Our country and its Jewish intelligentsia are currently torn by a debate about immigration. On one side the Trump administration is trying to pass executive orders limiting immigration from particular, though certainly not all, Muslim-majority countries while also deporting people — largely from Mexico or Central America — who are in the US illegally.

On the other side are activist judges shutting down these executive orders and what seems like the entire constellation of journalists, pundits and activists in the country decrying these moves. From looking at the writers of many op-ed pieces or from looking through Jewish publications such as Forward, it is clear that Jews are disproportionately lobbying in favor of immigration and against deportation or immigration restrictions. Jewish organizations ostensibly formed to lobby for Jewish interests are on the side of resettling more Muslim refugees. Some voices on this side go so far as to call for “open borders” as in a recent piece in Salon. Most of the left has long decried the idea of White interests or White rights as being inherently racist in a way that Black rights or Latino interests aren’t. See for instance David Aaronovitch’s recent op-ed “Defending ‘white interests’ can never be right” in the Financial Times.

I think Jews are on the wrong side of this debate, and have been for decades. Countries are not arbitrary designations on a map; and borders are not imaginary lines. Countries are defined by their people, and borders generally demarcate necessary walls between peoples. Good fences make good neighbors, as the saying goes. Globalization and mass immigration result in what amounts to demographic invasion. It is natural for host populations to resist this being forced upon them.

The Jewish support for so-called “immigrant rights” is supposed to be rooted in the Jewish experience of diaspora and constant movement. Being exiled from our home in ancient times, we should feel sympathy with others who need to leave their homes in modern times. Jews have prospered in America because it is a multicultural society with such a rainbow of peoples that no true majority exists, or will soon, if current demographic trends continue.

I think Jews should be looking at this in another way. Read more

Because of the executive order by President Trump (what a great feeling to write that!) closing down the refugee industry from seven predominantly Muslim countries, there is an entirely expected outcry from the usual suspects. Quite often the argument reverts to events in the 1930s in which Jewish refugees were prevented from entering the U.S. This article, originally posted in September, 2015, provides some context on those events. The fact that he signed the EO on Holocaust Remembrance Day was particularly galling.

Make no mistake. Pres. Trump is embarking on a revolutionary path here. By banning several (but not all) predominantly Muslim countries, the order avoids the accusation that it is discriminating against a religion. But that will count for exactly zero in how this is perceived by the media and the left generally. In fact, this is about Muslim immigration and that is enough to send the establishment into absolute hysteria.  The idea of any limitation on immigration to the West by a particular racial/ethnic or religious group is completely at odds with the ideology of multiculturalism and diversity, the “we’re all the same” mantra, and the ideology that Western countries are “proposition nations” committed only to abstract ideas like “freedom” and “democracy,” with no ethnic or religious content. This ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectual movements at least since World War II—a theme of The Culture of Critique. It has been internalized across the elite spectrum—by Republicans and Democrats, Jews and non-Jews alike — so much so that political figures like Chuck Schumer can confidently assert that the executive order goes against the entire grain of American history: “a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon.”

Either Sen. Schumer failed American History 101 or he is lying through his teeth, probably the latter. The idea that “American values” include importing tens of millions of people from different cultures, many with values hostile to America and the West, is a post-1965 creation of the media intent on redefining what it is to be American, nothing more. Until then, U.S. immigration law clearly and unapologetically favored the traditional European majority. Like every non-European country, we were intent on preserving our people and culture.

From the Left’s point of view, this is the beginning of the Battle of Armageddon. I think that a lot of the anger and frustration following Trump’s victory was that the endgame was in sight. Another presidency, either by Hillary or by one of the many Republican cuckservatives who ran against Trump, would have pretty much sealed the deal. The much hoped-for Hillary landslide would have ensured the passage of “Gang of Eight”-type immigration legislation, amnesty for illegals, and endless “refugees.” And a Republican Jeb Bush-type presidency would likely have overcome GOP resistance to the same. The demographic transformation would have been solidified yet further.

It’s very late in the day for a complete turnaround. But Trump’s first week has exceeded expectations. And he is unlikely to be dissuaded by the moral chorus from the media condemning his actions. He’s already well aware that the media is the “opposition party,” as Steve Bannon phrased it.

To be sure, there is much unfinished business, beginning with ending birthright citizenship (probably best put off until after another Supreme Court appointment or two), ending DACA. And the Holy Grail: Repealing the 1965 immigration act.

---

There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees. One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the US and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.

Indeed, there is no question that Jews were under intense pressure during the 1930s that went well beyond the U.S. In 1936 Chaim Weizmann observed that “the world seems to be divided into two parts—those places where the Jew cannot live, and those where they cannot enter” [1]. Anti-Semitism was pervasive. Jewish pressure groups acknowledged the role of anti-Semitism in motivating the rejection of Jews by, for example, couching pro-refugee advertising in universalist terms and not mentioning that the refugees would be Jews. Read more

“Let them eat cake”

Mark Zuckerberg’s Hawaiian wall: “Let them suffer higher population density outside my wall”

News Item: Mark Zuckerberg builds a 6-foot wall on his 1150-acre Hawaiian estate, much to the annoyance of neighbors.

It seems that ultra-billionaire Mark Zuckerberg wants two things. Privacy and space. Lots of space. His Hawaiin digs for example, now consist of 1150 acres, protected in part by a tall ugly wall. Read more