As I was saying about corruption and immigration…..

Before reading this rather long exposition, please read my post of 7/1/2018, defining migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers.

From PJ Media, Michael Walsh, June 28, 2018 (I have reproduced most of the blog, which is more eloquent and informed than what I could write): The issue of “immigration” has now reached a critical mass on both sides of the Atlantic, with Latin Americans marching on the U.S. across the southern border and mostly Muslim “migrants” trekking to the European version of El Norte — France, Germany, and England — for the same reason: because that’s where the money and the free stuff is. The media is presenting what amounts to a slow-rolling invasion of the hemispheric North by the South as a “crisis,” and it is, just not the way they’d have you believe. In the greatest concerted propaganda exercise in history, newspapers, television outlets, and the internet in both America and Europe are filled with pictures of crying children separated from their “parents” (maybe), and Africans bobbing helplessly on dinghies in the Mediterranean — as if some great natural disaster had occurred. (My note: Let’s not ignore the so-called “right of return” immigration/invasion fiasco a la Gaza to Israel).

It has. Under the buzzword cloak of “migration” — a word especially chosen to remind Americans of their legal immigrant forebears, and Europeans of their collective lack of “diversity” — is a relentless assault on national sovereignty and political borders. It’s cudgeled by “racism” and blessed by “tolerance” in order to achieve the Left’s goal of One Worldism in its purest form — a cultural-Marxist endeavor to improve the self-esteem of the Third World by bringing the industrialized, civilized First World down to its nasty, brutish level. In the meantime, they mean to swamp the legitimate immigration and asylum systems of both continents, render them helpless, and break them. Structures that had been put in place to deal with individuals, or with persecuted groups of people, have suddenly been targeted as the soft underbelly of Western compassion — the Cloward-Piven strategy writ large. (The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”).

In the U.S., the long, porous border with Mexico, once a point of pride (as the undefended border with Canada is today, although that too is changing), is now a sore spot, as the social, religious, and cultural disintegration of our neighbor to the south has destabilized not only Central America, but the American southwest as well. The States have become a primary source of Mexican income, in the form of remittances, and it was only a matter of time before other failing and failed states like El Salvador and Honduras, would start exporting their problems north. As the Left became culturally ascendant in America, and the social welfare benefits expanded accordingly, the great American magnet grew ever stronger, luring not only those fleeing the dysfunction and corruption of their own countries, but a sizable criminal element as well, symbolized by the lethal presence of the MS-13 gang — Salvadorean, by way of Los Angeles — on Long Island.

In Europe, Angela Merkel’s disastrous decision three years ago to allow (beg for, really) more than a million Muslim “migrants” into her country has put the Old Continent’s postwar certainties to the test, and has pitted its secular liberalism and social-welfare system against a group of largely inimical cultural aliens, whose “faith” has been challenging once-Christian Europe for more than a millennium, and which now sees a way to accomplish by infiltration what it never quite could by force of arms. Only in Eastern Europe, with its long experience of Islamic occupation and, more recently, Soviet communist occupation, was there a realization from the start the future of Europe depended on keeping Muslims on their side of their bloody borders. Otherwise, there will be no Europe.

I spent a week in Budapest recently, and during my conversations with members of prime minister Victor Orban’s circle, I was impressed at how seriously the Hungarians are taking their age-old duties as Christian defenders of Europe’s eastern borders, and how determined they and the other members of the Visegrád Group are not to fall for the “refugee” scam, nor to have their manifest Christianity challenged by bogus claims of “tolerance” and “compassion” for people who, over the centuries, have shown them neither. (My note: The Visegrád Group is a cultural and political alliance of four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia).

Their resolve is now paying off: with no stake in the future, the communist-raised, childless Merkel is a spent political force. She rode the wave of post-World War II German self-loathing, and imported an army of technologically backward layabouts into a country whose workforce has long been distinguished by its high level of education and its willingness to work hard. The results, to any student of history, have been entirely predictable. (My note: “childless” is even more significant than “communist-raised”. I don’t have to explain this to parents, and for adults without children, anything I would say will crash upon the rocks of intellectual rationalizations).

The weapons wielded by the Left against the nation-state — which is the repository of patriotism — are primarily linguistic, beginning with the very word “immigration.” They’ve removed, for example, the distinction between legitimate immigrants and illegal aliens. The former come here as individuals and small families, through legal channels, desirous of becoming Real Americans, casting off the old ways and raising their children in the new culture; the latter arrive in invasie waves, intent on violating our laws from the moment they first set foot in the United States, and then either disappearing into “sanctuary” cities and states, or claiming “asylum” not from religious or cultural persecution but from the messes they left behind. In Europe, Merkel’s “welcoming society” deliberately thumbed its nose at the EU’s policy mandating that “asylum seekers” seek asylum in the first EU country in which they arrive.

(Me again: ONE POSSIBLE “SOLUTION” TO REFUGEE SUFFERING THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE, AND MAY SOUND IMPOSSIBLY NAIVE, IS: WHAT IF THE COUNTRIES FROM WHICH PEOPLE ARE FLEEING WERE ABLE TO “FIX THEMSELVES” TO THE POINT THAT THEIR PEOPLE WOULD RATHER STAY THAN BECOME REFUGEES?) “Impossible”, you say….Then I ask, what would happen if there were no possibility of emigration from your country and the only choice was fix what is wrong or die? Perhaps we might learn something from possibly the worst (per capita) and least explicable (to the Western mind) genocidal spasms  in history, not that long ago, in 1994.

