0 comment Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | admin
From the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog:
Two weeks ago we asked readers for their suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement Program of the US State Department. Today we heard from reader Paul Nachman of Bozeman, Montana who suggests doing away with it altogether.
Ryan Mauro wrote a brief article, appearing today in FrontPage Magazine, about the wonderfulness of having Somalis in Tennessee. Near its conclusion he wrote:
'These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.
I think the logical solution is to end immigration of Somalis and deport those who aren�t yet citizens.
Maybe my suggestion will surprise people, but why shouldn�t we be thinking along the line I suggest? Our basic question should be: Does their (or any immigrants�) presence do the U.S. any good? If not (and generally one�s answer, after thinking about it, will be "No"), then why permit their immigration in the first place?
There�s an even more basic question out there: What is the purpose of the United States? The answer is "To benefit the citizens of the United States." Authority for this conclusion is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says ".. to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity �" So the benefit to our citizens should be the starting point for all U.S. laws, including immigration laws. (This doesn�t mean we should run roughshod over the rest of the world. But **benefits** to the rest of the world should be decidedly secondary or tertiary motives.)
Some folks will probably come back with pleadings about "refugees." Please don�t. I put the word in quotation marks for a reason: Back in 2003, I had an in-person conversation with Prof. Jan Ting of Temple University Law School. Upon learning that he�d been Assistant Commissioner of the INS during the senior Bush�s presidency, I asked him, "Is it true that 90% of all refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?" Without missing a beat he replied, "95%."
Let�s think outside the box of cliches and slogans: It�s time to shut down the refugee program in its entirety.'
I agree with that, and I like the writer's directness. I like the fact that he asks ''What is the purpose of the United States?'' and even more, that he answers ''To benefit the citizens" and quotes the Founding Fathers' words alluding to ''ourselves and our posterity.''
And please note the part wherein he quotes the professor as saying that ''95 percent'' of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent. This is the reason for my often using quote marks when I write the word ''refugee'' because it's clear that in many cases, motives are economic or social rather than a matter of finding safe haven from true and life-threatening persecution.
It's vexing to note that most people have bought the idea that America (or any Western country) somehow owes it to the downtrodden or the poor the world over to bring them to our countries and take care of them at our collective expense. Many Americans honestly believe that our government was established more or less for that purpose, to provide for the 'huddled masses', and that not doing so would make us morally derelict in our duty to whoever claims the right to come here.
Even if we have money to burn, which we don't, there are costs that go far beyond the monetary, as most of my readers are well aware, but the average American seems to think that we owe the poor of the world a home, and have a duty to provide for their posterity.
The writer quotes the Founding Fathers to the effect that this country was created 'to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' And that posterity means us, the descendants of the old-stock Americans. When they wrote about their 'posterity', they surely did not think that included the whole world.
An illustration of the kinds of troubles that all too often occur when refugees are dropped into a small town in a White, Western country is this story from Sweden:
Nearly half of the predominantly Iraqi-refugees residing in Vännäs in northern Sweden have decided to permanently move out of the area after being terrorized by what police called "a lynch mob" in early May.
"I thought that Vännäs was the perfect place for us. And there are many, many friendly people here. But we still don�t dare to stay; I�m seriously concerned about my children�s safety," said father of five Ismail Ramadan to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.
Ramadan�s family and several others have decided to abandon plans of starting a life in the small community outside of Umeå less than two weeks after a group of 30 to 50 young people assembled outside the apartment building in which the refugees lived and began shouting threats and throwing stones.
The May 9th incident resulted in several broken windows and many frightened refugees.''
Usually this kind of thing is sensationalized and played up as a story of racism and ''hate'' by the media, but at least this source acknowledges that the troubles did not originate with the townspeople:
According to the Västerbotten-Kuriren newspaper, the dispute began when a group of local youths confronted a refugee boy about the assault of a local girl which took place Tuesday night.''
The discussion at Gates of Vienna is here.
The popular stereotype of Scandinavians is that they are the most ''tolerant'', liberal, and passive of all the Western countries. So, even allowing for the exaggeration that is inherent in that image, it is surprising that this incident happened in Sweden -- although we have to notice, too, that there were the typical liberal brainwashed who made it a point to apologize and court the refugees.
Why does any attempt to stand up for our side always have to involve apologies and grovelling by somebody among our ranks? It's pathetic.
Granted, I don't advocate harassing people without cause or taking the laws into one's own hands, but what, as Fjordman points out in the comments, happens when the supposed enforcers of the law refuse, or fail, to protect the citizenry? If they want to avoid situations like this, the authorities have to do their job in protecting the rightful citizens of the country, and uphold the laws of the land. Too often these days they refuse to do so, from the highest levels on down to the lowest, and then what?
The purposeful 'planting' of refugees and assorted others in small towns throughout the Western countries has all the appearances of being an act of aggression or hostility by those in power against their (supposedly) own people.
We are told that our countries are obligated, by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally set up under very different circumstances:
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.''
At that time, obviously there were genuine refugees who had ben displaced by war and the upheavals following World War II, and today the situation is very different. The millions who are roaming the world now in the attempt to find better economic conditions, in most cases, are not comparable to those who genuinely were displaced or homeless as a result of war and the changing boundaries of nations.
The definition of a refugee is this, established in 1967:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.''
How many of today's country-shoppers and 'better-life' seekers fit that description? And since 1967, a great many spurious claims have been made, and the definitions expanded to include homosexuals or transsexuals who claim they are ''persecuted'' for their sexual predilections, or people with certain PC diseases who claim they cannot get treatment in their own countries, and so on.
And even the claim of poverty is not sufficient, under the definition, to claim the right to live here, yet it's due to that claim that many soft-headed Americans accept mass illegal immigration as unavoidable. They think it's the least we can do to welcome all these poor people who 'just want to work'.
Yet when people like the two men from the UK, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle sought asylum based on their conviction on 'hate-crime' charges in the UK, they were denied. Granted, they may not appear as sympathetic figures to most media-indoctrinated Americans or Britons, for that matter, but the fact is, they were exercising what we in the US consider a right: free speech.
And we, meanwhile, see fit to welcome 'refugees' from countries which have shown hostility towards us in the past, Somalia, for example. Has everybody forgotten about the events in Mogadishu back in the Clinton era?
Actually, I suspect many Americans don't make the connection. I recently had someone ask me, ''where's Mogadishu"? when the name was mentioned.
The fact is, we need to reconsider our ''commitment'' to accepting refugees. Why can't we simply withdraw our participation in these agreements? Even in these hard economic times, the government, and indeed all Western governments, are working fast and furiously to bring more ''refugees'' to ''enrich'' our bankrupt countries.
No, we don't owe the world's hard-luck cases. There is a limit to what we can do, and we have no moral obligation to solve all the world's problems, the U.N. notwithstanding. In fact, as has so often been proposed, we need to get out of that misbegotten, failed, corrupt organization and they need to find a new home, or better yet, close up shop. The world will be so much better a place when they do so.
Two weeks ago we asked readers for their suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement Program of the US State Department. Today we heard from reader Paul Nachman of Bozeman, Montana who suggests doing away with it altogether.
Ryan Mauro wrote a brief article, appearing today in FrontPage Magazine, about the wonderfulness of having Somalis in Tennessee. Near its conclusion he wrote:
'These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.
I think the logical solution is to end immigration of Somalis and deport those who aren�t yet citizens.
Maybe my suggestion will surprise people, but why shouldn�t we be thinking along the line I suggest? Our basic question should be: Does their (or any immigrants�) presence do the U.S. any good? If not (and generally one�s answer, after thinking about it, will be "No"), then why permit their immigration in the first place?
There�s an even more basic question out there: What is the purpose of the United States? The answer is "To benefit the citizens of the United States." Authority for this conclusion is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says ".. to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity �" So the benefit to our citizens should be the starting point for all U.S. laws, including immigration laws. (This doesn�t mean we should run roughshod over the rest of the world. But **benefits** to the rest of the world should be decidedly secondary or tertiary motives.)
Some folks will probably come back with pleadings about "refugees." Please don�t. I put the word in quotation marks for a reason: Back in 2003, I had an in-person conversation with Prof. Jan Ting of Temple University Law School. Upon learning that he�d been Assistant Commissioner of the INS during the senior Bush�s presidency, I asked him, "Is it true that 90% of all refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?" Without missing a beat he replied, "95%."
Let�s think outside the box of cliches and slogans: It�s time to shut down the refugee program in its entirety.'
I agree with that, and I like the writer's directness. I like the fact that he asks ''What is the purpose of the United States?'' and even more, that he answers ''To benefit the citizens" and quotes the Founding Fathers' words alluding to ''ourselves and our posterity.''
And please note the part wherein he quotes the professor as saying that ''95 percent'' of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent. This is the reason for my often using quote marks when I write the word ''refugee'' because it's clear that in many cases, motives are economic or social rather than a matter of finding safe haven from true and life-threatening persecution.
It's vexing to note that most people have bought the idea that America (or any Western country) somehow owes it to the downtrodden or the poor the world over to bring them to our countries and take care of them at our collective expense. Many Americans honestly believe that our government was established more or less for that purpose, to provide for the 'huddled masses', and that not doing so would make us morally derelict in our duty to whoever claims the right to come here.
Even if we have money to burn, which we don't, there are costs that go far beyond the monetary, as most of my readers are well aware, but the average American seems to think that we owe the poor of the world a home, and have a duty to provide for their posterity.
The writer quotes the Founding Fathers to the effect that this country was created 'to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' And that posterity means us, the descendants of the old-stock Americans. When they wrote about their 'posterity', they surely did not think that included the whole world.
An illustration of the kinds of troubles that all too often occur when refugees are dropped into a small town in a White, Western country is this story from Sweden:
Nearly half of the predominantly Iraqi-refugees residing in Vännäs in northern Sweden have decided to permanently move out of the area after being terrorized by what police called "a lynch mob" in early May.
"I thought that Vännäs was the perfect place for us. And there are many, many friendly people here. But we still don�t dare to stay; I�m seriously concerned about my children�s safety," said father of five Ismail Ramadan to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.
Ramadan�s family and several others have decided to abandon plans of starting a life in the small community outside of Umeå less than two weeks after a group of 30 to 50 young people assembled outside the apartment building in which the refugees lived and began shouting threats and throwing stones.
The May 9th incident resulted in several broken windows and many frightened refugees.''
Usually this kind of thing is sensationalized and played up as a story of racism and ''hate'' by the media, but at least this source acknowledges that the troubles did not originate with the townspeople:
According to the Västerbotten-Kuriren newspaper, the dispute began when a group of local youths confronted a refugee boy about the assault of a local girl which took place Tuesday night.''
The discussion at Gates of Vienna is here.
The popular stereotype of Scandinavians is that they are the most ''tolerant'', liberal, and passive of all the Western countries. So, even allowing for the exaggeration that is inherent in that image, it is surprising that this incident happened in Sweden -- although we have to notice, too, that there were the typical liberal brainwashed who made it a point to apologize and court the refugees.
Why does any attempt to stand up for our side always have to involve apologies and grovelling by somebody among our ranks? It's pathetic.
Granted, I don't advocate harassing people without cause or taking the laws into one's own hands, but what, as Fjordman points out in the comments, happens when the supposed enforcers of the law refuse, or fail, to protect the citizenry? If they want to avoid situations like this, the authorities have to do their job in protecting the rightful citizens of the country, and uphold the laws of the land. Too often these days they refuse to do so, from the highest levels on down to the lowest, and then what?
The purposeful 'planting' of refugees and assorted others in small towns throughout the Western countries has all the appearances of being an act of aggression or hostility by those in power against their (supposedly) own people.
We are told that our countries are obligated, by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally set up under very different circumstances:
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.''
At that time, obviously there were genuine refugees who had ben displaced by war and the upheavals following World War II, and today the situation is very different. The millions who are roaming the world now in the attempt to find better economic conditions, in most cases, are not comparable to those who genuinely were displaced or homeless as a result of war and the changing boundaries of nations.
The definition of a refugee is this, established in 1967:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.''
How many of today's country-shoppers and 'better-life' seekers fit that description? And since 1967, a great many spurious claims have been made, and the definitions expanded to include homosexuals or transsexuals who claim they are ''persecuted'' for their sexual predilections, or people with certain PC diseases who claim they cannot get treatment in their own countries, and so on.
And even the claim of poverty is not sufficient, under the definition, to claim the right to live here, yet it's due to that claim that many soft-headed Americans accept mass illegal immigration as unavoidable. They think it's the least we can do to welcome all these poor people who 'just want to work'.
Yet when people like the two men from the UK, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle sought asylum based on their conviction on 'hate-crime' charges in the UK, they were denied. Granted, they may not appear as sympathetic figures to most media-indoctrinated Americans or Britons, for that matter, but the fact is, they were exercising what we in the US consider a right: free speech.
And we, meanwhile, see fit to welcome 'refugees' from countries which have shown hostility towards us in the past, Somalia, for example. Has everybody forgotten about the events in Mogadishu back in the Clinton era?
Actually, I suspect many Americans don't make the connection. I recently had someone ask me, ''where's Mogadishu"? when the name was mentioned.
The fact is, we need to reconsider our ''commitment'' to accepting refugees. Why can't we simply withdraw our participation in these agreements? Even in these hard economic times, the government, and indeed all Western governments, are working fast and furiously to bring more ''refugees'' to ''enrich'' our bankrupt countries.
No, we don't owe the world's hard-luck cases. There is a limit to what we can do, and we have no moral obligation to solve all the world's problems, the U.N. notwithstanding. In fact, as has so often been proposed, we need to get out of that misbegotten, failed, corrupt organization and they need to find a new home, or better yet, close up shop. The world will be so much better a place when they do so.
Labels: Ethnic Conflicts, Multiculturalism, Racial Dispossession, Refugee Industry, Refugees, United Nations, Western Decline
0 comment Sunday, June 15, 2014 | admin
I'd like to say that I am sending up prayers and good wishes for our friends on the Gulf Coast who are in the path of Hurricane Gustav. Let's hope that it will not be as devastating as Katrina, and that lessons were learned following that latter disaster which will save many lives this time.
It seems to me that it was around this same time three years ago that Katrina hit. I certainly remember reading the urgent, grimly-worded warnings from the Weather Service about the threat posed by the storm. And yet I remember reading stories about people partying in New Orleans while waiting for Katrina to hit.
There are always heedless people, people who think courting danger is fun, and people who are just plain sorry, who don't want to make the effort to evacuate. That requires too much planning and preparation and work. Some people will just stay inert and hope for the best, or trust that others will come along and rescue them should their fecklessness get them into trouble.
But watching the news coverage, it occurred to me that with these mass evacuations, there are probably government plans for a little more social engineering. Hey, we've got all these people packed up and on the road; why not inject a little more 'diversity' into some towns that aren't vibrant enough? Seize the day. Can't let a chance like this go to waste, right?
And sure enough, there is a story today about how Kentucky is prepared to welcome some needed diversity.
Three years ago, many of the Katrina refugees were taken to far-flung and unlikely places like Salt Lake City or Colorado.
How'd that work out? Clearly that's one lesson that hasn't been learned from Katrina.
Over at Man-Sized Target, Christopher Roach discusses the situation.
Maybe I am misunderstanding him, but it appears he is proposing more of what was done last time with the evacuees.
But surely a lot more would be spent on moving people to higher ground, perhaps in other parts of the region where relatives live or in completely new cities where their neighbors� good habits would rub off, just as New Orleanians� bad habits often bring out the worst in locals.''
I don't think that moving people from high-crime, unproductive areas to 'productive and safe' places like South Dakota, Maine, or Oregon, will cause the refugees to adopt the good habits of their new neighbors. Has that happened in any of the cities where they were relocated three years ago?
Unfortunately, I think all too often, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and the character of the host communities is changed for the worse. Maine, for example, is one of the more homogeneous (shall we use the unfortunate term 'white-bread'?) areas of the country which has been 'enriched' with refugees from Somalia; I doubt any of the local Maine citizens' ways have rubbed off on the Somalis.
As I never tire of saying -- actually, I do tire of saying it, because it seems so self-evident -- the people make the place. Maine and South Dakota and Oregon were traditionally safe, orderly places precisely because of the people who made up the vast majority of the population there. The people make the place.
(Unfortunately in the case of Oregon, which is being transformed in some areas into a 'vibrant' outpost of Aztlan, now there are gangs, drugs, and stabbings at quinceaneras. Celebrate diversity.)
By the way, just google 'quinceanera stabbing' and see how many hits you get.
As to the people of New Orleans, they were adamant that they preferred to have a 'chocolate city', so why not respect their wishes and give them their preference? Why relocate them into 'vanilla' areas and thus deprive them? Obviously it's to serve the diversity agenda; no more distinct flavors, just one multicultural blend is all that will be on the menu from now on.
It seems to me that it was around this same time three years ago that Katrina hit. I certainly remember reading the urgent, grimly-worded warnings from the Weather Service about the threat posed by the storm. And yet I remember reading stories about people partying in New Orleans while waiting for Katrina to hit.
There are always heedless people, people who think courting danger is fun, and people who are just plain sorry, who don't want to make the effort to evacuate. That requires too much planning and preparation and work. Some people will just stay inert and hope for the best, or trust that others will come along and rescue them should their fecklessness get them into trouble.
But watching the news coverage, it occurred to me that with these mass evacuations, there are probably government plans for a little more social engineering. Hey, we've got all these people packed up and on the road; why not inject a little more 'diversity' into some towns that aren't vibrant enough? Seize the day. Can't let a chance like this go to waste, right?
And sure enough, there is a story today about how Kentucky is prepared to welcome some needed diversity.
Three years ago, many of the Katrina refugees were taken to far-flung and unlikely places like Salt Lake City or Colorado.
How'd that work out? Clearly that's one lesson that hasn't been learned from Katrina.
Over at Man-Sized Target, Christopher Roach discusses the situation.
Maybe I am misunderstanding him, but it appears he is proposing more of what was done last time with the evacuees.
But surely a lot more would be spent on moving people to higher ground, perhaps in other parts of the region where relatives live or in completely new cities where their neighbors� good habits would rub off, just as New Orleanians� bad habits often bring out the worst in locals.''
I don't think that moving people from high-crime, unproductive areas to 'productive and safe' places like South Dakota, Maine, or Oregon, will cause the refugees to adopt the good habits of their new neighbors. Has that happened in any of the cities where they were relocated three years ago?
Unfortunately, I think all too often, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and the character of the host communities is changed for the worse. Maine, for example, is one of the more homogeneous (shall we use the unfortunate term 'white-bread'?) areas of the country which has been 'enriched' with refugees from Somalia; I doubt any of the local Maine citizens' ways have rubbed off on the Somalis.
As I never tire of saying -- actually, I do tire of saying it, because it seems so self-evident -- the people make the place. Maine and South Dakota and Oregon were traditionally safe, orderly places precisely because of the people who made up the vast majority of the population there. The people make the place.
(Unfortunately in the case of Oregon, which is being transformed in some areas into a 'vibrant' outpost of Aztlan, now there are gangs, drugs, and stabbings at quinceaneras. Celebrate diversity.)
By the way, just google 'quinceanera stabbing' and see how many hits you get.
As to the people of New Orleans, they were adamant that they preferred to have a 'chocolate city', so why not respect their wishes and give them their preference? Why relocate them into 'vanilla' areas and thus deprive them? Obviously it's to serve the diversity agenda; no more distinct flavors, just one multicultural blend is all that will be on the menu from now on.
Labels: Diversity, Multiculturalism, Refugees, Relocation, Social Engineering
0 comment Friday, June 6, 2014 | admin
Yesterday in a comment, reader Philip alerted us to this story about allegations of human organ trafficking in Kosovo. As of yesterday I had read nothing about it, but it seems to be a more widely-reported story today.
In the AP article mentioned above, (no excerpt) Kosovo Prime Minister Thaci said these reports were 'monstrous'.
This story from Agence France-Presse quotes a Swiss Council of Europe representative, Dick Marty, who in a report names Thaci as being one of the principals in an organ-trafficking ring.
STRASBOURG (AFP) � Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was one of the key players in the traffic of organs of Serb prisoners after the 1998-99 conflict there, according to allegations in a draft Council of Europe report.
The report, by Swiss Council of Europe deputy Dick Marty, accuses Thaci and other senior commanders of the ethnic Albanian guerrilla group the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of having set up the traffic.
The draft report was published on the Council of Europe website on Tuesday and will be considered by its legal affairs committee on Thursday.
In Pristina, the government of Thaci dismissed the report as fabrications designed to smear the country's leaders.
Marty wrote of substantial evidence that Serbians -- and some Albanian Kosovars -- had been secretly imprisoned by the KLA in northern Albania "and were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, before ultimately disappearing."
At the end of the above-quoted article is a link to the draft report at the Council of Europe's website.
Here ia a piece from Politico.com which provides more details. If you peruse the comments at the Politico posting, you will see echoed there the longstanding feeling that we (America, or our government, more accurately) were on the wrong side in the Balkan conflict, and that these kinds of activities by the KLA were already in evidence when 'our' government sided against the Serbs there. The idea of setting up a Kosovar state seems to have been a particularly ill-conceived one, and we have Bill Clinton to thank, among others, for that. Bill Clinton was more than just a hedonistic lecher who disgraced this country by his personal escapades; he was the author of (or collaborator in) some real blunders, including this debacle in the Balkans.
Are the stories of missing organs and prisoners executed for their kidneys credible? A commenter there expresses skepticism.
''Patrick says:
My feeling is that many of the rumors of what is going on inside Kosovo are often manufactured, bias and focused on making the Albanian people and Kosovo as a region seem like a very hostile place, especially for Serbs.
Who on earth would want to return with his family to a place where there are reports of illegal abduction ending in death and the removal of organs?
That's right... No one would return alone or let alone with his family to such a region - ever! ''
It's true that for years, there has been a popular urban legend that there are 'organ thieves' who abduct and remove kidneys from hapless tourists. But as we see here, these grisly 'legends' have proven true in some cases, at least in India.
And the KLA has been notorious for some unsavory activities for a long time, as this article from a dozen years ago indicates.
This article from the EU Observer quotes Mr. Marty as having said that 'the West' has not done enough to investigate allegations of war crimes in the region. I hope that 'the West' taking action will not mean that Americans will be drawn into any kind of military action over there, but given the fact that 'we' have sided with the Kosovars it would seem unlikely that our present regime would wish to be involved in this situation.
My greater concern would be that with our policy of welcoming in refugees from that region, we may unwittingly be bringing this kind of thing into our midst. Back in the late 90s the Clinton administration agreed to take 20,000 Kosovar refugees into this country.
''Then, in an April 21 speech at Ellis Island, Vice President Gore announced that the Kosovar Albanians would be resettled as refugees in the U.S.: "We will accept, on the American mainland, up to 20,000 of the hurting and homeless Kosovar refugees those with close family ties in America and those who are vulnerable. ... We will bring them here until they are able to return home safely." But Gore continued to insist that the refugees' stay would be temporary: "We anticipate their return to Kosovo. . . . the ones coming to the United States, will also be prepared to return on short notice."
By the next day, however, administration officials conceded the obvious that many of the Kosovar Albanians would obtain permanent residence in the United States, a benefit available after one year to anyone admitted as a refugee. In the words of a senior administration official, "We are going to try to create conditions in Kosovo for these people to return, but the choice will ultimately be theirs." Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Albanian Issues Caucus, put it more plainly: "And let's face it, after a year or two, they'd have had a taste of political freedom. They won't want to go back. . . The reality is that the vast majority are probably here to stay." These 'temporary' refugees, as the CIS article indicates, have a way of becoming permanent, and forming permanent enclaves in our country -- essentially mini-versions of the 'old country' and all its problems and pathologies.
So we can't pretend that these conflicts on the other side of the globe are of no concern for us, as they end up on our doorstep sooner rather than later, these days.
Diversity is costly.
In the AP article mentioned above, (no excerpt) Kosovo Prime Minister Thaci said these reports were 'monstrous'.
This story from Agence France-Presse quotes a Swiss Council of Europe representative, Dick Marty, who in a report names Thaci as being one of the principals in an organ-trafficking ring.
STRASBOURG (AFP) � Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was one of the key players in the traffic of organs of Serb prisoners after the 1998-99 conflict there, according to allegations in a draft Council of Europe report.
The report, by Swiss Council of Europe deputy Dick Marty, accuses Thaci and other senior commanders of the ethnic Albanian guerrilla group the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of having set up the traffic.
The draft report was published on the Council of Europe website on Tuesday and will be considered by its legal affairs committee on Thursday.
In Pristina, the government of Thaci dismissed the report as fabrications designed to smear the country's leaders.
Marty wrote of substantial evidence that Serbians -- and some Albanian Kosovars -- had been secretly imprisoned by the KLA in northern Albania "and were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, before ultimately disappearing."
At the end of the above-quoted article is a link to the draft report at the Council of Europe's website.
Here ia a piece from Politico.com which provides more details. If you peruse the comments at the Politico posting, you will see echoed there the longstanding feeling that we (America, or our government, more accurately) were on the wrong side in the Balkan conflict, and that these kinds of activities by the KLA were already in evidence when 'our' government sided against the Serbs there. The idea of setting up a Kosovar state seems to have been a particularly ill-conceived one, and we have Bill Clinton to thank, among others, for that. Bill Clinton was more than just a hedonistic lecher who disgraced this country by his personal escapades; he was the author of (or collaborator in) some real blunders, including this debacle in the Balkans.
Are the stories of missing organs and prisoners executed for their kidneys credible? A commenter there expresses skepticism.
''Patrick says:
My feeling is that many of the rumors of what is going on inside Kosovo are often manufactured, bias and focused on making the Albanian people and Kosovo as a region seem like a very hostile place, especially for Serbs.
Who on earth would want to return with his family to a place where there are reports of illegal abduction ending in death and the removal of organs?
That's right... No one would return alone or let alone with his family to such a region - ever! ''
It's true that for years, there has been a popular urban legend that there are 'organ thieves' who abduct and remove kidneys from hapless tourists. But as we see here, these grisly 'legends' have proven true in some cases, at least in India.
And the KLA has been notorious for some unsavory activities for a long time, as this article from a dozen years ago indicates.
This article from the EU Observer quotes Mr. Marty as having said that 'the West' has not done enough to investigate allegations of war crimes in the region. I hope that 'the West' taking action will not mean that Americans will be drawn into any kind of military action over there, but given the fact that 'we' have sided with the Kosovars it would seem unlikely that our present regime would wish to be involved in this situation.
My greater concern would be that with our policy of welcoming in refugees from that region, we may unwittingly be bringing this kind of thing into our midst. Back in the late 90s the Clinton administration agreed to take 20,000 Kosovar refugees into this country.
''Then, in an April 21 speech at Ellis Island, Vice President Gore announced that the Kosovar Albanians would be resettled as refugees in the U.S.: "We will accept, on the American mainland, up to 20,000 of the hurting and homeless Kosovar refugees those with close family ties in America and those who are vulnerable. ... We will bring them here until they are able to return home safely." But Gore continued to insist that the refugees' stay would be temporary: "We anticipate their return to Kosovo. . . . the ones coming to the United States, will also be prepared to return on short notice."
By the next day, however, administration officials conceded the obvious that many of the Kosovar Albanians would obtain permanent residence in the United States, a benefit available after one year to anyone admitted as a refugee. In the words of a senior administration official, "We are going to try to create conditions in Kosovo for these people to return, but the choice will ultimately be theirs." Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Albanian Issues Caucus, put it more plainly: "And let's face it, after a year or two, they'd have had a taste of political freedom. They won't want to go back. . . The reality is that the vast majority are probably here to stay." These 'temporary' refugees, as the CIS article indicates, have a way of becoming permanent, and forming permanent enclaves in our country -- essentially mini-versions of the 'old country' and all its problems and pathologies.
So we can't pretend that these conflicts on the other side of the globe are of no concern for us, as they end up on our doorstep sooner rather than later, these days.
Diversity is costly.
Labels: Balkans, Ethnic Conflicts, Eu, Islam, Refugees