Yet the left continues to condemn these concerns as xenophobic, instead offering "solutions" that reflect their naive idealism. The Huffington Post is churning out articles regurgitating the same hackneyed drivel. First up is Desmond Tutu.
I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in. Or that, should a policeman hear her accent and form a "reasonable suspicion" that she is an illegal immigrant, she can -- and will -- be taken into custody until someone sorts it out, while her children are at home waiting for their dinner.This represents the main crux of the liberal perspective: innocent people will be inexorably hurt by racial association. I'm not going to belittle this argument because it has some merit; however, what utopic alternative could provide success similar to that of basic racial profiling? Catching criminals is based on markers of criminality and in specific cases, this reduces to witness sketches, DNA, fingerprints, and other pieces of evidence. Occasionally, these indicators lead the police to an incorrect conclusion, an undeniably injurious situation but one inherent to any criminal justice system. Do liberals suggest we further enervate the police by denying them use of hair color, eye color, height, and weight as clues? Liberals clearly dismiss the notion that societal stability requires pragmatic trade-offs.
I am not speaking from an ivory tower. I lived in the South Africa that has now thankfully faded into history, where a black man or woman could be grabbed off the street and thrown in jail for not having his or her documents on their person.Replaced by a South Africa with the highest global rate of rape and a country where whites live in constant fear of brutal murder. Much better!
The problem is, under the new law, the one or two who would do it [unfairly persecute a Hispanic] are legitimized. All they have to say is that they believed that illegal immigrants were being harbored in the house. They would be protected and sanctioned by this law."One or two" injustices justifies abolishing an effective program that ultimately curbs crime, drug use, and other social pathologies? And they say conservatives are removed from reality.
The problem of migrating populations is not going to go away any time soon. If anyone should know this, it should be Americans, many of whom landed here themselves to escape persecution, famine or conflict.Mr. Tutu dissembles on the potential of Hispanic nationals, drawing a parallel to early 20th century European immigrants. This chart suffices in undermining that claim. Next, illustrating their risible desire to portray this law as Draconian, some media outlets are hyping this innocuous event as a harbinger of things to come.
Last week, an Hispanic truck driver was stopped at a weigh station along Rt. 202 by a patrol officer. The commercial truck driver, "Abdon," is a natural born citizen of the United States. He's obviously employed. He speaks English. He pays taxes.I followed the link and came to this interview. Now how could that guy, as American as apple pie and Chevrolet, arouse suspicion?!
And yet "Adbon" was shackled by the police and detained by the Phoenix Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. At that roadside weigh station in the middle of an otherwise ordinary weekday, Abdon made the mistake of not carrying his birth certificate with him. His birth certificate! Put another way, Abdon was handcuffed and detained because he's Hispanic.
It's unconstitutional to arrest people because they merely look suspicious.No, I'm pretty sure that's how arrests generally work.
This week, Eugene Robinson asked a salient question about the Arizona law: where are the tea party people who claim to be against government overreach?...But Glenn Beck, for example, said the Arizona law is okay because "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."I'm not a libertarian, so I suffer from no such cognitive dissonance. But his formulation of the Tea Party is quite mendacious. These individuals don't champion a complete dissolution of government; in fact, this represents an optimal avenue for government intervention. The Constitution doesn't exonerate the criminals for whom liberals have an exceedingly odd sympathy.
If the Republicans are really interested in preventing illegal immigration, they would pass laws that crack down on the trafficking of cheap immigrant labor to corporate farms and factories, but the fines for such violations remain laughably small.How about the civil rights of citizens to shape their own communities? How about the civil rights of citizens to oppose the immigration of a menial labor class with minimal socioeconomic ascension of their progeny? I actually like this auxiliary proposition as well, though this reflects the antipathy liberals have towards corporations, ya know the institutions providing jobs. Further, we note another liberal meme where individual transgression is always pawned off onto some larger edifice. Hispanics who subvert our laws aren't culpable for their crimes, but the corporations coveting them ("exploitation of illegal immigrant labor") are?!
Writing and reforming the law on the corporate side to disincentivize the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor makes the most sense, while leaving civil rights intact.
