By bringing in even greater numbers than we have in the past we can show the world that we have “moral authority” and even those dastardly Chinese will have to pay attention!
America needs more Rohingya refugees so we can show the world that we have moral authority and the rest of the globe will follow us to multicultural Nirvana.
They are all getting excited for Biden/Harris and here the Leftwing Brookings Institution*** in Washington says forget the idea of simply restoring our Refugee Admissions Program, it needs to be reformed to be even more robust when Biden gets to the White House in January 2021.
I thought I was going to be reading about real reform of the program when this headline was brought to my attention. But alas, reform=more poor (sick!) third worlders for your town.
COVID-19 and the chance to reform US refugee policy
COVID-19 has exposed the underlying fault lines in societies around the world and in modern globalization. Yet by revealing long ignored flaws, it presents a rare chance to reform.
Authors of this prescription for Biden. Yeh, we are going to take advice from a Turk telling us to go big with our refugee admissions numbers?
Unsurprisingly, refugees — the vast majority of whom live deeply precarious lives — have been among the most threatened by the pandemic.
A new U.S. administration should seize the opportunity presented by COVID-19 to build a better refugee policy, both for refugees’ benefit and for U.S. national security and strategic interests. [No one has ever shown me that our national security benefits from bringing in people from countries that hate us!—ed]
With the 70th anniversary of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees approaching in 2021, now is an opportune time for an update to U.S. refugee policy.
[….]
Today, vibrant[They cannot write a refugee story without using that word!—ed] refugee communities can be found in cities like Los Angeles, California, Nashville, Tennessee, and St. Louis, Missouri, which host the largest number of Vietnamese, Kurds, and Bosnians in the United States, respectively. [Notice they don’t mention the vibrant community of Somali Muslims in Minneapolis!—ed]
A compelling argument can be made that America needs refugees and owes part of its economic success to those who came to its shores seeking shelter from persecution and violence. The arrival of refugees helped to uphold America’s identity as a multicultural nation that accepts all victims of persecution who would come to its shores.
But that evil creature Trump has caused our “moral authority” to go into the toilet!
Blah, blah, blah…
I’m very interested to learn, if it’s true, that a battle is going on among Ds about whether to restore the program or go bigger….
As the 2020 presidential election draws near, a key division amongst Democrats who hope to see President Trump leave office in 2021 is between the restorationists, who think things can go back to the way they were before Trump, and the reformists, who see the hurricane of the Trump administration as an opportunity to build back stronger. COVID-19 should render this debate moot with regards to U.S. refugee policy.
Biden has already said he is going big in January (but won’t the pandemic still be raging in January)! And, I have no doubt he and Kamala will be eager to jump on the UN bandwagon on the Global Compact on Refugees!
There are already signs that a post-Trump United States could adopt a more helpful stance on refugees. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has promised to rescind the Trump administration’s Muslim ban, restore access to asylum, and increase yearly refugee resettlement quotas to 125,000, a move that would show solidarity with countries hosting large numbers of refugees and likely spur U.S. allies to follow suit. There is also support in Congress for shouldering a greater refugee burden, as seen with Refugee Protection Act proposed in November 2019.
With a definitive end to the COVID-19 pandemic nowhere in sight, the threat facing refugees and the political stability of their host countries calls for the next administration to go beyond simply restoring the traditional U.S. leadership role on refugees. To address the challenge of rebuilding after COVID-19, the United States should endorse the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR).
And then this! By bringing in even greater numbers of refugees we can stick it to China, say the great minds at Brookings?
A revamped U.S. commitment to helping refugees carries direct benefits for U.S. national security priorities, in particular with respect to the strategic rivalry posed by a rising China.
Firstly, revamping its leadership role in managing refugee resettlement would go a long way in helping America reclaim the moral leadership it has enjoyed in past decades, which enabled it to create unique solutions to problems.
America’s support for refugees does more for it in a “battle of ideas” than its military and economic capacity alone: an America that actively protects the less fortunate might more easily win hearts and minds globally while also serving its own national security interests.
It drives me mad, when they say things like that—“win hearts and minds globally”—with not a bit of proof that anyone loves us more, surely not the Chinese!
And what about Americans’ hearts and minds!
The devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed deep flaws in countries around the world and endangered the health and livelihoods of millions. To build a better, more democratic, more equitable world after the pandemic, the United States could start by helping refugees, rather than what it can do by merely seeking its own benefit.
In the wake of the Chinese virus crisis the US has only one obligation and that is to take care of Americans FIRST!
***Brookingstries to pretend it is centrist however,
Starting with the 1990 election cycle, employees of the Brookings Institution gave $853,017 to Democratic candidates and $26,104 to Republican candidates. In total, since 1990, 96 percent of its political donations have gone to Democrats.