RWANDA, COMING BACK FROM THE BRINK, maybe (Huffpost blog, 12/6/2017)

After the genocide, Rwanda was on the brink of total collapse. Of the survivors, women comprised 70 percent of the population, entire villages were destroyed, and social cohesion was in utter disrepair. This small African country of 12 million inhabitants, encompassing a geographic area roughly the size of Maryland, has made a remarkable economic turnaround over the course of the past two decades. The country now boasts intra-regional trade and service delivery, urban design innovation, and efficient transport links. It has positioned itself as an attractive destination for foreign investment and business ventures. Paul Kagame will be the first to admit that Rwanda is an experiment and that the end result is still unknown. Given the atrocities and the complex dimensions of reconciliation, the ability for genocide victims and perpetrators to live and work side-by-side is remarkable. However, the collective memory of the genocide is a distinct and defining element of Rwandan society today. Despite the horrific trauma many experienced, post-genocide Rwanda presents opportunities for women leadership in how the country is being reconstructed. Women in Rwanda hold significant power and respect, unique to a continent where patriarchy and oppression remain major factors for leadership in many countries. 

While Rwanda might not be the ideal model for hope rising from hopelessness, their example shows that something works better for the indigenous sufferers than becoming refugees whom no one wants!!! But as long as people are more optimistic about being admitted to a less messed up place than the one in which they live and participated in the messing, the will to fix their own house won’t be there. The doors are closing though!


United States of America withdraws from U.N. “Human Rights” Council.

The Human Rights Council, mind you, is supposed to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,” according to its mandate. Thus, one would think Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, China, Iraq, Cuba, Qatar, Burundi, and Bangladesh probably shouldn’t be members.

  • Saudi Arabia Expertise in human rights: Death sentences for apostasy and adultery; corporal punishment including flogging and amputation; judiciary controlled by regime; beheading more people than ever before; arbitrary arrests of dissenters and minorities; no freedom of speech; jails blogger Raif Badawi.
  • Venezuela Expertise in human rights: Widespread arbitrary detention; imprisonment of opposition leaders; intimidation of journalists; torture; policies causing mass hunger and health catastrophe.
  • China Expertise in human rights: Denial of freedom of speech, religion, and association; extrajudicial killings; repression of civil society; discrimination against Tibetans and other minorities.
  • Cuba Expertise in human rights: Systematic violation of freedom of speech, assembly, press; elections are neither free nor fair; threats and violence against dissidents.
  • Iraq Expertise in human rights: Pro-government militias commit widespread human rights abuses, including assassinations, enforced disappearances, property destruction.
  • Qatar Expertise in human rights: Inhuman conditions for 1.4 million migrant workers; women denied basic rights to equality, denied right to be elected to legislative council; finances ISIS and Hamas.
  • Burundi Expertise in human rights: Police killings of peaceful protesters; government forces commit summary executions, targeted assassinations, enforced disappearances; arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence; genocide warning.
  • Bangladesh Expertise in human rights: Extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, killing of secular bloggers by Islamist groups, restrictions on online speech and the press, early and forced marriage, gender-based violence, abysmal working conditions and labor rights.
  • United Arab Emirates Expertise in human rights:No political parties, no option to change government; restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association; arrests without charge, incommunicado detentions, lengthy pretrial detentions; police and prison guard brutality; violence against women; anti-gay discrimination; mistreatment and sexual abuse of foreign domestic servants and other migrant workers.

How can abusers of human rights be “responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations”? They can’t.

Refugees, migrants, immigrants, asylum seekers

From the New York Times, 8/27/2015: The 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR), negotiated after World War II, defines a refugee as a person who, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” Anyone moving from one country to another is considered a migrant unless he or she is specifically fleeing war or persecution. Migrants may be fleeing dire poverty, or may be well-off and merely seeking better opportunities, or may be migrating to join relatives who have gone before them. There is an emerging debate about whether migrants fleeing their homes because of the effects of climate change — the desertification of the Sahel region, for example, or the sinking of coastal islands in Bangladesh— ought to be reclassified as refugees. 

Countries are free to deport migrants who arrive without legal papers, which they cannot do with refugees under the 1951 convention. So it is not surprising that many politicians in Europe prefer to refer to everyone fleeing to the continent as migrants.

The United Nations refugee agency says that most of them are refugees, though some are considered migrants. “The majority of people arriving this year in Italy and Greece, especially, have been from countries mired in war or which otherwise are considered to be ‘refugee-producing,’ and for whom international protection is needed,” the refugee agency said. “However, a smaller proportion is from elsewhere, and for many of these individuals, the term ‘migrant’ would be correct.” Human traffickers make no such distinctions, though; refugees and migrants are often jammed into the same rickety boats for the crossing. 

Admitting refugees is somewhat different in the United States. The State Department vets a select number of people — lately, around 70,000 a year — and admits them as refugees. Others who arrive in the country without legal papers can apply for political asylum; in that case, a judge decides on the merits of their claims. 

From Habitat for Humanity: Refugees are people fleeing armed conflicts or persecution. There were 19.5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014 according to UNHCR. Their situation is so perilous that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries and become recognised as refugees with access to assistance from states and aid organisations. An important piece of this is that refugees are protected by international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention. But even the terms refugee and asylum seeker are often confused.

An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn’t been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs. Someone is an asylum seeker for so long as their application is pending. So not every asylum seeker will be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.

A vital part of being recognised as a refugee is Refugee Status Determination (RSD), a legal process that governments or UNHCR use to determine whether a person seeking international protection is considered a refugee under international, national or regional law. The process can be lengthy, complicated and is certainly imperfect. There is still no single uniting model for RSD. States do have the primary responsibility for determining the status of asylum seekers but UNHCR will step in where states are unable or unwilling.

Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat or persecution but mainly to improve their lives:

  • Finding work
  • Seeking better education
  • Reuniting with family

Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants can return home if they wish. This distinction is important for governments, since countries handle migrants under their own immigration laws and processes.