Steve Sailer: Obama Administration Penalizes Nebraska Slaughterhouse for Trying to Avoid Hiring Illegal Aliens

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* So, just to recap:

1) It’s a crime to hire an illegal alien.
2) It’s also a crime to verify that a potential hire is not an illegal alien.

I tip my hat to whoever thought this one up.

* Obama is not on the side of America. A job opening at Nebraska Beef will be known in Tegucigalpa before it is known in South Sioux City which is why almost all the job ‘creation’ Obama brags about have gone to immigrants and not American citizens since he took office. Companies no longer have to advertise for open positions as they are filled as they become available through immigrant employee word of mouth networks. This type of discrimination is the REAL problem not the faux discrimination the Administration looks to prevent. An unemployed 2o something black American has no chance of applying for a job if he never learns that their is a job available to apply for.

Then there is the H-1b visa scandal. Microsoft or IBM can announce on Monday they will be letting five or ten thousand employees go and on Tuesday say they can’t find anyone in the US with the skills they need to fill positions at their company yet the ‘right person’ somehow exists in Mumbai even though that person has zero work experience.

* Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

Diversity comes to the Heartland.

I’m sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn’t be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. There’s something seriously f@#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide – indeed, promotes it.

As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I’m not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I’m fighting our entire society so I’m a bit outgunned.

* Hiring illegal aliens and voter fraud / voting rights, the two of the raison d’etre for motivating black and Hispanic voters, both revolve around the inability to accurately identify someone’s identity. As a technical problem this is very easy to fix by mandating our government only using and issuing tamper proof, machine readable, bio-metric ID. The technology keeps getting better and better but we are still having this silly argument with the same people who keep dragging their feet.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Obama Administration Penalizes Nebraska Slaughterhouse for Trying to Avoid Hiring Illegal Aliens

How China Could Take Over Australia

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’ve argued in the past that if I were running China’s foreign and military policy I’d load up several old cargo tankers with assorted Chinese, wait for a Labor/Greens government in Oz, and send them all here. All without official approval of course.

Have a media campaign with much hand wringing about not knowing where the tankers are departing from nor who is controlling it, saying the situation is out of control and you’re at a loss to stop it.

Have a few refugee lawyers in Oz on the payroll, probably not even necessary to do that, they do it pro bono as the Oz state federal govt pays them anyway, and assist them with media handouts to declare how evil China is and the hellhole these poor refugees are escaping.

It’d be just like the first fleets to Oz, except all from China.

It would not take long till Oz was overcome with Chinese and those stupid Defence White Papers we keep putting out wouldn’t be worth a tinker’s cuss. Furthermore, our entire media would praise this massive tide of Chinese refugees, Murdoch saying what a boon it is for our trade relations, Labor locking in their vote, and the Liberals cock a hoop about the rise in demand for property development.

I reckon Russia should do the same. Send them in from Chechnya and all their trouble spots. It’s a win-win for China and Russia. No need for war when they can simply invade us peacefully, furthermore, China at least gets to solve its overpopulation problem, and get the farming land and minerals it needs gratis.

* You are labouring under the false assumption that the left is motivated out of a misdirected sympathy whereas all evidence demonstrates that they are motivated out of a spite towards White Australia and an overwhelming hatred such that they want to see us overwhelmed.

Were they motivated out of sympathy then Sarah Hanson-Young would not have dismissed all the drownings under Labor as “Tragedies happen, accidents happen.” Contrast that attitude with her party now demanding we take 20,000 refugees from Syria over and above the annual refugee intake and hand over $150 million to be directed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Were they motivated out of sympathy they would be banging the drum loudly about Irian Jaya and demanding an intervention on their behalf against Indonesia. Were they motivated out of sympathy they would demand that Christians be the target for refugee intake as it is the Christians who are being slaughtered by ISIS, but, they didn’t, they aren’t, and they won’t, because the point of the exercise is to spite us and overwhelm us with whatever it is we dislike.

Where was Bill Shorten’s compassion before that photo of the drowned Muslim boy whose father took him from safety in Turkey to Europe all for the cause of his own dentistry? Now he demands we take 10,000 refugees over and above the already outrageously high intake and that we lay out $100 million for no apparent reason. Why 10,000? Why $100 million? Because it’s a round figure. Because it’s symbolic. It looks huge, it is huge, it wedges the Liberals. And that’s what counts.

Were I running the Chinese cargo carrier fleet invasions I’d load up a few boats with Tibetans and Uighurs and deliberately hole them just outside Christmas Island so as to create a massive death toll and opportunity for the Labor/Greens to get on their soapbox denouncing us as racists and declaring the waves of boats an emergency where all rational thought must be thrown out the window and the tide of boats be taken in uncritically. Again, a two for the price of one solution. China gets to kill off its unwanted and use them as battering ram for invasion.

And don’t be confused that the Liberals wouldn’t be just as bad. The sainted neocon Howard increased our immigration take to record levels under his watch, a level which continues to this day. Howard’s electorate of Bennelong has one of the highest populations of ethnic Chinese in Australia. Abbott himself, the staunch “shit happens”, so called alpha, has made speech after speech declaring that immigrants make the best Australians. Liberal members of parliament have their own electorates to service and ensure block votes, just as the likes of Laundy have their electorates to stuff full with Muslims.

Only a crank would think that anything our politicians and media promote is driven from a genuine heart chock-full with sympathy and compassion; those concepts are cynical representations of themselves deliberately manipulated to make us feel ashamed, them righteous, and to drive a stake through the homogeneity of the nation.

A mass Chinese exodus would be a godsend for them all.

* Unless a people have an EXPLICIT consciousness about racial, national, historical, and cultural identity/heritage, they will fall under the sway of whatever happens to be fashionable and/or ‘correct’.

Europeans ARE European but dissuaded from having a proud European identity.

So, their main mindset is about being ‘anti-racist’, homo-worshiping, Holocaust-commemorating, feminist, globalist, etc. or whatever is taught in schools and disseminated by media.

That is not enough to preserve and sustain a people.

It is not enough to be European. One must think and feel European.

Likewise, it isn’t enough to be a wolf. One must feel wolfish to fight off the enemy.

A wolf that doesn’t feel wolfish has no reason to fight for its wolfishness.

* The Europeans, especially the Brits, have well-trained forces. I’d venture to say the British Army man for man is better trained than the US Army. If they wanted to repel the immivasion, it would be defeated instantly. But no one is coming to Europe with guns, jet fighters or tanks. The trouble is that modern, civilized Europeans, and Americans for that matter, cannot deal with someone who invades without weapons. If the Arabs were storming into Europe with AKMs, the Euros would have an easier time because there would be no moral dilemma.

If the Europeans had been spending 5% of GDP on their military forces for decades, they’d still have the same problem they do today. If they are not going to pull the trigger with the high-tech equipment they already have, they wouldn’t do it if they had a force the size of the US DoD. And even Uncle Sam, with his giant DoD, is unable to bring himself to use that force along our Southern Border.

It is not the size or lack of size of the US or NATO forces that is the problem. It is the will to use them. I think the people of Europe and the US should be asking what Madeleine Albright asked 16 plus years ago, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

* The EU is being organised as one country, which if you can get inside you can go where you like, hence is the problem. The countries of the EU that are the landfall countries can pass the buck by letting the migrants pass through. If for instance Italy could not get rid of these migrants because of the common European lack of border checks Italy would simply have dealt with the problem by rejecting their claim for asylum. Same day service.

Read Mearsheimer, Nato is for the purpose of controlling European nationalism. In the name of Western cilvilisation and values, the national defence forces will be called in to bomb any of their own people trying to organise militarily against the immigrant occupation. Raspail may be proved prescient about this too in due course. You can bet the German army would be happy to deal with any European aborigines who try to fight off the invasion.

Posted in Australia, China | Comments Off on How China Could Take Over Australia

Can Arabs Rejuvenate Israel’s Demographics?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* As the New York Times explained this week, mass migration across the Danube offers the receiving country “an opportunity to rejuvenate its aging demographics and ensure its economic prosperity …”

This is one of my pet peeves about demographic commentary.

