Capital Research Center publishes an overview of the US Refugee Admissions Program

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran, September 16, 2018:

James Simpson has done an outstanding job of pulling together facts about the history of how the US came to be the top refugee resettlement country in the world. Hint: It all began with the UN!

And, then in this three-part series gives readers the facts about who we are bringing to America and how much it costs us—the US taxpayer.

He begins his serialized report this way:

Resettling Refugees: An International Agenda

Summary: A vast network of foundations, non-profits, government entities and political organizations have a vested interest in the continued growth of the resettlement of refugees in America. Because they receive billions of dollars in federal grant money, publicly-financed, tax-exempt organizations have significant incentives to support political candidates and parties that will keep these programs alive. These organizations need to be thoroughly audited and the current network of public/private immigrant advocacy and resettlement organizations needs to be completely overhauled. Resettling refugees should be a voluntary, genuinely charitable activity, removing all the perverse incentives government funding creates.

The refugee resettlement program is popular with many policymakers. It enjoys bipartisan support in Congress and state houses because it supplies low-wage, low skill labor that many big businesses crave, while enabling supporters to embrace “diversity” and thus avoid the Left’s favorite attacks and mischaracterizations: “bigot,” “racist,” “xenophobe,” “Islamophobe,” etc. This faux-moralizing on the Left stifles a necessary conversation our nation sorely needs. Meanwhile, the Left’s true motive is to import ever more people from third-world nations that are likely to become reliable Democrat voters once they achieve citizenship.

Under the Trump presidency, the United States’ refugee resettlement has been temporarily reduced, but by no means curtailed. A change in administration could resuscitate it overnight. There are many objectionable aspects of this program, not the least of which is finding resources to fund this enormous undertaking. The difficulty associated with assessing the true costs of the programs key to resettling refugees presents another obstacle to policymakers at every level of government.

Continue reading here for a history of the program.

Then here is Part II:

It is important for readers to know that although we most often talk about the actual Refugee admissions numbers, there are tens of thousands more considered ‘refugees’ by the US government for the purpose of providing federal dollars for their care as they become ‘New Americans.’

Resettling Refugees: Who’s Coming to America?

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), refugees are:

[P]eople who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

This mirrors the U.N. definition established at the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. It is important to note here, however, that under these definitions, “individuals who have crossed an international border fleeing generalized violence are not considered refugees.” This includes large numbers of people who are regularly resettled anyway, for example some of the Syrians fleeing that country’s conflict, and most—if not all Somalis.

Those who meet the definition include:

~refugees (those seeking protection in the United States who are not already in the country),

~asylum seekers or asylees (those who apply for asylum after coming to the U.S.),

~Cuban/Haitian Entrants,

~Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) and

~trafficking Victims.

The Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) program is also administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, although UACs do not meet the definition of “refugee.”

Table I below provides up-to-date estimates for each category.

Get a load of these numbers!

Simpson table 1

The table shows that this category of legal entry to the US is a much bigger problem than the one we usually discuss on these pages which is the Refugee column.

Don’t miss the total admitted in the last full year of the Obama presidency—269,491!

But, see that the Trump Administration is presiding over the arrival of a huge number (higher than Obama’s welcome!) of Special Immigrant Visa holders from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Continue here.

And, last but not least! You really need to read the whole thing yourself, but prepare to be sick when you see how many millions of dollars are flowing out of the US Treasury to hundreds of non-profits who are in one way or another in the business of bringing in and then spreading refugees and other migrants around the US while lobbying for ever higher admissions numbers (aka paying clients!).

Part III is here

Resettling Refugees: Social and Economic Costs

Simpson begins with the usual nine federal contractors, but that is only the tip of the iceberg!

Federal Refugee Resettlement Grants

cws protest at WH 2

Think about this!  Earlier this year Church World Service and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society helped organize this protest against the President. Combined, those two refugee contractors consumed $620 million taxpayer dollars in the last ten years.  Why are we paying for this? https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/church-world-service-and-hias-join-cair-to-protest-at-white-house/

The nine VOLAGs, their many affiliates, and unaccompanied alien children contractors all receive funding from the federal government to resettle the various refugee categories. As mentioned earlier, unaccompanied alien children do not meet the definition of “refugee,” however their resettlement is managed through the Office of Refugee Resettlement and they are included when calculating the total cost of the overall program.

Most funding comes in the form of grants. Prime awards are grants directly from the federal government to the state or the contractor. Sub-awards are those given to contractors by other contractors or state governments that received the prime grant. They are left out to avoid double counting. Table III below enumerates prime grants to VOLAGs and unaccompanied alien children contractors for refugee resettlement and related programs. Some of the VOLAGs, for example the Ethiopian Community Development Council, focus almost entirely on refugee resettlement. Others, like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, International Rescue Committee, and World Relief Corporation of the National Association of Evangelicals, have a broader mission.

