaden the scope of, a “universal” right, declared as such by all or a significant majority of the member states. As interpretations of norms acknowledging such rights are repeated in international bodies and incorporated into the laws or judicial rulings of more and more member states, they can then become a part of what international lawyers refer to as legally binding “customary international law,” whether there is a formal treaty or not. In the words of a prominent legal treatise (Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States), customary international law results “from a general and consistent practice of states that they follow from a sense of legal obligation.”

The UN can set in motion a process under which customary international law is created. As the Restatement treatise notes, the “United Nations General Assembly in particular has adopted resolutions, declarations, and other statements of principles that in some circumstances contribute to the process of making customary law.” A United Nations Global Compact on Migration may well fall into this category. Only if a member state persistently objects to a particular requirement of customary international law, would it generally be exempt from it. That is why it was imperative for President Trump to make clear when he did that the United States would not participate in the global migration compact and that it considers itself to be bound legally only by its own immigration laws.

Trump’s Immigration Policies Are Working How 800 Americans and lawful immigrants got jobs overnight in Chicago. Michael Cutler

I often focus on the nexus between failures of the immigration system and the way that these failures undermine national security and public safety. Today, however, we will consider a more prosaic issue, but one that impacts millions of American and lawful immigrant workers and their families and hurt the U.S. economy. The fact that millions of illegal aliens have taken jobs that should be done by Americans and lawful immigrants.

For years we have heard the lament spewed by globalist immigration anarchists that there are “jobs Americans won’t do.”

That statement is one of many employed in committing the crime of what I have come to refer to as Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

There are no jobs Americans won’t do, provided that they are paid fair wages under lawful working conditions. The very concept of “jobs Americans won’t do” is insulting to tens of millions of hard-working and conscientious Americans who trudge off to work each and every day to do dangerous, back-breaking and filthy jobs so that they can support themselves and their families.

Homer Hickam, is the author of the book, “Rocket Boys,” an autobiographical account of his early years in the 1950s as the son of a coal miner in Coalwood, West Virginia. Back then, the launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik motivated him to become involved with rocketry. He ultimately went on to become a NASA engineer. His book became the basis for the must-see film October Sky.

Because of his background and eloquence as a writer, he was called upon to address the memorial service for the miners who perished at the Sago Mine disaster in 2006. In the eulogy, Hickam said, “There is no water holier than the sweat off a man’s brow.”

Contrast Hickam’s reverence for hardworking Americans that his eloquent statement reflected with the contempt of those who derisively claim that Americans apparently won’t do hard work.

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens generally are putting their bottom lines first and not acting out of compassion. There is nothing compassionate about firing hard-working Americans to replace them with foreign workers who are vulnerable to exploitation.

In point of fact, such actions are illegal and anti-American in the truest sense of that term. President Trump is the first president, in all too many decades, who understands the issues and is determined to address this betrayal of American workers by ramping up immigration law enforcement against unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and the illegal aliens themselves.

Supreme Court Restores Trump’s Travel Ban Legal sanity returns to immigration and visa policy. Matthew Vadum

The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump’s ban on travelers from Islamic terrorist-infested nations to take full effect, marking a huge victory for the rule of law, common sense, and U.S. national security.

“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said after the orders were handed down.

At 7 to 2, the vote Monday to lift two lower court stays hindering enforcement of Presidential Proclamation 9645 while several legal challenges inch their way through the judicial system, wasn’t even close. Unsurprisingly, leftist Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the Trump administration’s application to rescind the stays. As is its custom, the Supreme Court did not offer a rationale for its decision in the orders.

That the Supreme Court took this dramatic action suggests it may be ready to permanently rule that Trump’s efforts to protect Americans by regulating the flow of visitors to the United States from trouble spots around the world are lawful.

Critics of President Trump falsely claim the proclamation is a “Muslim ban,” even though it leaves out the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries on earth. And even if it did single out Muslims, it should still survive constitutional scrutiny, many legal experts say. The Constitution’s prohibition of so-called religious tests doesn’t apply to immigration policy, which is why no one raised a fuss during the Cold War when the U.S. set aside visas specifically for Soviet Jews escaping religious persecution.

“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret,” whined Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “He has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter.”

While Jadwat droned on calling Trump and ordinary Americans who support his policies religious bigots and racists, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) offered a more reasonable appraisal of the high court’s actions.

Encouraging a Migration Explosion By Robert Curry

Are they doing it on purpose? Of course they are.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/04/encouraging-a-migration-explosion/

America’s progressive elite has disdain for Americans who refuse to embrace their globalist, “borderless world,” and anti-American agenda. Consequently, the progressives have decided to replace the American people with people better suited to help enact their ambitions.

For a glimpse into the future they have planned for you, watch the video below of a stroll through an American mall—not just any mall, but the Mall of America—where you can contemplate that future where it has already arrived.

Or consider what the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times had to say about the University of California/Janet Napolitano scandal. A state audit found UC President Janet Napolitano hiding a $175 million slush fund both from auditors and from the UC Board of Regents. But according to the Times what she did should be overlooked because of the good she has done: “She has been a strong leader for the university during troubled financial and political times, resisting efforts to weaken the university’s independence with a welcome level of toughness and dedicating herself to protecting the university’s undocumented students.” In other words, Napolitano deserves a pass because she protected university students in this country illegally.

Before her selection to head the University of California, Napolitano occupied the office of secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama Administration. In that role, she demonstrated her fitness for her new job at the university by working to enact the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and encouraged “prosecutorial discretion” (meaning they were free to break our immigration laws with impunity) for so-called “dreamers.”

Speaking of California, a jury in San Francisco last week acquitted the illegal alien who murdered Kate Steinle. His acquittal sent a clear message to people living in America illegally—and to American citizens, too. It shows that a particular class of noncitizens have privileges beyond those of mere American citizens. As an illegal, “forced” as the progressives say “to live in the shadows,” Steinle’s killer was an oppressed person. He therefore deserved the mercy of being permitted to live in a “sanctuary city” like San Francisco, even though he had been deported five times before, because he was oppressed by the “white privilege” of Americans like Steinle and her family.

Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump travel ban

Handing the White House a huge judicial victory, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of President Trump’s travel ban affecting residents of six majority-Muslim countries.

The justices said the policy can take full effect despite multiple legal challenges against it that haven’t yet made their way through the legal system.

The ban applies to people from Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

Lower courts had said people from those countries with a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the United States could not be prevented from entry.

Grandparents and cousins were among the relatives courts said could not be excluded.

The nine-member high court said in two one-page orders late Monday afternoon that lower court rulings that partly blocked the ban should be put on hold while appeals courts in Richmond, Va., and San Francisco take up the case.

Liberal-leaning Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have left the lower court orders in place.

The justices offered no explanation for their order, but the administration had said that blocking the full ban was causing “irreparable harm” because the policy is based on legitimate national security and foreign policy concerns.

Both courts are scheduled to hear arguments in those cases this week.

Both courts are also dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch.”

Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley called the ban “lawful and essential to protecting our homeland.”

Europe’s Migrant Crisis: Millions Still to Come “African exodus of biblical proportions impossible to stop” by Soeren Kern

More than six million migrants are waiting in countries around the Mediterranean to cross into Europe, according to a classified German government report leaked to Bild.

“Young people all have cellphones and they can see what’s happening in other parts of the world, and that acts as a magnet.” — Michael Møller, Director of the United Nations office in Geneva.

“The biggest migration movements are still ahead: Africa’s population will double in the next decades… Nigeria [will grow] to 400 million. In our digital age with the internet and mobile phones, everyone knows about our prosperity and lifestyle…. Eight to ten million migrants are still on the way.” — Gerd Müller, Germany’s Development Minister.

The African Union-European Union (AU-EU) summit, held in in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, on November 29-30, 2017, has ended in abject failure after the 55 African and 28 European leaders attending the event were unable to agree on even basic measures to prevent potentially tens of millions of African migrants from flooding Europe.

Despite high expectations and grand statements, the only concrete decision to come out of Abidjan was the promise to evacuate 3,800 African migrants stranded in Libya.

More than six million migrants are waiting in countries around the Mediterranean to cross into Europe, according to a classified German government report leaked to Bild. The report said that one million people are waiting in Libya; another one million are waiting in Egypt, 720,000 in Jordan, 430,000 in Algeria, 160,000 in Tunisia, and 50,000 in Morocco. More than three million others who are waiting in Turkey are currently prevented from crossing into Europe by the EU’s migrant deal with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.