Citing Japan, Israel and Denmark, Ann Coulter muses, hereat The Hill about why some countries aren’t being widely blasted as “racist” for not welcoming masses of Middle Easterners and Africans to their tiny bits of the world.
But, we are expected to open the flood gates to America!
Ann Coulter: Can’t America have a little self-respect on immigration?
Couldn’t America have a little self-respect? Japan, Denmark and Israel do.
A must read!
Year after year, for decades, America has accepted more refugees than the rest of the world combined. No country we admire does anything close to this.
Score one for Donald Trump: In 2017, after he became president, our refugee admissions finally dipped slightly below “more than every other country in the world combined.” Go USA!
These aren’t immigrants the host country specifically wanted. We’re not saying, “You know, this country could use some people who know how to restore 17th-century woodwork” or “Wow, this guy and his wife are both neurosurgeons!” Refugee admissions to America are so reckless that this country has taken in Iraqis who deployed IEDs against our own troops and, in at least one case, one of the perpetrators — not victims — of the Rwandan genocide.
[….]
The New York Timesexplained Japan’s highly restrictive immigration policies as proceeding from “a desire to preserve their culture, a goal echoed by some conservative groups in the United States.” (Duh.)
And National Geographic clarified that Japan’s policy was simply a matter of the Japanese preferring “a racially unique and homogenous society.”
Luckily for the Japanese, they aren’t white, so this utterly logical, natural position on immigration didn’t trigger “white nationalist” alarm bells in our mainstream media.
I’m delighted to be able to say, see all of my posts going back nearly a dozen years on Japan,IsraelandDenmark.
You will learn that those three countries do get a lot of criticism for their restrictive refugee policies, but mostly from the international Leftists and the UN.
Endnote: If you are a new reader see ‘About’at the top of the page!
If you’ve forgotten all about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s now infamous 2017 tweet inviting refugees to Canada to stick it to President Trump, I’m here to remind you!
Canada’s 2019 election is expected to be contentious, to say the least, with immigration at the forefront.
Soooo… Trudeau now wants to speed up deportations, presumably to make it look like he is not an immigration pushover.
Canada to Step Up Deportations of Undocumented Migrants
Canada’s border agency said Wednesday that it planned to increase its deportations of undocumented migrants by 10,000 a year.
These are to include not just failed refugees and asylum-seekers but those authorities regard as national security threats.
“While Canada is a humanitarian country that has welcomed many immigrants and asylum-seekers over the years, those coming to our country are expected to abide by our laws and processes,” a border agency spokesperson told the state-run Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
There is a backlog of about 18,000 migrants listed for deportation, with 5,300 so-called actionable cases, meaning there are no legal appeals or other reasons for them to stay.
Opposition conservatives call the number of asylum-seekers entering Canada through unmanned U.S. border crossings a crisis. They say the government does not take the matter seriously and has no plan.
Some Republican candidates want to suspend refugee resettlement in Minnesota. Can they do that?
Minnesota has welcomed thousands of refugees since the federal resettlement process was set in 1980. So why does a trio of key Republicans up for election want to stop the program now?
Well, it depends on whom you ask.
Jim Newberger, Jeff Johnson, Jim Hagedorn
Jeff Johnson, Jim Newberger and Jim Hagedorn have each said they will ask the federal government to pause refugee resettlement in Minnesota if elected Tuesday. And they’ve each made it a key issue in their campaigns.
Johnson, who is running for governor, said he is concerned about how much it costs taxpayers, as well as high unemployment rates among Somali men.
Hagedorn, who is running for U.S. House in the 1st Congressional District, claims refugees are poorly vetted and pose a threat to national security.
Newberger, a candidate for U.S. Senate, alleges that some refugees don’t want to follow American law.
The Democrats running against them support the state’s openness to refugees, arguing that they strengthen local communities. Immigration experts and advocates say that Republicans’ opposition to the program is purely political and misses the benefits the newcomers provide.
The story goes on to tell us that all the Democrats running in the state have spoken out in favor of more refugees for the state claiming that the refugees have benefited the state by bringing cultural diversity and that the refugees fill cheap labor needs (of course that last is my phrase).
As for the question: Can they stop resettlement if elected?
I’m not going to wander in to the legal weeds on that. There is still a lawsuit pending in Tennessee on the issue of State’s Rights that holds some hope for relief.
Suffice it to say, if Minnesotans elect these outspoken Republicans, and they forcefully take their concern to the President and his US State Department, the flow could be diverted away from Minnesota for now (as long as Trump is in the White House).
Of course the open borders Leftists (and the federal resettlement agencies) will say that its the ‘unwelcoming’ attitude in the state that requires the slowdown in placement there. (Code for calling you racists!).
I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no easy legal avenue that would allow Minnesotans to take a break from the contentiousness there now.
However, I know for sure if enough Minnesotans make enough political noise and elect candidates willing to speak as strongly as these three, you have a fighting chance of saving taxpayer dollars, staying safe, and maintaining some control of who is placed*** in your state by Washington and federal resettlement contractors.
In other words—there is no rest for the weary!
*** Of course, as Minnesota knows all too well, secondary migrants are moving in from other states to be with their own ethnic ‘community’ there and there is no way to stop that migration.
Pittsburgh’s Jewish refugee resettlement agency, HIAS vow to continue work after threats, Squirrel Hill shooting
The story paints a picture of a ‘non-profit‘ group that is all about welcoming the poor and downtrodden to America, but never mentions the fact that it is more than 50% funded by US and state taxpayers many of whom do not share its open-borders views and would prefer their tax dollars be spent on America’s needy people.
HIAS received $186 million from taxpayers in the last ten years, here. Its CEO is paid over $300,000 annually.
And, like virtually all mainstream media stories about the horrific attack on innocents, The Post-Gazette, mentions not one word about that fact that HIAS is paid to do its ‘good works’ by the US government.
It is fine and dandy if HIAS wants to hold anti-Trump political rallies, sue the President and organize for the Tuesday midterms, but doing those things while accepting millions of taxpayer dollars every year strikes most people as fundamentally unfair!
This is from an anti-Trump protest in January of this year put on by Church World Service, HIAS and CAIR https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2018/01/28/church-world-service-and-hias-join-cair-to-protest-at-white-house/
Here is a bit from the deficient Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story:
The Jewish refugee resettlement agency in Pittsburgh remains defiant in its work despite the connection Saturday’s mass shooting at a Squirrel Hill synagogue shared with its mission.
[….]
“These [sites] are echo chambers where people just get angrier and angrier and angrier about falsehoods,” said Mark Hetfield, CEO and president of HIAS — formerly the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society. “I mean, what harm was this congregation doing by welcoming refugees in a religious service?”
Charity Navigator reports that in 2016, HIAS was 58.5% funded by government grants mostly to resettle refugees. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3820
Mr. Hetfield said that he’s aware of several “hate sites and hate sites masquerading as issue-oriented sites” that have attacked the work of HIAS and JFCS.
“But they’ve just been words so far, but as we see now, words lead to action.”
Mr. Hetfield said HIAS has in the past had a designated person monitor social media for threats but the organization will be “totally changing” its strategy.
“I mean we did not know about this murderer on Gab, we were not following Gab.We do not follow these hate-filled fora, but we need to,” he said. “And then we need to figure out what do we do when we see things. We see things every day against us.”
That is an example of how out of touch with most Americans these open borders leftwing groups are, they didn’t know about Gab? This is a prime example of why the Dems were so shocked at the 2016 election of Donald Trump.
Mr. Hetfield said the physical security strategy has changed as well since Saturday. Armed guards now surround HIAS offices in New York City and Silver Spring, Md. He likened the change to how he felt after 9/11.
JFCS has begun closely monitoring social media and re-evaluating security since the attack happened; it had also not known about Mr. Bowers prior to Saturday.
See if you can find one word about how HIAS is a US State Department contractor that is paid by the head to place refugees in towns and cities of their choosing (behind closed doors in conjunction with the US State Department).
If HIAS, the US State Department, and the mainstream media were transparent and honest about how refugee resettlement is carried out in America, citizen taxpayers wouldn’t get so frustrated.
So, why aren’t they more transparent?
I have a guess, but I would like to hear what they say for a change!
Endnote: I did see an AP story sometime in the last week that did mention (briefly!) that HIAS receives taxpayer dollars, but couldn’t find it again.
That UN Global Compact for Migration could crumble as more countries signal they won’t sign the document in Morocco in December.
We told you about it here recently. President Trump took us out at the very beginning and then Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban also said no way.
Sounds warm and fuzzy, so what is the problem? Those who have studied the draft say it would make migration a human right. In other words everyone would have a right to move wherever they wish. There would be no more legal migration process.
From the liberal Irish Times(so they don’t clearly mention the real crux of the problem):
Poles and Czechs follow Austria and Hungary in rejecting UN migration pact
Anti-immigration leaders in central Europe follow US lead in opposing global framework
Poland and the Czech Republic are set to join Hungary and Austria in pulling out of a United Nations pact on migration, as populist central European governments attack the deal before it is even signed.
Arbour: But we just want to control migration chaos via the United Nations!
The Global Compact For Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was agreed in July by all UN members except the United States, and sets out norms for protecting and integrating people who migrate and ways to help them return home.
The pact is non-binding and recognises each state’s right to its own migration policy, but a growing number of anti-immigration leaders in central Europe are now rejecting it ahead of next month’s signing ceremony in Morocco.
“It is very likely that, like Austria, the Czech Republic and the United States, we will not be part of the UN global compact,” Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Friday.
“We believe that here our regulations, our sovereign rules on border protection and migration control are our absolute priority.”
A day earlier, Czech prime minister Andrej Babis declared that he also opposed the pact.
“It’s not clearly interpreted and it could be abused. The United States has pulled out, Hungary too, now Austria, and Poland is debating it as well,” he said.
“I don’t like the fact that it blurs the distinction between legal and illegal migration. . . I will propose to partners in the government that we should do the same as Austria and Hungary,” he added ahead of cabinet talks on the pact next week.
I would like to know exactly what was left out of Babis’s statement in that previous quote!