Of the latter, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is the largest. As Table III shows, in FY 2018 USCCB received $47.7 million for resettlement purposes. However, USCCB participates in other federal grant programs and that year received a total of $363.9 million from the federal government.

Here is a chart you need to keep handy. Prepare to be sick!

Billions of dollars have flowed to the refugee contractors in the last ten years alone!

Simpson table 2

The nine major contractors (VOLAGS) that monopolize the US Refugee Admissions Program are these:

Church World Service (CWS)
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)
Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) (DFMS is its other name)
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular)
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
World Relief Corporation (WR)

Thanks to Jim Simpson for letting us know just how much each is being paid from the US Treasury!

Please, please take time to read the rest of Part III, it is stunning the amount of your money being distributed to non-profits who then act as political agitation groups!

And, these dollars do not include the cost of welfare, education, medical care, housing, etc. that you pay for!

Tell the White House to reform the whole program and begin by getting rid of middlemen federal contractors!

This is no way to run a government!

Also see:

If the President foolishly pushes Jeff Sessions out of the Justice Department, the Senate will never confirm a replacement who would carry out the immigration control agenda that Sessions has undertaken.

Don’t Be Fooled by Leftist Lies About the Immigration Explosion

LifeZette, By Brigitte Gabriel, September 19, 2018:

When did our immigration system start functioning like a charity to benefit third-world countries rather than America?

When did it become the case that the interests of foreigners should take precedent over those of American citizens?

It’s a peculiar thing. A massive wave of third-world immigration has been engulfing America for half a century, yet all American citizens hear about from the “lamestream” media is what a racist, intolerant country we have. As their thinking goes, if we don’t openly accept millions of individuals who have no desire to embrace the language, culture and values that made America the greatest country in the history of the world, then we must be racists.

It’s not the elites who have suffered the consequences of hundreds of thousands of unvetted foreigners flocking to the United States or had their communities transformed, endangered and eroded by 10 million illegal aliens.

It’s the average American citizen who bears that burden.

How it all started. Before 1965, immigration generally worked to benefit Americans. But that all changed when Democratic politicians came up with a scheme to change the demographics of the United States to electorally favor the Democratic Party.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart-Celler Act, eliminated the concept of quotas that had been in place for several decades.

Rep. Emanuel Celler of New York sponsored the bill in the House of Representatives, Sen. Philip Hart of Michigan sponsored it in the Senate, and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts bent over backwards to help promote it.

By removing the concept of national quotas, this bill significantly, and in my opinion intentionally, transformed the demographic makeup of the United States forever.

The new law changed the order of preference for visa categories that focused on family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents, rather than the skills that had previously taken precedent in visa decisions. If this was a scheme by the Democrats, as I believe it was, then it was a brilliant one.

From then on, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and “special immigrants” had no restrictions or quotas, regardless of skill or country of origin. Let the chain migration begin!

Self-imposed suicide. America is actively being transformed before our very eyes. A nation that defeated the mighty British Empire to gain its independence, that helped defeat Hitler, that beat the menacing Soviet Union, put a man on the moon, pioneered countless scientific and medical breakthroughs, and changed the world forever is now strangling itself with its own suicidal blindness.

Many Americans know that immigrants are not assimilating to our culture. When polled by Pew Research, two-thirds of adults said that immigrants in the United States today “generally want to hold onto their home country customs and way of life,” and 59 percent of Americans also said, “Most recent immigrants do not learn English within a reasonable amount of time.”

Despite lectures about our racist intolerance from politically correct elitists, the United States has the world’s largest immigrant population, and it’s not even close. One in five of the world’s immigrants live in the U.S., and our foreign-born population since 1965 has gone from 5 percent to 14 percent today and will push it to a projected record of 18 percent in 2065.

Don’t be fooled by leftist lies about how this immigration explosion has always been the norm for our nation. The number of U.S. immigrants between 1965 and 2015 was 59 million, surpassing the European-dominated immigration waves during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Today, only 12 percent of our immigrants originate from Europe, the percentage of immigrants we take from Africa and the Middle East has quadrupled since the early 20th century, and those from the Middle East are predominantly Muslims, as opposed to Christians.

Between 1840 and 1889, 14.3 million immigrants arrived in the United States, compared to 18.2 million between 1890 and 1919. More importantly, the immigrants America was taking in prior to 1965 were overwhelmingly from countries far more likely to share our values and Western culture.

After the replacement of the nation’s European-focused quota system, immigration from non-Western countries exploded. By comparison, both of the U.S. immigration waves in the mid-19th century and early 20th century consisted almost entirely of European immigrants. While the Left likes to brand this a racist historical policy, it would make sense for us to take in mostly Western-hailing immigrants considering this is a Western nation!

