AuthorTopic: The Official Refugee Thread  (Read 100948 times)

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
Responding to Hysteria
« Reply #765 on: November 02, 2017, 12:27:19 AM »
https://samoschronicles.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/responding-to-hysteria/

Responding to Hysteria


Samos SOS Meeting 22.10.2017 photo from My Samos Blog

Recently on Samos we have been experiencing one of those periodic spasms of anti-refugee sentiment. These spasms feel orchestrated and even if not coordinated involve a diverse range of actors. This particular spasm has been sparked by both the high number of new arrivals especially in September and the lack of any preparation to meet the autumn weather. All the refugee authorities use these moments to demand additional resources and powers; local business interests demand VAT reductions and other economic interventions because as ‘we all know’ the refugees have been devastating for tourism, the Mayor calls for meetings with government ministers and on it goes. And at the same time beyond Samos, we see the head of UNCHR warning of the calamity unfolding on the frontier islands as winter approaches as well as other reports highlighting the agony of the refugees on the islands. Add to this mix, Samos SOS, an anti-refugee group which has been intermittently active for many years and which relishes moments such as these as a means of mobilizing support.

Over the past few months Samos SOS has been taking its message of cleaning the island of refugees because of the threat they pose to the essential way of life on Samos out to the villages and small towns and not just simply staying in Samos town. It is necessary to understand that the refugees on Samos are located in just one small part of the island around the main town. Leave the town and it is rare to see any refugee. In the overwhelming part of Samos the refugees have no presence at all. Sadly it seems, Samos SOS have had some success in whipping up anti-refugee sentiment in places with no contact or awareness of the refugees.

Even so a major problem remains for Samos SOS namely that there is simply no evidence to support their hysterical claims such that Samos is in danger of being ‘islamicized’ or on the brink of widespread social unrest. It is a joke. Even in those villages where Samos SOS succeeded in gaining support it would be highly unlikely that any felt that their way of life was under threat or that they were about to become Muslim. Moreover, walk any day around Samos town and you will see refugees and locals go about their business in utter peace. The refugees don’t walk around as though they are in imminent danger neither does anyone else. You can even eat felafel in the main square now!

Samos SOS never acknowledges that the ‘refugee business’ is now probably the biggest single economic activity on the island sustaining in Samos town a diverse collection of hotels, bars, eating places, local mini markets, hire car companies, apartment rentals and so forth. Unlike tourism which lasts for 5 months in the year refugee monies flow throughout the year.

But this has not stopped Samos SOS which recently held a high profile public meeting in the central square of Samos town on Sunday October 22nd. From the photographs published a fair number of refugees were also present. Like Samos SOS they would love to leave the island at the earliest opportunity.

One consequence of the meeting has been the publication of an Appeal to the islanders by a group of 23 ex mayors, prefects and councilors from across the island. This Appeal was published by My Samos Blog on October 29, 2017. Samos SOS delights in claiming that it speaks for the silent majority and that its truth is what is real. Appeals like this suggest otherwise.

We have translated it from the Greek as best we can.

“An Appeal for Calmness and Soberness in Dealing with the Refugee-Immigrant Problem

Our public intervention is happening today, because we find that in the local community of Samos with the excuse of the refugee crisis, some by their actions or by their omissions are driving things to uncontrollable situations, which trouble us and in addition will discredit and tarnish our island.

The refugee-migration issue is a major international problem that, if its causes are not addressed at world and international level (wars, poverty, exploitation, authoritarian regimes, climate change) it will not stop. Greece and especially the islands of the east Aegean, places in the passage from the East to the West will always be under pressure from migratory flows, as was the case in every other century.

The Joint Statement European Union -Turkey (March 2016) to address the refugee and immigration crisis, unfortunately has not been adequately met by Turkey (which is obliged to take any necessary measures to prevent illegal immigration from its territories to the EU), but neither by most EU countries who closed their borders and failed to meet the obligations they had assumed for proportionate participation in the management of the refugees.


So the islands of the Eastern Aegean were turned into a peculiar warehouse-zone on the border of Europe which sends the message that no refugee and migrant will go to the “Promised Land”, central and northern Europe, consolidating the image of an EU of xenophobia, extreme right radicalization and racist attitudes

Within this negative climate the Greek state with its services was called upon to face unprecedented situations and showed its inability to manage the refugee migratory wave in an effective manner, both with regard to identification and asylum procedures and to infrastructure hospitality and organized temporary residence with human and dignified conditions. All this has resulted in the presence of a large number of immigrant refugees on the islands as well as their particularly troublesome and miserable living conditions inside and outside of hotspots.

In the small communities of our islands this long-term stay of such a large number of refugees
-immigrants has logically created disruption and concern, despite the high degree of understanding and solidarity, which the islanders inexorably maintain and offer.

Here in Samos, from the great lessons in solidarity and humanity that Samos men and women gave in the summer of 2015 with the supporting of more than 120 thousand refugees-immigrants who were hosted for a while on our island, we passed last autumn with a small number of arrivals but also with numerous worrying SOS voices (‘Samos clean from refugees’).

However in the last period we have an overt attempt to create another, particularly negative and, in our opinion, worrying, climate. Samos SOS exploits the ineffective management by the EU, the government and the UN, of the refugee-immigrant with the encroaching on our island of several thousand uprooted people and the general economic hardship and fears about the Islamization of Samos, with mosques and plans with controlled “Turkish” minorities when none of the refugees in question are either Turks or want to stay in Samos.

Unfortunately, Samos SOS, operating systematically by exaggeration, misinterpret intentionally or unintentionally the real problems, they construct imaginative scenarios and spread conspiracy about Islamization of the islands and their gradual occupation by foreigners and heathens, resulting in creating and enhancing a climate of insecurity for citizens of an imminent gradual loss of national territories, with our race and religion at risk. In addition to their tours and gatherings in the capital and in villages with inflammatory reasons based largely on their political delirium they create conditions of polarization and social confrontation, which sometimes go beyond the limits and become insults, abuse and even assaults against every fellow citizen who dares to express a different or opposing view.

They are the ones who consciously or unconsciously rushed to choose “partners” in the ceaseless war, which regrettably rages for a long time between the two ranks of self-government of our country. In this civil war, beyond any wisdom and rationality, instead of reconciliation, they preferred polarization, and on the pretext of the “salvation” of our island, they prepare the ground and the connections for the next elections, with the support of dishonest means and the willingness of the system. Their wages are worthy.

Instead of putting the real problems facing the society of Samos, they are targeting the hapless refugee, as the one who brings all the suffering to the island and with stale arguments cause division of our fellow citizens and tarnish the image of a place where every home has experienced and has memories of refugees and immigration.

Fellow citizens

We appeal to all of you and especially to the citizens of the capital who raise the full burden of the crisis to calmly address the situation with the humanity, the logic, the measured sense and the solidarity that characterize us over time.

The real cause of poverty and our problems is not the refugee-immigrant, who crosses Samos with a destination in Europe, but the respective government policies, imposed by the European Union and the powerful of the earth.

We call on the government and personally the Prime Minister, Mr. Alexis Tsipras

For the immediate and continuous evacuation on a permanent basis of supernumerary refugees-immigrants from the islands of the eastern Aegean, under the responsibility of the competent services of the country, moving them to mainland Greece and with a final destination in accordance with European and international treaties.

For immediate and complete staffing of all necessary support structures and asylum services to ensure the dignified and healthy living of refugees-migrants (for as long as they stay on our island) and fast processing of identification and asylum requests, so as to move as soon as possible to the mainland.

For the immediate activation of a permanent inter-party committee of the Parliament, including MEPs, for management planning of the refugee-immigration issue under European and international law and UN principles, to monitor developments at local and supra-regional levels taking the necessary initiatives to further improve the existing agreements and the positive overall enlargement of the relevant institutional framework as well as for political and economic control of all bodies, public and private (NGOs etc), where they are involved in any way in this problem and its treatment.

For the freedom of our country and from war and for cooperation with all the peoples of the earth for world peace, solidarity and democracy.”

The text is signed by Apostolos Dimitrios, former president City Council of Pythagorio and 22 others.

Post Script

Coincidentally on the same day (29th October) Ekathimerini published an interview with Frans Timmermans one of the key figures in the EU Turkey Pact in which he praises the people of the frontier islands for their heroic efforts in helping refugees and yet condemns them and the refugees to remaining trapped on what are in effect prison islands.

“Migrants, he said, must stay on the islands, despite the difficulties, because their transfer to the mainland would send a wrong message and create a new wave of arrivals.”
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
Australia refuses NZ offer on Manus Island refugees
« Reply #766 on: November 05, 2017, 01:01:02 AM »
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41874826

Australia refuses NZ offer on Manus Island refugees

    4 hours ago
    From the section Australia


Image copyright Reuters
Image caption Asylum seekers say they fear being attacked by local people if they leave the camp

Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has turned down a renewed offer from New Zealand to resettle some refugees from a Papua New Guinea detention centre.

About 600 men are refusing to leave a decommissioned Australian centre on Manus island saying they fear attacks from locals.

Mr Turnbull said he would not, at this time, take up the offer from New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern.

The two leaders held talks in Sydney on Sunday.

Ms Ardern had said she could not ignore "the human face" of what Australia was dealing with.

Under a controversial policy, Australia refuses to take in any asylum seekers trying to reach its territories unofficially by boat. Those who arrive are placed in camps on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG), and on the Pacific island of Nauru.

    'Our situation is just like hell'
    Timeline: A controversial centre
    UN fears 'humanitarian emergency'

New Zealand first said it would take 150 of the asylum seekers in 2013, but the offer has been repeatedly rejected by Canberra.

The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says Mr Turnbull is keen to pursue a deal reached last year with the US, which agreed to resettle hundreds of migrants from the offshore Australian camps.

Australia withdrew from the Manus Island centre on Tuesday, following a PNG court ruling that the centre was unconstitutional.


Image copyright Reuters
Image caption Newly elected Jacinda Ardern held talks in Sydney with Malcolm Turnbull

The men - most of whom have refugee status - have now lost access to running water, electricity and working toilets, and their food supplies are dwindling. They have begun digging into the ground to find water and set up catchments to collect rain.

The UN refugee agency has said some of the alternative accommodation allocated for the men is not ready.

The agency and rights groups have warned that the men have legitimate fears for their safety, and that attacks on asylum seekers have occurred in the past in PNG.

"I think anyone would look at a situation like that and see the human face of what is an issue that New Zealand is in the lucky position of not having to struggle with, and Australia has," Ms Ardern said on Thursday.

SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
US pulls out of Global Compact on Migration
« Reply #767 on: December 03, 2017, 12:30:17 PM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363014-us-pulls-out-of-global-compact-on-migration

US pulls out of Global Compact on Migration
By Olivia Beavers - 12/03/17 01:38 PM EST


US pulls out of Global Compact on Migration
© WhiteHouse.gov

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Sunday announced the Trump administration is pulling out of a United Nations-led Global Compact on Migration (GCM), claiming it could undermine the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. 

"The United States has decided to end participation in the UN process to develop a Global Compact on Migration (GCM)," Tillerson said in a statement.

The U.S. has participated in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, a 2016 agreement to manage international migration, which was in the process of being adopted as a global compact in 2018.

Tillerson, however, said that the compact, which aims to protect the rights of migrants as well as help them resettle, "contains a number of policy goals that are inconsistent with U.S. law and policy."

"While we will continue to engage on a number of fronts at the United Nations, in this case, we simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders," he continued. He stressed  that it "is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal."
A spokesperson said U.N. General Assembly President Miroslav Lajčák regretted the decision to "disengage," saying a multilateral approach is key to addressing international migration issues.
 
"The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world," the spokesperson, Brenden Varma, said in a statement.
 
"The President stresses that migration is a global phenomenon that demands a global response and that multilateralism remains the best way to address global challenges," he added.

The decisions withdraw leave GCM comes one day before a global conference on migration is set to take place in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

President Trump has repeatedly pledged on the campaign trail and in office to strengthen the nation's borders and crack down on illegal immigration.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
The Refugee Crisis in Europe: Unfolding Right-wing Politics, Racism and Anti-Imm
« Reply #768 on: December 26, 2017, 06:38:11 AM »
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-refugee-crisis-in-europe-unfolding-right-wing-politics-racism-and-anti-immigration-political-parties/5623846

The Refugee Crisis in Europe: Unfolding Right-wing Politics, Racism and Anti-Immigration Political Parties
By Dr. Birsen Filip
Global Research, December 24, 2017
Region: Europe
Theme: History, Law and Justice


In 2015, Europe experienced its largest inflow of refugees since World War II, with 1,015,078 people reaching the continent, which put considerable strain on a number of countries that were forced to allocate sufficient resources to accommodate them. After gaining an appreciation for the severity of the refugee crisis, politicians and policymakers in the European Union (EU) responded by enacting measures to either return refugees to their home countries or limit the number of future arrivals. They clearly viewed this approach as preferable to treating the refugees with the dignity and respect afforded to equal human beings,and more feasible than altering their hegemonic practices and foreign policies that played significant roles in creating or exacerbating the refugee crisis in the first place.

Among the specific measures undertaken by the EU was offering Turkey, which already hosted more than 3-million refugees, financial incentives to take back some of the refugees that had already passed through the country and reached Europe. Since the terms of that agreement were finalized in Brussels in March 2016, Europe witnessed a dramatic reduction[1] in the number of refugees crossing Turkish borders[2]. The European Commission also signed similar agreements with Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal, whereby these nations would institute measures to prevent people from leaving for Europe and facilitate the return of unwanted migrants.

Even though the number of refugees reaching Europe has fallen dramatically in last two years, the 28-member EU is still under considerable strain from the mass arrivals of 2015,combined with an inability to reach a consensus on how to manage the ongoing refugee crisis.On September 23, 2015, the Council of the European Union attempted to respond to the refugee crisis by instituting a quota system, whereby a total of 120,000 asylum seekers would be relocated from Southern Europe, mainly Greece and Italy, to Central and Western European nations. The relocation quota was originally adopted as an emergency measure, limited to a term of two years. That term has already expired and the resolution has not been extended despite the fact that its provisions were largely disregarded when it was in force.

Although most EU governments supported the quota system, it has faced considerable opposition and criticism from certain segments of the EU since first being instituted by the Council of the European Union to manage the relocation of refugees. Specifically, a number of countries from the former communist block[3], including Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech Republic, openly opposed this resolution, arguing that accepting this marginal number of refugees posed a threat to their ethnic and cultural identities. Poland also expressed support for the stance of these nations.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (Source: NEO)

On September 6, 2017, the European Court of Justice dismissed claims made by the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and the Slovak Republic against mandatory refugee quotas designed to achieve a fair distribution of asylum seekers by taking a number of factors into account including population size, unemployment rate, and total GDP. Subsequently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel advised the leaders of these countries to accept the Court’s ruling and take in their shares of refugees to help alleviate the unfair burden placed upon countries like Italy and Greece since the refugee crisis began. While Slovakia has relented in its position on the matter, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán rejected the European Court of Justice’s verdict, describing it as a violation of Hungary’s sovereignty and cultural identity. He is adamant that his government has no intention of changing its immigration policies in order to accommodate the European Court of Justice ruling and has encouraged other European leaders to join him in protecting Europe’s Christian identity.

The refugee crisis has exposed Europe’s racist and xenophobic underbelly. This is evidenced by the notable rise in support for right-wing, racist, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant parties in a number of European countries, including Alternative für Deutschland[4] (Alternative for Germany) in Germany, Jobik[5] in Hungary, the National Front[6] in France, Golden Dawn[7] in Greece, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ)[8] in Austria, the Finns[9] in Finland, the Sweden Democrats[10] in Sweden, the Danish People’s Party[11] in Denmark, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV)[12] in the Netherlands, and Lega Nord[13] in Italy. The success of these far-right parties suggests that the onset of the refugee crisis has meant the racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant discourses expressed by their politicians, which were once considered unacceptable and relegated these parties to the fringes of the political spectrums in their respective countries, are resonating with an increasing number of people across Europe.

This recent growth in support for xenophobic and racist political parties also appears to have emboldened political leaders from some European countries to openly express hostile views vis-à-vis Muslim refugees.For example, in 2015-16, Hungarian Prime minister, Viktor Orbán, expressed concerns that certain policies, such as Angela Merkel’s decision to host 800,000 Syrian refugees in Germany, could facilitate significant demographic changes in Europe over the longer term, including the possibility that the population of Muslims could one day eclipse that of Christians. He demonstrated his racist and xenophobic views when he stated:

    “I am speaking about culture and the everyday principles of life, such as sexual habits, freedom of expression, equality between men and woman and all those kinds of values which I call Christianity”.

He further added that,

    “If you allow thousands or millions of unidentified persons into your house, the risk of … terrorism will significantly increase”.

On this basis, Orbán argued that

    “a group of Europe’s intellectual and political leaders wishes to create a mixed society in Europe which, within just a few generations, will utterly transform the cultural and ethnic composition of our continent”.

The Hungarian Prime minister summed up his position by stating,

    “for us, Europe is a Christian continent, and this is how we want to keep it. Even though we may not be able to keep all of it Christian, at least we can do so for the segment that God has entrusted to the Hungarian people”.

President Miloš Zeman

Prime Minister Orbán is not the only political leader to hold such views as, in 2015, Czech President Miloš Zeman stated that accepting Muslim refugees would mean host countries would “be deprived of women’s beauty, because they’ll be covered from head to toe … unfaithful women will be stoned and thieves will have their hands cut off”. Meanwhile, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico promised that not even a single Muslim would be permitted to enter Slovakia, clearly conveying his belief that Slovakia was built for its citizens, not minorities or refugees. Jarosław Kaczyński, former Prime minister of Poland, took a more alarmist approach by claiming that migrants would bring diseases, such as cholera, parasites and protozoa into Europe. The Croatian Interior Minister, Ranko Ostojic, went even further in expressing his anti-refugee sentiments, as he suggested that it might be necessary to deploy the military to seal his country’s borders.

Unfortunately, the racist tendencies of some European leaders were not limited to only making statements. For example, Czech authorities resorted to stamping registration numbers directly onto the arms of refugees in 2015. That same year, Macedonian police used tear gas and stun grenades against refugees, while the country’s authorities actually took the extreme measure of building a razor wire fence around the city of Gevgelija. Furthermore, the international media widely reported that Hungarian police established detention camps with 24-hour police surveillance that offered little in the way of basic human needs, in addition to firing tear gas and deploying water cannons against refugees.France has also featured prominently in reports describing the mistreatment of refugees, including physical violence, harassment and intimidation at the hands of the police and locals. Many of the measures being taken against refugees in a number of European countries and some statements made by prominent politicians and leaders at the highest levels are equally disturbing.

Such examples of mistreatment, discrimination and xenophobia endured by refugees from African and Asian countries at the hands of Europeans are not entirely unexpected given the perceptions of the East that emerged in Occidental countries on account of their imperial and colonial ambitions.The West has created entirely fictional representations of African and Arab-Islamic cultures and traditions, essentially depicting these regions as parts of a savage world in need of civilizing.Many contemporary Western philosophers and liberal thinkers[14] that made significant contributions to the narratives of the outside world of the Occidental realm held views that were similar to those put forth by Orbán, Zeman, Kaczyński, Fico, Ostojic, etc.

Portrayals of the East/Orient as savage and uncivilized have been exploited by Western political leaders in order to justify the colonial and the imperial ambitions of the U.S. and its European allies in the 20th and 21st centuries, often in the name of civilizing the uncivilized, protecting human rights, installing freedom and democracy, and fighting terrorism.Despite public proclamations of such high ideals, these interventions typically involved committing human rights violations,applying economic sanctions and embargoes, instituting regime change, engaging in covert actions and destabilization efforts, and initiating military intrusions and wars of aggression aimed at establishing hegemony over key markets and natural resources.However, it appears as though the European allies of the US did not anticipate the possibility that their imperial ambitions could eventually result in a blowback at home in the form of refugees arriving en masse.

The refugee crisis is unlikely to be resolved through short-sighted measures like: a largely unsupported quota system to relocate refugees among EU member countries; offering financial incentives to countries like Turkey, Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Senegal, to either take back some of the refugees or tighten security at their borders; or, simply abandoning countries on Europe’s frontlines, namely Greece and Italy, to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden on their own. Such efforts will accomplish little more than masking the problems in the short-term and delaying their consequences to a later date, when they become too large and serious to ignore. In early 2017, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani made the startling claim that “there could be as many as 30 million migrants heading to Europe in the coming years”. This is particularly concerning when considering how the last two years have demonstrated that European countries are wholly unprepared and ill-equipped to address the needs of the limited number of refugees that have already reached the continent in terms of providing them with decent shelter, health services, education, professional training, and employment opportunities.Also of concern is a general lack of benevolence and empathy on the part of many European citizens, as demonstrated by the significant rise in support for right-wing political parties and their racist, Islamophobic and anti-immigrant platforms in recent years.

Source: Zero Hedge

The responses to the refugee crisis demonstrate that many of the forces that engendered some of the worst crimes of the 20th century during WWII still appear to be thriving in much of contemporary Europe. That is to say, anyone who dismisses the manipulative power of Viktor Orbán, or the recent successes of far-right political parties in Europe, does so at their own peril. Such individuals need to be reminded that,

    “Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom…he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done.”[15]

Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Ottawa.

Notes

[1] That view is perfectly stated by Orbán: “we declare that trouble should not be brought here, but assistance must be taken to where it is needed”.

[2] According to a UNICEF report, only 140,000 migrants and refugees have reached European shores from January to October 2017, a far cry from the high numbers reported in 2015.

[3] In all likelihood, most refugees do not intend to remain in these Eastern Europe countries on a permanent basis.  Instead, they probably regard them as temporary stopovers on their way to Western European nations like Germany, France, and the UK.

[4] Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is a right-wing political party founded in Germany in April 2013. It regularly promotes anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic policies. In 2017, AfD became the third-largest party in Germany by acquiring 94 out of a total of 709 seats in the Bundestag in the federal election held that year.

[5] Jobbik is a Hungarian nationalist Christian political party that claims its “fundamental purpose” is to defend “Hungarian values and interests”,which apparently involves advocating for anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic policies.

In 2014, Jobbik won 20.54% of the vote in parliamentary electionsto become third-largest party in the Hungarian National Assembly.

[6] The NationalFront is aright-wing nationalist political party that was founded in France in 1972. Its popularity has been rising recently, as evidenced by the fact that it captured 25% of the vote in the European elections held in 2014. The National Front has expressed unfavourable views about immigration and Islam since it was founded. However, it could be argued that these positions have become more extreme in recent years, particularly since Marine Le Pen was made leader of the party in 2011.

[7] Golden Dawn is a Greek far-right and neo-fascist party with extreme anti-immigrant views that has been exploiting the refugee crisis to gain more support. In 2015 it captured7% of the vote in the Greek national election.

[8] FPÖ is an anti-Islamic political party with Nazi sympathies that currently holds 51 of the 183 seats in Austria’s National Council. FPÖ obtained 26% of the vote in the most recent election held on October 15, 2017. FPÖ leader Heinz-Christian Strache is of the opinion that about 60% of all Austrians share the xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Islam views advocated by his party.Recent elections in Austria, held on October 15, 2017, resulted in the formation of a coalition of conservative far-right parties,comprised of the Austrian People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) and the Freedom Party of Austria (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ), taking control of the government.

[9] The Finns is a Finnish political party that is well-known for its strong anti-immigration stance and calls for a Muslim-free Finland. In 2015, it became the second-largest party in Finland’s parliament.

[10] The Sweden Democrats is currently the third-largest party in Sweden that openly supports extreme anti-immigrant policies and the white supremacist movement.

[11] The Danish People’s Party supports anti-immigration and anti-Islamic policies. It is currently the second-largest party in Denmark.

[12] Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) is a Dutch nationalist and anti-Islam party. As of 2012, it is the third-largest party in the Netherlands.

[13] Lega Nord is a neo-fascist and anti-immigrant political party in Italy that currently ranks fourth among all political parties in the country.

[14] Prominent examples include Martin Heidegger, an avowed anti-Semite and racist, Baron de Montesquieu, who defended slavery, David Hume, a declared white supremacist who associated civilization with the white race, and Immanuel Kant, who proclaimed the superiority of the white race over the Indigenous populations of the Americas and Africa. Furthermore, John Stuart Mill defended the notion of colonial powers civilizing unsophisticated nations, John Locke supported the enslavement of Africans and discrimination against Indigenous peoples, and both Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises often made racial and discriminatory comments about non-white people.

[15] Hayek (2007, 108).
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Dr. Birsen Filip, Global Research, 2017
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
Trump wants $18 billion for wall in 'Dreamer' deal
« Reply #769 on: January 06, 2018, 12:01:24 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367563-trump-asks-congress-for-18-billion-to-expand-mexico-border-wall

Trump wants $18 billion for wall in 'Dreamer' deal
By John Bowden - 01/05/18 08:23 AM EST


Trump wants $18 billion for wall in 'Dreamer' deal
© Getty Images

President Trump this week offered his most detailed request to date of his plans for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, making the request amid budget negotiations on Capitol Hill for a deal that would include a fix for young undocumented immigrants in the country.

According to a document obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Trump is asking Congress for nearly $18 billion to fund his border wall expansion project. The document specifically calls for the construction of more than 700 miles of new barriers along the border.

A document prepared by the Department of Homeland Security for a group of senators shows the administration's plan to nearly double the amount of fencing on America's southern border, from the 654 miles currently built to around 1,000 miles total.

The Trump administration is seeking $33 billion in total to increase security along the southern border, with the remaining $15 billion going to fund “critical physical border security requirements" such as technology, personnel and roads.

The funding boost also directs $8.5 billion over seven years for 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and other officials for deployment along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump has made funding for the border wall a top demand in congressional negotiations to provide a fix to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, a program Trump ended last year. Trump says he will not sign a fix granting "amnesty" to DACA recipients without action to secure the border first.

A group of Senate Republicans met with Trump on Thursday to discuss DACA, which Democrats are seeking to make a major focus of January's fight over funding the government. The program provides protection for certain immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

"I think as soon as the president will tell us 'OK, this is something I could support' then I think that gives us, I think, a lot of room to go talk to Democrats and say 'OK, this what our parameters are,'" Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) said of the negotiations.

Senate negotiators said Wednesday that the fight over the spending bill is being held up by the administration, which had yet to formally release its specific demands for immigration reform. As of Wednesday, lawmakers were unsure whether the administration would insist on funding for a wall, or if it would rather settle for increased patrols and security.

“That’s something we’re waiting on the White House to give us clarity on,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “When you talk to [the Department of Homeland Security] and the other individuals, they talk about technology, they talk about personnel, they talk about physical barriers."
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
Immigration agents descend on 7-Eleven stores in 17 states
« Reply #770 on: January 11, 2018, 02:44:59 AM »
https://apnews.com/cb0ef682ea534ff0b5d31e7c054a079e?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Immigration agents descend on 7-Eleven stores in 17 states


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Seven immigration agents filed into a 7-Eleven store before dawn Wednesday, waited for people to go through the checkout line and told arriving customers and a driver delivering beer to wait outside. A federal inspection was underway, they said.

Within 20 minutes, they verified that the cashier had a valid green card and served notice on the owner to produce hiring records in three days that deal with employees’ immigration status.

The well-rehearsed scene, executed with quiet efficiency in Los Angeles’ Koreatown, played out at about 100 7-Eleven stores in 17 states and the District of Columbia, a rolling operation that officials called the largest immigration action against an employer under Donald Trump’s presidency.

The employment audits and interviews with store workers could lead to criminal charges or fines. And they appeared to open a new front in Trump’s expansion of immigration enforcement, which has already brought a 40 percent increase in deportation arrests and pledges to spend billions of dollars on a border wall with Mexico.

A top official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the audits were “the first of many” and “a harbinger of what’s to come” for employers.

“This is what we’re gearing up for this year and what you’re going to see more and more of is these large-scale compliance inspections, just for starters,” said Derek Benner, acting head of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations, which oversees cases against employers.

“It’s not going to be limited to large companies or any particular industry — big, medium and small,” he said.

After the inspections, officials plan to look at whether the cases warrant administrative action or criminal investigations, Benner told The Associated Press.

7-Eleven Stores Inc., based in Irving, Texas, said in a statement that the owners of its franchises are responsible for hiring and verifying work eligibility. The chain with more than 8,600 convenience stores in the U.S. said it has previously ended franchise agreements for owners convicted of breaking employment laws.

Unlike other enforcement efforts that have marked Trump’s first year in office, Wednesday’s actions were aimed squarely at store owners and managers, though 21 workers across the country were arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally.

Illegal hiring is rarely prosecuted, partly because investigations are time-consuming and convictions are difficult to achieve because employers can claim they were duped by fraudulent documents or intermediaries. Administrative fines are discounted by some as a business cost.

Amy Peck, an Omaha, Nebraska, immigration attorney who represents businesses, said an employer crackdown will never work because the government has limited resources and there are many jobs that people who are in the country legally do not want.

“When these audits occur, the employees scatter in the wind and go down the street and work for somebody else,” Peck said. “You’re playing whack-a-mole.”

President George W. Bush’s administration pursued high-profile criminal investigations against employers in its final years with dramatic pre-dawn shows of force and large numbers of worker arrests. In 2008, agents arrived by helicopter at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, and detained nearly 400 workers. Last month, Trump commuted the 27-year prison sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, former chief executive of what was the nation’s largest kosher meatpacking operation.

Barack Obama’s administration more than doubled employer audits to more than 3,100 a year in 2013, shunning Bush’s flashier approach. John Sandweg, an acting ICE director under Obama, said significant fines instilled fear in employers and avoided draining resources from other enforcement priorities, which include child exploitation, human trafficking and money laundering.

Wednesday’s audits arose from a 2013 investigation that resulted in charges against nine 7-Eleven franchisees and managers in New York and Virginia. Eight have pleaded guilty and were ordered to pay more than $2.6 million in back wages, and the ninth was arrested in November.

The managers used more than 25 stolen identities to employ at least 115 people in the country illegally, knowing they could pay below minimum wage, according to court documents.

Neither 7-Eleven nor was its parent company, Seven & I Holding Co. based in Tokyo, was charged in the case.

Julie Myers Wood, former head of ICE during the Bush administration, said the most recent inspections showed that immigration officials were focusing on a repeat violator. Part of the problem, Wood said, is the lack of “a consistent signal” between administrations that the U.S. government will prosecute employers who hire immigrants without legal status.

Some immigration hardliners have been pressing Trump to move against employers. Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said the inspections offered “a good sign” that the administration was serious about going after employers. But, he said, the administration would need to go beyond audits.

“It’s important for Trump to show that they’re not just arresting the hapless schmo from Honduras but also but also the politically powerful American employer,” he said.

In Koreatown, agents gathered in a grocery store parking lot and drove through side streets in unmarked cars to their target location.

The manager was in Bangladesh and the owner, reached by phone, told the clerk to accept whatever documents were served. The clerk told agents he had no knowledge of documents required to prove eligibility to work and was asked to pass along brochures for voluntary programs aimed at better compliance with immigration laws.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
🚔 “Show Me Your Papers!” Roundups, Checkpoints and National ID Card
« Reply #771 on: January 26, 2018, 01:05:24 AM »
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/25/show-me-your-papers-roundups-checkpoints-and-national-id-card/

January 25, 2018
“Show Me Your Papers!” Roundups, Checkpoints and National ID Card

by John W. Whitehead


Photo by katesheets | CC BY 2.0

    The roundups are getting worse. The checkpoints are getting worse. The harassment is getting worse. The things we were worried would happen are happening.

    —Angus Johnston, professor at the City University of New York

No one is safe.

No one is immune.

No one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living under the shadow of an authoritarian police state.

That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 to the citizens and residents of the American police state with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.

Here in Amerika, things are getting worse—not better—as the nation inches ever closer towards totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none.

Take what happened recently in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

On Friday, Jan. 19, 2018, immigration agents boarded a Greyhound bus heading to downtown Miami from Orlando and demanded that all passengers provide proof of residence or citizenship. One grandmother, traveling by bus to meet her granddaughter for the first time, was arrested and taken off the bus when she couldn’t provide proof of residency.

No word on whether that grandmother was actually in the country illegally.

All we know is that the woman didn’t have proof of identification or residency on her, which is common for many older people who don’t happen to drive and have no reason to walk around with a photo ID. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, more than three million Americans don’t actually own a government-issued picture ID. That group includes the elderly, the poor, city dwellers, young people, college students, and some rural residents who might not live near a DMV.

This isn’t is a new occurrence.

A year ago, passengers arriving in New York’s JFK Airport on a domestic flight from San Francisco were ordered to show their “documents” to border patrol agents in order to get off the plane.

With the government empowered to carry out transportation checks to question people about their immigration status within a 100-mile border zone that wraps around the country, you’re going to see a rise in these “show your papers” incidents.

That’s a problem, and I’ll tell you why.

We are not supposed to be living in a “show me your papers” society.

Despite this, the U.S. government has recently introduced measures allowing police and other law enforcement officials to stop individuals (citizens and noncitizens alike), demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless searches, and interrogations.

These actions fly in the face of longstanding constitutional safeguards forbidding such police state tactics.

Set aside the debate over illegal immigration for a moment and think long and hard about what it means when government agents start demanding that people show their papers on penalty of arrest.

The problem with allowing government agents to demand identification from anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant—the current scheme being employed by the Trump administration to ferret out and cleanse the country of illegal immigrants—is that it lays the groundwork for a society in which you are required to identify yourself to any government worker who demands it.

Such tactics quickly lead one down a slippery slope that ends with government agents empowered to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but also that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books.

This flies in the face of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that all persons have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. At a minimum, the Fourth Amendment protects the American people from undue government interference with their movement and from baseless interrogation about their identities or activities.

Unless police have reasonable suspicion that  a person is guilty of wrongdoing, they have no legal authority to stop the person and require identification. In other words, “we the people” have the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves.

The Rutherford Institute has issued a Constitutional Q&A on “The Legality of Stop and ID Procedures” that provides some guidance on one’s rights if stopped and asked by police to show identification.

Unfortunately, even with legal protections on the books, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the average American to avoid falling in line with a national identification system.

We’re almost at that point already.

Passed by Congress in 2005 and scheduled to take effect nationwide by October 2020, the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, is the prelude to this national identification system.

Fast forward to the Trump administration’s war on illegal immigration, and you have the perfect storm necessary for the adoption of a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects—citizen and noncitizen alike—far simpler.

Granted, in the absence of a national ID card, “we the people” are already tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; by way of our correspondence and communication devices—email, phone calls and mobile phones; through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.

Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us.

All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.

This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—is converging into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan and personal, criminal and financial records.

A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).

Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: it gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.

National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results.

For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.

Historian Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:

    The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.

In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which cancelled the permission to remain in an area. A pass book that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.

Identity cards played a crucial role in the genocide of the Tutsis in the central African country of Rwanda. The assault, carried out by extremist Hutu militia groups, lasted around 100 days and resulted in close to a million deaths. While the ID cards were not a precondition to the genocide, they were a facilitating factor. Once the genocide began, the production of an identity card with the designation “Tutsi” spelled a death sentence at any roadblock.

Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944) and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.

And in the United States, post-9/11, more than 750 Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of their religion and ethnicity and detained for up to eight months. Their experiences echo those of 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were similarly detained 75 years ago following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.

You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to stop and demand identification from someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but that they are also lawful, in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not suspected of having committed some crime or other.

It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect. And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’re driving, flying or walking.

After all, government-issued bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal. Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.

Eventually, when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.

Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.

In the case of a national identification system, it might start off as a means of curtailing illegal immigration, but it will end up as a means of controlling the American people.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

Where things start to get dicey is when the stakes get higher, when there’s money to be made, when there are lives on the line. All of these government-fueled wars—on drugs, on terror, on immigration—have given risen to whole industries (defense contractors, prison contractors, security contractors, etc.) devoted to profiting off them. And “we the taxpayers” are footing the bill.

It’s easy to point fingers at the Trump Administration, but this feeding frenzy started long before Trump ascended to the White House. He’s just a red herring—as journalist Glenn Greenwald puts it, “a shiny red herring—one that distracts from the failures, corruption, and malice of the very Establishment so invested in promoting it.”