Like the neo-slavery laws of the old South, the Arizona immigration law is another way for the white, Republican establishment to retain some semblance of control in the face of a growing minority population.I'll refrain from arguing with this supposition. Much of the ire does derive from white conservative apprehension concerning the ramifications of racial demographic changes. But such wariness doesn't constitute irrational hatred; rather it reflects a tacit understanding of racial crime disparities, economic concerns of a growing underclass, a reverence for American tradition, a fear of racialist politics, skepticism about our radical diversity experiment, the inexorable changes to the nebulous, but palpable American way of life, and the social framing of whites as bland and insidious (just to name a few reasonable objections, warrants far more discussion obviously).
Luckily, some are brazenly voicing their opposition with implicit allusions to racial composition being a salient factor in societal stability.
33 comments:
I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her.
Since said immigrant is already required by Federal law to carry those things at all times, I don't see how Arizona's law makes it worse.
If the Republicans are really interested in preventing illegal immigration, they would pass laws that crack down on the trafficking of cheap immigrant labor to corporate farms and factories
If we should have no barriers to Mexican immigrants, how can you call bringing them here "trafficking"? That's nonsense.
Why would a liberal even care about "cheap immigrant labor"? If the destruction of the labor market for lower class blacks (a big liberal voting bloc) through the importation of Mexicans really bothered liberals I'm sure they'd join us in securing the borders. Indeed, it must not matter to blacks themselves, seeing as how they exert no discipline on the liberal leaders they choose to vote for.
Once, there was one Arizona and one Mexico. Is two Mexicos and no Arizonas an improvement?
Tutu said, "If anyone should know this, it should be Americans, many of whom landed here themselves to escape persecution, famine or conflict."
That's plainly wrong, the vast majority of us were born here.
OneSTDV,
Replies below:
Tutu: I am not speaking from an ivory tower. I lived in the South Africa that has now thankfully faded into history, where a black man or woman could be grabbed off the street and thrown in jail for not having his or her documents on their person.
1STDV: Replaced by a South Africa with the highest global rate of rape and a country where whites live in constant fear of brutal murder. Much better!
OBS: Non-sequitur, and you know it. Bad debating form, my friend. Either Tutu's raised a legitimate point that is germane to the topic at hand, or he hasn't. You haven't indicated per your response above either way; instead, you bring up another point that was never a point of debate to begin with. Again, shame on ya.
On the basis of one of the major questions arising out of AZ's new immigration law - one of Racial Profiling - and one that AZ itself has announced they will address - Tutu's point above does indeed have merit. The question then becomes, whether that is palpable in a free society based on individual civil liberties.
Here's my take on the matter:
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/my-take-on-arizonas-illegal-immigration-law/
I quote you in the comments thread. as one who knows what its like to be racially profiled, often at gunpoint by those who are sworn to protect me, this isn't an arid academic point of debate, but rather, quite a vivid reality for me.
I leave it to your readers and mine, to compare and contrast our respective points of view.
The Obsidian
Prof. Mangan,
While you are right to point out that Tutu may have misspoke, nevertheless his point is legitimate - that the vast majority of Americans are indeed immigrants, and often in cases where their forebearers weren't exactly greeted with open arms either. Need we revisit the way Italians, Irish and Jewish folk were treated upon their arrival to the New World? Do we really have to discuss how America's involuntary immigrants, African Americans, where and are treated?
Now look, I can appreaciate your point of view, and that of others here; it's a free country, after all. But can at least be honest about the basic facts of the matter? That was what Tutu was getting at. Come on.
Finally - please keep in mind that Amadou Diallo, a legal African immigrant, was shot more than 40 times - for trying to show his papers.
Hmm.
O.
Need we revisit the way Italians, Irish and Jewish folk were treated upon their arrival to the New World?
Sure, let's revisit. In some cases they were sheltered from persecution in their native countries and in all cases were given the opportunity to live and prosper upon arriving here.
Amadou Diallo, a legal African immigrant, was shot more than 40 times - for trying to show his papers.
Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were abducted, raped, sodmoized, and tortured for three days before getting murdred... for no reason at all.
PA,
I'm not familiar with the names you listed, though I'll google them up after I get done here. My question to you though, is: are either of these individuals the victims of Racial Profiling, BY THE POLICE?
And, you can't be serious about what you said wrt my comments about the Italians, Irish and Jews, right? Come on, PA. I can respect your point of view, but show some respect for the facts of history, hmm?
The Obsidian
Obsidian, facts of history is that immigrants, be it from poor 19th century Europe or today's thrid world, are brought in by industrialists who want cheap labor. And today, also by politicians who want future generations of socialist voters.
That's never an easy thing for the immigrants themselves, and it presents a hardship on the native population, through wage-depression and violence/gangs that come with new immigrants, then and now.
Conflicts are normal in such situations. That's what men do: they demand that newcomers respect their turf. But in final analysis, all immigrants to the US find an almost unnaturally hospitable envoronment here.
The notion that native population must welcome immigrants and be "supernice" to them, is a modern marxist invention, an ideological, emasculating tool of today's Population Replacers.
OneSTDV said:
Fortunately, following the election of a blatant racist, overt racial pandering, and the coming demographic changes,
Obama is a racial panderer, but not a racist. If he is to be tagged as a racist then the same approach would say Ronald Reagan was a racist, who in his earlier years supported a number of discriminatory laws such as restrictive covenants - which also were a damper on those cherished free market transactions conservatives hold dear. The same could also be said of Barry Goldwater, an opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any event, what enables Obama is whites in Congress and elsewhere, without which he would be nothing. Obama is supremely a product of white liberalism.
Yet the left continues to condemn these concerns as xenophobic, instead offering "solutions" that reflect their naive idealism.
Agreed that many of their 'solutions' are indeed naive, but why is it that higher IQ white liberals support such policies? Hard data shows a 12 point IQ gap in favor of liberals over conservatives (if Kanazawa et al 2010 are to be believed) - almost as much as the well known 15-point black-white IQ gap, yet the higher IQ liberals support so many naive and unworkable solutions.
what utopic alternative could provide success similar to that of basic racial profiling?
What exactly do you mean by "basic" racial profiling? If done only on a "basic" factor such as race then basic racial profiling is not only ineffective, and also illegal, and rightly so. Race is one of several factors police typically take into account. If you are looking for suspects in a drive-by shootout at a club in the 'hood, you do not stop and frisk middle-aged black women (sharpshooters though they sometimes may be). Your most likely suspects based on factors such as locality, type of crime, etc would be young men between certain ages. If in a black 'hood said reputedly "disadvantaged youth" are most likely to be black. But to haul in every black person available solely on race is foolish, and illegal.
Replaced by a South Africa with the highest global rate of rape and a country where whites live in constant fear of brutal murder.
A stretch. I know of no liberals wishing the US was like South Africa. And if you are black in South Africa, your chances of being murdered are several times much higher than the average white, both under apartheid and under black rule. Nothing has changed on that score. The racist apartheid regime did not do much better.
How about the civil rights of citizens to shape their own communities? How about the civil rights of citizens to oppose the immigration of a menial labor class with minimal socioeconomic ascension of their progeny?
What do you mean here? Hispanic immigrants generally do see a socio-econonic ascension of their progeny. Hispanics are a very diverse group- Mexicans, South/Central Amerians, Ricans, Cubans all show significant differences. Your link only concerns higher eduation, one indicator of ascent. Another strong indicator is rising income levels, and indeed rising levels of secondary education. Even on the college front, overall, there are more Hispanics now graduating compared to a decade ago. They will not catch white levels soon, and dropout rates are still relatively high, but there is a definite upward trend. The above being said I would not rule out the negative impact of continued waves of peasant-background illegals from Mexico, or the impoverishment/dependency cycle of the liberal social welfare state among Ricans. These have a definite negative impact on ascension.
"One or two" injustices justifies abolishing an effective program that ultimately curbs crime, drug use, and other social pathologies? And they say conservatives are removed from reality.
Agreed. I support the Arizona law as the bottom line.
Ramdian said:
Why would a liberal even care about "cheap immigrant labor"? If the destruction of the labor market for lower class blacks (a big liberal voting bloc) through the importation of Mexicans really bothered liberals I'm sure they'd join us in securing the borders. Indeed, it must not matter to blacks themselves, seeing as how they exert no discipline on the liberal leaders they choose to vote for.
Liberals "care" because (a) they get to posture nobly about being non-racist and citizens of the world, (b) Hispanic voting will become an increasingly important factor in securing long-term liberal dominance, and (c) the more affluent whites will not be that negatively impacted by Hispanic growth.
Liberal whites (who post higher IQs than white conservatives according to some studies) already have a comfortable overall lead in eduation, income, influence etc that is hardly threatened at the higher ends by blacks and hispanics. Indeed, they can co-exist quite comfortably with Hispanics also via interacial marriages with higher end/elite Hispanics. This is nothing new. It was not uncommon for Spanish/Mexican elites in the early Mexican territories (Calif, Ariz, new Mexico, Texas) to intermarry with Anglos to solidify their positions and create alliances. An America looking like one of the South American countries is not too much of a problem for white liberals, because, like many of those countries, whites will still be on top.
Liberals know that white dominance will be secure even in a mestizo scenario- and indeed they may prefer the opening up of additional marriage options to Hispanic and Asian elites rather than being locked in solely to fellow whites. The relatively high out-marriage rates of Asian women to white men is but one indication of this pattern- additional marriage options opening up for whites that are not at all unwelcome.
Several black conservative writers have said that ordinary blacks overall care about the destruction of the lower-end job market, and being pushed out of housing options by Hispanics, but their "leaders" are dependent on the white liberal machine for influence, media attention and funding. Said "leaders" will ensure that the natives vote as assigned.
See for example the article:
Lost souls: A lament for black Los Angeles
as one example of how the black "street" feels.
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_25.html
...discriminatory laws such as restrictive covenants - which also were a damper on those cherished free market transactions conservatives hold dear.
What a weird comment! Restrictive covenants are PART of the free market.
^^ Of course, but on the flip side, racially restrictive covenants also hinder free market transactions that mutually agreeable parties may want to enter into.
If the Republicans are really interested in preventing illegal immigration, they would pass laws that crack down on the trafficking of cheap immigrant labor to corporate farms and factories
That's already illegal, assuming he means "cheap illegal immigrant labor". The law is not enforced so far, and one thing the Arizona law is intended to do is "crack down on the the trafficking of cheap immigrant labor to corporate farms and factories".
on the flip side, racially restrictive covenants also hinder free market transactions that mutually agreeable parties may want to enter into.
You mean "racially restrictve covenants" like countries, don't you? Well, I'm not going sit here while Nazis like you call for Israel to destroy itself!
That was sarcasm, in case it was not clear. I don't think that TTJ is calling for the destruction of Israel, although the destruction of all nation-states is the logical endpoint of scrapping all "racially restrictve covenants".
OneSTDV's brief essay is a perfectly sound defense of what the TeaParty and conservative Republicans are demanding. Arizona is starting to defend itself because we have no strong federal government to defend us due to the political games of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.Leftist politics undermines our national integrity and identity.
Too Tall at times demonstrates some intelligence compared to his friend Obsidian, but he very readily glosses over the destructive features of Third World illegals whose only interest is money. For example, only 10 years ago Central Florida had no Hispanic gangs. Today, only in Tampa, there are about 160 gangs of tatooed Hispanics selling drugs and comnmitting various crimes. Too Tall and others-especially blacks- are paranoid about racial profiling because it works. They are ignorant of the importance of generalizing in science and in life. Back in the Sixties many philosophers wrote books on critical thinking that helped the public understand the value of knowing how probabilty works and how logic and facts operate to improve rational thinking. If ethnicity is a germane factor as it is in auto accident fraud, then it must be part of the protocol used. Only fools would suggest otherwise.Racial profiling is indeed a necessity in a dangerous world. For example, just as you profile Harvard students as superior intellectually, you anticipate trouble-as I once did-when I mistakenly drove into East St. Louis, Illinois all alone at night. I scrambled out of there very quickly when I realized where I was. Whites trapped in parts of Miami have not been so lucky.
Hard data shows a 12 point IQ gap in favor of liberals over conservatives
They must have been extremely selective in deciding who counted as a liberal to come to that conclusion. Most members of the liberal coalition (blacks, Hispanics, the poor) are not noted for their high IQ.
Hispanic immigrants generally do see a socio-econonic ascension of their progeny.
No, they do not. The median Hispanic male in America makes less money today than his parents did back in the 1970's.
Blacks and Latinos realize that they can't live in a good world unless they can live among, or be supported by, Whites or Asians.
This is why, for example, Obsidian would never, ever countenance the possibility living in a black ethnostate. We could give blacks an entire region of their own in the U.S., with a typical wealth of natural resources and land value, and proportional in size to their population in the country, and give them a proportionate amount of the nation's wealth - and he knows it would inevitably end up sucking badly very quickly, while the rest of the country would go on just fine.
They've got no better option than to glom on.
@Chris:
We already did that experiment, at least twice!
We handed over Rhodesia to the blacks in good working order and it's now the dustbowl called zimbabwe.
We handed over South Africa to the blacks in good working order and it's now zimbabwe lite with added white genocide.
What liberal arguments? Liberals hardly ever argue politics anymore. Democratic-owned businesses are talking about boycotting the whole state of Arizona now, punishing everyone, unless they repeal the law. That's how liberals handle issues when they can't win an argument based on logic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001027.html
Too Tall and others-especially blacks- are paranoid about racial profiling because it works. .. If ethnicity is a germane factor as it is in auto accident fraud,
Dubious. I said profiling SOLELY on the basis of race is ineffective, and illegal - that is why police use OTHER relevant factors alongside race. The LAPD does not pull over elderly black women for example if trying to solve drive-by shootings in SOuth Central LA.
Anon says:
The median Hispanic male in America makes less money today than his parents did back in the 1970's.
What credible reference do you have to back this claim up, and what group of Hispanics are you talking about? Mexicans, Ricans? SOuth/central Americans? Cubans? All of them combined? Do tell..
I don't think that TTJ is calling for the destruction of Israel, although the destruction of all nation-states is the logical endpoint of scrapping all "racially restrictve covenants".
Correct as to Israel. But give some concrete examples as to how countries like the state of Israel, are based on a "racially restrictive covenant"? DO the laws of the Jewish state for example forbid persons of black descent from buying property there or living there? Are persons of white Nordic descent forbidden from living in the Jewish state? How is the Unites States based on a racially restrictive covenant, or France? Give specific examples if you can.
Too Tall is right about high income liberals being able to avoid the masses of illegals and other "riff-raff" by virtue of their proprietery, walled communities. I see most wealthy liberals, including the nutcase Hollywood celebrities whose journeys to Africa are usually filmed and lauded publically, as ultimate phonies who might adopt 3 or 4 kids but never relinguish their personal luxeries for more than 5 minutes. All of them benefit directly or indirectl;y from the corporate stater they feverishly decry. How many of these folks could be pursuaded to move to Haiti??
The 12 IQ point claim might well be right because of the larger element of white Southerners among the conservatives. However, if we selected 100 of the sharpest people in both camps, the conservatives match up very well. People like Mark Steyn, John Derbyshire, etc. are brilliant indeed. If a really representative sample on a national scale was taken, then the 12 point gap might dissolve because blacks and Hispanics-to the extent they are labelled liberal- would easily remove the liberal edge. Too tall should not get exciterd about the 12 point gap because the elites that make things work politically are fairly even. Cleverness itself should never be our guide but instead the wisdom of ideology and policies should be our points of reference.Wisdom based upon experience and virtue is in short supply these days.
One thing I don't get about white liberals... the wealthy ones who are insulated from non-whites: don't they wanna live in a country where they feel kinship with all the faces they see in our cities and towns?
If I do a mental experiment and picture myself Bill Gates's heir... say, being a billionnaire.
As such, evenif I have wierd socialistic impulses and a rich man's hubris -- I STILL want it all spent on poor worthy whites. I still want there to be Trailertowns, AR and Proletowns, OH full of white people and their pretty daughteres. I still wish no ill to NAMs, but feel nothing like kinship when I see one.
Aren't there ANY rich liberal whites who'd rather live in a white nation, the way it was prior to the 90s, even if they are personally insulated from the joys of diversity?
i'm anti-amnesty and pro-repatriazation --- but i have problems with this law; too much license given to govt./law enforcement. and i do think there's something to the mainstream centrist/liberal argument that it's ironic that the anti-goverment-intervention tea party'ers are rather silent on this particular law, which grants unprecedented degrees of govt. powers to invade personal liberties; it's fairly easy to see possible ways this law could be abused, and typically a law such as this would have libertarians screaming...
I think a lot of folk have this weird idea that cops will randomly walk around trying to see people's documents. That's not cost effective and the police can't prove they are reducing harm by targeting random people, which is what their departments will be judged on and how they will allocate their time.
It's unfortunate that a woman of non-European descent might conceivably, theoretically be temporarily inconvenienced for an hour or so, as in Desmond's example, but not really worth throwing the whole principle of being allowed to ask to see people's documents without much justification other broad discretion, which is perfectly justifiable. It's not like this will cause cops to make phoney prosecutions or anything, because there isn't a way that a naturalised citizen or a person with genuine leave could ever be deported.
It's also unfortunate that a man might be shot for reaching for his papers, but I think the way to solve this is just to tell people not to reach for anything the police don't tell you to while they're pointing guns at you, not to just have no papers ever.
Liberals often like to prate about the difference between things being unfortunate and unjust ("It's unjust for people to starve, while it's merely unfortunate for you to pay taxes that you shouldn't pay!") so you'd think they'd realize these things.
Audacious Epigone finds a very small difference between Republicans and Democrats using the the GSS.
The 12 point gap seems bizarre, mostly because it is so huge. Do you have a link for that?
"Liberals clearly dismiss the notion that societal stability requires pragmatic trade-offs."
Very true, and particularly ironic since they want to cram as many different races and religions into western countries as possible.
If you don't want to force women not to wear full-face burkas for example, then don't invite Muslim women into countries where most of the population isn't muslim.
"I think a lot of folk have this weird idea that cops will randomly walk around trying to see people's documents. That's not cost effective and the police can't prove they are reducing harm by targeting random people, which is what their departments will be judged on and how they will allocate their time."
Ok. maybe --- but here's the tactical reason this might be a lousy law: valid or not, it's likely to offend the sensibilities of anti-amnesty middle and upper-middle-class hispanics. The likely political result: hispanic-american voter loyaties jumping from around 60% democrat to 90%+. (note: i'm not ENTIRELY convinced that this would be the result, but the logic sounds feasible to me, as the 'show your papers' aspect of this lawe is likely to chill moderates and middle-class hispanics; and this forecast has emerged the last few days from dem and GOP columnists and editorialists alike.
here's the tactical reason this might be a lousy law: valid or not, it's likely to offend the sensibilities of anti-amnesty middle and upper-middle-class hispanics.
Why is it "likely" to do that?
the logic sounds feasible to me, as the 'show your papers' aspect of this lawe is likely to chill moderates and middle-class hispanics
Perhaps you should take the trouble to find out what the law actually does before you conjecture about its possible results. This idea that the police will wander the streets demanding that random Hispanics show their papers is pure unrefined grade A bs.
i do think there's something to the mainstream centrist/liberal argument that it's ironic that the anti-goverment-intervention tea party'ers are rather silent on this particular law, which grants unprecedented degrees of govt. powers to invade personal liberties; it's fairly easy to see possible ways this law could be abused, and typically a law such as this would have libertarians screaming...
I think you're either a moby or a fool.
But give some concrete examples as to how countries like the state of Israel, are based on a "racially restrictive covenant"? DO the laws of the Jewish state for example forbid persons of black descent from buying property there or living there? Are persons of white Nordic descent forbidden from living in the Jewish state?
Yes and yes.
You can do your own research on this, but here is something from wikipedia to get you started on the road to enlightenment.
As Israel's continued existence as a "Jewish State" relies upon maintenance of a Jewish demographic majority, Israeli demographers, politicians and bureaucrats have treated Jewish population growth promotion as a central question in their research and policymaking. Non-Jewish population growth and immigration is regarded as a threat to the Jewish demographic majority and to Israel's security, as detailed in the Koenig Memorandum.
As Israel's continued existence as a "Jewish State" relies upon maintenance of a Jewish demographic majority, Israeli demographers, politicians and bureaucrats have treated Jewish population growth promotion as a central question in their research and policymaking. Non-Jewish population growth and immigration is regarded as a threat to the Jewish demographic majority and to Israel's security, as detailed in the Koenig Memorandum.
Fair enough but (a) Jews are not a race by themselves, and (b) persons are not legally restricted by race from buying property. The Falashas certainly are not.
Anyhow, I have no problem with Israel, Sweden, the US or any other state restricting immigration to maintain its ethnic character. After all, even various African states have done the same at various times. Murderous ethnic cleansing or genocide is a quite different matter.
I have been visiting various blogs for my term paper research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards
Post a Comment