Between 1890 and 1919, 88 percent of immigrants to the United States came from Europe. A mere 2 percent of immigrants during that time period came from the Middle East, and those who did were mostly Christians fleeing persecution and who shared our values.

Immigrants from Africa during this time were mostly students. Now, only 12 percent of our immigrants originate from Europe, the percentage of immigrants we take from Africa and the Middle East has quadrupled since the early 20th century, and those from the Middle East are predominantly Muslims, as opposed to Christians.

In 1993, Islamic terrorists, most of them immigrants, made their first attempt at bringing down the World Trade Center when a truck filled with a 1,200-pound nitrate-hydrogen gas bomb exploded inside the parking garage beneath the buildings. The hope of the jihadis who orchestrated the attack was to send the North Tower crashing into the South Tower, bringing both towers down simultaneously and killing tens of thousands in the process.

At the time of the first World Trade Center attack, the U.S. Muslim population was approximately 1 million. Since then, that number has more than tripled, to about 3.45 million.

What kind of response is this to a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack? It not only continued to allow massive immigration from the Islamic world, but it also tripled the Islamic population in America in two decades, while we’ve been at war with radical Islamic terrorism.

We can’t be afraid to speak the truth when our values, culture, and very lives are being threatened. The worst part is, we’re doing it to ourselves.

We’ve come too far as a society to have radical leftists destroy us from within.

It’s time for a return to borders, culture, and the protection of our citizens over politically correct endangerment.

Brigitte Gabriel is a New York Times best-selling author, terrorism expert and the Founder and Chairman of Act for America. Her new book, “Rise: In Defense of Judeo-Christian Values and Freedom,” was released on September 11

Judge’s Rush Is Endangering 175 Migrant Children, Says Health Agency

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, July 14, 2018:

A California judge is endangering 2,551 migrant children by rushing their reunification with migrants who claim to be their parents, says the Department of Health and Human Services.

The discovery of fraud and deception among the adults who brought the first batch young 103 children shows that the “truncated vetting for [2,551 children aged 5 to 17] would result in HHS placing up to approximately 175 children with adults who are not their parents in the next 13 days,” said a July 13 court statement signed by Chris Meekins, a senior official in the DHHS agency.

The statement flips the claim by progressives that President Donald Trump is endangering children by separating them from their migrant parents. Trump’s deputies are now pointing out that a rush reunification carries risks for the children which progressives are claiming to champion.

Judge Dana Sabraw has set a July 26 deadline for reunifying all of 2,551 children and youths with the migrant adults who brought them into the United States. To ensure the unification, the judge is requiring that the adults be released from detention via the catch-and-release loopholes which President Donald Trump is trying to close, even their claims for asylum have not been decided.

The fast-track reunification “process will likely result in the placing of children with adults who falsely claimed to be their parents or into potentially abusive environments,” Meekins said. ‘My opinion is that the court’s truncating of the vetting process for class membership — including the elimination of the critical requirements for sponsor care plans — materially increases the risk of harm to children.”

Because of the judge’s rush, HHS officials have stopped DNA testing of migrants and children to ensure their claims of parental relationship are correct. DNA testing would take months, said Meekins.

Officials are also unable to gather data about the people whom the children will be living with, likely because many of the households include other illegal immigrants who want to hide their identity from the federal government.

For example, one child from El Salvador was reunited with her mother in Houston without a full background check on the people in her expected household. A June Washington Postreport reported that the mother’s mother’s sister had already migrated illegally from El Salvador to Houston.

The agency pushback follows weeks of emotional complaints by progressive activists and media that Trump’s deputies are endangering and harming the children brought into the United States by Central American migrants.

However, the resulting spotlight exposed large-scale fraud among the migrants who are described as victims by progressives.

The White House detailed criminal, identity, and disease problems with 21 of the migrants who brought the 102 under-5 children:

11 of the illegal aliens have criminal records: 

  1. Warrant for murder in Guatemala
  2. Child cruelty and narcotics convictions
  3. Suspected transnational criminal organization involvement and human trafficking
  4. Outstanding criminal warrant in El Salvador
  5. 2 DUI convictions
  6. Significant criminal history including assault conviction
  7. Outstanding warrant in Florida for DUI
  8. DUIs, assault, stolen vehicle
  9. Robbery conviction
  10. Wanted by El Salvador
  11. Criminal charges including assault

7 of the illegal aliens not the parents of the toddler:

  1. Adult said he is uncle, not father
  2. Negative DNA match, adult indicated he is not the child’s father
  3. Adult said she is grandmother, not mother
  4. During DNA testing, adult disclosed she is not the child’s mother
  5. Negative DNA match, still under investigation
  6. Adult disclosed that she is grandmother, not the parent
  7. Adult presented false birth certificate, still under investigation

2 of the illegal aliens present a danger to the toddler:

  1. Before court order, adult was required to submit information and fingerprints of other adults in household where she will live with the child; background check on adult male in household shows an active warrant for aggravated criminal sexual assault of a 10-year-old female.
  2. Child made allegations of abuse against adult

1 of the illegal aliens has a communicable disease:

21. Parent is being treated for communicable disease in ICE custody

Moreover, Meekins reported that eight of the 102 children were reunified with parents even though the parents have not provided the needed details — such as fingerprints –regarding the cohabitants in the houses where the children will be living.