If you are bringing in lots of foreigners, and/or if those foreigners are having lots of children, it’s not your demographics that are being rejuvenated. It’s theirs. It’s like how some American commentators brag about how, unlike Europe, “we” in America have replacement-level fertility.

No, “we” don’t, unless you think that a nation has no a priori relationship with the people who created and settled it.

Can you imagine elites in Israel saying, “The Arabs are rejuvenating our demographics, hooray!” But that’s par for the course in every other Western country. If terms like “cuckservative” and “Cultural Marxist” didn’t exist, we would have to invent them.

Is it too much to ask for an elite media establishment that doesn’t regard the European peoples as demographically expendable?

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Can Arabs Rejuvenate Israel’s Demographics?

Hungary Stands Up For Europe

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* In light of the picture painted in this article of Mr. Orban, his treatment of Richard Spencer and the conference that he sought to organize last year becomes even more incomprehensible.

* Spencer was an outsider whose plans were ferreted out by enemies in the USA and communicated to their Hungarian fellow travelers well in advance of the Spencer NPI meeting. Unbeknownst to Spencer, the Hungarian activists started talking Spencer up in the Hungarian media: anti-semite, Nazi, KKK, anti-semite, racist, etc. (you know the drill).

Orban knew nothing except what he read in the papers and what he could easily figure out: Spencer and pals were foreigners whose presence the Hungarian activists were using for agitprop purposes in the media. Spencer had no ground game or connections in Hungary. He just wanted to meet in a nice European town.

From Orban’s perspective, why waste political capital on a handful of unknown foreign tourists/conventioneers meeting in a local hotel? Particularly since Orban had no idea of the factual claims the Hungarian press was making. If you are Orban, you pick your own battles. You don’t let Hungarian activists use random foreigners and pick them for you.

Posted in Europe | Comments Off on Hungary Stands Up For Europe

Europe Is Drowning In Refugees

Paul Wood writes: The Australians insist asylum seekers move on after three years. For some reason that I do not understand, in Europe asylum seekers are not given asylum for a year or two and are then asked to leave but allowed to settle permanently, which is why centuries from now Germany will always have large Arab and Kurdish minorities. This will be irrevocable.

Refugees have every reason to want to live in Europe. It is Europe’s duty to the refugees and, more important, to future generations of Europeans to stop accepting any asylum seekers from other continents. No one drowns trying to get to Singapore because Singapore accepts no asylum seekers. This is the only way the drownings will stop.

We can pay poor countries to take them for us. I wonder how many Syrians and Libyans will accept refuge in Burkina Faso. We can try the experiment and see.

About half of the Vietnamese “boat people” who managed to reach Hong Kong during the 1980s were repatriated by the British to the Communist regime—somewhere between 60,000 and 70,000. Many went to the United States. Many others were kept cooped up in squalid conditions for the best part of a decade. But times have changed, and Europe will take many of the tidal wave of asylum seekers and economic migrants. As more are taken, more will come.

Some think the population of Africa alone may grow by one billion over the next 30 years. As populations grow and developing countries grow richer, the numbers of migrants, legal and illegal, will increase by leaps and bounds. The only alternative to indigenous inhabitants becoming a minority in each Western European country is to do what former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder recently said we must not do—create a Fortress Europe.

Adm. Christopher Parry, one of the Royal Navy’s cleverest strategists, warned in a paper in 2006 that Britain and Europe faced being overrun by mass migration from the Third World within 30 years because of population growth and environmental destruction. The Internet, cheap flights, and free international phone calls would hinder assimilation. (Is there anything left to assimilate to nowadays?)

He compared the plight of the West with that of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. The Blair government liked to encourage senior public servants to indulge in blue-sky thinking, but Admiral Parry had taken it too far. He was silenced and accused of racism.

Nine years have gone past since then, and he seems prescient.

What is clear now is that while Vladimir Putin is bad news, and ISIS much worse news, the real threat to Europe is not from Russia but from asylum seekers.

Posted in Europe, Immigration | Comments Off on Europe Is Drowning In Refugees

There’s No Powerful Jewish Lobby

Ken Kurson, editor of the New York Observer, posts on FB: “I’m breaking some news here. I just don’t get this guy [Cory Booker] at all. I had such high hopes for him. I stand dazed and brokenhearted. And as Joel Pollak wrote (I’m paraphrasing…) the next time some asshole talks about the overwhelming strength of the ‘Jewish lobby’ I’m gonna punch him in the fucking neck. Jesus, we can’t even stop an actual nuclear threat from an avowed enemy. Good luck getting Elvis Costello to play.”

Seven months ago, Joel Pollak tweeted: “Being a Democrat in the Age of Obama requires you to believe cops kill black kids on purpose but radical Islamists kill Jews by accident.”

You could just as accurately say: “Being a black in the Age of Obama requires you to believe cops kill black kids on purpose but radical Islamists kill Jews by accident.”

It comes down to who whom? If Iran threatens Israel, why should blacks care? Jews didn’t fund black causes because they cared about blacks (there’s nothing in Torah about funding civil rights for other groups), but because they believed a multi-racial society would be better for Jews.

I’m no historian, but this Cory Booker story seems like a microcosm of Jewish disappointment with American blacks in general who don’t seem appropriately grateful for all Jews have done for them (funding Civil Rights, etc).

Different groups have different interests, so I take it for granted that blacks, Jews, Muslims, whites etc will have plenty of conflicts (within America and without).

I would have been shocked if Cory Booker, who’s black, had not voted with his black president and black caucus. What do blacks care about Iran getting nukes? It’s no threat to them.

Plenty of American Jews, perhaps a majority, support the Iran deal, which is a done deal in any event. Cory Booker’s vote is meaningless regarding the Iran deal but it has meaning in the symbolic sense that he’s independent of much of his Jewish funding and support.

Regarding putting the “Jewish lobby” in quotes, it seems to me that in America there is a China lobby and a Saudi lobby and yes, a Jewish lobby and they all have juice but not always a veto.

Chaim Amalek: “No matter what anyone does, Iran will get the bomb because it thinks it is in its own best interest to get the bomb. And likely, they are right. But then so too will Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If you are a Sunni, the best that can be said for this deal is that it buys time in which your side can build up the infrastructure necessary to manufacture fission and fusion type weapons of your own.”

Ken Kurson writes on Observer.com:

EXCLUSIVE: In Damage Control Mode, Cory Booker Invites Jews to Emergency Summit

Senator scrambles to save face—and future contributions—in the wake of support for Iran deal

The Observer has learned that Senator Cory Booker, who is under fire from Jewish supporters who had long treated him as one of their own, has convened an unusual emergency meeting to shore up his support in the wake of his decision to support ePresident Obama’s deal with Iran.

Around noon on Friday afternoon, Mr. Booker’s Deputy Chief of Staff, George Helmy, started emailing leaders of the Jewish community to invite them to a hastily assembled “small roundtable discussion on the JCPOA in his office.” The meeting, which will take place at the Gateway Center on Tuesday at noon, will be joined by Treasury undersecretary Adam Szubin, who will help explain how, “After weeks weeks [sic] of study and consultation, Senator Booker made the decision he feels in the best interest of Israel, the United States, and our allies.”

Reflecting the seriousness of this issue – and the threat that it poses to his standing in the Jewish community—Mr. Booker is pulling out all stops to kosher his vote. He posted a lengthy essay explaining his decision, so meeting with Jewish leaders has to be perceived as an extension of that. Mr. Szubin has frequently been trotted out by the Obama Administration to placate the Jewish community, which is concerned that the terms of the deal permit Iran to develop a robust nuclear weapons program.

The invitation appeals to its recipients’ vanity, assuring them it is only being “sent to his dearest friends and those whom he relies on for counsel.” For those still not feeling the love, another Booker staffer, Matt Klapper, larded it on hours later, sending a follow-up note asking to “discuss the JCPOA, as well as steps that need to be taken to keep Iran in the corner given the new challenges we’ll soon face.”

Apparently, there’s a second minyan being convened by Mr. Booker, as well – in Livingston, the heart of Essex County’s Jewish community, at 10 am.

The invitation lists comprise a who’s who of influential Jewish leaders in New York and New Jersey, including Raphael Benaroya, the managing director of Biltmore Capital Group; Menachem Genack, the CEO of the Orthodox Union Kosher Division; Lori Fein, the New Jersey Director of the Zionist Organization of America; Ben Chouake, the Englewood, NJ, doctor who heads Norpac, the national PAC that supports Israel-friendly candidates; and Rabbi Aaron Kotler, who leads an important congregation in Lakewood, NJ.

Conspicuously absent from the guest list is Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whose friendship with Senator Booker is two decades old and had been intensely close before the Iran deal came to the fore. The two had many times traveled to the Rebbe’s grave in Queens, were guests at each other’s family events, and both described their friendship in very warm, near familial tones. Rabbi Boteach has been highly critical of the Iran deal, taking ads in newspapers and organizing rallies to apply pressure to his old friend. The absence of a prominent New Jersey rabbi who had been a close friend may signal that Mr. Booker prefers a room filled with Jewish leaders who have not been as vocally critical.

Posted in Blacks, Iran, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on There’s No Powerful Jewish Lobby

I Wish I Was A Syrian Refugee

I wish I were a Syrian muslim living in Germany or Sweden. My life would be so easy if I were. All my worries would be at an end. And if I saw a pretty woman I wanted to take, her father would let me rape her no questions asked. Not that I would, but still.

Posted in Islam, Personal | Comments Off on I Wish I Was A Syrian Refugee

American Rabbi: Europe must accept immigration swamping

John Graham writes in 2011: Thanks to Jewamongyou’s Blog for drawing my attention to a classic: In Paris, Muslim and Jewish leaders pledge to stand together against the rise of extreme-rightist parties, European Jewish Press 09/Mar/2011

PARIS (EJP)—Prominent Muslim and Jewish leaders from across Europe pledged to stand together against the rise of extreme-right xenophobic and racist parties that represent an escalating peril to ethnic and religious minorities across Europe, including Jews and Muslims.

These leaders made the pledge during a gathering in Paris of the “Coordinating Committee of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders.”

The first meeting of the Coordinating Committee was initiated by the New York-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU), the World Council for Muslim Inter-Faith Relations (WCMIR), and the World Jewish Congress (WJC)…

“If Europe wants to remain true to its ethical and spiritual foundations, it must embrace people from different cultures, religions and ways of life. If not, it will not only fail as a concept, it will lose its soul,” said FFEU President and World Jewish Congress Vice President Rabbi Marc Schneier.

Rabbi Schneier is an American, resident in New York where his foundation is headquartered.

A considerable amount needs to be said about this, and happily Jewamongyou has said it

Sometimes I question the assessment of Jews as an “intelligent people”. If we are so smart, why are those who supposedly represent our people so oblivious to the obvious?…

If anti-Semitism is “growing rapidly” across Europe, perhaps idiots like Rabbi Schneier should consider their own role in causing it. After all, it is the likes of him who give Jews a bad name. He might as well sacrifice Christian children for their blood. How can you dwell in somebody else’s land, promote policies that will surely transform the natives into minorities – and then wonder why people do not like you? I wonder if Rabbi Schneier also promotes massive Arab immigration into Israel. Would he accept scores of Africans into his own home and grant them “equal rights”?

I wonder if during the conference, described in the article, anybody even asked basic questions such as “is there any justification for anti-immigration sentiments among Europeans?” or “might high crime rates among immigrants, and the targeted rape of native European women, have anything to do with the rise of such movements?”

The writer of Jewamongyou is an unusual man. So, it appears, is Rabbi Schneier.

Posted in Immigration, R. Marc Schneier | Comments Off on American Rabbi: Europe must accept immigration swamping

Obama, Immigration, and the Bible

Rabbi Aryeh Spero writes in 2014:

In his Executive Order speech defending what most consider outright amnesty for five million illegal immigrants, President Obama cited the biblical verse in Exodus: “Thou shalt not afflict the stranger (22:20)”. There is no question that unlawful immigrants will soon be awarded a full basket of ongoing social services, as well as a fast track to citizenship. Is the president correct in asserting that we have been afflicting the stranger?

In all matters, the Bible teaches discernment, and there is a distinct difference between not afflicting another as opposed to requiring that we provide them citizenship and subsidize an entire life, especially when the burden of that support falls on the shoulders of overtaxed families, themselves not beneficiaries of such “entitlements.” Basic respect and kindness is one thing — it is a sign of our humanity; onerous sacrifice and national bankruptcy is another, something not required.

The Bible’s primary interest in this matter is a moral one: we all start out as children of God and should thus be treated with civility. In contrast to the biblical community, many ancient societies viewed strangers as fair game to be robbed or incarcerated, or as fodder for harsh sport and brutality. This, the Bible exhorts, was the way of Sodom. Even today, there are cultures and nations where “infidels” and strangers are oppressed and treated as sub-human and as dhimmis.

Yes, the Bible is clear: “One law shall prevail for all.” Basic justice regarding one’s property, personhood, and a right to trial is universal and transcends tribe. However, what serious American citizen would claim “affliction” if not provided complete subsidy? Nor is automatic citizenship the antidote required to prove an absence of affliction. That’s a bar too high…

What separates our current circumstance of immigration from previous ones is precisely the welfare state the U.S. has become and massive immigration’s hefty burden on taxpayers and threat to basic services.

Furthermore, the anti-assimilationist fervor among today’s multicultural ideologues raises the question as to whether America’s historic cultural ethos can survive this huge foreign influx.

Nor is this an issue of race; indeed, many of us admire the qualities of those coming from south of the border.

The Bible’s focus is on morality, and its humane ethos should not be exploited for the political agenda of those Democrats whose ultimate goal is to drastically change demographics so as to ensure the Democrat Party’s dominance and control. Nor did the Bible see its mission as fostering a replacement of an existing society and its identity through a massive Obama-like ‘transformative’ immigration.

Over the years, many in the social-justice crowd have boasted that they “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” How ironic that those making the point not to afflict the stranger have a knee-jerk desire to afflict the comfortable, including most of the middle class who daily work hard just to remain afloat. It sounds more like vengeance than it does social justice.

Posted in Immigration, Rabbis | Comments Off on Obama, Immigration, and the Bible

What is the Jewish perspective on the illegal immigration crisis in Israel?

Link: The Torah commands us to care for the foreigners and immigrants among us. Does that extend to illegal immigrants? Is it right to send them back, as is happening now, or are we obligated to take them in and help them?

Here is the Orthodox answer by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky:

The presence of illegal immigrants in Israel presents a most delicate and vexing issue. Emotionally, it is difficult to turn away any person who flees persecution and suffering, as we are quite mindful of our own recent history and the doors that were closed to Jews who wanted to flee Europe. The situation is exacerbated because these refugees are primarily Christians who are fleeing from Muslim persecutors, and ironically seeking safe haven with Jews.
Rationally, though, we recognize that every nation must place limits on the number of foreigners who wish to reside there. If such is true of the largest countries in the world, including the United States, it is certainly true of small Israel. Illegal immigrants currently number in the low hundreds of thousands – not significant in real terms but most substantial in relative terms. In a country with approximately six million Jews, and over a million Arabs, the character and culture of the Jewish state will be diluted once a critical mass of non-Jews is allowed to permanently reside there. If the gates are completely open, Israel can be overrun with another million or more foreigners – non-Jews who do not share the values and destiny of the Jewish people, and the Jewish State will begin to evaporate.
Obviously, the Torah recognizes limitations on a non-Jews’ right to live in the land of Israel. First and foremost, only gerei toshav (literally, resident aliens) – those who formally accept the seven Noachide laws – are allowed to traverse the land of Israel, much less live there. But the numbers have to be monitored so the foreign influences do not predominate. And that is the problem today, along with the fact that we no longer formally accept gerei toshav.
Rav Shlomo Aviner, the Rav of Bet El and one of the great rabbinical leaders in Israel today, notes that most (not all) of the illegal immigrants are law-abiding and have come to Israel to improve their lives. That they do – despite all the threats and problems in Israel – is a tribute to the remarkable character of the State of Israel. But the primary responsibility of Israel has to be to Jews, not non-Jews. Israel is in the process of gathering all Jewish exiles, including us. They will need jobs, homes, and infrastructure. It is simply not possible for Israel to become the world’s haven; it lacks both the physical space and the material resources. He concludes: “We must distinguish between individual morality and communal morality. It is impossible to run a country based on emotions. Everything must be carefully analyzed.”
Therein lies the critical distinction between the Jewish experience and these illegal immigrants. Jewish refugees often sought temporary refuge in friendly countries (like Shanghai, China, declared an international free zone during the Holocaust) but permanent residence in countries where we would be welcomed, and legal residents. We are obligated to offer temporary refuge to any person, to assist him in his time of need. But the emphasis is on “temporary.” The Torah obligates us to assist non-Jews – their poor, their sick, their homeless – in order to set them again on sound footing. But we are certainly not obligated to provide a permanent solution to an international crisis, a “solution” that will surely undermine the viability of the world’s only Jewish state. To channel Justice Robert Jackson, the Torah (like the US Constitution) is not a suicide pact. Nations can operate in their own interests in order to preserve their viability.
An illegal immigrant should have no expectation of remaining in the country that he has infiltrated. The reference in the Torah to the “strangers among us” relates primarily to those in the land when we arrived, and not necessarily to foreigners who came later. Some did, and all are to be treated humanely, but the notion that illegal immigrants have a moral claim on the country to which they emigrated is novel. It is part of the new American ethos that “illegal immigrants” are not really “illegal” but just “undocumented.” But they are more than “undocumented;” they carry no “documents” because, unlike millions of others trying to come to America but are obeying its laws and waiting their turn, they chose to break the law and breach the borders of the country.
The same applies to Israel’s illegal immigrants. The Vietnamese boat people who were admitted in the late 1970s by PM Menachem Begin were admitted because of their desperate plight and their relatively small numbers. The new illegal immigrants are far different in scale, and not all are political refugees. Any nation that has porous borders will soon cease to be a nation, and Israel’s margin is much smaller than most other countries. What is required is an international solution that provides a permanent home to these unfortunates. Otherwise, massive illegal immigration will be among the frightening enemies Israel has to overcome in the next two decades.
Temporary refuge – yes. Permanent home – no. Clearly, the Torah, which delimits the very residence of non-Jews in the land of Israel, endorses the deportation of illegal immigrants, young and old, who would threaten the existence and welfare of the State. Do all have to be deported? Certainly not. But the number of people that need to be deported must be determined by the government which is mainly responsible for the lives and well-being of its citizens. That number will certainly be informed by the humanitarian impulse that characterizes the Jewish personality. As Rav Aviner wrote: “Although we have a great desire to help humanity, our primary obligation is to strengthen ourselves here, and then we can bring a blessing to humanity.”

Here is the Conservative answer by Rabbi Adam Greenwald: “Every sovereign state has the right to regulate its borders and to determine who may immigrate and who may not. For Israel, the challenge of maintaining a uniquely Jewish democracy adds additional variables that must be considered. However, the meaning of “Jewish democracy” cannot only be a question of the religious affiliation of its citizens. A Jewish democracy must be guided by Jewish values, must answer the call of the Jewish soul and of the Jewish conscience.”

Here is the Reform answer by Rabbi Cy Stanway:

As a Jew, I am ashamed at the heavy-handed way Israel is treating these people.

We are a people of compassion and Israel is about compassion, refuge and taking care of the ‘ger toshav’ – the resident alien among us. These people entered illegally, to be sure. But how, exactly, does someone enter legally when they can’t fill out paperwork in Southern Sudan?

The argument that the refugees use is that they are economic refugees and not political refugees. That is probably more true than not. But if people from outside the Land want to help build inside the Land, surely there are other paths for a modern state to take than deportation.

I understand the argument that if Israel takes them in, it will dilute the Jewish demographic of Israel. That is true. But surely Israel can offer temporary visas. How can we, of all people, send people back to a place of hopelessness? If there is a halachic justification for sending people back to despair and desperation, I have yet to find it in any Jewish literature.

I think these answers are representative of the different movements. The more traditional the Jew, the more he cares about Jews and the less he cares about non-Jews. The more liberal the Jew, the more universalistic.

Posted in Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on What is the Jewish perspective on the illegal immigration crisis in Israel?