Category — Immigration

Mohammed is now the second most popular name in Britain. A close second.

No big whoop! One world. One religion. No problemo.

Full Story.

In my previous post over the Nick Griffin issue, Joey Kurtzman noted in the comments that,

“As for my own views on immigration, I’m not really capable of approaching immigration as a political issue. My family got here when there were no immigration laws beyond not having jaundice, and the whole coming-to-America narrative is too sentimental for me. So given that it *is* a legitimate political issue, and that immigration can’t be totally unchecked otherwise half the planet would move here, I don’t think that on this issue I really have anything of value to say.�

I think much of the Jewish community gets weak in the knees when it comes to immigration issues, which leaves the activist pro-immigration Jewish groups positioned to speak for the Jewish community generally.

I would argue that this sentimental silence is a problem, because:

1) The economic realities are not being addressed. While the vocal defenders are the hippies, mass immigration is not being pushed by them or “”those seeking to come out of the shadows to seek a better life…,” it is being pushed by corporations seeking to drive the cost of labor down by increasing the supply.

2) This country has done quite well with European-Americans (a.k.a. “Whites”) in power. It is particularly speculative for the Jewish community to desire a serious change in power. Such speculation is something you do as a side venture. You do not bet your house, never mind your country, on a dubious bet, where the best you could hope for is more of the same. And we have done well here. We have done mind boggling well here. To be neutral on something this crucial is bizarre. This is a stupendous risk the social liberals are agitating for, with little explanation of where they draw the line, outside of those individuals known to be a danger (oh how responsible of them, they don’t want immigrants with a terrorist background).

3) Significant amounts of white and black Americans appear to be against mass immigration. We owe it to them to consider their concerns seriously. We dismiss their concerns at our own peril as well.

4) There have been major problems with specific Muslim immigrant groups in European countries that should make us bang the alarm and mobilize to make sure such situations do not occur here. Again, all reasons offered by the social left as to why they may not happened here because it hasn’t happened so far are speculative. The most logical possibility, or at least, a reasonable factor–is that Muslim communities lack sufficient numbers. We have a lot to lose by risking that they achieve such numbers through immigration.

American Jews need to separate their immigrant past from today’s current immigration realities. And it isn’t just social left groups — whose job it is to pretend we and all other minorities are all in the same boat against white — conflating the two. Rather, all the so-called mainstream “defenseâ€? groups are in cahoots with those pushing mass immigration from pretty much anywhere. The Neocons are as well. Don’t look to them for help…as we know, according the Neocons, everyone in the world just wants to be exactly like us.

It is time for fair-minded people not bound by party orthodoxy to grapple with the issue of immigration, and to be honest with themselves. For instance, would accepting 5,000,000 immigrants from each and every Muslim country be a good idea for either the U.S. or for the Jewish community? Would this be a good bet? Remember, HAVING MUSLIM FRIENDS WHO ARE WONDERFUL DOES NOT PROVE IT IS A GOOD BET.

If people like Joey Kurtzman can’t “add anything valuable” because of nostalgia, then the Jewish community is going to continue to appear to present a unified voice in support of any and every pro-immigration policy and proposed legislation, no matter how risky.

Is this what your great-grandparents and great-great-parents would advise? I believe most of our ancestors would have recognized the importance of this issue today, and would strongly advise against a reflexively pro-immigration stand because of their memory.

There is much too much at stake to sit out on this one because of sentimentality.

Joey Kurtzman insists I am wrong about Nick Griffin. He says that Griffin is a Nazi, and that I am needlessly hairsplitting between the British National Party and a hardline neo-Nazi one whose logo Jewcy used to represent Griffin, even though it’s the wrong group and one shouldn’t do that period and we both know that but whatever, that wasn’t the main point even though it was implied but fine, there is no contest on that so, no, I guess you really didn’t need to go into it.

Anyway.

I have to say that I was starting to feel a little unsettled that I was attempting to mitigate the disreputation of a man considered a Nazi by everyone at Jewcy. Three different Jewcy writers conflated Nick Griffin’s with those of neo-nazis.

But one does not. Mr. John Derbyshire, a top notch columnist who writes for Jewcy, wrote two years ago (though not on Jewcy) that,

Nick Griffin, the BNP head, has been conducting a purge of Stalinesque ruthlessness against the old anti-Semitic National Front types. FrontPageMag’s Robert Locke tells the story here. All the BNP’s xenophobic propaganda is now concentrated against Muslims. Jews are O.K., on the principle that my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

I think I may know where our disconnect may be – looking to a prominent non-Jewish conservative columnist is helpful. Let’s look at Derbyshire’s analysis a little further…

The Far Right may not be your cup of tea; but they’re out there, and with intelligent leadership, a tailwind of economic disgruntlement, and the dawning realization among white people in the West that they have, by foolish policies, made themselves into a minority in their own countries,

Derbyshire, a paleoconservative, shares a concern over immigration with the far-right, even though he himself is not far-right. That concern is exacerbated when the mass immigrant population in question is deemed not only as different from, but hostile to the host country’s majority population and culture. Hence, Derbyshire will view resistance to Muslim immigration itself as no longer a strictly far-right issue, even if the organization pushing immigration restriction itself remains far-right. Derbyshire never the less perceived a shift towards legitimacy.

I am guessing that Joey does not necessarily see a need to differentiate between taking a hard-line on such racial and cultural sentiments over immigration and focusing on “the Jewish Question,” and therefore sees no reason to alter his perception of Griffin’s BNP, despite his shift of focus away from “the Jewish Question.”

If this is the case, what Jewcy and I are arguing about is not really Griffin at all, but our disparate views about aspects of immigration itself. But if that’s the case, Jewcy needs to bring back Mr. Derbyshire, and debate him themselves on immigration, and ask him the tougher questions they think they have, and offer more nuanced defenses than that poor HIAS director—properly bound and reasonably gagged by organizational mandate so as not to risk a casualty of any significant value — whom they offered up as a sacrifice to their own nagging doubts.

Arab and black “children of immigrants” are rioting in France, and the AP Newswire seems to be sympathizing with the rioters, noting,

“Youths, many of them Arab and black children of immigrants, again appeared to be lashing out at police and other targets seen to represent a French establishment they feel has left them behind.”

Isn’t that a satisfactory reason to shoot policemen and attack–wait for it–the FIREMEN?!? CLEARLY the FIREMEN have not done ENOUGH to make sure these assholes “don’t feel left behind.”

Am I being overly sensitive to language and an ascribed motive that sounds a bit absurd? What does “feel they left behind” really mean? Is that the reason for all of this anti-social activity?

And the AP notes that these people are “trapped in poor neighborhoods.”

If so, perhaps these people should return to their former, originating countries in Africa, like say, Algeria or Somalia, where they will surely be treated in a more ecumenical fashion, and the dictators in charge–or leaders of the various warring factions– will sit down with them (even after they shoot at them, of course) and ask, “What can we do to make you feel more a part of our respectful and inclusive multi-cultural liberal-democratic society?”

Please wish the great Sarkozy much love and strength in his resolve. We Jews need to offer European nations solidarity as they are besieged by fundamentalist inspired violence, and assure them that they have every right to take proper and stern measures to ensure their nation’s well being and security. They need our nod of understanding. We must give it to them. Or we are both morally deficient, and really, really naive.

“This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon.” — Nick Griffin, 2005

Jewcy has printed two separate post about tonight’s debate including David Irving and Nick Griffin. The debate about the debate, as framed by the luftmentschen hipsters, is only one of free speech versus limits on free speech. I would like to focus on something different.

Firstly, forget David Irving, who, as a Holocaust Denier “historian,� is less interesting to me, and indeed, a man who can only be defended on free speech grounds. But Nick Griffin, the head of the far-right BNP, is more interesting. We should not be conflating these two men. They disagree on many things. Not least of all, the Jews. And yet, Jewcy chose a symbol of November 9th Society to represent the debate, even though the November 9th Society is a hardline neo-Nazi party that is quite critical of the British National Party for being mere “conservatives on steroids.� That Jewcy chose their logo (replete with swastika, of course) to represent Nick Griffin is as risible as it is shrill.

The BNP is the most popular overtly anti-Muslim group in England. Now I know I should find that horrible, and I know for a fact that they say horrible things that I find disgraceful. But I also know that England—like so much of Europe—is under siege. The book “Londonistan� enjoys popularity because of this reality. And it is a reality.

Now, you can (and some surely will) point to overt and disturbing antisemitism of select members of the BNP. But that isn’t the BNP’s policy. More importantly, antisemitism isn’t the BNP’s focus. Islam is. Absolutely. And Griffin is a critical voice – even if not always the most delicate one – in urging the British to stand up to those who seek to Islamify England’s own wonderful culture and norms. But Peter Tatchell is disingenuous about that focus, writing,

“Nick Griffin is the leader of a far right party, the BNP, which has a history of promoting racism, homophobia, antisemitism and prejudice against Muslims.�

As if the BNP’s concern over Islamicization is irrational, only fueled by “prejudice,” and low on the list of BNP concerns. In fact, under Griffin’s leadership, the BNP does not promote antisemitism. And though Griffin has been ineffective in ridding the BNP of antisemitic elements, he has been quite successful in changing its focus.

And a little fairness to the British people, please. I don’t believe they are headed to fascism. I don’t think that’s the kind of people we are dealing with. We are dealing with the greatest resistors to Nazism, and that is no small footnote in their collective conscious. Churchill is considered by the British people to be the greatest Briton – ever.

What the BNP could accomplish is pushing the envelope on reducing or even ending Muslim immigration, as well as pressuring England to stop ever-increasing capitulation to fundamentalist Muslim demands. And quite frankly, I don’t see either of those achievable goals as a bad thing at all. But that’s for the British themselves to work out. They don’t need the likes of us protecting them from Nick Griffin’s ideas, but there is more reason to not want Griffin silenced than the sole issue of free speech. And Jewcy, which at least is sometimes willing to ask the tougher questions, has elected to instead confine itself to an easy one, through dishonest conflation. And that, dear readers, is a wasted opportunity.

Lawrence Auster, a prominent paleoconservative of Jewish descent, wrote something interesting in terms of why he insists on speaking in terms of race when his primary concern is cultural. A reader asked,

When reading your blog, I am struck by the number of times you and others talk about the “white race” or a “white majority.” You seem fixated on race.

However, the battle we are fighting has little to do with “race” and everything to do with “culture.”

Auster explained,

A massive number of people of different race fundamentally changes the whole society. Then it becomes a matter, not of individuals joining a culture, but of one group and its culture replacing another group and its culture.

This distinction is all important. You must understand it if you are to understand the immigration problem.

If you don’t get the distinction between a few people and a lot of people, you are going to go on believing the neoconservative fantasy that you can transform an entire country from a 100 percent or a 90 percent white country to a majority nonwhite country and everything is going to remain the same. You’re not going to see the reality of, for example, the Mexican invasion, in which Mexicans are involved in a national/racial takeover of major parts of the U.S., in which they, the Mexicans, are conscious of themselves gaining power as a group, and of the whites as losing power.

To me, this seems to imply that according to Auster, race is primarily (in terms of immigrant threat) a divider between cultural and group identities. Still, could not the same thing happen between those of a similar (even exactly the same) race? For instance, when haredim move into and take over a formerly secular and Modern Orthodox neighborhood, the same dynamics without a disparate racial ingredient play out in a similar fashion in terms of cultural takeover.

If we accept that, then the question remains, why talk (primarily) in terms of race?

Update: Mr. Auster replied in the comments section that,

Why does the Kvetcher assume the most simplistic possible interpretation of my position? Have I ever said or remotely implied that race is the only basis for division between people? The human world is organized into all kinds of larger wholes–family, ethnicity, culture, race, religion, nation, civilization, political philosophy, economic class, and on and on. Divisions can occur along any of these divides.

But among these divides, and among the most intractable, is race. And when you have large, conspicuosly different racial groups inhabiting the same society which is lacking an unquestioned majority culture, serious culture/racial conflict is inevitable. A society must have a recognized majority culture and people if it is to thrive and survive.

In POLJ’s guest post on The Kvetcher, POLJ noted that, “DK is a fan of all things homogeneous.� While POLJ was hopefully joking, I must counter that this is hardly the case. Rather, I am dubious of the supposedly far superior benefits of diversity.

While POLJ disputes Mr. Furman’s notion of integration for social purposes, he did not really explain how his vision is substantially different. Instead, he noted,

“In college I got to know many folks of different colors and creeds. But for the most part my close friends were Jewish. When I started into college politics, I was forced to work with different people. By working with them for long hours, like Furman did on his basketball team, I got to know these people better. I learned about Pilipino customs (and of that particular spelling because there is no “F� sound in the Pilipino language), Latino music and food, Black American holidays and even some Christian stuff. Because I was forced into a situation that I didn’t know before, I learned more.�

That’s nice, but it is hardly worth busing a few lucky chosen middle class kids across town to a predominantly “inner city� school, as wonderful an opportunity as that might seem to them and their families. What would be better is learning about other cultures in our schools, and reinstituting geography, as well as seriously teaching foreign languages at an early age. That’s real education.

All too often, from what I have seen, we Americans place more value on socialization than education when it comes to other cultures, in part because we view race itself as the only real barrier between peoples to overcome, and in part, because we don’t see value in other civilizations. Which is really dangerous, since they own more and more of our ever-increasing national debt. But I would prefer my kid to know many languages. I have more faith that he would be able to appreciate, say, French culture and even French people, much better if he knew the French language fluently, than if he had a couple of kids in his class of French descent. I had a friend of French descent as a kid. But surprisingly, it just doesn’t help me get around Paris, nor does it help me understand the difference between French colonialism and British colonialism.

We have to ask ourselves what is important. POLJ says he prefers education to socialization. But it still looks a lot more like socialization to me. It looks like a Benetton commercial. I prefer real education about others. Curriculum, languages, tests…but hey, I’m just a reactionary.

I will say this. POLJ wrote about growing up in a mostly Jewish school. I grew up in a school with almost no Jews. It was quite…challenging. When I went to a magnet arts school, it was better, because it was more diverse. But not because it was educationally diverse, but rather, because I didn’t feel so strange. In the end, I would certainly have preferred a diverse school with more Jews than a homogenous school with almost no Jews.

But quite frankly, I don’t think this is really about education at all. I think a lot of Jews who prefer “diversity,� aren’t really concerned about either education or socialization. And we are fooling ourselves about what we claim we want, and declining to be honest about what we are actually afraid of. And we are not prodding this country towards a good place when we are really motivated not by humanitarianism, but by secret fears.

How can we craft reasonable and strategically sound communal policies if we aren’t honest about what is really motivating us?

As most of you are probably aware, our beloved Annie has exited the blog world (temporarily!), but we have some new friends at Jewbiquitous. And apparently, one of them is sensitive to religious freedoms. The Pedant insists* that a Liberian woman who smuggled in monkey meat should be allowed to do so, because, according to The Pedant, “the food-grade monkey parts are for some religious purpose, and therefore she should get a free pass.�

The Pedant asks, “How far should exemptions for religious observance go?”

I think the question is inverted. A main point of religious freedom in this country originally was the freedom to not be religious. Not to allow for money meat smuggled in illegally. Sorry, Pedant. I do not agree with you. Smuggling in monkey meat to the U.S. is not okay. You are wrong.*

So much “religious sensitivity” and exemption is demanded. Some of it is perhaps a bit excessive. There, I said it. The west now has veiled Muslim women refusing to be identified by male bus drivers, taxi drivers refusing to take seeing eye dogs, and Christian workers being denied food trolleys during Ramadan.

And if banning monkey snacks keeps a few fanatics out, I say all the better. I would go further, and ban pita and all chickpea and lamb based sandwiches. Except in my neighborhood. Because I’m lactose intolerant, and I should be given a dietary exemption.

*(No, not really, but let’s haze The Pedant anyway, and march over to Jewbiquitous, and demand to know why someone is defending smuggling monkey meat into our country).

The NY Sun reports,

The principal, Debbie Almontaser, was quoted yesterday interpreting T-shirts that say “Intifada NYC” as not an endorsement of violence but rather “an opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society … and shaking off oppression.” She followed the word’s literal Arabic meaning, which is “struggle” or “uprising.”

Some people are upset about this, for reasons beyond my fathom. Clearly when most of us think of the historical oppression of Arab women, one of the first things that comes to mind is New York City.

Anyway, Ms. Almontaser qualified her support for these t-shirts, as she understands that people might not understand intifada as restricted to the peace loving context she clearly meant. So no big whoop!

Who is this idiot principal, you may ask? She is the principal of the Khalil Gibran school, a new “charter� school that seeks to service an Arabic population that wants an Arabic focus, in both language and culture.

Just what NYC needs.

Who supports this idea? A lot of important Jews. Like Abe Foxman of the ADL (Asinine Dumbkoff League) and Joel Klein, NYC school chancellor. Why? Because they think it will teach tolerance.

Want to know what work better? Ending mass immigration from countries with populations hostile to the U.S. But no. We can’t do that. That would be the sensible thing to do. And after all, we were oppressed once too! We must always emphasize common oppression with others, even if the histories and the situations have precious little in common, and even if we are endangering our own community, and the U.S. herself.

As long as we retain victim status at least in our own eyes and to some degree n the public space, no matter what the cost is to such a foolish immigration and a multi-cultural policy, it’s worth it.

Right?

Ostensibly, our progressive and liberal friends who support mass immigration of Muslims both here and wherever they seek to live should be heartened by this week’s op-ed in the Forward by Eric Frey. The title of the piece is, “A Racist Stench Rises Out of Cologne,� and the end warns European Jews that,

The future of Islamic life in Europe does not lend itself to simple answers. If Jews find themselves too close to demagogues who want to rid society of all minorities, they should know that they are on the wrong track.

So it appears that the Forward is giving voice to those who categorically reject “racism� against Muslim immigrants.

But is that what is happening?

Let’s look at some of the actual content of the essay itself, apart from the specific building of the mosque in question.

“Why would a man who survived the Holocaust by hiding in a cellar in Hamburg and who spoke out forcefully against racism and antisemitism by neo-Nazis in the early 1990s allow himself to be associated with such company? Giordano’s answer is that radical Islam and its totalitarian creed, not the remnants of European fascism, are the main threats to liberal democracy today.

He finds himself in a similar bind as French-Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, who was widely condemned as a racist when he told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz in November 2005 that the French Muslim community was itself to blame for the social and ethnic tensions that led to the riots in Paris’s suburbs earlier that year. Finkelkraut’s arguments echoed those of Nicolas Sarkozy, then-interior minister and now president, and even National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. The mainstream leftist position, by stark contrast, was that French society had failed the immigrant youth because of a lack of integration and economic opportunity.

All across Europe, one can see liberal Jewish thinkers parting ways over the issue of Islam with their non-Jewish peers, among whom criticism of Islam is often frowned upon. Their willingness to speak out may have to do with a special Jewish abhorrence of totalitarian thinking, or concern over the widespread anti-Israel and antisemitic views among Europe’s Muslims, or (at least in Germany’s case) a feeling that Jews can speak out where others feel inhibited by their history.�

Emphasis added.