Also, agency officials did not conduct DNA tests on 12 of the 47 adults who have been given custody of the remaining children among the group of 102.

“It is not, nor should it be, our objective to reunify all 2,551 minors with the adult whom they arrived here with, because some of those adults are not their parents or pose a clear danger to the children,” said a July 13 statement from DHHS. It continued:

As we saw with the minors covered by the court case who are under age 5, and as the court has acknowledged, there are many circumstances that preclude a minor from being reunited with a parent, including when a purported parent ends up not being the parent, a parent poses a threat to the child’s well-being, or a parent is in custody elsewhere due to criminal activity.

On July 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released new “credible fear” guidelines which could sharply reduce the number of migrants allowed into the United States to plead for asylum. The guidelines may prevent most migrants from using the various catch-and-release rules set by progressive judges, President Barack Obama’s deputies, political activists, and their allies.

Also  see:

The Relentless Radicalization of Sweden

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, 

  • Swedish police report that Muslim children have told their classmates they will cut their throats, while showing them beheadings on their mobile phones, according to the new study of Salafism in Sweden by the Swedish Defence University.
  • “Many women live worse [lives] here than they would have in their former countries” — Swedish care worker.
  • The inability — willful blindness is probably a more apt description — to see that jihadist terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum, but is nurtured in particular environments, is hardly an exclusively Swedish situation. The insistence of so many European and other Western authorities on describing terrorist attacks as instances of “mental illness” illustrate it perfectly.

A new study[1] of Salafism in Sweden, conducted by the Swedish Defence University, paints a bleak picture of the ongoing radicalization of Muslims in Sweden.

The Salaf are the “pious ancestors” during the first three generations of the followers of Mohammed; its ideology has come to be associated over the last few decades with al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as with local al-Qaeda affiliates. According to the study, Salafists, who believe in Islam as Mohammed’s early followers practiced it, tend to reject Western society in favor of a “pure” Islam: “Not all Salafists are jihadists, but all jihadists are Salafists”. [2]

Although the study does not give an estimate of how many Salafists are in Sweden, it does describe how Salafist milieus there have evolved and grown stronger, especially during the past decade, and lists several examples of the influence they wield in different Swedish cities and localities.

The Swedish Defence University has published a new study that paints a bleak picture of the ongoing radicalization of Muslims in Sweden. (I99pema/Wikimedia Commons)

“Salafists”, the authors of the study conclude, “…advocate gender segregation, demand that women veil themselves to limit ‘sexual temptation’, restrict women’s role in the public sphere and strongly oppose listening to music and some sports activities”[3].

According to the study, many Salafists also tell Muslims not to have Swedish friends, and refer to them as “kufr“, the Arabic term for a non-Muslim or “disbeliever”. One Salafist preacher, Anas Khalifa, said:

“Does that mean that if you meet a Christian or Jew you should beat him or threaten him? No. There is no war between you and Christians and Jews in your school, for example. You hate him for Allah’s sake. You hate that he does not believe in Allah. But you want from your heart that he will love Allah. So you have to work with them, talk with them, because you want Allah to guide them”. [4]

The Salafists, apparently, have divided Sweden geographically between them. According to the study:

“It is interesting that the Salafist preachers, on which the study focuses, appear to be more in cooperation with each other, rather than rivals. Instead, these preachers seem to divide their da’wa (mission) into different geographical areas…”[5].

The study’s findings from different cities where Salafists are active include:

In Borås, some children will not drink the water at the school or paint with watercolors there, because they say the water is “Christian”. The police report that Muslim children have told their classmates they will cut their throats, while showing them beheadings on their mobile phones. There are examples of “adolescents arriving at mosques at the end of a school day to ‘wash’ themselves after having interacted with [non-Muslim] society”. Care workers [health care, child care, etc.] in the city have testified to how men exercise control over women, checking on them even in waiting rooms[6]. One care worker said:

“I realized that there is a network that controls the women so they won’t be left alone with the care workers. They are not given a chance to tell anyone about their situation. Many women live worse [lives] here than they would have in their former countries”.

This kind of control of women appears to be taking place in practically all the Swedish cities mentioned in the study.