It was seven years ago, in the summer of 2013, when Pope Francis made his first official trip outside of Rome after becoming the head socialist honcho of the Catholic Church.
I reported his triumphant arrival on the island of Lampedusa to welcome the mass movement of migrants to Europe and to pray for the invaders safety—a story that is disappearing down the memory hole.
A video translated by RAIR Foundation USA reveals a distraught woman in Lampedusa, Italy complaining about illegal migrants squatting on her land even after she repeatedly tries to report the problem to authorities. In addition to the “mattresses,” “bottles of alcohol,” and “excrement everywhere,” Rosy Matinais explains that the Muslim migrants have eaten all of her animals, including dogs, with the exception of pigs.
Ms. Matinais, a farmer who lives off the crops on her land, earns her living from raising farm animals. “They have eaten chickens, the goats, the dogs,” she said. “I can’t have any more animals. I only have pigs.” The illegal migrants ate four of her dogs by skinning them and grilling them, she explained.
According to Italian newspaper ilgiornale.it, her father purchased the property on the island in 1967. Lampedusa, Italy, at the southernmost part of Italy, has become an epicenter for the socialist-driven illegal migrant invasion. The tiny island, an Italian tourist destination, has a population of about 6,000. There have been times when the migrants outnumbered the citizens. Socialist Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte “reversed [former Deputy Prime Minister Matteo] Salvini’s immigration stance when he came to power,” as reported at RAIR.
[….]
Hundreds of migrants have been landing daily in this beautiful Southern Italian coastal town that survives on tourism. Rosey and her native Italians have been failed by left-wing politicians pushing open border policies at all costs. Not only are these elected leaders turning a deaf ear to the unspeakable problems citizens are facing but they smear anyone who goes public with their stories.
“They’re coming to benefit to consume and to establish themselves inside other people’s countries with the goal of eventually turning Europe into an Islamic state.”
(Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor on the invasion of Europe)
According to news accounts in the last week or so, the President has signaled that he is considering nominating Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor for Ambassador to Germany.
As you might expect the Leftwing media is going crazy over his views on immigration that he has made crystal clear in interviews in recent years, including on Tucker Carlson’s show.
***Update***Jewish groups join CAIR in demanding Macgregor’s name be withdrawn. So watch, it will be.
German ambassador pick disparaged immigrants and refugees, called for martial law at US-Mexico border
(CNN)President Donald Trump’s nominee to become the US ambassador to Germany has a history of making xenophobic and racist comments about immigrants and refugees in both Germany and the US.
Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran, author and frequent guest on Fox News, claimed that Muslim migrants were coming to Europe “with the goal of eventually turning Europe into an Islamic state.”
He criticized Germany for giving “millions of unwanted Muslim invaders” welfare benefits rather than providing more funding for its armed services.
Macgregor’s newly unearthed comments come as the Trump administration announced it will withdraw nearly 12,000 troops from bases in Germany.The decision to remove troops from Germany was slammed by Republicans, Democrats and former senior military officials, who said the move would benefit Russia.
CNN’s KFile reviewed dozens of radio and television interviews with Macgregor and found he often demonized immigrants and refugees.
He warned Mexican cartels were “driving millions of Mexicans with no education, no skills and the wrong culture into the United States, placing them essentially as wards of the American people.” He repeatedly advocated to institute martial law at the US-Mexico border and “shoot people” if necessary.
[….]
“The Germans, thanks to us, don’t feel obligated to defend themselves. And the President has simply said, ‘look, why should the American taxpayer defend you if you aren’t willing to defend yourself?'” Macgregor said in 2018.
Macgregor’s criticisms of Germany extended to its immigration policies. He said, “These people are not coming to assimilate and become part of Europe.
They’re coming to benefit to consume and to establish themselves inside other people’s countries with the goal of eventually turning Europe into an Islamic state. That’s a bad thing for the West. It’s a bad thing for Europeans,”said Macgregor in a radio interview in June 2016.
[….]
He lamented in an interview posted in 2015 that the European Union provided “very luxurious and extremely expensive welfare” benefits to Muslim refugees during the height of the global migrant crisis and that “these people are not coming to assimilate or become Europeans–quite the opposite. They’re coming to take over whatever they can get.”
He further attacked the German military and government in 2018 for having “practically no armed forces” and instead spending money on “unwanted Muslim invaders.”
Thanks so much to CNN for helping to identify an American patriot who tells the unvarnished truth.
By the way, to hear the Left tell it, Trump is on his way out, so why worry about an Ambassador who they assume would only be on the job for a few months?
This post is archived in my ‘Invasion of Europe’ filewhere I have chronicled exactly what Macgregor says is happening for the last ten years.
“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.
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:
