John Bennett writes for American Thinker:
Many Western nations are restricting immigration because of popular anger at the unwelcome changes brought about by mass immigration. America seems to be the rare country with the misfortune of having politicians who won’t stand up for citizens.
How many nations around the world have to be thrown into crisis and division for us to learn that mass immigration is not always a positive? Israel, Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Norway are just a few of the Western nations that energetically guard their territorial integrity, and some party leaders in those countries openly explain why they do so.
Israel’s “smart fence” protects “the character of the country”
When faced with a massive influx of African immigrants, PM Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2011, “This growing wave threatens Israelis’ jobs, is changing the character of the country and we must stop it.” That is what any true leader would say, if he or she desired to protect and preserve the concept of national identity.
Over the last several years, an inflow of illegal aliens from Africa led to major tensions within Israel over what to do about illegal immigration. In Tel Aviv in 2012, a crisis of rising crime, disorder, and rape infuriated locals, and many saw the crisis as being brought on by the illegal aliens, called “illegal infiltrators” in Israel. Over 1,000 local citizens demonstrated against what they saw as uninvited infiltrators, carrying signs that read: “Return them now,” and “If we keep silent we will become strangers in our own neighborhoods.”
The Tel Aviv protests intensified after several horrendous rapes. In one, two African migrants were arrested for raping a 15-year-old, while a third held the victim’s boyfriend. Several months later, demonstrations followed the rape of an 83-year-old Israeli woman. The elderly woman, said police, “was raped and beaten for hours in the courtyard of her apartment building near the central bus station in south Tel Aviv by a young Eritrean migrant,” according to the Jerusalem Post. Police were able to trace the assailant’s DNA because he had a prior arrest for trying to steal a woman’s bag.
Seventy-year-old Sophie Menashe of Tel Aviv reportedly says, “South Tel Aviv is South Sudan now. It’s no longer Tel Aviv[.] … And I’m scared all the time.”
Israel’s immigration and border protection policy is not simply based in security concerns. Issues of crime and cultural cohesion also play a large role in shaping Israel’s approach to immigration. That approach has included the construction of a sophisticated barrier fence, aggressive deportation, and the use of the military to protect the border. The Israeli military has, over the last several years, turned away huge numbers of African asylum seekers, mostly from Eritrea and Sudan, at the border. The Israeli army position is that it will act to “prevent illegal infiltration” as per “directives from the political echelon.” Also, the Israeli cabinet devotes resources to enforce the law against illegal aliens and their employers.
Israel protects its border, motivated in part by an awareness of the great civilizational importance of national boundaries. “Just like the Chinese protected themselves and defended themselves with the Great Wall,” PM Netanyahu says, “so we will continue to defend ourselves on the southern border, the Golan Heights and on all fronts.”
How, and why, has Israel enacted an effective border strategy, while we have not? Israel is uniquely threatened by its immediate neighbors, but surely national defense is not the only reason to have an effective fence and a genuine border. While it's true that our border would require a longer fence, the length of our borders is a reason to take illegal immigration seriously, not a reason to surrender our sovereignty. Building an effective fence is just a matter of available technology and political will. Put another way, the national will to survive – with a distinct national culture – is all it takes to justify a real border.
