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, September 7, 2014 | admin
For once, an encouraging story out of the UK. The people of one town are defending their own community as their leftist, PC authorities fail to do so.
In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.
Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.
To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.
But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the 'gipsies� drove around the Locking site and took photographs.
One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: 'We�ve got guns.�''
As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:
The local council � which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers � said it could not intervene at this stage.
That left only one option � people power. And so, the estate�s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''
A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.
At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.
The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.
The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these "Roma Communities" are recent arrivals, and "possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers" in England.
According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''
It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.
With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.
The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.
There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.
Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.
Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.
In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.
I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.
I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.
In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?
And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.
There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.
Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.
Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.
Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.
I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.
In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.
Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.
To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.
But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the 'gipsies� drove around the Locking site and took photographs.
One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: 'We�ve got guns.�''
As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:
The local council � which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers � said it could not intervene at this stage.
That left only one option � people power. And so, the estate�s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''
A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.
At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.
The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.
The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these "Roma Communities" are recent arrivals, and "possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers" in England.
According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''
It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.
With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.
The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.
There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.
Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.
Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.
In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.
I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.
I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.
In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?
And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.
There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.
Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.
Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.
Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.
I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.
Labels: Death Of The West, Globalism, Leftism, Localism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Refugee Industry, United Kingdom, United Nations