In Västerås, religious influence is mixed with crime. “It could be a bunch of guys coming into the grocery store. If the woman at the cashier is not veiled, they take what they want without paying, they call the cashier ‘Swedish whore’ and spit on her,” said a police officer in the study. Other examples include Syrians and Kurds who run stores and restaurants in the area and are questioned by young Muslims about their religion. If the answer is not Islam, they are harassed. In other cases, boys as young as 10-12 years have approached older women in the area, asking them whether they are Muslim, telling them “this is our area”.[7]

In Gothenburg, according to the study[8], Salafists told Muslims not to vote in the most recent elections because it is “haram” (forbidden). “They said that on the day of judgment you will be responsible for the actions of all stupid politicians if you vote. They stood at polling stations… At one polling station they waved an IS [Islamic State] flag”, a local official told the authors of the study. According to one imam in the city, Gothenburg has been the capital of Wahhabism (a Saudi version of Salafism) in Europe since the 1990s.[9]

Out of the 300 Swedish Muslims who joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq, almost one third came from Gothenburg.[10] (In relation to their total population, more people have traveled from Sweden to join jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq than from most European countries — only Belgium and Austria have a higher proportion[11]). Somali-Canadian preacher Said Regeah, speaking at the Salafist Bellevue Mosque in Gothenburg, has “raised the importance of people being born ‘pure’ and that only Muslims are pure. All are born as Muslims, but it is the parents who shape them to become ‘Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians'”.[12]

The study also reports that non-Muslim business owners have experienced having their facilities vandalized with Islamic State graffiti and that Christian priests have received threats of decapitation[13]. One man, Samir, said, “If you do not follow Islam, people ostracize you. There are parents here who put veils on their three-year-olds. It is unreal. We are not in Iraq”.[14]

Another man, Anwar, was denied service in a Muslim restaurant because he is not religious. He points out that society is letting secular Muslims down: “I don’t need a Bible or a Koran in my life. The only book I need is… the [Swedish] law. But if society isn’t even on your side, what can you do?”[15]

In the Stockholm area, the study estimates that there are currently up to 150 Salafist jihadists[16]. Salafists are especially concentrated in the Järva area, a “no go zone”. Sometimes the jihadist and the criminal elements overlap, and these Muslims terrorize other people who live in the area. One woman said that Salafists and Islamists have come to dominate businesses, basement mosques, and cultural associations during the past ten years, and that “Swedes have no idea how much influence political Islam has in the suburb”. She described how even children are gender segregated and that religious leaders tell women not to tell the authorities if their husband abuses them. “Swedish laws are not applied in the suburbs”.[17]

The study concludes with a critique of Swedish authorities for their apparent inability to link individual radical Muslims to the “environments that form their ideas and in certain cases have facilitated the will to join more radical and violent groups”. The study mentions the following as an example:

“When the then-National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism said that the question of why so many people chose to travel to IS from Sweden was ‘a million dollar question’, it is an illustration of the overall inability of Swedish authorities (with the exception of police and security police) to see that this problem has not emerged from a vacuum”.[18]

This inability — or possibly willful blindness — to see that jihadist terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum, but is nurtured in particular environments is hardly an exclusively Swedish situation. The insistence of so many European and other Western authorities to describe terrorist attacks as instances of “mental illness” illustrate it perfectly.

The authors of the study also mention that schools and other local authorities do not know how to deal with the challenges created by the Salafists. The study mentions, for example, that a Muslim schoolgirl wanted to take off her headscarf to play hairdresser with the other children, but the Swedish personnel did not allow it out of respect for her parents’ wishes. In an example from a Swedish preschool, a little girl did not want to wear her headscarf but the Swedish personnel forced it on her, “even though it felt wrong”, because it was the parents’ wish. Swedish school personnel have also described that they do not know how to act when children want to eat and drink during Ramadan, but the parents have instructed that they must fast.[19]

The study is an important first step in Sweden finally acknowledging that there is a problem, but unless the relevant Swedish authorities — including the Swedish government and the political leaders, who refuse to acknowledge reality in Sweden — read and internalize it, the study will have been done in vain.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

***

The Nationalist Sweden Democrats Become Biggest Party in The Nation!!!

***

Immigration and Politically Incorrect Truths

Front Page Magazine, by Jonathan Leaf, July 10, 2018:

There is no more contentious issue in America today than immigration.

So a thoughtful and informative book on the subject written in plain language is more than welcome. It’s vital.

And that’s what a new title from Regnery, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Immigration, offers. I freely acknowledge here that I may not be perfectly objective as I composed a previous book in the publisher’s popular series of Politically Incorrect Guides. But there are now 31 such titles, and I would note that this is the first one I felt compelled to write about.

