“We should not be surprised if there is a massive impact on migration in the coming months and years.”
(Jagan Chapagain, head of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies)
Last week the head of the International Red Cross made news when he predicted a huge new wave of migrants/refugees attempting to break into Europe (and elsewhere) driven by hunger at home and the promise of a shot to magically make the Chinese Virus go away.
He was primarily focusing on predictions for Europe, but it would all surely apply to our US borders as well.
See my post at ‘Frauds and Crooks’this morning about measures the Dems would like to put in place to hamstring any efforts to curtail migration. You can expect those to be on the front burner if the President loses to Joe Biden in November and the House and Senate are controlled by radical Dems.
Coronavirus crisis could spark ‘massive’ new migration: Red Cross
The devastating economic toll the coronavirus crisis is taking around the world could spark huge waves of fresh migration once borders reopen, the head of the Red Cross warned in an interview.
Jagan Chapagain, head of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), told AFP he was deeply concerned about the secondary effects of the pandemic.
Jagan Chapagain
“Increasingly we are seeing in many countries the impacts on the livelihoods and the food situation,” he said in an interview at IFRC’s headquarters in Geneva late on Wednesday.
The pandemic and the lockdowns and border closures imposed to halt the spread of the virus have been destroying livelihoods around the planet and are expected to drive many millions more into poverty.
Many people are already faced with the choice of risking exposure to the novel coronavirus or going hungry, Chapagain said, warning that the desperation being generated could have far-reaching consequences.
“What we hear is that many people who are losing livelihoods, once the borders start opening, will feel compelled to move,” he said.
“We should not be surprised if there is a massive impact on migration in the coming months and years.”
More migration forced on people by desperate circumstances, he said, will result in numerous “tragedies along the way”, including more deaths at sea, human trafficking and exploitation.
[….]
Chapagain, a Nepali humanitarian who took over as IFRC Secretary-General in February, also voiced concern that perceived health inequalities in the face of the pandemic might also provoke a rise in migration.
“People could feel that there is a better chance of survival on the other side of the sea,” he said, adding that another major factor would be “the availability of vaccines”.
The World Health Organization is spearheading a push to try to ensure that any coronavirus vaccine developed be deemed a “global public good”, to be made available in an equitable manner across the globe. [My personal guess is that there won’t be a vaccine anytime soon.—ed]
But the United States and others are racing to secure stocks of promising vaccine candidates, and many fear that wealthy nations and groups might gain access to the jabs first.
“If people see that the vaccine is say, for example, available in Europe but not in Africa, what happens? People want to go to a place where vaccines are available,” Chapagain said.
Although I am continuing to post here at RRW, I believe google and others have limited the number of readers who find this blog as Tucker Carlsonreported is happening,see here.
Somehow they have not discovered ‘Frauds and Crooks’yet, so a good number of new readers are finding it. That is why, a post, like the one I wrote yesterday about the Somali refugee wanted on kidnapping and possible murder charges, is posted there.
It could also be that my recent lack of interest in posting at Facebook and Twitterhas slowed RRW‘s readership.
In a decision hailed as a win for refugee rights, a federal judge in Canada ruled Tuesday that the “Safe Third Country Agreement” between Canada and the U.S. is invalid because it fails to guarantee migrants’ rights to liberty and security, in effect an admission that the U.S. is not a safe country for those seeking refugee protection.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East called the ruling “a victory for asylum seekers.”
The bilateral agreement known as STCA, which went into effect in 2004, requires migrants presenting themselves at official Canada-U.S. border points of entry to be returned to the country where they first arrived to present their claims under the assumption that claimants “could have found effective protection” in either of the two countries.
The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches brought forth the challenge along with refugee claimants including Nedira Mustefa, an Ethiopian national.
Mustefa tried in 2017 to enter Canada from the U.S. but was returned to American soil where she was immediately imprisoned and held in solitary confinement for one week—a time she told the court was “a terrifying, isolating, and psychologically traumatic experience.” She was then detained with others who had criminal convictions and “did not know when [she] would be released, if at all.”
Dorota Blumczynska
In a statement welcoming the ruling, CCR president Dorota Blumczynska said:
“The court could hardly fail to be moved by the testimonies of the appalling experiences of people in the U.S. immigration detention system, after Canada closed the doors on them. Their experiences show us—and convinced the court — that the U.S. cannot be considered a safe country for refugees.”
Rwandan refugee, 39, faces up to 10 years in prison after admitting arson attack on Nantes cathedral
A Rwandan refugee could face up to 10 years in prison after admitting setting fire to Nantes cathedral.
The 39-year-old man, who has solely been identified by his first name Emmanuel, worked as a volunteer security guard at the 15th-century Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paint which set alight last week.
Three fires had been started at the site on July 18 and it took 104 firefighters to control the blaze which tore through the building and caused millions of pounds worth of damage.
The Rwandan refugee was questioned for a second time yesterday by prosecutors and he was placed under formal investigation early this morning after confessing to setting fire to the cathedral, French newspaper Le Monde reported.
[….]
Emmanuel was being housed by the Nantes diocese, having arrived in France five years ago, and was one of seven security guards at the cathedral.
