http://therightstuff.biz/2015/08/21/who-opened-the-borders/
Who Opened the Borders? 
*Reactionary Tree* <http://therightstuff.biz/author/reactionarytree/> Aug 
21, 2015 2519 comments 
<http://therightstuff.biz/2015/08/21/who-opened-the-borders/#disqus_thread> 

   - 
   
   - 
   
With the smashing success of Ann Coulter's new book *¡Adios, America! 
<http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676>* and the 
rise of the Trumpenkrieg, there is a lot for immigration restrictionists to 
celebrate about. However, it may be too little too late. White babies born 
today are already a minority 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/american-babies-are-no-longer-mostly-non-hispanic-white>.
 
Also, Whites are projected to be a minority by the year 2045 
<http://mic.com/articles/106252/the-year-white-people-will-become-a-minority-in-america-has-been-declared>.
 
So how did we get here? For those of you high time preference goys who are 
too lazy to invest the time to read the masterpiece that is Kevin 
MacDonald's *Culture of Critique 
<http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1440096629&sr=1-1>*,
 
I will attempt to summarize his findings about the influence of Jewish 
intellectuals and organizations in fighting for a liberalized immigration 
policy.

The first question I am sure that some of you may be asking is, *Why would 
Jews want a multicultural society?* Multiculturalism serves both internal 
and external Jewish interests. Internally, it serves the interests of Jews 
because it allows for Jews to overtly advocate for policies in their 
interests rather than in a cryptic manner (similar to the NAACP and NCLR), 
thus legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a 
majority's host society. Externally, it benefits Jewish interests because 
they simply become just another group in a sea of various ethnic groups, 
thus making it difficult to unite society in opposition to Jews. 
Historically, Jews have not fared well 
<http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm> in ethnically homogeneous 
societies.

Now let us venture into the echoey history of American immigration policy.

One of the very first advocates for multiculturalism was Horace Kallen 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Kallen>. In 1915, Kallen wrote an 
essay titled Democracy versus The Melting Pot, where he refuted sociologist 
Edward 
A. Ross <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Alsworth_Ross>, a Darwinian, 
who argued that different groups would be in competition for resources (the 
term "melting pot" was actually popularized by one Israel Zangwill 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zangwill> in 1908). Kallen advocated 
that different ethnic groups should be allowed to remain genetically and 
culturally cohesive while participating in American democracy. Kallen is 
credited with coining the term "cultural pluralism". It is also noteworthy 
that Kallen went on to be involved in several important Jewish 
organizations: The American Jewish Congress 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jewish_Congress> (AJCongress) and 
The Zionist Organization of America 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Organization_of_America> (ZOA). 
Kallen's ideas became very popular in Zionist circles, especially with 
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis#Zionist_leader>, who was a 
prominent leader in the American Zionist movement and the ZOA.

So with that background information out of the way, *let the games begin!*

*Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act)*

In 1921, the Emergency Immigration Act 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act> was passed and 
established quotas that used a National Origin Formula 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula>. This act was 
later revised in 1924 with the Johnson-Reed Act 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924>. It faced 
considerable opposition from Jewish organizations that advocated to open up 
the borders.

Our good goy buddy Edward A. Ross noted that Jews had a powerful interest 
in immigration policy:

Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the 
United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, 
they left the fight on the Immigration Commission's bill. The power of the 
million Jews in the Metropolis lined up the Congressional delegation from 
New York in solid opposition to the literacy test. The systemic campaign in 
newspaper and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction to calm 
nativist fears is waged by and for one race. *Hebrew money is behind the 
National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications*. From 
the paper before the commercial body or the scientific association to the 
heavy treatise produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsh Fund, the 
literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in 
America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains.

Let us take a look at who the Director of the National Liberal Immigration 
League is. Why, it's Nissim Behar 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissim_Behar>, Sephardic Jew and ardent 
Zionist. Behar was an irritation to Louis Marshall 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Marshall> of the American Jewish 
Committee <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jewish_Committee> 
(AJCommittee) because they wanted to downplay the fact the it was only Jews 
involved in advocating opening up the borders. Herbert Friedenwald, the 
AJCommittee secretary, wrote that is was "very difficult to get any people 
except Jews stirred up in this fight." The AJCommittee fought actively 
against any bill that restricted immigration to White persons. Louis 
Marshall, of the AJCommittee testified before the House Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization in 1924 stating that the bill echoed 
sentiments of the KKK and that "we have room in this country for ten times 
the population we have." Similarly Rabbi Stephen S. Wise 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Samuel_Wise> of the AJCongress 
testified at House Hearings saying "the right of every man outside of 
America to be considered fairly and equitably and without discrimination." 
Also notable were the Representatives who were opposed to immigration 
restrictions: Sabath <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_J._Sabath>, 
Jacobstein <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Jacobstein>, Celler 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Celler>, Dickstein 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Dickstein_%28congressman%29>, and 
Perlman <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/nathan_perlman/408642> 
(all heebs).