All of the books in the series have had certain qualities in common. They are contrarian, witty, snarky, relatively brief, unabashedly conservative and highly informative. The Politically Incorrect Guide To Immigration is one of the best. Subtitled “An America First Manifesto,” its authors are emphatically in favor of limits on legal immigration and for doggedness in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.

Both writers, John Zmirak and Al Perrotta, come from families of fairly recent immigrants. This makes many of their arguments that much more striking.

Those arguments start with the most stark facts. It’s worth pointing out that beliefs of Democratic voters about immigration tend to be based on the myths that the writers successively take apart. According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats with graduate degrees are almost five times as likely to believe that illegal immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes than the general population. But, as the authors observe, this idea is belied by a wealth of data. In particular, legal and illegal aliens make up an astonishing 27% of the federal prison population while representing only about 9% of the whole U.S. population. Quoting a recent study by the non-partisan Government Accounting Office (GAO), they note that an examination by the GAO of 55,322 illegal aliens found that they

“had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.”

The researchers reported that these offenders were committing a wide range of crimes. Some of the law-breaking was immigration-related. But other commonly-cited criminal acts involved drugs, fraud and counterfeiting. And more than twelve percent of the sample was incarcerated for the most serious kinds of felonies, including rape and murder.

Pew researchers have also found that Democrats with graduate degrees are nearly seven times as likely to believe as to not believe that immigrants only work at jobs that Americans don’t want. One might say that most “educated” liberals apparently have skipped Economics as this implies a wholesale unfamiliarity with the idea of supply and demand. That these positions might be attractive to native-born workers if they offered better pay and working conditions and that immigration of low-skilled workers is one of the major causes of growing economic inequality is at once an unavoidable conclusion to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics and something which the liberal intelligentsia is determined not to admit to itself.

Regardless, Zmirak and Perrotta provide a mass of information on the subject. Among their most astonishing snippets: between 2008 and 2015 employment among native-born workers fell by 1.1 million while immigrants took a net of 1.9 million jobs. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, employers were collectively replacing the native-born with lower-paid and more docile foreigners.  Zmirak and Perrotta also document how the labor movement in this country was strongly in favor of strict immigration enforcement until recently, and that legendary Mexican-American farmworker organizer Cesar Chavez was among the most unabashed supporters of efficient deportation of illegals.

However, the book is far from a compendium of data or simple background on the topic. While composed of fewer than two hundred pages of text, it manages to provide a lot of thoughtful intellectual analysis of why immigration policy cannot be conceived in exclusively economic terms. This conviction has several principles underlying it. One is founded in an assessment of how and why multiculturalism works in tandem with high levels of immigration to undermine a clear sense among the nation’s newcomers of what is to be an American. The authors show that this stands in stark contrast to what took place during earlier periods of immigration when Americanization was very much expected of immigrants, and immigrants were required to “renounce and abjure” all foreign influences in order to gain citizenship. By contrast, from at least as early as the 1990s, there have been classes and textbooks used in American public schools for the teaching of immigrant children that promote ideas like the “reconquista” of the American southwest by Mexico.

The authors go from this to a larger point: it is not only a matter of whether immigrants are arriving with skills and knowledge but where they come from. If they are from societies with little knowledge of the basic ideas underlying American democratic pluralism and with a conscious or unconscious animus towards the predominant American traditions and beliefs, they may prove to be exceedingly difficult to assimilate.

In presenting this analysis, the authors provide a considerable amount of intellectual history, and while one of the pair is Catholic, they are frank in stating the obvious: the American traditions of secular authority and limited government have expressly Protestant and British origins. From this, they argue that some degree of cultural continuity is essential as shared traditions and beliefs play a role in welding together any political community.

The Politically Incorrect Guide To Immigration is a smart and very important book that’s well-worth picking up.

 Jonathan Leaf is a playwright and journalist living in New York. He writes frequently about issues of popular concern.   

Also see:

***

In Germany, the ‘Immigration’ Worm Has Turned

Fed up (Bernd Settnik/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)

PJ Media, by Michael Walsh, July 8, 2018:

I’m in Berlin at the moment, staying not far from Checkpoint Charlie, through which I passed many times during the Cold War, and not far from the spot where, sledgehammer in hand, I did my small bit to dismantle the Berlin Wall in November of 1989. So much has changed in the nearly 30 years since that memorable moment: McDonald’s and KFC have franchises on either side of the intersection of the Friedrichstrasse and the Zimmerstrasse, where the Wall briefly opened to allow a narrow passage from the American sector’s principal checkpoint across a short block flanked on both sides by the Todesstreifen of barbed-wire and machine-gun free-fire fields. On the western side — actually the southern side, by the compass — the fearsome Wall was gaily painted with graffiti; on the other, it was a blank slate of gray concrete, fully reflective of the Stalinist Leftist orthodoxy of the only captive nation that even remotely tried to make a go of the Marxist economic, social, and moral lie.