On the day of the fire he was responsible for locking up the cathedral, which was started in 1434 and took more than four centuries to complete.
Hours later, fire and thick black smoke could be seen pouring out of the building, causing millions of pounds worth of damage.
The main organ, which dated back to 1621, was completely destroyed, along with priceless stained glass.
[….]
He served at the altar,’ said Father Champenois, before Emmanuel was charged. ‘He was well liked. He was a Rwandan refugee who took steps to obtain papers in France.’
Michel Bourcier, the cathedral organist, said: ‘We have been saying hello and good evening for several years. He is extremely courteous.’
It is presumed that “Emmanuel” is a Christian, but you never know since when advancing their cause, Muslims are permitted to lie.
And, don’t forget! Just because a refugee is (or says he is!) a Christian it doesn’t automatically mean he/she is a good person!
Race war???
Reader Paul sent this yesterday ( a post from last year) about the coming race war in Europe. It’s a good read and it might be worth buying the book.
I remembered this post from nearly eleven years ago when I responded to a readers comment just now.
Of course, I’ve been saying that gnashing our teeth about how we got here (in chaos) is likely a waste of time at this point when we need to be devoting our full attention to getting Trump re-elected and saving our economy and our selves! Nevertheless, this might be a useful reminder of the Left’s goals in adding more and more poor black and brown people to American towns and cities.
If you are a regular reader, you know one of the themes we have been writing about is what I call “community destabilization,” we have a whole category for those posts, here. And, you know we write about the Cloward-Piven strategy as part of that discussion.
Cloward and Piven, while professors at Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater), penned a 1966 treatise in Nation magazine in which they outlined a strategy to bring about a revolution in America.
I wrote about it most recently, here. Simply stated the strategy involved flooding the welfare system with so many impoverished people that the system would collapse and that would pave the way for a new form of government—a government that would redistribute the wealth and provide a guaranteed income for everyone.
Below is another shocking segment from that article. We are often lectured about what is the moral thing to do about refugees, but let me ask all of you, what is moral about this Far Left strategy?
Remember immigrants and refugees are today’s poor. As unfashionable as the word is, frankly, I call this strategy to place as many people as possible on the welfare system and use them for promotion of a radical political ideology downright evil.* (Emphasis below mine)
To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.
Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?
First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative “business unionism” of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.
Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term “participation” is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles. [Of course not, the smart people, the elite radicals, would call all the shots!]
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous.Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence.
When you read the Nation article, note that Cloward and Piven were very conscious of the concept of the ‘presumption of good intentions.’ In other words, they knew that this political strategy would go undetected for a very long time because it would be hidden from their average do-gooder minions by the presumption that this was all about aiding the downtrodden.
I must say this ‘strategy’ is the only logical explanation for why we are still pouring refugees into the US right now when there is little or no work for them and they are being “warehoused” in decrepit apartment buildings, like those in Bowling Green, KY. Incidentally, even if refugees have chicken plant jobs they still receive various forms of public assistance because the meatpackers no longer pay a living wage.
I wonder did Cloward and Piven ever anticipate the involvement of big businesses as allies in the revolution? See this post from August in which I list strange bedfellows on the open borders issue.
* I have to laugh, after I posted this, I see that Ann Coulter also suggested Far Left Liberal strategies were “evil” when she said their motto is:
Well, that is what the New York Times wants you to believe.
I’m not interested enough to search the data, but this story from Houston is a familiar one as the legacy media wants you to believe that the Chinese virus can find the poor and downtrodden while the rich are spared.
You know it isn’t true and as a matter of fact, as my continuous reporting on refugee camps worldwidehas demonstrated, packing hundreds of thousands of unwashed people into squalid living conditions hasn’t hastened the spread of the virus.
You can read the story yourself, but I was interested in a bit at the end about an unhappy Burundian refugee and wondered how Burundians are now flowing to America. And, why on earth we are still bringing them!
The virus found a crowded Houston neighborhood, sparing one nearby
At an African market in another part of the neighborhood, Anaclet Rukata said that he had friends who had become ill but that he worried less about the virus than about his uncertain future.
A 39-year-old refugee from Burundi, he lost his job with a catering company in the Chevron headquarters when the pandemic caused the first wave of closures. His 55-year-old mother, also a refugee, lost her job too, he said.
That day, he was working behind the counter as a favor to a friend who owns the market. “He doesn’t make enough money to pay me,” Rukata said.
And he had just received word by email that his unemployment benefits would be cut off at the end of the month.
Can’t Mr. Rukata’s resettlement agency pony-up some funds to help him survive?
Does it make any sense to bring one more impoverished, low skilled refugee to live in America when so many Americans are unemployed and suffering? NO!
So, in summary, we are mucking around in Africa, in tiny Burundi, which has a corrupt leader and the consequent unrest which since 2015 has caused hundreds of thousands to flee the country to neighboring countries.
Those countries don’t want them and somehow it becomes our responsibility to deposit them in poor neighborhoods in America where they catch the COVID, complain, and jump on the BLM bandwagon. Does any of that make sense?
I just checked the data and we admitted 2,591 Burundians to the US since FY2015 (through today). 2,591 most likely unemployed and BLM agitators in the making!