Luckily, the evil goyim won out. Calvin Coolidge signed it into the law and 
their efforts preserved White America for almost 40 years. Round 1 to the 
goys in the hood!

*Jewish Anti-Restrictionism from 1924 to 1965*

As you can imagine, this caused a great deal of Yiddish butthurt throughout 
the land that they lost the 1924 immigration battle. To quote a writer from 
the *Jewish Tribune* in 1927, "We regard all measures for regulating 
immigration according to nationality as illogical, unjust, and un-American" 
(Oy vey!). Remember Representative Dickstein from the previous immigration 
battle, well between the years of 1933 and 1938, he introduced several 
bills to increase the number of refugees from Nazi Germany but the shitlord 
restrictionsists prevailed. Shitlords in the State Department such as 
Wilbur Carr and William Phillips were extremely influential in minimizing 
the entry of Jewish refugees during the 1930s. Jews became concerned that 
immigration restriction was anti-Semitic due to the 1924 Act which favored 
immigrants from NW Europe over SE Europe, where many Jews immigrated from 
and because of the refusal to accept refugees from Germany during the 1930s.

Another immigration battle ensued with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952>. 
The 1952 Immigration Act would retain the nation of origin quotas from the 
1924 Act. Once again, they were at it again. Groups like the AJCommittee 
and Communist Party USA <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA> 
(CPUSA) both opposed the 1952 Act. CPUSA at this time was a hotbed for 
Jewish radicalism with about 40% of membership estimated to be Jewish. The 
AJCommittee played a major role in influencing recommendations for 
President Truman's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN). The 
PCIN was chaired by Philip Perlman 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Perlman> and the staff of the 
commission contained a high percentage of Jews. The PCIN report was 
endorsed by the AJCongress in their publication the *Congress Weekly*. 
Senator McCarran accused the PCIN of being a bunch of pinko commies and the 
House 
Un-American Activities Committee 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee> 
(HUAC) opened a can of McCarthyist whoopass by releasing a report stating 
that "some two dozen Communists and many times that number with records of 
repeated affiliation with known Communist enterprises testified before the 
Commission..." The report referred particularly to communists associated 
with the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born 
<http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/tamwag/tam_086/bioghist.html> (ACPFB) 
which was headed by Abner Green (heeb). Over two dozen commies from this 
organization met with the PCIN.

Even with all this, President Truman vetoed the bill but the veto was 
overriden. Later on, Based Senator McCarran (author of the bill) went on to 
state that subverting the national origins system "would, in the course of 
a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of 
this nation." Round 2 goes to the goyim once again.

*Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act)*

The final showdown would be with the Hart-Celler Act 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965>. 
Remember Celler from the 1924 debate? Yeah, well, he was the author of this 
immigration bill which abolished the National Origins Formula. The bill 
also deëmphasized the criterion that immigrants should have needed skills. 
Finally, the bill also allowed for family-based emphasis regulations that 
have allowed for the "chaining" phenomenon where a single immigrant can 
generate over two dozen visas for in-laws, cousins, etc.

In the Senate hearings for the 1965 bill, Senator Jacob Javits 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_K._Javits> would play a prominent 
role. Javits was Jewish. He had previously authored an essay in 1951 
entitled "Let's open the gates" that proposed an immigration level of 
500,000 per year for 20 years without regard for nations of origin. In 
1961, he proposed a bill to destroy the national origins quota system. He 
also aimed at removing barriers due to race and ethnicity.

Emmanuel Celler 
<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Celler.html>, the 
author of the bill as mentioned previously, has been battling for 40 years 
now for open borders immigration. Jewish organizations (American Council 
for Judaism Philanthropic Fund 
<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_00964.html>,
 
Council of Jewish Federations & Welfare Funds 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Federation> and B'nai B'rith Women 
<http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/bnai-brith-women>) filed briefs in 
support of the 1965 Act. Also, organizations like the ACLU and the 
Americans for Democratic Action filed briefs (both had large Jewish 
memberships).

Both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the 1965 Act. 
The heebs won and the rest is history.



Which groups of people are most receptive to the open borders message? The 
list of individuals who have signed on to the recently posted Open Borders 
Manifesto <http://openborders.info/open-borders-manifesto/> suggests that 
academics may be especially amenable to supporting open borders. Another 
group that would be likely to support largely unrestricted immigration 
comprises those who are seeking to migrate to a new country but are unable 
to do so because of immigration restrictions, as would their family members 
already residing in the intended destination countries. Nathan Smith has 
argued that devout Christians 
<http://openborders.info/blog/the-coming-catholic-movement-for-freedom-of-migration/>
 
are potentially a good source of support for open borders. At the same 
time, many secularists 
<http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/04/25/attitudes-toward-immigration-in-the-pulpit-and-the-pew/>,
 
who have been polled as having “the most favorable views of immigrants” 
compared with Catholics and Protestants, may be open to open borders as 
well.  Here I argue that Jews, especially American Jews, also could be a 
potentially strong source of support for open borders.

Nathan provides one reason why many Jews might support open borders: the 
Old Testament 
<http://openborders.info/blog/more-on-immigration-and-the-bible/>. He 
states that “from my reading of the Old Testament, it’s quite clear that 
the Bible supports open borders, full stop.”  For example, Nathan points 
out verses <http://openborders.info/blog/the-old-testament-on-immigration/> 
such as “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in 
Egypt. (Exodus 22:21)” In 2008, the president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid 
Society echoed Nathan by writing that Jews “are taught to internalize the 
lesson that… we must ‘welcome the stranger,’ ‘not oppress the stranger,’ 
‘protect the stranger,’ ‘have one law for the stranger and the citizen 
among you,’ because ‘you were strangers in the land of Egypt…’ it is 
neither moral nor practical to carve out a system that admits Jews but 
restricts others, slamming the door to America behind us.”(*Jewish Review* 
(Portland, Oregon) April 15, 2008) Nathan concludes 
<http://openborders.info/blog/the-coming-catholic-movement-for-freedom-of-migration/>
 
that “Old Testament law is favorable to immigrants to the point that it 
could well be embraced by the open borders movement as a template of the 
kind of immigration policy we would want to see.” While many Jews don’t 
consult the Bible for guidance for their positions on public policy, its 
message on immigration may subtly point Jews towards open borders, as the 
aid society president suggests.

In addition, Jewish history may have imprinted upon Jews a tendency to 
support open borders. For the last two thousand years, many Jews have 
migrated from place to place, either because of expulsions 
<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06187.html>,
 
a need to flee oppression 
<http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe-on-the-road/jewish-migration>, or the 
desire 
for improved economic circumstances 
<http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe-on-the-road/jewish-migration>.  For 
example, Spain 
<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/expulsion.html> forced 
hundreds of thousand of Jews out of the country in 1492.  Even in 2015, 
given the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, Jeffrey Goldberg asks 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/>,
 
“Is it time for the Jews to leave?”  He also notes 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/>
 
that “for millennia, Jews have been asking this question: Where, exactly, 
is it safe?”

The expulsions, according to the Jewish Virtual Library 
<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06187.html>,
 
“left their impress on the entire nation and its history, both materially 
and spiritually. They maintained and constantly intensified the feeling of 
foreignness of the Jews in the Diaspora.”  This was illustrated recently in 
an online comment 
<http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/02/24/new-study-more-than-half-of-jewish-students-face-anti-semitism-at-college/>
 
responding to a study that found that many Jewish students have experienced 
anti-Semitism on American college campuses: “I repeatedly told my adult 
sons as they were growing up that we Jews are guests here in America, that 
even as we love this country, our birth here is an incident of fate. Too 
bad that so many Jewish families forget that we’ve lived in many lands with 
different degrees of acceptance. Our German brothers and sisters thought 
they were German until they were taken away in box cars, our French 
brothers and sisters thought they were French until the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup, 
etc. etc. We Jews really need to awake from our delusions and tell our kids 
the ugly truth. Keep your passports current and your bags packed.”  This 
perception by some Jews of a tenuous status in their countries of residence 
and the implied understanding of the importance of having available places 
to which they can emigrate may lead to empathy for non-Jews who wish to 
migrate; if one senses that migration may be necessary at some time in 
their own life, one comprehends on a visceral level the need of others to 
migrate.