Now, three decades after the Wall came down, I’m back in East Berlin talking to old and new German friends — most of them Ossisor East Germans — about the current state of Germany’s overriding social and political issue: the influx of more than one million cultural aliens, mostly from the Muslim ummah and thus by faith and profession profoundly opposed to Western Judeo-Christian civilization. And their answer is… not good for the Merkel administration.

Since the end of WWII, the German impulse has been to apologize for… well, just about everything since Arminius wiped out the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9 AD. And, to be fair, they’ve had a lot to apologize for. In the western sectors, occupied by the French, the British, and the Americans in the war’s aftermath and united to form West Germany, they quickly got their economic system up and running, restored much of the infrastructure that had been obliterated, and got on with the business of building a social democracy that became a model for the rest of Western Europe. But the restoration of Germany society was in part paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, who supported an enormous military force (upwards of 200,000 military personnel at the time of reunification in 1990) as the U.S. and NATO faced off against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact nations across Charlie and all over Europe.

The American presence preserved the peace and, eventually, was critical in the West’s victory in the Cold War. But it was bad for Germany in that it gave the Germans the luxury to take the “high moral ground” and abjure their own self-defense while they poured money into social programs. Having been effectively a ward of NATO and America, the Germans unhappily combined their war guilt with the mistaken moral superiority of their newfound pacifism.

The result was that they were completely unprepared for the consequences of their Ossi-raised chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow free entry to the “Syrian” “refugees” in 2015, a vast trekking horde of mostly male Muslims of military age from as far away as Afghanistan, who marched on the rich countries of the West, passing through Greece and Hungary and Italy on their way to the greener pastures of France, England, and Germany. Proudly proclaiming a “welcoming culture” and mouthing Merkel’s slogan, “Wir shaffen das” (We can handle this), Germany opened its arms to the “diversity” delusion.

What the Germans expected to welcome were people fleeing oppression, and who would abide by German norms of social civility, which include peace and (especially) quiet, who would quickly learn to converse and interact on a sophisticated level — who would become, in short, exactly like most Germans. What they got was an Islamic rabble wholly uninterested in Germany except how to exploit its hospitality while loudly complaining about it. The molestation of more than a thousand German girls in Cologne by Muslim “refugees” on New Year’s Eve in 2015 was the first indication that North African sexual norms were coming to roost in Germany. And while the government has downplayed “migrant” crimes against the local women, the word still gets out and around.

In Germany, the case of a young Muslim refugee charged with the rape and murder of a teenage girl has captured media attention and rocked Germany’s Jewish community: The victim, 14-year-old Susanna Feldmann, was Jewish. Missing since May 22, the girl’s  body was found June 6 buried in a shallow grave near her hometown of Mainz. The case has rattled Germany, which is beset with worries about crime emanating from the large Muslim refugee population — many of whom are young, single men, frustrated and aimless.

While many facts have come out since the body of Susanna Feldmann was found and the suspect was arrested and interrogated, the incident still feeds populist speculation and anger at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in 2015 opened the door to more than a million refugees from the war-torn Middle East on humanitarian grounds. Many are young, single men between 16 and 30 years old — like Ali Bashar,  the 20-year-old former asylum seeker who admitted killing Susanna.

Now the realization is dawning that few, if any, of Mutti Merkel’s kinder are going to turn into Germans or become assimilated into the host culture. The realization has been delayed by the international media’s cultural-Marxist insistence on conflating citizenship with ethnic nationality and declaring there is no difference between them. This may be true in the United States, which is unique among nations, but most definitely is not in continental Europe, where the modern nation-state first evolved; in Germany, the jus sanguinis made possible the prompt repatriations of the Volga Germans — whose families had lived in Russia for hundreds of years — after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, until 1990 when Germany introduced a very limited form of birthright citizenship, children of foreigners born and raised in Germany had no call on German citizenship at all.

It’s not a conclusion most Germans are comfortable with, but as the gap between fantasy and reality widens, inevitable conclusions are being reached. Merkel’s recent climbdown on “immigration” may have temporarily saved her administration, but it’s only a matter of time before she falls, to be replaced with someone who realizes “Wir kann das nicht schaffen.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers and to tighten the border with Austria in a political deal to save her government. It was a spectacular turnabout for a leader who has been seen as the standard-bearer of the liberal European order but who has come under intense pressure at home from the far right and from conservatives in her governing coalition over her migration policy.

Although the move to appease the conservatives exposed her growing political weakness, Ms. Merkel will limp on as chancellor. For how long is unclear. The nationalism and anti-migrant sentiment that has challenged multilateralism elsewhere in Europe is taking root — fast — in mainstream German politics.

Ms. Merkel agreed to the latest policy after an insurrection over migration policy led by her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, threatened to bring down her coalition. Mr. Seehofer demanded that Germany block migrants at the border if they have no papers, or have already registered in another European country. Ms. Merkel, who supports free movement across Europe’s borders, has been opposed to any moves effectively resurrecting border controls until Monday night, when she made the deal to stay in power.

Anyone who’s ever spent a week in Germany — and I’ve spent a good deal of my life here — could have known that Merkel’s social experiment in soft-headed egalitarianism was doomed to failure. The Islamic invasion of the West is succeeding in places like France, where it has taken advantage of the French civic dogma of laïcité and the residual anti-Christian sentiment of the French Revolution, first by having the religious trappings of Islam ignored and now, as the Muslim population grows, by forcing the French to take notice of their faith and demanding its open expression in contravention of French law. Meanwhile in Britain, the church founded by Henry VIII in a fit of pique, and currently presided over by a 92-year-woman, looks to be on its last legs except in a strictly ceremonial sense; into this spiritual void has rushed the former colonials of Africa and Pakistan, bringing vibrant Islam with them.

Whether the Germans are made of sterner stuff than the Brits and the French remains to be seen. Certainly, everyone is trying to tread as lightly as possible, tiptoeing around the unpleasant truths while trying to avoid the even-more-unpleasant consequences of Merkel’s folly. At this point, the best that can be hoped for is a halt to further invasion, rapid processing of the alleged “asylum” seekers and speedy repatriation of those found to be unqualified, even under the generosity of the German constitution’s Asylrecht — which has already undergone a considerable rollback since 1993.

It’s important to remember that the Germans have seen this movie before, starring the Turks, who came as Gastarbeiter in the 1960s and, rather than returning home the way the Spanish, Greeks and Italian guest workers largely did, stayed in Germany to evolve a parallel society in which they stayed Muslim and Turkish. But the non-assimilation of a new, restive group of militant Muslims who’ve arrived not in search of a job but of a handout, is a whole new order of magnitude for Germany.

How will they react? With the Wall now gone for longer than it was up, Germans still shudder at the memory and don’t wish for Checkpoint Charlie to reappear in the form of restrictive immigration policies. But that Wall was built by the Communists, and meant to keep the East Germans in, whereas the nationalist movements now sweeping Europe want to keep Islam out — the way they have since the Battle of Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. The Germans are going to have to decide, and quickly, which side of the Wall they’re looking at it. The future of Europe depends on it.

***

Merkel to fight another day after settling migration row

Reuters,  by Thomas Escritt and  Madeline Chambers, July 2, 2018:

BERLIN (Reuters) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives settled a row over migration that threatened to topple her fragile governing coalition late on Monday evening after talks with her rebellious interior minister led him to drop his threat to resign.

Emerging after five hours of talks, Horst Seehofer, leader of Bavaria’s Christian Social Union (CSU), told reporters he would remain in his post after a deal with Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) that he said would stem illegal immigration.

“After intensive discussions between the CDU and CSU we have reached an agreement on how we can in future prevent illegal immigration on the border between Germany and Austria,” Seehofer said as he left the CDU’s Berlin headquarters.

The deal, which brought Merkel’s government to the brink of collapse just three months after it was formed, keeps her in office. But the woman who has dominated European politics for 12-1/2 years appears greatly diminished, raising questions over whether she will serve out her term.

The euro currency wobbled on several occasions during the weeks-long row, which stretched to breaking point a 70-year-old alliance between the two parties.

It was the latest aftershock from Merkel’s 2015 decision to open Germany’s borders to more than a million refugees from war in the Middle East and Africa.

That decision convulsed European politics, fueling the rise of anti-immigration parties including the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which now threatens to unseat the CSU in October’s regional elections.

Under the deal migrants who have already applied for asylum in other European Union countries will be held in transit centers on the border while Germany negotiates bilateral deals for their return.

“SPIRIT OF PARTNERSHIP”

The transit centers, like ‘airside’ zones in international airports, will be regarded for immigration purposes as not being in Germany, making it easier to deport from them.

The compromise deal meant that Seehofer was able to hail tighter immigration controls, while Merkel was able to say that Germany adhered to EU rules and upheld freedom of movement within the bloc.

“The spirit of partnership in the European Union is preserved and at the same time an important step to order (has been taken), Merkel told reporters.

But the crisis, the latest of several rows over migration between the two parties, is another sign of the EU-wide divide between those who want to maintain open borders and those who want to restrict the number of migrants entering the bloc.

Merkel’s CDU relies on the CSU to maintain power through a coalition. The center-left Social Democrats, another partner in the coalition, must also accept the deal along with neighboring Austria.

***

Also see: