The West Turns its Back on Persecuted Christians, Embraces Radical Muslims
A look at the West’s highly discriminatory immigration system.
This article is reprinted from the Gatestone Institute.
Western authorities appear committed to discriminating against Christian, while welcoming Muslim, asylum seekers.
Most recently, Germany—which has taken in millions of refugees from the Muslim world, including un-vetted ones from Afghanistan—denied refuge to an Iranian convert to Christianity, even though his brother-in-law was imprisoned, tortured, and killed after converting in their native Iran. Known by the initials “H.H.,” according to one report,
When H.H.’s asylum application was rejected by German authorities, he appealed to the Greifswald Administrative Court. The court dismissed H.H.’s case, declaring that it was “not particularly likely” that a Muslim would decide to become a Christian after his brother-in-law had been tortured and killed and his wife abused. It was more likely that the events described, if they had actually taken place, would have a deterrent effect on third parties,” [sic: not clear where quote begins] said the Administrative Court….. This week, the European Court of Human Rights quickly declined to hear arguments in H.H’s defense, leaving him vulnerable to deportation to a country where religious conversion can carry a prison penalty.
Discussing Hassan’s case, Lidia Rieder, a legal officer at ADF International (Alliance Defending Freedom), said,
Iran is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for Christians, and converts are particularly at risk. In the last year, religious persecution has greatly worsened. So-called ‘religious deviants’ can be given prison sentences, national security charges are continuously used to target religious minorities. The courts in Germany must take this into account when processing asylum applications.
Germany and the European Court of Human Rights are hardly the only ones to deny refuge to or discriminate against persecuted Christians. Over the years, many other Western entities have engaged in similar behavior.
Under the Obama presidency, particularly during the refugee crisis precipitated by the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS), the White House and State Department were accused of all sorts of discriminatory measures against Christians—to the point that a federal appellate court filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in late 2016. In it, Judge Daniel expressed his “concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country”:
Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one-half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian…. To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.
The discrepancy in numbers was even more perplexing when examined in full context: Although the U.S. government had acknowledged that ISIS was committing genocide against Christians in Syria due solely to their religious identity, it took in only those who by definition were not in any way being targeted by ISIS—Sunni Muslims, of whom ISIS, a Sunni organization, identifies with and does not attack. Indeed, despite the fact that Sunnis were about 75 percent of Syria’s population, and Christians about 10 percent, 99 percent of those brought into America were Sunni Muslims, and less than 0.5 percent were Christian.
As CNS news noted in 2016, “Record 499 Syrian Refugees Admitted to US So Far in May Includes No Christians.” In other words, even if one were to operate under the assumption that refugee status should have been made available to all Syrians, regardless of religion, there should have been 20 times more Christians and about one-quarter fewer Sunnis granted refugee status under Obama.
A virtually identical situation prevailed in the United Kingdom. In 2019, The Times asserted that the UK “fails to give safe haven to Christians,” and “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” instead of Christians.
Once again, statistics confirm this allegation: “out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.”
At the time, Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a Life Peer in the House of Lords, wrote in a letter to Sajid Javid, the Muslim man who then headed the Home Office:
It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk…. As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this [ratio imbalance between Muslim and Christian refugees taken in] is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.
As in the U.S., the discrimination became so flagrant that Lord George Carey sued the Home Office for being “institutionally biased” against Christian refugees and therefore complicit in what he called “the steady crucifixion of Middle East Christians.”
The discrimination persecuted Christian minorities face begins well before they reach Western nations. As CBN News reported in 2019:
Christian Syrian refugees … have been blocked from getting help from the United Nations Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, by Muslim UN officials in Jordan. One of the refugees, Hasan, a Syrian convert to Christianity, told us in a phone call that Muslim UN camp officials ‘knew that we were Muslims and became Christians and they dealt with us with persecution and mockery. They didn’t let us into the office. They ignored our request.’ Hasan and his family are now in hiding, afraid that they will be arrested by Jordanian police, or even killed. Converting to Christianity is a serious crime in Jordan.
According to Timothy, a Jordanian Muslim who converted to Christianity, “All of the United Nations officials [apparently in Jordan], most of them, 99 percent, they are Muslims, and they were treating us as enemies.”
Paul Diamond, a British human rights lawyer, elaborated on this issue:
You have this absurd situation where the scheme is set up to help Syrian refugees and the people most in need, Christians who have been ‘genocided,’ they can’t even get into the U.N. camps to get the food. If you enter and say I am a Christian or convert, the Muslim U.N. guards will block you [from] getting in and laugh at you and mock you and even threaten you…. [saying] ‘You shouldn’t have converted. You’re an idiot for converting. You get what you get,’ words to that effect.
This same mockery often greets those Christians who do reach Western nations. The UK’s Home Office alone offers multiple examples. In one instance, it ridiculed an Iranian female asylum seeker in her rejection letter by writing, “You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that he would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”
She later said that whenever she responded to her Home Office interviewer, “he was either chuckling or maybe just kind of mocking when he was talking to me…. [H]e asked me why Jesus didn’t help you from the Iranian regime or Iranian authorities.”
“In my country,” she added, “if someone converts to Christianity their punishment is death or execution.”
Similarly, in his rejection letter from the Home Office, another Muslim convert to Christianity was told that several biblical passages were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity because he had discovered it was a “peaceful” faith. The letter went so far as to cite biblical passages—including from Exodus, Leviticus, Matthew, and Revelation—to argue that the Bible is violent, before concluding: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”
In yet another example, the UK’s Home Office not only denied entry to three Christian leaders—archbishops celebrated for their heroic efforts at aiding persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq who had been invited to attend the consecration of the UK’s first Syriac Cathedral, an event attended by then-Prince Charles—but also mockingly told them there was “no room at the inn.”
Even in the most recent case—that of H.H., the aforementioned Iranian man who was denied asylum in Germany—a hint of ridicule was evident in the authorities’ conclusion: he must have been lying, they reasoned, since apparently no sane person would convert to or remain Christian after seeing a relative murdered for the same reason.
Meanwhile, it cannot be emphasized enough that, while the few Christians who seek asylum are highly scrutinized and given a hard time, millions of Muslim asylum seekers were taken into the West without question or hassle—most without even being vetted at all.
The same Germany to deny and send H.H. back to torture and possible death in Iran took in over a million Muslim migrants in 2015 and, after H.H. had applied, ten thousand non-vetted Afghans in 2021—even though Afghanistan is arguably the most hostile nation to Christians. Again, these are all people who, by definition, could not have experienced religious persecution back home as they themselves are Muslim—not to mention that many of them share in the Taliban’s penchant for violence and extremism.
Similarly, under the Biden administration—which has further been accused of willfully preventing Christian minorities from escaping Afghanistan—over 74,000 non-vetted Afghans were granted asylum into America in 2022, and many of them, too, have brought with them the behavior they were reportedly escaping.
As for the UK’s Home Office, despite having no papers on him—and despite telling the Home Office that “he had been trained as an ISIS soldier”—Ahmed Hassan was still granted asylum two years before he launched a terrorist attack on a London train station that left 30 injured in September 2017. The Home Office also allowed a foreign Muslim cleric to enter and lecture in London, even though he advocated decapitating, burning, and/or throwing homosexuals from cliffs. According to another report, “British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office ‘turns a blind eye’ by handing visas to their [mostly Muslim] husbands.”
The case of Asia Bibi—a Christian wife and mother of five who spent a decade of her life on death row in Pakistan for challenging the authority of Muhammad—perhaps best sheds light on the immigration situation in the UK. Although she was finally acquitted in November, 2018, once the Pakistanis of the UK learned that the UK was going to offer asylum to Asia Bibi, they rioted en masse.
As a result, then Prime Minister Theresa May personally blocked Bibi’s asylum application, “despite UK playing host to [Muslim] hijackers, extremists and rapists,” to quote from one headline. In other words, the UK was openly allowing “asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob,” reported the Guardian, “after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK…”
Meanwhile, and as usual, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric who celebrated the slaughter of a politician because he had defended Asia Bibi—a cleric deemed so extreme as to be banned from his native Pakistan—to enter and lecture in UK mosques.
Discussing how “visas were granted [by the Home Office] in July [2016] to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the killing of Christians accused of blasphemy,” Dr. Martin Parsons, a human rights activist, expressed his frustration: “It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians.”
In short, when it comes to who is being granted asylum in the West, persecuted Christians need not apply, whereas extremist Muslims are welcomed with open arms.
Leftist Hijab-Wearing Boston Politician Tries to Hijack Iran’s Anti-Hijab Protests
Who is really more oppressed by the hijab?
There’s tone-deaf, and then there’s far-Left Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson. Women are putting their lives on the line for the freedom not to wear hijab in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Fernandes Anderson has come up with a novel way to honor them. She has proposed that Boston observe the birthday of Mahsa Amini, who was killed by Iranian security forces for not wearing her hijab properly, as Hijab Day. Yes, really.
According to a Sunday report in The Jerusalem Post, Fernandes Anderson, who is a hijab-wearing Sunni Muslim herself, “put forward a resolution … late last week, suggesting that Mahsa Amini’s birthday, September 23, should be recognized as Boston’s official Hijab Day, according to the official City of Boston.” Not surprisingly, Anderson’s proposal “has sparked considerable outrage.”
But Fernandes Anderson explains that it’s all about — what else? — “her worries regarding the rise of Islamophobia that surrounds hijab-wearing women in the US.” On Thursday, she explained before Boston’s City Council that she was actually in favor of the protestors: “For the past few weeks, people of good conscience a month or so from around the world have joined in the protest, the thousands across Iran demanding justice for Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died after three days in custody of Iran’s notorious morality police after being accused of not properly covering her hair.” Yet despite admitting this, Anderson decided that the best way to honor these “people of conscience” was to celebrate the very symbol of their oppression that they’re rebelling against.
“These protests in the heart of Iran,” Fernandes Anderson continued, “have featured brave women burning their scarves and cutting their hair in the face of arrest, abuse, and in some cases, even death to show their solidarity with Amini’s family and their will for freedoms and access to a joyful life absence of suppression from an oppressive state.” That’s where Anderson came to her central point. It’s all about fighting against suppression from an oppressive state, you see. Apparently, she would have us believe that women who wear hijab in the United States are just as persecuted and oppressed as women who don’t wear hijab in Iran, and so the best way to honor Mahsa Amini is to celebrate what she died trying to get away from.
Fernandes Anderson emphasized that what she had in common with Mahsa Amini was that both were exercising their free choice: “I, an African woman, wear my scarf and put it in a bun. It’s simple. Mahsa Amini said, ‘I’ll just wrap it around. It’s not a big deal, it’s just a scarf.’ You see, whether I wear it or I don’t, it’s my choice.”
Yeah, no. Mahsa Amini did not actually have a choice. Iran’s morality police arrested her, and tortured and killed her, precisely because she had no choice. To claim to honor her by celebrating what led to her death is monstrous. Many on Twitter didn’t hesitate to tell Fernandes Anderson just what they thought of her proposal. One wrote, “Dear Tania, Do you realise Amini was killed for wearing Hijab improperly? What next..Declare a day as ‘Gun day’ to honour the VICTIMS of Gun violence?” Good idea. And as my PJ Media colleague Matt Margolis suggested, we could have a “Dahmer Day” to honor the victims of serial killers. Another Twitter user wrote bluntly to Anderson, “You better apologize to all Iranian people! Tania Fernandes Anderson is a shame for humanity!” A petition began circulating calling upon her to resign.
While the anger at Tania Fernandes Anderson is understandable, her bizarre proposal is also completely understandable. The protests in the Islamic Republic are a direct rebuke to the Left’s continual claims that women who wear hijab are doing so because they choose to do so, and that in wearing it, they’re threatened by racist MAGA-hat-wearing redneck yahoos who are anxious to demonstrate their “Islamophobia” by tearing the hijab off their heads. Such people don’t exist outside of the Left’s paranoid fantasies, and the Iranian protests show that the real oppressed people are not women who wear hijab in Western countries, but women who dare not to wear hijab in Sharia states. So Tania Fernandes Anderson tried to restore the Left’s damaged credibility by appropriating the protests in Iran and conflating them with the fictional oppression of hijabis in the United States. Give her points for imagination and audacity, if not for genuine compassion for the women who are facing prison and death to be free of the oppression she has freely chosen.
There’s tone-deaf, and then there’s far-Left Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson. Women are putting their lives on the line for the freedom not to wear hijab in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Fernandes Anderson has come up with a novel way to honor them. She has proposed that Boston observe the birthday of Mahsa Amini, who was killed by Iranian security forces for not wearing her hijab properly, as Hijab Day. Yes, really.
According to a Sunday report in The Jerusalem Post, Fernandes Anderson, who is a hijab-wearing Sunni Muslim herself, “put forward a resolution … late last week, suggesting that Mahsa Amini’s birthday, September 23, should be recognized as Boston’s official Hijab Day, according to the official City of Boston.” Not surprisingly, Anderson’s proposal “has sparked considerable outrage.”
But Fernandes Anderson explains that it’s all about — what else? — “her worries regarding the rise of Islamophobia that surrounds hijab-wearing women in the US.” On Thursday, she explained before Boston’s City Council that she was actually in favor of the protestors: “For the past few weeks, people of good conscience a month or so from around the world have joined in the protest, the thousands across Iran demanding justice for Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died after three days in custody of Iran’s notorious morality police after being accused of not properly covering her hair.” Yet despite admitting this, Anderson decided that the best way to honor these “people of conscience” was to celebrate the very symbol of their oppression that they’re rebelling against.
“These protests in the heart of Iran,” Fernandes Anderson continued, “have featured brave women burning their scarves and cutting their hair in the face of arrest, abuse, and in some cases, even death to show their solidarity with Amini’s family and their will for freedoms and access to a joyful life absence of suppression from an oppressive state.” That’s where Anderson came to her central point. It’s all about fighting against suppression from an oppressive state, you see. Apparently, she would have us believe that women who wear hijab in the United States are just as persecuted and oppressed as women who don’t wear hijab in Iran, and so the best way to honor Mahsa Amini is to celebrate what she died trying to get away from.
Fernandes Anderson emphasized that what she had in common with Mahsa Amini was that both were exercising their free choice: “I, an African woman, wear my scarf and put it in a bun. It’s simple. Mahsa Amini said, ‘I’ll just wrap it around. It’s not a big deal, it’s just a scarf.’ You see, whether I wear it or I don’t, it’s my choice.”
Yeah, no. Mahsa Amini did not actually have a choice. Iran’s morality police arrested her, and tortured and killed her, precisely because she had no choice. To claim to honor her by celebrating what led to her death is monstrous. Many on Twitter didn’t hesitate to tell Fernandes Anderson just what they thought of her proposal. One wrote, “Dear Tania, Do you realise Amini was killed for wearing Hijab improperly? What next..Declare a day as ‘Gun day’ to honour the VICTIMS of Gun violence?” Good idea. And as my PJ Media colleague Matt Margolis suggested, we could have a “Dahmer Day” to honor the victims of serial killers. Another Twitter user wrote bluntly to Anderson, “You better apologize to all Iranian people! Tania Fernandes Anderson is a shame for humanity!” A petition began circulating calling upon her to resign.
While the anger at Tania Fernandes Anderson is understandable, her bizarre proposal is also completely understandable. The protests in the Islamic Republic are a direct rebuke to the Left’s continual claims that women who wear hijab are doing so because they choose to do so, and that in wearing it, they’re threatened by racist MAGA-hat-wearing redneck yahoos who are anxious to demonstrate their “Islamophobia” by tearing the hijab off their heads. Such people don’t exist outside of the Left’s paranoid fantasies, and the Iranian protests show that the real oppressed people are not women who wear hijab in Western countries, but women who dare not to wear hijab in Sharia states. So Tania Fernandes Anderson tried to restore the Left’s damaged credibility by appropriating the protests in Iran and conflating them with the fictional oppression of hijabis in the United States. Give her points for imagination and audacity, if not for genuine compassion for the women who are facing prison and death to be free of the oppression she has freely chosen.
Robert Spencer
‘Allahu Akbar’ Knifeman With Deportation Order Arrested By French Police
A man already subject to a deportation order from France was arrested over the weekend in the commune of Saint-Etienne after he publicly yelled “Allahu akbar” in the street while carrying a knife.
The man, aged 31, was arrested on Saturday evening at around 8:40 pm as he was walking down the street in Saint-Etienne while carrying a knife and shouting “Allahu akbar.” As police approached the man and made an attempt to take him into custody he is said to have attacked the officers.
One of the officers was wounded in the attack, but not seriously. According to sources close to the investigation the man arrested, 31-year-old Oussama A., was already subject to a deportation order prior to the attack, broadcaster CNews reports.
The same day in the city of Bordeaux, another radical Islamic extremist was arrested in similar circumstances at around 6:30 pm that evening.
Police arrested a 21-year-old man who began shouting and praising the Islamic State terrorist group in the main shopping street of the city, Sainte-Catherine street. According to witnesses, the man shouted, “Join the Islamic State!” and “the throats of the disbelievers must be slaughtered.”
Police quickly arrested the 21-year-old and he was placed into custody pending charges of apology for terrorism. Following his arrest, the man’s home was searched but did not show any immediate signs of radicalisation, although reports claim that electronic devices were still being analysed.
In recent days, the issue of deportation orders not being fulfilled has become a major topic of discussion in France after the murder of a 12-year-old girl named Lola in Paris. It was later revealed that the Algerian woman suspected of raping and murdering the young girl was subject to a deportation order and should have left the country weeks prior to the alleged murder.
Several right-wing politicians had claimed that France is unable to fulfil between 88 and 90 per cent of the deportation orders currently in place but these claims were fact-checked by French media, who revealed the number was even higher at 93 to 94 per cent.
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com.
ISLAM WIRES MUSLIMS TO HATE AND MURDER JEWS AND CHRISTIANS, BEHEAD GAYS AND RAPE WOMEN.
THE ANTISEMITIC DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THEIR MUSLIMS
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-muslim-assault-on-christians-this.html
“Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States. Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIAL WATCH
Afghan Migrant Who Raped Woman and Threw Her Down Mine Shaft Sentenced to ‘Life’
A Swedish court has found an Afghan migrant guilty of raping a woman and pushing her down a mine shaft, sentencing the 41-year-old to “life” for rape and attempted murder.
Afghan migrant Taher Amini was sentenced to “life” — actually likely to be 20 to 25 years, theoretically followed by deportation — by the Västmanland District Court on Friday after he raped a woman and threw her down a mine shaft in LÃ¥nggruvan outside Norberg in April.
Amini drove with the victim shortly before the incident and stated that he wanted to marry her, with the victim later theorising he was motivated by wanting a Swedish residency permit. He then took the victim to the wooded area and proceeded to rape her before throwing her down the mine shaft, Aftonbladet reports.
After noticing the victim had survived the fall into the nearly 80-foot-deep pit, he attempted to kill her twice by throwing rocks down the shaft.
Hours later, the woman was discovered by a passerby. The court said she would have likely died within a day if she had not been found, justifying the “life” sentence against the Afghan despite the fact the woman survived the ordeal.
“This, taken together with the plaintiff’s suffering and death anxiety, means that the penalty value of the attempted murder is very close to what would have applied if the plaintiff had died. Since the man is also convicted of aggravated rape, we have found that the penalty should be life imprisonment,” District Court Judge Johan Alvner stated.
Amini came to Sweden in 2015, during the height of the migrant crisis and the Swedish Migration Agency rejected his application two years later, ordering his deportation. The Afghan appealed the decision and was rejected again, and a court later ruled to not grant leave to appeal again — but he was still not actually removed from the country.
Amini is said to have been previously married with three children but his wife had been and is currently missing. The Afghan has denied killing his former wife and denied attempting to murder the woman he threw down the mine shaft.
His lawyer announced he will be appealing the verdict in the case — which is just the latest high-profile crime to involve an Afghan migrant perpetrator in Sweden.
One previous incident just one year ago saw another Afghan go on a mass stabbing spree in the town of Vetlanda, claiming he did so because a person angered him by saying God did not exist.
Another year prior, a 21-year-old murder victim was attacked by a trio of Afghan migrants — a man and his two sons — who chased him onto a bus and stabbed him around 99 times.
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com.
As Predicted, Mayorkas Grants Amnesty-Lite to Visa-Less Afghans
TPS designation was inevitable after last fall’s mass parole effort
By Robert Law on March 17, 2022
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas designated Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months just six months after I predicted he would. This piece isn’t to brag about being right, I wish I weren’t, but to show how Mayorkas and the Biden administration orchestrated the mass importation of visa-less Afghans into the country to ensure they will never have to return home.
Last year’s chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan resulted in countless U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) being stranded while the Biden administration allowed nearly 100,000 un-vetted, visa-less, and mostly working-age male Afghans onto planes destined for United States soil. The administration and its supporters in the media tried to allay concerns of the American people by claiming that these Afghans are refugees or heroic interpreters eligible for Special Immigrant Visa (SIVs), but that was largely untrue.
Phase one of amnesty-lite occurred when Mayorkas unlawfully used parole in a categorical manner to allow these Afghans into the country, immediately making them eligible for work permits. As I scooped back on September 9, Biden political appointees ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicators to approve the work permits before lengthy national security and background checks could be run, and “resolve” derogatory information later. As a direct result of this policy decision, a number of these Afghan “parolees” have committed heinous crimes against Americans, including rape.
Phase two was the intentionally delayed decision to designate Afghanistan for TPS. As I wrote in the Newsweek op-ed, “If the Biden administration truly believed Afghanistan satisfied the requirement for TPS, Secretary Mayorkas would have announced that decision shortly after the withdrawal debacle. ... The Biden administration will continue its charade of SIV vetting for a few weeks to deflect attention. But it is not a question of ‘if,’ but ‘when’ Afghanistan will receive the TPS designation.”
With the American people sufficiently distracted by Ukraine-Russia, inflation, and other matters, Mayorkas pulled the trigger on amnesty-lite. A quote attributed to Mayorkas in the press release says, “Under this designation, TPS will also provide additional protections and assurances to trusted partners and vulnerable Afghans who supported the U.S. military, diplomatic, and humanitarian missions in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.” Considering the Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office just issued a chilling indictment of Afghan vetting, the use of “trusted partners” to describe this population seems dishonest. Additionally, if these Afghans meaningfully assisted in the war effort or were established as fleeing persecution, they would already be eligible for SIV or refugee status, thus making TPS unnecessary.
Most do not, underscoring how irresponsible it was for the Biden administration to rush them all into the country un-vetted instead of vetting the evacuees in a safe location somewhere closer to Afghanistan. If the Biden administration had chosen this path, only properly vetted and eligible Afghans would have been allowed into the United States.
Instead, it appears that the mass evacuation plan was intentionally designed to create a notable visa-less Afghan population in the country and reward them with TPS to ensure they never have to return to their home country. Or, as I framed it in the concluding sentence of my op-ed, “When [the TPS designation is made], the mass evacuation of Afghans at the expense of stranded Americans will have only resulted in the further erosion of our immigration laws.”
The press release fails to provide an estimate of the population expected to benefit from TPS. Assuming the estimate is included in the Federal Register notice, it would not surprise me if the total is nearly identical to the number of evacuees believed to have been categorically paroled into the country last fall.
As Mayorkas continues to aggressively designate countries for TPS, it is fair to wonder what illegal alien population won’t have amnesty-lite by the end of the Biden administration.
Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big
Tech Team Up with Biden to
Resettle Afghans in U.S.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
27 Oct 20210
3:04
Big banks, Big Pharma, and giant tech corporations have
teamed up with President Joe Biden’s administration to
resettle tens of thousands of Afghans across the United States
over the next year.
Biden’s massive Afghan resettlement operation plans to bring at least 95,000 Afghans to the U.S. for resettlement across 46 states.
The Afghans are initially flown into Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania or Dulles International Airport in Virginia before temporarily living on various U.S. military bases while awaiting resettlement. Today, more than 55,000 Afghans remain temporarily living at U.S. bases in Wisconsin, Texas, New Mexico, Indiana, New Jersey, and Virginia.
This week, Biden issued a list of the multinational corporations working with his administration to help resettle the Afghans across the U.S., including JP Morgan Chase, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bain Capital, Google, Starbucks, and a number of airlines.
The complete list includes:
· United Airlines
· American Airlines
· Delta Airlines
· JetBlue
· Alaskan Airlines
· Boeing
· Tripadvisor
· Frontier Airlines
· Air Canada
· Accenture
· Airbnb
· Bain Capital
· Chamber of Commerce
· Chobani
· Amazon
· CVS Health
· Pfizer
· FedEx
· Tyson Foods
· Tent
· Etsy
· Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
· Goodwill Industries
· Google
· JP Morgan Chase
· ManpowerGroup
· Procter & Gamble
· Starbucks
· Walgreens
· Walmart
In addition to the corporate partnership, a new non-governmental organization (NGO) backed by former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama is working closely with the Biden administration on Afghan resettlement.
The NGO seeks to facilitate corporate commitments to refugee resettlement with the goal of funneling Afghans into American jobs.
Refugee resettlement costs taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years. Over the course of a lifetime, taxpayers pay about $133,000 per refugee and within five years of resettlement, roughly 16 percent will need taxpayer-funded housing assistance.
Over the last 20 years, nearly a million refugees have been resettled in the nation — more than double the number of residents living in Miami, Florida, and it would be the equivalent of annually adding the population of Pensacola, Florida.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Joe Biden Expands ‘Disaster Migrant’ Population to 530,000
President Joe Biden’s advisers have granted temporary legal status to roughly 30,000 Ethiopians now living in the United States.
The award of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was announced Friday as Ethiopia’s government continues a disastrous war against a non-Ethiopian ethnic group in the Tigray region of the country.
“The United States recognizes the ongoing armed conflict and the extraordinary and temporary conditions engulfing Ethiopia, and DHS is committed to providing temporary protection [for 18 months] to those in need,” said a statement from Alejandro Mayorkas, the pro-migration secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The statement added:
Ethiopian nationals currently residing in the U.S. who cannot safely return due to conflict-related violence and a humanitarian crisis involving severe food shortages, flooding, drought, and displacement, will be able to remain and work in the United States until conditions in their home country improve.
The protection will help 30,000 Ethiopians, according to a September 30 letter sent to Mayorkas by a variety of pro-migration groups, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The letter said:
The current crisis in Ethiopia … has been marked by violence against civilians in conflict, ethnic cleansing, destruction of public infrastructure, including health care facilities and schools, arbitrary arrests, torture, sexual and [sex]-based violence as a weapon of war, and weaponization of food, medicine, and fuel …
Throughout 2021 and 2022, at least six million people across the Amhara, Tigray, and Afar regions have been cut off from access to adequate food, health care, fuel, banking services, communications with the outside world, and other basic needs.
The TPS program has been abused by several presidents to quietly import and keep many foreign workers, renters, and consumers in the United States.
This TPS program policy is just one element of the federal Extraction Migration economic strategy. That strategy aids investors by cutting Americans’ wages and by boosting housing prices. It also pushes up inflation for a wide variety of goods, such as used autos and food.
The TPS program already keeps roughly 500,000 foreigners in the United States, including some who arrived as illegals in the 1980s and 1990s. The migrants were first given TPS when their home nations were hit by disastrous volcano eruptions, floods, famines, or wars.
The 500,000 number does not include the TPS grantees who have already won green cards, nor does it include their U.S.-born children.
President Donald Trump did not extend some of the TPS grants that had been repeatedly extended by prior presidents. The extensions were often granted long after the original disasters had been overcome. But Trump was stopped by lawsuits and Biden’s election.
Since January 2021, Biden has welcomed roughly four million illegal migrants, visa workers, and legal immigrants. He has also imported many additional people from Venezuela, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and has approved multiple additional TPS designations for Venezuelans, Haitians, and Cameroonians, for example.
The large population helps to push down wages and boost housing costs for Americans — and also to push Americans out of the labor market.
Extraction Migration
It is easier for government officials to grow the economy by immigration than by growing exports, productivity, or the birth rate.
So Washington, DC, deliberately extracts millions of migrants from poor countries and uses them as extra workers, consumers, and renters.
This extraction migration policy both grows and skews the national economy.
It prevents tight labor markets and so it shifts vast wealth from ordinary people to investors, billionaires, and Wall Street. It makes it difficult for ordinary Americans to advance in their careers, get married, raise families, buy homes, or gain wealth.
Extraction migration slows innovation and shrinks Americans’ productivity. This happens because migration allows employers to boost stock prices by using stoop labor and disposable workers instead of the skilled American professionals and productivity-boosting technology that earlier allowed Americans and their communities to earn more money.
This migration policy also reduces exports because it minimizes shareholder pressure on C-suite executives to take a career risk by trying to grow exports to poor countries.
Migration undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional economic gaps between the Democrats’ cheap-labor coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states.
An economy fueled by extraction migration also drains Americans’ political clout over elites and it alienates young people. It radicalizes Americans’ democratic civic culture because it gives a moral excuse for wealthy elites and progressives to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society, such as drug addicts.
This diversify-and-rule investor strategy is enthusiastically pushed by progressives. They wish to transform the U.S. from a society governed by European-origin civic culture into an economic empire of jealous identity groups overseen by progressive hall-monitors. “We’re trying to become the first multiracial, multi-ethnic superpower in the world,” Rep. Rohit Khanna (D-CA) told the New York Times in March 2022. “It will be an extraordinary achievement … We will ultimately triumph,” he boasted.
But the progressives’ colonialism-like economic strategy kills many migrants. It exploits the poverty of migrants and splits foreign families as it extracts human resources from poor home countries to serve wealthy U.S. investors.
Progressives hide this extraction migration economic policy behind a wide variety of noble-sounding explanations and theatrical border security programs. Progressives claim the U.S. is a “Nation of Immigrants,” that economic migrants are political victims, that migration helps migrants more than Americans, and that the state must renew itself by replacing populations.
Similarly, establishment Republicans, media businesses, and major GOP donors hide the skew towards investors by ignoring the pocketbook impact and by touting border chaos, welfare spending, migrant crime, and drug smuggling.
Many polls show the public wants to welcome some immigration. But the polls also show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and to the inflow of temporary contract workers into the jobs needed by the families of blue-collar and white-collar Americans.
This “Third Rail” opposition is growing, anti-establishment, multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity that American citizens owe to one another.
A look at the West’s highly discriminatory immigration system.
This article is reprinted from the Gatestone Institute.
Western authorities appear committed to discriminating against Christian, while welcoming Muslim, asylum seekers.
Most recently, Germany—which has taken in millions of refugees from the Muslim world, including un-vetted ones from Afghanistan—denied refuge to an Iranian convert to Christianity, even though his brother-in-law was imprisoned, tortured, and killed after converting in their native Iran. Known by the initials “H.H.,” according to one report,
When H.H.’s asylum application was rejected by German authorities, he appealed to the Greifswald Administrative Court. The court dismissed H.H.’s case, declaring that it was “not particularly likely” that a Muslim would decide to become a Christian after his brother-in-law had been tortured and killed and his wife abused. It was more likely that the events described, if they had actually taken place, would have a deterrent effect on third parties,” [sic: not clear where quote begins] said the Administrative Court….. This week, the European Court of Human Rights quickly declined to hear arguments in H.H’s defense, leaving him vulnerable to deportation to a country where religious conversion can carry a prison penalty.
Discussing Hassan’s case, Lidia Rieder, a legal officer at ADF International (Alliance Defending Freedom), said,
Iran is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for Christians, and converts are particularly at risk. In the last year, religious persecution has greatly worsened. So-called ‘religious deviants’ can be given prison sentences, national security charges are continuously used to target religious minorities. The courts in Germany must take this into account when processing asylum applications.
Germany and the European Court of Human Rights are hardly the only ones to deny refuge to or discriminate against persecuted Christians. Over the years, many other Western entities have engaged in similar behavior.
Under the Obama presidency, particularly during the refugee crisis precipitated by the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS), the White House and State Department were accused of all sorts of discriminatory measures against Christians—to the point that a federal appellate court filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in late 2016. In it, Judge Daniel expressed his “concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country”:
Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one-half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian…. To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.
The discrepancy in numbers was even more perplexing when examined in full context: Although the U.S. government had acknowledged that ISIS was committing genocide against Christians in Syria due solely to their religious identity, it took in only those who by definition were not in any way being targeted by ISIS—Sunni Muslims, of whom ISIS, a Sunni organization, identifies with and does not attack. Indeed, despite the fact that Sunnis were about 75 percent of Syria’s population, and Christians about 10 percent, 99 percent of those brought into America were Sunni Muslims, and less than 0.5 percent were Christian.
As CNS news noted in 2016, “Record 499 Syrian Refugees Admitted to US So Far in May Includes No Christians.” In other words, even if one were to operate under the assumption that refugee status should have been made available to all Syrians, regardless of religion, there should have been 20 times more Christians and about one-quarter fewer Sunnis granted refugee status under Obama.
A virtually identical situation prevailed in the United Kingdom. In 2019, The Times asserted that the UK “fails to give safe haven to Christians,” and “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” instead of Christians.
Once again, statistics confirm this allegation: “out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.”
At the time, Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a Life Peer in the House of Lords, wrote in a letter to Sajid Javid, the Muslim man who then headed the Home Office:
It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk…. As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this [ratio imbalance between Muslim and Christian refugees taken in] is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.
As in the U.S., the discrimination became so flagrant that Lord George Carey sued the Home Office for being “institutionally biased” against Christian refugees and therefore complicit in what he called “the steady crucifixion of Middle East Christians.”
The discrimination persecuted Christian minorities face begins well before they reach Western nations. As CBN News reported in 2019:
Christian Syrian refugees … have been blocked from getting help from the United Nations Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, by Muslim UN officials in Jordan. One of the refugees, Hasan, a Syrian convert to Christianity, told us in a phone call that Muslim UN camp officials ‘knew that we were Muslims and became Christians and they dealt with us with persecution and mockery. They didn’t let us into the office. They ignored our request.’ Hasan and his family are now in hiding, afraid that they will be arrested by Jordanian police, or even killed. Converting to Christianity is a serious crime in Jordan.
According to Timothy, a Jordanian Muslim who converted to Christianity, “All of the United Nations officials [apparently in Jordan], most of them, 99 percent, they are Muslims, and they were treating us as enemies.”
Paul Diamond, a British human rights lawyer, elaborated on this issue:
You have this absurd situation where the scheme is set up to help Syrian refugees and the people most in need, Christians who have been ‘genocided,’ they can’t even get into the U.N. camps to get the food. If you enter and say I am a Christian or convert, the Muslim U.N. guards will block you [from] getting in and laugh at you and mock you and even threaten you…. [saying] ‘You shouldn’t have converted. You’re an idiot for converting. You get what you get,’ words to that effect.
This same mockery often greets those Christians who do reach Western nations. The UK’s Home Office alone offers multiple examples. In one instance, it ridiculed an Iranian female asylum seeker in her rejection letter by writing, “You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that he would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”
She later said that whenever she responded to her Home Office interviewer, “he was either chuckling or maybe just kind of mocking when he was talking to me…. [H]e asked me why Jesus didn’t help you from the Iranian regime or Iranian authorities.”
“In my country,” she added, “if someone converts to Christianity their punishment is death or execution.”
Similarly, in his rejection letter from the Home Office, another Muslim convert to Christianity was told that several biblical passages were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity because he had discovered it was a “peaceful” faith. The letter went so far as to cite biblical passages—including from Exodus, Leviticus, Matthew, and Revelation—to argue that the Bible is violent, before concluding: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”
In yet another example, the UK’s Home Office not only denied entry to three Christian leaders—archbishops celebrated for their heroic efforts at aiding persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq who had been invited to attend the consecration of the UK’s first Syriac Cathedral, an event attended by then-Prince Charles—but also mockingly told them there was “no room at the inn.”
Even in the most recent case—that of H.H., the aforementioned Iranian man who was denied asylum in Germany—a hint of ridicule was evident in the authorities’ conclusion: he must have been lying, they reasoned, since apparently no sane person would convert to or remain Christian after seeing a relative murdered for the same reason.
Meanwhile, it cannot be emphasized enough that, while the few Christians who seek asylum are highly scrutinized and given a hard time, millions of Muslim asylum seekers were taken into the West without question or hassle—most without even being vetted at all.
The same Germany to deny and send H.H. back to torture and possible death in Iran took in over a million Muslim migrants in 2015 and, after H.H. had applied, ten thousand non-vetted Afghans in 2021—even though Afghanistan is arguably the most hostile nation to Christians. Again, these are all people who, by definition, could not have experienced religious persecution back home as they themselves are Muslim—not to mention that many of them share in the Taliban’s penchant for violence and extremism.
Similarly, under the Biden administration—which has further been accused of willfully preventing Christian minorities from escaping Afghanistan—over 74,000 non-vetted Afghans were granted asylum into America in 2022, and many of them, too, have brought with them the behavior they were reportedly escaping.
As for the UK’s Home Office, despite having no papers on him—and despite telling the Home Office that “he had been trained as an ISIS soldier”—Ahmed Hassan was still granted asylum two years before he launched a terrorist attack on a London train station that left 30 injured in September 2017. The Home Office also allowed a foreign Muslim cleric to enter and lecture in London, even though he advocated decapitating, burning, and/or throwing homosexuals from cliffs. According to another report, “British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office ‘turns a blind eye’ by handing visas to their [mostly Muslim] husbands.”
The case of Asia Bibi—a Christian wife and mother of five who spent a decade of her life on death row in Pakistan for challenging the authority of Muhammad—perhaps best sheds light on the immigration situation in the UK. Although she was finally acquitted in November, 2018, once the Pakistanis of the UK learned that the UK was going to offer asylum to Asia Bibi, they rioted en masse.
As a result, then Prime Minister Theresa May personally blocked Bibi’s asylum application, “despite UK playing host to [Muslim] hijackers, extremists and rapists,” to quote from one headline. In other words, the UK was openly allowing “asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob,” reported the Guardian, “after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK…”
Meanwhile, and as usual, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric who celebrated the slaughter of a politician because he had defended Asia Bibi—a cleric deemed so extreme as to be banned from his native Pakistan—to enter and lecture in UK mosques.
Discussing how “visas were granted [by the Home Office] in July [2016] to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the killing of Christians accused of blasphemy,” Dr. Martin Parsons, a human rights activist, expressed his frustration: “It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians.”
In short, when it comes to who is being granted asylum in the West, persecuted Christians need not apply, whereas extremist Muslims are welcomed with open arms.
No comments:
Post a Comment