Based on their history, many Jews might support open borders today as they 
supported the civil rights movement in the U.S. The companion website to 
the film “From Swastika to Jim Crow” suggests 
<http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/relations.html> that the 
historical oppression of Jews has made them sympathetic to the plight of 
African-Americans.  It notes that “in the early 1900s, Jewish newspapers 
drew parallels between the Black movement out of the South and the Jews’ 
escape from Egypt, pointing out that both Blacks and Jews lived in ghettos, 
and calling anti-Black riots in the South ‘pogroms’.” It also describes how 
Jews helped form the NAACP and the Urban League, how Jewish organizations 
played an important part in the campaign against prejudice, and how Jews 
monetarily supported civil rights organizations. In addition, it states 
that “about 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during 
the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to 
Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws.”

The history of Jewish immigration to the U.S. in particular may lead 
American Jews towards supporting open borders. Thomas Sowell writes in *Ethnic 
America* that “The great majority of Jews in America are descended from the 
millions who emigrated from Russia, Poland, and other eastern European 
countries in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first 
two decades of the twentieth century. In that period, one-third of all the 
Jews in eastern Europe migrated to America.” (p. 69) Why did they come? 
Maldwyn Jones, in *American Immigration*, explains that “the assassination 
of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 set off a wave of anti-Jewish riots and led to 
strict enforcement of the requirement that all Jews must reside within the 
Pale of Settlement, an area bordering on Germany, Austria, and Rumania. A 
year later came the notorious May Laws, which placed restrictions on Jewish 
worship, virtually debarred Jews from agriculture, industry, and the 
professions, excluded them from public office, and denied them educational 
opportunities. Persecution now became systematic, persistent, and ruthless; 
worst of all there were the frightful pogroms of 1881-82, 1891, and 1905-06 
in which countless Jews were massacred. Largely in consequence, Russian 
arrivals in the United States rose from 5,000 in 1880 to 81,000 in 1892 and 
then bounded upward to a peak of 258,000 in 1907.” (pp. 201-202)

America turned out to be an excellent choice for these eastern European 
immigrants and their descendants. Mr. Sowell notes that “the overwhelming 
majority of these Jewish immigrants came to stay. The rate of return 
migration was lower among Jews than among any other large group of 
immigrants.” (p. 79) This apparently testifies to the appeal of being in 
America versus their homelands. While many of these Eastern European Jews 
came to America impoverished and experienced poverty and slum living in 
America (p. 83 and p. 85) “the upward movement of American Jews—across 
broad economic, intellectual, social, and political arenas—was 
unprecedented and unparalleled.” (p. 88) In addition, “American 
anti-Semitism has never reached the levels seen in Europe.” (p. 93) 
Furthermore, had the mass turn of the century Jewish immigration not 
occurred, those immigrants and their descendants would have perished in the 
Holocaust of the 1940s.

Many American Jews must understand that this immigration was able to occur 
largely because European immigration to the U.S. was generally unrestricted 
until the early 1920s. Notwithstanding his opposition to open borders, the 
economist Paul Krugman has noted 
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DEFDC1430F934A15750C0A9609C8B63&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A15%22%7D%20>
 
that he is “instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration” and that “he is 
grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.”  Jeffrey 
Goldberg has written 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/>
 
that “… I am an American Jew–which is to say, a person who exists because 
his ancestors made a run for it when they could.”

Many American Jews must also grasp the negative consequences of the 1920s 
immigration restrictions on European Jewry. As I noted in a previous post 
<http://openborders.info/blog/paul-krugman-immigration-act-1924/>,  the 
restrictions, together with other bureaucratic maneuvering, kept many Jews 
from fleeing the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. A dramatic example of this 
was the refusal of the U.S. to accept hundreds of Jewish refugees aboard 
the *St. Louis* in 1939, even as the ship reached the Florida coast. Many 
of these refugees later died in the Holocaust. Furthermore, after World War 
II many European Jews languished in concentration camps taken over by the 
Americans, according to  Eric Lichtblau in *The Nazis Next Door.  *He writes 
that “… with Britain blocking Jews from going to Palestine and the United 
States closing its own doors for the most part, Truman agonized over the 
situation in the DP camps.  ‘Everyone else who’s been dragged from his 
country has somewhere to go back to,’ Truman said, ‘but the Jews have no 
place to go.'” (p. 5) Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank understands 
the significance of immigration restrictions, suggesting that had 
immigration policies been more restrictive when his grandparents left 
Russia for the U.S., they wouldn’t have been allowed in and the family 
would have perished in the Holocaust. (*Washington News Observer*, 10/7/09)

When America had borders that were largely open to immigrants, it was a 
great refuge for Jews fleeing undesirable situations in other countries. 
Conversely, when this period of mostly open borders ended, restrictionist 
immigration policies had disastrous consequences for would-be Jewish 
immigrants. Many American Jews may recognize the value of open borders to 
their ancestors and may generalize this appreciation of open borders, 
applying it universally, just as their historical experience of oppression 
contributed to their support for the civil rights movement for African 
Americans.

One concern Jews around the world might have about open borders is that it 
would allow potentially greatly increased Muslim immigration to places 
where many Jews reside, such as the U.S., France, and the U.K.  In Mr. 
Goldberg’s article 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/>
 
on rising anti-Semitism in Europe, he writes that “… the chief propagators 
of contemporary European anti-Semitism may be found in the Continent’s 
large and disenfranchised Muslim immigrant communities–communities that are 
themselves harassed and assaulted by hooligans associated with Europe’s 
surging right…” He adds that “the failure of Europe to integrate Muslim 
immigrants has contributed to their exploitation by anti-Semetic 
propagandists and by recruiters for such radical projects as the Islamic 
State…” (The unemployment rate among Muslims in France 
<http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/france/> is higher than the 
rest of the population, and in some French suburbs with large minority 
populations, the unemployment rate, particularly among the young, is very 
high.  (See here 
<http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21572248-young-diverse-and-unemployed-forgotten-banlieues>
 
and here 
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11248098/The-heat-rises-in-Frances-banlieues.html>
 and 
here 
<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0501/In-France-s-suburban-ghettos-a-struggle-to-be-heard-amid-election-noise-video>.))
 
 He notes that “in 2014, Jews in Europe were murdered, raped, beaten, 
stalked, chased, harassed, spat on, and insulted for being Jewish.  *Sale 
Juif*–‘dirty Jew’–rang in the streets, as did ‘Death to the Jews,’ and 
‘Jews to the gas.'”

However, it should be remembered that Muslims, like any group, should not 
be stereotyped.  In a previous post 
<http://openborders.info/blog/open-borders-terrorism-and-islam/>, I quoted 
Philippe Legrain, author of *Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them:* “We 
should not fall into the trap of thinking that Muslims are a uniform and 
separate community whose identity is wholly defined by their religion, 
still less an inevitably hostile or violent one.” (page 304)  In addition, 
it appears that a contributor to Muslim anti-Semitic acts in Europe may be 
Muslims’ disenfranchisement and lack of integration in their host 
countries, as Mr. Goldberg suggests.  Mr. Legrain emphasizes that creating 
harmonious, ethnically diverse societies depends greatly on how citizens 
receive immigrants: “It’s not rocket science. Societies need to make every 
effort to ensure that everyone feels included and has an opportunity to 
participate fully in economic and social life. But they also need to accept 
the diversity of all their members—not just those of foreign descent—while 
insisting that all adhere to the fundamental principles on which they are 
based. The watchwords are tolerance and respect for the law. Learning the 
local language and how institutions work, and promoting cultural 
understanding are also important, without seeking to impose a uniform 
culture or behavioural norms.” (p. 288)  He highlights Toronto, Canada as 
successfully integrating its ethnically diverse population but cites France 
and Holland for failing to integrate its immigrants. (p. 265, pp. 272-273)

Mr. Legrain appears confident in America’s ability to integrate immigrants 
into society:  “Immigrants have to pledge their allegiance to the United 
States and sign up to the values in the Declaration of Independence and the 
U.S. Constitution, but they don’t have to adopt any particular cultural 
habits, Anglo-Protestant or otherwise. Over time, each influx of immigrants 
changes and enriches American culture, while they adapt freely to American 
ways, although they may retain some of their cultural heritage.” (p. 266) 
Clive Crook  argues 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/05/the-benefits-of-brutality/304807/>
 
in *The Atlantic* that America’s economic system is more effective at 
integrating immigrants compared to Europe.  He writes that  “America’s 
harsher insistence on work is not just economically advantageous (which is 
self-evident) but socially beneficial as well (which some may find 
surprising). Jobs alone are not enough to ensure successful assimilation of 
immigrants, but jobs are a necessary condition. By insisting that 
immigrants work, the host country attacks the incumbents’ intellectual and 
emotional resistance to immigration. The work requirement increases the 
dispersed economic benefits; it reduces or eliminates the net fiscal 
burden; and it lowers cultural barriers.”  He notes that higher 
unemployment among immigrants in Europe leads to native opposition, but it 
must also lead to frustration among immigrants, which in turn may lead to 
anti-Semitic acts.  I am not excusing these acts in any way, but the 
analysis by Mr. Legrain and Mr. Crook suggests ways to avoid the ethnic 
tumult that is occurring in Europe, even with high levels of immigration. 
 It will be difficult to reverse the situation in Europe, but the U.S. and 
city of Toronto appear to be structured to have mostly harmoniously 
societies with open borders. (See here 
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113217366> and here 
<http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33886461/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-wednesday-november/#.VRRnMkKxG0g>
 
for examples of Muslims who view the U.S. as an especially tolerant place 
to live.)

Dean Obeidallah, who is Muslim-American, wrote 
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/07/stop-the-anti-semitism-when-talking-gaza.html>
 
last year that at a Muslim-American event, Keith Ellison, who is a Muslim 
congressman, was heartily cheered when he said “‘There’s absolutely no 
place for anti-Semitism in discussing Israeli policy.'”  Mr. Obeidallah 
further noted that “that reaction is not atypical in my experience” at 
other Muslim-American events, although he acknowledges that there is some 
anti-Semitism in “my own community.”  Unfortunately, a study 
<http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15245#.VROurkKxG0g> 
on Muslim anti-Semitism in North America did find higher levels among 
Muslims than Christians.  Overall, however, it is apparent that in the 
U.S., as a Vox article 
<http://www.vox.com/2014/4/14/5613278/kansas-city-anti-semitism> noted, “… 
Muslim and Jewish communities are on much better terms” than in Europe. 
 There is nothing in the U.S. like the volume of anti-Semitic acts 
committed by Muslims in Europe.

In summary, the historical memory of Jews, particularly American Jews, plus 
the pro-open borders message of the Old Testament, should make many Jews 
receptive to the open borders message. Open borders advocates are likely to 
convince many Jews to support open borders by reminding them of their 
history and the admonitions in their Bible.  They can also note that 
America in particular is structured to successfully integrate large numbers 
of Muslims into its society, thereby likely preventing widespread 
anti-Semitic acts by Muslims.


On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:14:41 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Harold posted: "Julia Hahn 9/17/2016 Source ..... Republican nominee 
> Donald Trump addressed the stakes of the 2016 election and delineated the 
> differences between his immigration plan and Hillary Clinton’s at an 
> luncheon to honor “America’s most forgotten f" 
> Respond to this post by replying above this line 
>
> New post on *ACGR's "News with Attitude"* 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/> Trump: Hillary Clinton 
> First Presidential Candidate Proposing to Abolish U.S. Borders 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/01-1764/> by Harold 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/> 
>
> Julia Hahn 9/17/2016 Source ..... Republican nominee Donald Trump 
> addressed the stakes of the 2016 election and delineated the differences 
> between his immigration plan and Hillary Clinton’s at an luncheon to honor 
> “America’s most forgotten families”– the victims of illegal alien crime. 
> “Your cause and your stories are ignored by our political establishment 
> because they […]
>
> Read more of this post <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/01-1764/>
> *Harold <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>* | September 18, 
> 2016 at 9:17 am | Categories: Border Patrol 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=166727>, Corruption 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=22388>, Criminal Activity 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398859>, DHS 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=418542>, Elections/Voting 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=4306746>, Executive 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=53796>, Government 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=2311>, ICE 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=157212>, Illegal Aliens 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=101485>, Media 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=292>, Mexican Government 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=494317>, Progressives 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=182563>, Propaganda 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=13722>, Sovereignty 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=69462>, States Rights 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=280753>, U.S. Constitution 
> <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=51155> | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-bfY 
>
> Comment <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/01-1764/#respond>    See 
> all comments <https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/01-1764/#comments> 
>
> Unsubscribe 
> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=1d26f3d2707c7345915d8b297361ecf7&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=LLVjnzZX%5BU2OxOpq8CRTqH%2FYY.%5BU%5BysQVntCsb9FGaR.GtojIEt>
>  
> to no longer receive posts from ACGR's "News with Attitude".
> Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions 
> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=1d26f3d2707c7345915d8b297361ecf7&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>.
>  
>
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
> https://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/01-1764/ 
>
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <https://wordpress.com> 
>
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to