Current immigration policies will turn Vancouver into a 70 percent non-white state within two generations, and all of Canada into an 80 percent nonwhite country within the next 100 years, one of that country’s foremost diplomats has warned.
Writing in the Vancouver Sun, former ambassador to Asia and the Middle East Martin Collacott said that current Canadian immigration policy was “replacing its population” and was a “case of willful ignorance, greed, [and] excess political correctness.”
Quoting University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, Collacott said that “almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be ‘visible minorities’ [politically correct Canadian code for nonwhite] within two generations and 80 per cent of the
Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.”
He went on to write:
Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.
Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.
While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population.
Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie.
The cost is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually. Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.
Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however.
We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure.
Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.
Those who seek to benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base with policies designed to make it easier to come here from abroad and acquire the full benefits of citizenship. Also active are leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence.
Another important influence has been contributions from developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level.
In this regard, it is worth noting that not too long ago, leading politicians in Vancouver on both sides of the political aisle — such as former mayors Art Phillips and Mike Harcourt — were readily prepared to identify high immigration intake as one of the leading causes, if not the main cause, of rising house prices. Now, however, no Canadian politician has the guts or integrity to connect the two.
This is not only because they are so heavily indebted to the real estate industry in one way or another, but also since criticism of mass immigration is treated in many quarters as xenophobic, if not racist, since newcomers are overwhelmingly visible minorities.
While a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant — and my own family is an example of this — it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population, particularly when there is no good reason for allowing this to happen.
With current policies, we will have to find room for tens of millions of more newcomers, most of whom will settle in the already densely populated areas of the country where most of the employment opportunities as well as their relatives are located.
We will also have to contend with the fact that many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.
If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.
Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.
And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of willful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.
Are we prepared to do something about it? Sadly, it appears that most Canadians are too supine or short-sighted to do so — at least at this juncture.
Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups.
Without this we cannot expect our descendants to inherit a country that is anything like the Canada of today.
Council heads in the northern Israeli region of the Galilee demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu order the immediate freeze of medical aid the country provides to Syrian refugees at the Western Galilee Hospital in Nahariya.
The government-run hospital is the main medical center in that country that officially helps injured people and refugees from the war-addled country.
According to the council heads, the 600,000 residents of the Western Galilee did not have sufficient medical care available to them because the hospital was short on funds and was invested instead in the treatment of injured Syrians.
“We fully recognize the importance of the humanitarian mission of treating our Syrian neighbors,” the council heads explained, but charged that it was “inconceivable that rehabilitating war refugees would come at the cost of the health and lives of hundreds of thousands of residents of the Western Galilee.”
According to the letter they penned and that was obtained by The Jerusalem Post’s sister publication Ma’ariv, the government has been withholding financial resources that the hospital is legible to receive by law but still tasked the medical center with the responsibility of treating the Syrian refugees “without allotting [specific] funds for that.”
Council heads representing regional councils such as Ma’ale Yosef, Kfar Vradim, Shlomi, Ma’alot-Tarshiha and Acre accused the government of overlooking the medical crisis the hospital was suffering from, saying that it was “on the verge of utter collapse due to the blatant discrimination” it was facing.
The also mentioned that the hospital was in a deficit of NIS 300 million.
“It is unheard of that the government” places the singular responsibility of treating the Syrian refugees “without allocating a budget to their treatment,” the letter continued.
“And all that without fulfilling its [the government’s] obligations and legal duties to the people of the Western Galilee, who are starving and dying, day after day, because of [the government’s] helplessness,” they added.
The council heads concluded their letter by asking that the prime minister immediately get involved in the financial crisis the hospital is undergoing. “Your immediate intervention as prime minister is requested, including ordering right away that the health minister redirect the burden of treating the Syrian injured to other medical institutions in Israel- [such as] those that have more funding and those that did not fall victim to discrimination.”
Their letter comes amid an escalation on Israel’s border with its northern neighbor, as errant fire from the internal fighting in Syria struck the north twice within 24 hours. Speaking about the projectiles that hit Israel’s north, Netanyahu said in a stern warning to Syria that “We will not accept any kind of ‘drizzle, not of mortars, rockets, or spillover fire [from the Syrian Civil War]. We respond with force to every attack on our territory and against our citizens.”
When Mya Guarnieri Jaradat arrived in Israel 10 years ago from the United States, she was supposed to have come on a one-year trip to complete her master’s thesis. Like so many others, she prolonged her stay. But what made her expatriation in the Jewish state unique were the motivations behind it.
There were two issues that caused her to prolong her initial educational and cultural sojourn: a love of Hebrew and commitment to learning it fluently, and the desire to work with the state’s marginalized communities in south Tel Aviv.
Jaradat began her work primarily with migrant workers from southeast Asian countries such as Thailand or the Philippines, as well as African asylum seekers from countries including Eritrea and South Sudan. Her initial observation was that there was massive poverty among these communities. But Jaradat also began to witness how most of the people she spoke with also had few legal, civic or labor rights.
What started off as volunteer work soon transitioned into journalism, which led Jaradat on the path to eventually becoming an Israeli citizen.
“As soon as I took on Israeli citizenship, I felt a strong sense of responsibility for what the Jewish state was doing in my name,” says Jaradat.
Jaradat has continued working as a journalist, covering Israel, the West Bank and Gaza in a wide host of publications around the globe, including The Nation, The New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, the far-left Israeli blog +972, and Al Jazeera.
The outspoken Jewish-American reporter claims that Israel’s policy on migrant workers and asylum seekers is shaped by what she calls a paradoxical double-sided contradiction “to maintain a particular demographic balance necessary for the state to be both ‘Jewish and democratic.’”
“What you see in Israel is this attempt to uphold hegemony of a particular group,” Jaradat says from her home in Florida, where she is currently based.
“And so if you are not in that group — if you are not Jewish — then the state is going to be in conflict with you on some level, ” she adds.
Avoiding jargon and academic theory on the subject, the book focuses instead on giving voices to the migrants and asylum seekers themselves through in-depth interviews that take the reader into a seldom-seen world — one even most Israelis don’t know exists.
She visits, for instance, overcrowded black-market kindergartens in south Tel Aviv, where she describes how toddlers are left crying for hours on their own in unhygienic conditions. In another chapter we get descriptions of middle-of-the-night raids by Israeli immigration police — whom she accuses of intimidating members of the Filipino community — to deport them with quick succession.
Jaradat says a recent reading of Israeli history is required to understand why the state — in regard to both African asylum seekers and migrant workers — currently operates the labor and migration policies it does.
Primarily, she says, this issue ties in with the fate of the Palestinians.
Palestinians once constituted nearly 10 percent of the Israeli work force. When the First Intifada began in 1987, for example, almost half of Israel’s construction workers were Palestinian, as were 45% of agricultural laborers. But with increased distrust between the two peoples in the aftermath of the intifada, the 1990s saw Israel make a transition to foreign workers instead.
“Israel was once dependent on Palestinian day laborers,” Jaradat says.
As Israel implemented and tightened movement restrictions on Palestinians, it needed to find a group to substitute for these people that were crucial to different sectors of the economy. So the state began to bring migrant workers to replace Palestinians, claims Jaradat.
“With a large pool of inexpensive laborers in the country, Israel doesn’t need Palestinian day laborers anymore. The state can effectively lock the Palestinians behind the wall without feeling the economic consequences they would have felt when they were dependent on Palestinian day laborers, before they had migrant workers,” she says.
“Now, there are no economic consequences to shutting Palestinians out and, further, granting work permits to Palestinians can function as a reward — a carrot and stick, if you will — rather than as something crucial that meets the Israeli need for laborers,” Jaradat adds.
Jaradat says it’s also worth noting that “it’s easier for a Palestinian day laborer to obtain a permit to work in a settlement than it is inside of Israel proper, so the presence of migrant workers inside the Green Line helped the state channel the Palestinian day laborers towards the settlements.”
The journalist claims the treatment of asylum seekers also bears a resemblance to that experienced by Palestinians — notably in subjecting both groups to detention without trial.
“I guess [one of the main concerns of this book] is about that contradiction between trying to maintain a certain demographic and being democratic at the same time,” says Jaradat.
‘This isn’t exclusive to Israel, but I’m using Israel as a case study’
“This isn’t exclusive to Israel,” Jaradat says. “But I’m using Israel as a case study of what happens when a nation is trying to uphold hegemony of a particular group. Looking at those two groups [migrant workers and African asylum seekers] is a way of getting at the question: Can the state maintain hegemony of a certain group and be democratic at the same time?”
And with regards to possible security concerns influencing Israel’s policy towards migrant workers and African asylum seekers, Jaradat claims “ there are none.”
“The state’s concern is about maintaining Jewish demographic and cultural hegemony,” she insists.
Jaradat’s book also spends a chapter looking at how loose labor laws in the Knesset are inextricably linked to a culture of companies — across Israel — making an easy buck.
The journalist points out, for instance, that while Israel’s treatment of non-Jews is rooted primarily in demographic concerns, there are business interests representing the construction and agricultural sectors that affects public policy on this issue, too. Israeli manpower agencies have huge sway especially, Jaradat says.
“The workers pay a fee to the manpower agencies,” she explains. “And therefore a worker who stays on in the state and who doesn’t change jobs isn’t going to pay a fee. So it’s more profitable for the manpower agency to be always bringing in new workers.”
These agencies have aggressively lobbied for the Israeli government to set higher quotas of migrant workers, using bribes to officials in key ministries as one major means of achieving this, Jaradat claims.
Referencing a term used by anthropologist Barak Kalir, who has also written on labor migration in Israel, Jaradat refers to what is known as “the revolving door.” The Israeli government brings in new workers with one hand, and deports existing and older workers with the other.
The two big winners here are the state and the manpower agencies. The state doesn’t have to worry about legislating new laws on migration, and the manpower agencies make huge profits in return.
“Where this issue gets really interesting is when you bring the asylum seekers into that conversation,” Jaradat says. “Because here is a group of people — currently 40,000 in Israel — who cannot be deported legally.”
‘Where this issue gets really interesting is when you bring the asylum seekers into that conversation’
A lot of these asylum seekers are not willing to voluntarily repatriate because they cannot go back to their home countries, says Jaradat.
“These African asylum seekers are stuck in this legal limbo, so why not give a job to them rather than bringing in workers from overseas? That’s where you see the role that profit plays in all of this,” she says.
The reason that both asylum seekers and migrant workers are being exploited so consistently by both the Israeli state and by private business groups, is primarily because there is no legislation protecting them, Jaradat says.
Any laws that do deal with migration in Israel, she says, are “centered on privileging Jewish immigration, while stopping other groups from coming into the country.”
The journalist cites two examples. One is the Law of Return, passed in 1950, which ensures that any Jew in the world has the right to return and live in Israel as an oleh, a new immigrant. The second is the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law — a temporary law passed in 2003, and amended several times since — which prohibits, among other ethnic groups and nationalities, the granting of any residency or citizenship status to Palestinians from over the Green Line who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents.
“Israel cannot pretend that non-Jews don’t exist, and that they won’t come to the country,” says Jaradat.
“It’s not sustainable to bring migrant workers, then to open one-time windows to their children while deporting some and naturalizing others. Israel needs to deal with this issue in a more humane and practical way,” she adds.
Another way that Israel has tried to legally deal with the issue of migrants and asylum seekers is through a government initiative called voluntary departure. This is a voluntary scheme which encourages mainly Eritreans and Sudanese asylum seekers from Israel to head to other so-called “third countries.”
Jaradat points out that many of these voluntary departures — where the Israeli government sometimes offers a cash incentive of $3,500 up front — have resulted in African asylum seekers ending up in countries like Uganda, Rwanda and Libya. Often facing considerable risk and danger.
‘I take issue with the term voluntary departure… you can either go to jail, or back to a third country’
“I take issue with the term ‘voluntary departure,’” says Jaradat. “What is really happening is that you are in a state that is depriving you of your rights and that is keeping you in legal limbo. So the state says, you can either go to jail, or we will send you back to a third country.”
“I think when Israel began deporting South Sudanese citizens, they were trying to make an example of this group and using it as a threat to the other groups, saying, ‘You have two choices: you can deport yourself voluntarily, and take the little cash incentive. Or, we are just going to deport you anyway.’ So that naturally put pressure on other groups watching the South Sundanese being deported,” Jaradat says.
While most of her book focuses almost exclusively on the rights of migrant workers and asylum seekers, the narrative is a personal journey of sorts, too — Jaradat fell in love and married a Palestinian man while living in Israel.
The journalist says Israel’s varied political and social policies, and attitudes towards Arabs — on both sides of the Green Line — in general, eventually led her and her husband to leave the country. Both chose to settle in the United States instead, where they currently reside.
“I do feel there is something incorrect about having to get married outside of Israel. My husband is a native, an indigenous Palestinian,” says Jaradat, “and according to the State of Israel, I am a returnee.”
“We had to leave Israel to live together. He is a native of the land. And then there is me who is supposed to have all of this privilege under the Jewish state,” she says.
“Well, if you step out of line and marry a non-Jew, there goes your privilege,” she says.
The families could reel off all the times they had called the media and written to Washington, but after all that trying, they had never heard anyone who mattered say anything like it: Most Mexican immigrants, Donald J. Trump declared in his first campaign speech, were “rapists” who were “bringing drugs, bringing crime” across the border.
Now he had come to meet them, the families of people killed by undocumented immigrants, and they wanted to tell him he was right.
One son had been struck by a truck, another shot just around the corner from home. Different causes of death, but the driver, the gunman, all the perpetrators were the same, the parents said: people who never should have been in the country in the first place.
Sitting alone with them at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in July 2015, the candidate distributed hugs as the families wept. When the campaign had called, most of them had been told only that they were going to meet with Mr. Trump. But then the group was ushered into the next room, where the campaign had invited reporters to a news conference.
It was a surprise, but no one seemed to mind. Several stepped up to endorse Mr. Trump.
“He’s speaking for the dead,” said Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose teenage son was shot to death by a gang member in Los Angeles in 2008. “He’s speaking for my son.”
Mr. Shaw wanted the news media to know that Mr. Trump could have gone further when he called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals.
“I would have said they were murderers,” he said.
Hailed for bravery, accused of racism, scorned as puppets, these are some of Mr. Trump’s most potent surrogates, the people whose private anguish has formed the emotional cornerstone of his crusade against illegal immigration and clouded the futures of America’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants.
Their alliance came down to this: To parents parched for understanding, Mr. Trump was a gulp of hope. The Trump campaign flew them to speak at rallies and at the Republican National Convention, put them up in Trump hotels and kept in touch with regular phone calls and messages. After his victory, Mr. Trump invited at least one to the Inaugural Ball and seated three more with the first lady during his first address to Congress.
Then and since, they have defended him on social media and in the press, assuring the world that, with President Trump in office, their children will not have died in vain.
This week, the House of Representatives plans to vote on a bill that would intensify penalties for immigrants who re-enter the United States after being deported. The bill is named for a woman fatally shot by a man who illegally crossed the border at least five times.
Sabine Durden, the mother of another victim, recalls dropping to her knees and sobbing when she first heard Mr. Trump warn of the dangers of illegal immigration. Then his campaign called.
“It was almost an out-of-body experience after being so deeply hurt and nobody listening and nobody wanting to talk to you about this,” she said. “It’s almost like I put on a little Superwoman cape because I knew I was fighting a worthwhile fight.”
In Washington in April, they sat in the front rows as Mr. Trump’s homeland security secretary unveiled an office for victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants: of the many promises the new president had made in their names, one of the first kept.
To Mr. Trump’s critics, the office and the people it was supposed to represent were little more than pawns in his crude attempts to make monsters out of a largely law-abiding population — one that research has shown to comit crimes at a lower rate than native born Americans. But here before the cameras, the secretary, John F. Kelly, was putting his hand over his heart and thanking families.
“To say the least, my heart goes out to you,” Mr. Kelly told them.That night, they celebrated what felt like their achievement over dinner and drinks at the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. It was expensive, they admitted, but it felt right.It was strange that one of the sweetest moments of their lives was about reliving the single bitterest. But there had been a lot of that over the past year or two, as they searched for a way to make it all mean something: the startled and painful pride of finding themselves booked on national television and welcomed to the White House to talk about the blight of illegal immigration, all because of their sons and daughters, who were gone.An Overnight AwakeningThe local news reportssaid Dominic Durden’s motorcycle was hit by a pickup truck as he rode down Pigeon Pass Road in Moreno Valley, Calif., on his way to his job as a 911 dispatcher. He was 30.They identified the other driver as Juan Zacarias Tzun, who was charged with vehicular manslaughter. It was July 12, 2012.Sabine Durden had last seen her son at the airport the day before, when he dropped her off for a trip to Atlanta. Across the country, she said, she nearly blacked out at the moment of his death. Later, after her phone lit up with messages from his friends, she was sure she knew why.
Not until later, she said, did she find out from some of her son’s friends in law enforcement that Mr. Tzun had come to the country illegally from Guatemala, and that he had been convicted twice of driving under the influence. He had been released on bail several weeks before the collision.
At his sentencing in 2013, Mr. Tzun blamed God for the crash. Ms. Durden blamed the immigration system.
“If it was an accident, I could deal with it, but this wasn’t an accident, because if that guy wasn’t in the country at 5:45 on July 12, 2012, my son would still be alive,” she said. (Mr. Tzun was deported in 2014.)
But nobody overseeing her son’s case seemed willing to view his death that way, she said. “You feel like you got the runaround,” she said.
Ms. Durden, 59, had come to the United States from Germany when she married an American in the Army, eventually becoming a citizen. He was a Democrat, so she was a Democrat. She had never thought much about the immigration debate before Dominic died. Now it was her whole life.
Then came Mr. Trump. Whenever she saw him, he greeted her with a “great big hug,” she recalled. “Dom’s mom,” he called her.
“He would say, ‘You’ll never be alone again. You’ll never have to fight this alone,’” said Ms. Durden, who went on to speak at three of his rallies.
The Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, was out there talking about the need to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. When Ms. Durden heard that, she changed her voter registration to Republican the same day.
In a series of recent interviews, the families described a similar trajectory: The death of a loved one. The spasm of realizing that the other driver, or the gunman, was living in the country illegally. The political awakening — for the Republicans, a hardening toward illegal immigrants; for the Democrats, a quick, grim conversion. The relief, when another “angel mom” or “angel dad” saw them on the news and found them online.
Most of all, the fear that their children would diminish into fading news and Facebook tributes, horror stories circulated in the outer boroughs of the American right — until Mr. Trump thundered into their lives, bearing cameras.
Immigration was “one of those issues that, it didn’t affect me — I was busy working,” said Steve Ronnebeck, 50, whose 21-year-old son, Grant, was shot and killed as he worked overnight at a convenience store in Mesa, Ariz., in January 2015.
“As time went on and the more angry I got, that’s when I got more active,” he said. “This is how I deal with my grief.”
For another parent who came to the Beverly Hills meeting, Don Rosenberg, a self-described lifelong liberal from Westlake Village, Calif., it was hard to embrace Mr. Trump, even if he had the right idea about immigration.
As he watched Mr. Trump announce his presidential bid on TV, “I’m saying to myself, he’s talking about illegal immigration — why did it have to be Trump?” said Mr. Rosenberg, 64, whose 25-year-old son died in a motorcycle accident in 2010. He had been struck by a Honduran man in the country illegally. “To me, an immigration policy isn’t, ‘Build a wall, Mexico will pay for it.’”
Still, by the election, Mr. Rosenberg had come around. He said that he had not voted for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump, knowing it was not likely to make a difference in California, but that if he had lived in a swing state, he would probably have cast his ballot for Mr. Trump.
Here was the paradox of Donald Trump, the unfiltered tycoon who seemed as far away as Fifth Avenue and as close up as the living-room TV. Even as a legion of critics warned he was pandering to his fans on the way to betraying them, the alliance he had made with the families felt, to many of them, like an unshakable bond.
The thing was, he paid attention. And he never stopped.
After the Beverly Hills meeting, Mr. Shaw received a gift basket containing Mr. Trump’s “The Art of the Deal,” chocolates, and Trump-branded ties and cuff links, according to an account in The Wall Street Journal. At one point, Mr. Shaw flew on Mr. Trump’s private plane. At another, while staying at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, he cut a campaign commercial.
The other families received regular care from the campaign, too. A Trump adviser, Stephen Miller, would call or text at least once a month, inviting them to speak at rallies or just checking in. Some spoke regularly to Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager at the time, or to Hope Hicks, the campaign’s spokeswoman.
Mr. Miller, an advocate of restricting immigration and now a senior White House adviser, helped draft Mr. Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order directing the government to intensify immigration enforcement.
A few of the parents also regularly texted with Keith Schiller, Mr. Trump’s longtime bodyguard and current Oval Office aide. It was Mr. Schiller whom the president sent to hand-deliver a letter to James B. Comey informing him he was no longer director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
To find some of the families, Mr. Trump’s team had help from the Remembrance Project, a nonprofit founded in 2009 to draw attention to the victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants. It caught the Trump wave early, bringing several families to the Beverly Hills meeting and other campaign events and hosting a fund-raiser for Mr. Trump in Houston last fall.
As the campaign offered a national audience to more of the parents, however, many of the Remembrance Project’s members abandoned the group, chafing at what several said were its founder’s attempts to dictate what they said and even what they wore. Mr. Trump, they said, had allowed them their own voice.
Before going onstage at some events, Mr. Trump would shoo aides away for a private moment with the families.
“To me, I find it much more personal when the president comes up to you and says, ‘Steve, how are you doing?’” Mr. Ronnebeck said. “He knows my name. He doesn’t just, you know, speak the whole time. He listens.”
For the Trump campaign, the private cultivation paid off. In public, the families became some of the campaign’s most compelling witnesses.
They could be picked out by what they carried, the talismans of absence: the T-shirts printed with photographs of the smiling dead. The commemorative buttons. The ashes held close in a locket.
At one rally in Phoenix in August, a hush muted the crowd when Mr. Ronnebeck and other family members approached the microphone, one by one, to speak about a lost son or daughter.
“I truly believe that Mr. Trump is going to change things,” Mr. Ronnebeck said, his voice catching.
At the Republican National Convention, Mr. Shaw, Ms. Durden and another parent took turns speaking about their children. Mr. Trump’s acceptance speech was partly devoted to the story of Sarah Root, 21, who was killed in Nebraska the day after graduating from college by a Honduran immigrant who was driving drunk.
“I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family,” the nominee said. “But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting.”
He also mentioned the case that, at least on the right, had come to define the dangers of illegal immigration: that of Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman shot to death on a San Francisco pier in 2015. The suspect was an ex-felon from Mexico who had been deported five times. A few months before Ms. Steinle’s death, the local authorities had released him from jail without notifying federal immigration agents.
“My opponent wants sanctuary cities,” Mr. Trump said, referring to local governments, including San Francisco, that limit their cooperation with immigration officials. “But where was the sanctuary for Kate Steinle?”
The president has since vowed to starve such cities of federal funding, but a judge has temporarily blocked his administration from doing so. The House is scheduled to vote this week on a bill, known as Kate’s Law, that would stiffen penalties for immigrants caught illegally re-entering the country after being deported.
For all the heat the Steinle case generated, however, her family kept a distance from the campaign, occasionally breaking their silence to voice discomfort with the way her death had become a political grenade. (Through their lawyer, they declined to comment.)
“For Donald Trump, we were just what he needed — beautiful girl, San Francisco, illegal immigrant, arrested a million times, a violent crime and yada, yada, yada,” Liz Sullivan, Ms. Steinle’s mother, told The San Francisco Chronicle in September 2015.
‘We’ve Chosen to Speak.’
Politics makes public playthings of private lives. As their losses came to eclipse everything else about them, the families became, in Mr. Trump’s telling, living testimonials to all that was broken about the immigration system.
Still, those who appeared on the campaign’s behalf said they had never felt like props. Mr. Trump was no more using them, they said, than Mrs. Clinton was using hardworking Hispanic families to humanize the issue.
“He’s never once asked us to speak,” said Michelle Root, 48, Sarah Root’s mother. “We’ve chosen to speak.”
It looked very different to the other side, of course. People on social media, and even some friends, did not hesitate to let them know that they thought they were being used. Lots of people called them racist. They insisted that they were not, emphasizing that they did not think all undocumented immigrants were bad.
For the families, such studies were beside the point. To them, illegal immigration was an epidemic of preventable deaths.
The glare of other people’s judgment did get to them sometimes. Mr. Ronnebeck took a break from social media for six weeks, as the anniversary of Grant’s death passed, then the inauguration, then Grant’s birthday.
“There’s people that think I’m a racist and there’s people out there that think I’m the devil,” he said. “It gets to a point where you just can’t do the negative anymore.”
Not for long, though. With Mr. Trump in the White House, they could take their message straight to the corridors of power. Some hope the president will revoke Obama-era protections for young undocumented immigrants; others pray to see the wall built.
“I think we could email or text or even pick up the phone, for some of them, and call them and have them pass it on,” Ms. Root said of her contacts in the White House. “And he would listen. He might not agree, and might not do it, but I know our voice would be heard.”
Johnny E. Williams, associate professor of sociology at Trinity since 1996, who has authored African-American Religion and the Civil Rights Movement in Arkansas and Decoding Racial Ideology in Genomics and is the author of the upcoming The Persistence of White Sociology, was voicing an opinion that is reminiscent of comments he has made before. Roughly ten years ago, Williams reportedly said that because he was black, “I’m uncomfortable all the time on this goddamned campus.”
In 2015, Williams spoke at a forum called, “Reform or Revolution: Building a World Movement for Socialist Change Today and Tomorrow.” Another speaker at the forum was Jeff Mackler, coordinator of the Mobilization to Free Mumia abu Jamal, the notorious cop-killer whose cause the Left has been championing for years.
Williams is not only anti-White, but a virulent anti-Semite as well; here’s something he wrote in January 2015:
To accomplish our movement’s objectives we understand we cannot secure our human rights until all people are free of systemic oppression. For this reason the Black Lives Matter movement seeks common cause with other oppressed people. The centrality of ‘race’ is important for the movement but so too is centering gender, sexuality, class, militarism, and the experiences of oppression. To struggle against systemic racism without fighting to rid the world of sexism, heteronormativity, economic exploitation and domination is viewed by the movement as a piecemeal intervention that will not effectively dismantle white supremacy and its associated systems of oppressions. Because oppressions interlock and intersect, the Black Lives Matter movement understands the importance of working with similarly oppressed people to rout global white supremacy.
It does not escape Black Lives Matter participants that state violence techniques used by Israel to control and occupy Palestine are also being deployed against us. We are very much aware that police in the U.S. are receiving training from the Israelis on how to dehumanize and control us as “others” in order to shut down our dissent. Palestinians drew the connection too and sent solidarity messages to Ferguson protestors via social media advising them how to counter the effects of tear gas. One especially illuminating tweet read: #Ferguson: “The tear gas used against you was probably tested on us first by Israel. No worries, Stay Strong.”
… Unlike Ashkenazi Jews and ‘white’ Euro-Americans, Palestinians and blacks face police in full battle gear, ready to unleash their massive firepower on them. During the early stages of the Ferguson uprising a protestor, in the face of an overwhelming show of police force, yelled out, “You gonna shoot us? Is this the Gaza Strip?”
Filmmaker Ami Horowitz recently encountered the all-too-real brutality to be found in a Muslim “no-go” zone in Sweden.
“When they dragged me into that building, that’s really when I thought, ‘They’re going to end my life here,’” Horowitz told LifeZette. Horowitz painted a vivid picture of the extent of the danger of Muslim no-go zones in Sweden — even the police fear them, he said.
“The rules of engagement are if [police are] chasing a subject, no matter what this guy did, once they cross that threshold [into a Muslim area], they stop pursuit, and if they want to actually go in they have to call an entire armed convoy,” Horowitz said. “There used to be a police station in Rinkeby [another no-go neighborhood that Horowitz visited], and they had to get rid of it,” he noted.
Horowitz recently recounted his whole story in an op-ed published by The Hill.
“While there has been debate regarding the existence of what have been dubbed ‘no-go areas,’ I personally discovered the corporeality of these enclaves when I stepped into the Stockholm neighborhood of Husby,” Horowitz wrote.
As Horowitz noted, liberals love to pretend that Muslim no-go zones — Muslim neighborhoods to which even the authorities are afraid to venture and in which Sharia law is the rule and non-Muslims are attacked on sight — are little more than a figment of paranoid conservative imaginations. But as Horowitz would find out for himself, they are very much a horrifying reality.
“Literally moments after I stepped into the town, a gang of five clearly Islamic men approached my crew, and they attacked me without provocation,” he continued. “They repeatedly punched, kicked and choked me, as a number of bystanders watched. Eventually they dragged me into a building, which at the time I assumed was to finish me off. Once inside the apartment building vestibule, they resumed their vicious attack. But seconds later someone opened an apartment door directly above us, and it luckily spooked them enough to run away,” wrote Horowitz.
The truth, however, is that there are neighborhoods like Husby scattered across Europe. These “no-go” areas stand as a damning testament to the utter devastation wrought on Europe by multiculturalism and mass Muslim migration.
While it is nearly impossible to gauge the full extent of the no-go zone problem, it is safe to say there are hundreds of no-go areas scattered throughout Europe. A March 2016 report published by the Hungarian government found 900 areas across Europe.
In France alone, where no-go areas are euphemistically referred to as “zones urbaines sensibles” — sensitive urban zones — the government counts over 750 such zones. In Sweden, the number could be “as high as 50, [but ] the police who I spoke with … estimated there to be about 20-30,” Horowitz said.
In the United Kingdom, “you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts [of London] when you are working,” a London police officer told Breitbart News in December 2015. Also in December 2015, a police officer from Lancashire in northern England told the Daily Mail that, “there are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission.”
Germany also has its problems with no-go zones. In July 2015, a routine traffic stop in Gelsenkirchen turned into a nightmare when officers tried to carry out their duty. “During the arrest, the two officers were surrounded by about 50 members of a large family who suddenly appeared on the side streets,” local news reported.
The mob tried to intimidate the officers into dropping the arrest, but when that failed, a 15-year-old attacked the officers from behind and started choking one. The situation only returned to calm after backup arrived. “It was only with the summoned reinforcements that the police were able to put the situation back under control and arrest the youthful attacker,” the report said.
“Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier,” Bernhard Witthaut, then-head of Germany’s police union, said during an interview with Der Westen newspaper in 2011.
“The reason is that our colleagues can no longer feel safe there in twos, and have to fear becoming the victim of a crime themselves. We know that these areas exist. Even worse: In these areas, crimes no longer result in charges. They are left to themselves. Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture.”
Of course Witthaut’s words were spoken four years before the Muslim migrant crisis. They were spoken before no-go zones in Belgium became planning grounds for Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. As Muslim migration into Europe shows no real signs of slowing, the number of Muslim no-go areas will only continue to grow.
No-go zones “are a very significant and serious problem, especially after the recent rush of refugees to Europe from Syria and other parts of the Muslim world,” Dr. Tawfik Hamid, senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and expert on radical Islam, told LifeZette. “They are bringing a culture that is very different from the traditional Western culture and with these numbers it is a very serious issue,” Hamid noted.
No-go areas are also a “significant threat when you consider the high birthrate of the Muslim community,” Hamid said. Indeed, the existing no-go zones coupled with Muslims’ high birthrate and the flood of Muslim migration into Europe could see the development of entire no-go regions. “Some of the Islamic groups encourage [high birthrates] because they know the more numbers they have in Western countries the more influential” they can be, Hamid said.
“It’s like when you see a cancer cell that is not causing any harm now, but later on if it is left without intervention it can cause very serious trouble,” said Hamid. “Even if you don’t see the trouble today it does not mean that trouble is not coming.”
Shutting down Islamic kindergartens where children have little or no command of German would be an efficient way to ensure the integration of migrants, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said.
The comment was made at a public event set up by Kurier newspaper.
“Of course, we don’t need them. There should be no Islamic kindergartens,” Kurz said when asked whether he would agree to completely get rid of such facilities.
According to the foreign minister, proficiency in German must become a gateway to Austrian society.
Immigrant children and others “who have little or no command of German” would have to attend kindergarten one year longer than their Austrian peers, he said.
Consequently, many Arab or Chechen kindergartens will fail to meet the requirements for state benefits and will be left with no choice but to close, Kurz said, adding, “This is the easiest way in terms of the law.”
In the meantime, the government “does very much” to improve integration efforts, Kurz said. He added, however, that success “depends very much on the number of those [who should be] integrated.”
Opposition parties say it is the policy of the current government, which Kurz is a part of, that has led to a situation in which the state sponsors childcare facilities that contribute to the creation of parallel societies.
It was Kurz’s Austrian People’s Party (OVP) that “always voted for more subsidies for those kindergartens and it was his party and his [policy] that tried to cater all these Muslim and radical Islamist movements in Austria,” Johann Gudenus, the Vice Mayor and a City Council of Vienna, told RT.
Gudenus, who is a member of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), went on to say that the current “sudden” change of heart of the Austrian government is just an attempt to gain more support ahead of parliamentary elections which are scheduled for October 2017.
The foreign minister’s initiative also drew criticism from the Austrian Muslim community, which called it “institutionalized discrimination.”
If one “just forbids a religious minority, the Muslims, [to establish kindergartens] but allows other [communities] to do that … than this is a very clear institutionalized discrimination of a religious community,” Tarafa Baghajati, the chairman of the Austrian Muslim Initiative group, told RT.
Baghajati further accused Kurz of using Islamophobia to advance his political interests.
Controversy regarding Muslim kindergartens was recently stirred when a study by Austrian-Turkish Professor Ednan Aslan found more than 10,000 children aged from two to six attend around 150 Muslim preschools in Vienna which teach the Koran and pave the way for “parallel societies,” according to AFP.
“Parents are sending their kids to establishments that ensure they are in a Muslim setting and learn a few suras (chapters from the Koran),” Aslan, who researches Islamic education at Vienna University, told AFP.
“But they are unaware that they are shutting them off from a multicultural society,” the scholar said. According to his estimates, up to a quarter of Islamic kindergartens were being sponsored or supported by ultraconservative Salafist groups or organizations.
The study, published last year, resonated widely in the community, but some rejected the findings citing the unreliability of Aslan’s methodology. Biber, a local magazine, dispatched an undercover reporter who posed as a Muslim mother looking for a place for her son at an Islamic kindergarten.
She found no evidence of Aslan’s claims that Islamic preschools were nurturing future Salafists, but acknowledged many of those kindergartens were cutting off or isolating children from mainstream society. There were also questions about the “openness” of some staff and their command of German.
Kurz, the youngest foreign minister in the EU at the time of his swearing-in back in 2013, has previously advocated putting more curbs on immigration. In March, he proposed the opening of refugee centers outside the European Union, suggesting the Republic of Georgia and countries of the Western Balkans as possible locations.
Last year, he also made some incendiary remarks on refugees being rescued on their way across the Mediterranean, saying a rescue from a boat in distress should be “no ticket to Europe.”
Refugees who are rescued from boats in the Mediterranean Sea “must be returned immediately, ideally to their country of origin,” Kurz vowed at the time.
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Dozens of refugees, faith leaders and others marked World Refugee Day at a rally outside the White House sponsored in part by the Jewish nonprofit HIAS.
“World Refugee Day is about who we are as a country and what we stand for,” Melanie Nezer, a senior vice president at HIAS, said at the rally Tuesday. “We must choose to welcome refugees seeking safety for themselves and their children, and not turn our backs on people who need our help.”
Advocates commemorated the contributions of refugees nationwide and also condemned discriminatory policies. HIAS, a resettlement agency, and Amnesty International sponsored the rally along with more than 60 organizations.
Speakers called on elected officials to adequately address the refugee crisis — more than 65.5 million peoplewere forcibly displaced from their homes at the end of 2016, the highest figure the U.N. Refugee Agency has recorded since its inception, USA Today reported.
World Refugee Day is held each year on June 20 to honor those who have fled their homes because of violence and persecution.
Amid the prayers and speeches, rally participants chanted “No hate! No fear! Refugees are welcome here!” according to USA Today. Rally organizers gave refugees a platform to share their experiences as migrants.
One was Gentille Runyambo, a migrant from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“I challenge everyone and our leaders to think about the millions of other refugees who are still in camps, who have no refuge, no access to food and water or health care, and to act on their behalf by opening doors for them and breaking down the walls,” he said.
As noted by the organizers, the rally occurred days after President Donald Trump’s travel ban was again struck down by a federal appeals court.
When Sorafel Alamow, 22, immigrated to Israel from Ethiopia with his father and sister, he never dreamed that he would have to wait more than a decade for his five older siblings to join them.
Jewish Agency representatives in Gondar told his family more than 10 years ago that his siblings who were over the age of 18 would join them in a month or so, Alamow, who lives in Haifa, told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.
“I’m still waiting for them [Jewish Agency officials] to call them,” Alamow said. Since his aliya, two of those siblings have died of serious illnesses.
He said that every time he speaks to officials, “they have a new excuse” about why the aliya of his siblings is being delayed but always tell him it is being handled.
“It will happen, it’s just a matter of time, but in the meantime we are losing more people,” he said.
Hen Asmamo, who lives in Holon, has been waiting 17 years for her grandmother to join her in Israel. Asmamo said that life goes on in Ethiopia and the families of those awaiting aliya naturally grow. “And then they are surprised there are more and they complain that it never ends,” she told the Post.
Neither Asmamo nor Alamow has been sitting idly waiting; both are active in a campaign called the “Struggle for the Aliya of Ethiopian Jews,” which seeks to put pressure on the government to bring the remaining members of the Ethiopian Jewish communities to Israel. The campaign was launched following a declaration of the “end of Ethiopian aliya” three years ago that left many Falash Mura families divided.
Falash Mura is the name given to those of the Beta Israel community in Ethiopia and Eritrea who – under compulsion and pressure from missionaries – converted to Christianity during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Since their ancestors converted to another religion, the Falash Mura are not covered by the Law of Return, which grants the right to immigrate and gain citizenship to anyone with a Jewish grandparent.
The Falash Mura are brought to Israel under the Law of Entry and are required to convert to Judaism once in Israel. They receive the same absorption benefits granted to immigrants who come under the Law of Return.
Between 2003 and 2010, a cabinet decision only allowed Ethiopians who are Jewish on their mother’s side to make aliya.
Slamming the fact that the Ethiopians were “taken out of the Law of Return,” MK Avraham Neguise (Likud) has previously charged that Ethiopians suffered from “a policy of discrimination,” noting that the same conditions were not applied to immigrants from other countries, such as the former Soviet Union.
Neguise made aliya from Ethiopia in 1985 and has been instrumental in the cause of the Falash Mura.
Two years ago, he and MK David Amsalem (Likud) refused to vote with the coalition until a November 2015 cabinet decision to resume Ethiopian aliya was implemented, after being put on hold for budgetary reasons.
The new cabinet decision allows anyone of Zera Yisrael, literally “the seed of Israel,” to make aliya – as long as they meet various other criteria. This means that their Jewish roots are no longer restricted to one’s mother’s side for the purpose of eligibility to immigrate.
Asmamo was five years old when she moved to Israel from Ethiopia, but is still waiting for the day when the government allows her grandmother, Yezebalm Ayleo, to join her.
Asmamo made aliya with her mother and three of her siblings, but has been told that her mother’s mother is not Jewish and thus has been prevented from making aliya. “They say she has a non-Jewish side; what can I do with that?” Asmamo said in a telephone interview with the Post. “If my mother is here, and all her siblings are here, how was my grandmother left there?”
Yezebalm Ayleo waits in Addis Ababa for permission to join her family in Israel (credit: courtesy)Yezebalm Ayleo waits in Addis Ababa for permission to join her family in Israel (credit: courtesy)
Ayleo is waiting in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, while Alamow’s family is waiting in and around Gondar city. Both have been to visit their families in Ethiopia, and Alamow said life in Gondar “is not so easy”; they still feel effects of the recent political violence there.
According to the two latest cabinet decision on the issue, the first made in November 2015 and the second in August 2016, some 9,000 Falash Mura may be brought to Israel by the end of 2020, starting with 1,300 by the end of 2017.
Sabine Hadad, spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry’s Population Registry, stressed that the number 9,000 is only a potential number, and that of those 9,000 the government will only allow into Israel those who meet the Interior Ministry’s criteria.
On Tuesday evening, 50 olim arrived from Ethiopia, following, 72 who came last week. Groups of this size are expected to keep trickling in until November, the deadline to bring the first 1,300.
“The question is what happens after those 1,300,” said Neguise.
“We have started discussing it with the Finance Ministry in order to allocate a budget to continue to bring them all to Israel,” the MK told the Post. He said the matter is under discussion and the government’s position is not yet clear.
“I am hearing mixed attitudes on the government’s side; some people say we have to continue bringing them as quickly as possible… and others say we have to wait for the 2019 budget,” he explained.
“One thing is clear; we will not give up,” Neguise said.
The Finance Ministry told the Post that the budget was not an obstacle.
Ayan Ehila, from Rishon Lezion, meets his niece at Ben-Gurion Airport (credit: Shira Frishman) Ayan Ehila, from Rishon Lezion, meets his niece at Ben-Gurion Airport (credit: Shira Frishman)
Ayan Ehila, from Rishon Lezion, was among those who greeted their relatives among the most recent group of olim. He posted to Facebook that his dream had come true. “To get to this day I went through so much in the past four years. Thank God that I get to see my brother and his children here with me…. and of course there are more families who are waiting for the reunification of their families and we have to fight until the end.”
Asmamo said, “It’s hard to see others coming and be wondering why does my grandmother remain there. It breaks my heart that have I been fighting for four years. People in the Knesset are playing with our feelings, our families, our lives.”
Asmamo is getting married in December and dreams that her grandmother will be there. She was practically raised by her grandmother during the first few years of her life and speaks to her every day.
“It really hurts to talk to her, because she doesn’t understand why she can’t reunite with us and I have no answers for her,” Asmamo said. Her grandmother does not believe she will ever see Jerusalem.
Bekalu Damte, from Petah Tikva, is another of the many Ethiopians waiting for the reunification of his family. He came to Israel in 2007 with his parents and six of his siblings. Two other siblings are still waiting in Gondar.
One of the requirements of the most recent cabinet decision is that Ethiopian immigrants must have been waiting for aliya in the Jewish communities in Gondar or Addis Ababa since January 2, 2010, at the latest. Having uprooted their lives to then wait for years for an elusive aliya date, many feel that they are in a state of limbo.
“It holds them back from advancing in their careers because they are just waiting…. they have been waiting for 17 years,” Damte said.
It also places a financial burden on their family members in Israel, many of whom send a significant portion of their salaries to their relatives in Ethiopia.
On top of that, antisemitism is another demon those left in their native country are left to battle. Asmamo told the Post that locals pushed her uncle, her grandmother’s son, from the top of a building to his death, because of his faith.
Another member of the community recently interviewed on an Israeli radio station also spoke of an antisemitic attack, one in which her relative was wounded.
Asmamo says that antisemitism is not rare in Ethiopia, and that the Falash Mura are subjected to taunts such as “What are you doing here, Falash? You shouldn’t be here.”
The Interior Ministry’s Population Registry did not answer the Post’s inquiry regarding the interviewees by press time, and Amos Arbel – who heads the Registration and Status Division – said they would not discuss individual cases with the press.
The Post also contacted the Immigration and Absorption Ministry for comment, which said the Prime Minister’s Office has the final say in the matter. The Prime Minister’s Office passed the buck to the Interior Ministry.
Most people in the West know very little about the Pantheistic beliefs of the pre-Christian Eastern Europeans. This video gives an insight into the many fascinating gods, goddesses, and folk tales that inspired the Slavic people.