We’re in trouble, and we’re all to blame: the government bureaucrats who are marching in lockstep with the regime just as much as the populace that obeys every order, that fails to question or resist or push back against government dictates that are unjust or unconstitutional or immoral, and that allows itself to become so focused on the political circus before them that they fail to heed the danger creeping up behind them.

We have been down this road before.

Reporting on the trial of Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann for the New Yorker in 1963, Hannah Arendt describes the “submissive meekness with which Jews went to their death”:

    …arriving on time at the transportation points, walking under their own power to the places of execution, digging their own graves, undressing and making neat piles of their clothing, and lying down side by side to be shot—seemed a telling point, and the prosecutor, asking witness after witness, “Why did you not protest?,” “Why did you board the train?,” “Fifteen thousand people were standing there and hundreds of guards facing you—why didn’t you revolt and charge and attack these guards?,” harped on it for all it was worth. But the sad truth of the matter is that the point was ill taken, for no non-Jewish group or non-Jewish people had behaved differently.

The lessons of history are clear: chained, shackled and imprisoned in a detention camp, there is little chance of resistance. The time to act is now, before it’s too late. Indeed, there is power in numbers, but if those numbers will not unite and rise up against their oppressors, there can be no resistance.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

As Arendt concludes, “under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that ‘it could happen’ in most places but it did not happen everywhere.”

It does not have to happen here.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline azozeo

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 5492
    • View Profile
Re: 🚔 “Show Me Your Papers!” Roundups, Checkpoints and National ID Card
« Reply #772 on: January 26, 2018, 07:07:42 AM »
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/25/show-me-your-papers-roundups-checkpoints-and-national-id-card/

January 25, 2018
“Show Me Your Papers!” Roundups, Checkpoints and National ID Card

by John W. Whitehead


Photo by katesheets | CC BY 2.0

    The roundups are getting worse. The checkpoints are getting worse. The harassment is getting worse. The things we were worried would happen are happening.

    —Angus Johnston, professor at the City University of New York

No one is safe.

No one is immune.

No one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living under the shadow of an authoritarian police state.

That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 to the citizens and residents of the American police state with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.

Here in Amerika, things are getting worse—not better—as the nation inches ever closer towards totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none.

Take what happened recently in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

On Friday, Jan. 19, 2018, immigration agents boarded a Greyhound bus heading to downtown Miami from Orlando and demanded that all passengers provide proof of residence or citizenship. One grandmother, traveling by bus to meet her granddaughter for the first time, was arrested and taken off the bus when she couldn’t provide proof of residency.

No word on whether that grandmother was actually in the country illegally.

All we know is that the woman didn’t have proof of identification or residency on her, which is common for many older people who don’t happen to drive and have no reason to walk around with a photo ID. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, more than three million Americans don’t actually own a government-issued picture ID. That group includes the elderly, the poor, city dwellers, young people, college students, and some rural residents who might not live near a DMV.

This isn’t is a new occurrence.

A year ago, passengers arriving in New York’s JFK Airport on a domestic flight from San Francisco were ordered to show their “documents” to border patrol agents in order to get off the plane.

With the government empowered to carry out transportation checks to question people about their immigration status within a 100-mile border zone that wraps around the country, you’re going to see a rise in these “show your papers” incidents.

That’s a problem, and I’ll tell you why.

We are not supposed to be living in a “show me your papers” society.

Despite this, the U.S. government has recently introduced measures allowing police and other law enforcement officials to stop individuals (citizens and noncitizens alike), demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless searches, and interrogations.

These actions fly in the face of longstanding constitutional safeguards forbidding such police state tactics.

Set aside the debate over illegal immigration for a moment and think long and hard about what it means when government agents start demanding that people show their papers on penalty of arrest.

The problem with allowing government agents to demand identification from anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant—the current scheme being employed by the Trump administration to ferret out and cleanse the country of illegal immigrants—is that it lays the groundwork for a society in which you are required to identify yourself to any government worker who demands it.

Such tactics quickly lead one down a slippery slope that ends with government agents empowered to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but also that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books.

This flies in the face of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that all persons have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. At a minimum, the Fourth Amendment protects the American people from undue government interference with their movement and from baseless interrogation about their identities or activities.

Unless police have reasonable suspicion that  a person is guilty of wrongdoing, they have no legal authority to stop the person and require identification. In other words, “we the people” have the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves.

The Rutherford Institute has issued a Constitutional Q&A on “The Legality of Stop and ID Procedures” that provides some guidance on one’s rights if stopped and asked by police to show identification.

Unfortunately, even with legal protections on the books, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the average American to avoid falling in line with a national identification system.

We’re almost at that point already.

Passed by Congress in 2005 and scheduled to take effect nationwide by October 2020, the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, is the prelude to this national identification system.

Fast forward to the Trump administration’s war on illegal immigration, and you have the perfect storm necessary for the adoption of a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects—citizen and noncitizen alike—far simpler.

Granted, in the absence of a national ID card, “we the people” are already tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; by way of our correspondence and communication devices—email, phone calls and mobile phones; through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.

Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us.

All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.

This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—is converging into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan and personal, criminal and financial records.

A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).

Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: it gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.

National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results.

For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.

Historian Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:

    The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.

In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which cancelled the permission to remain in an area. A pass book that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.

Identity cards played a crucial role in the genocide of the Tutsis in the central African country of Rwanda. The assault, carried out by extremist Hutu militia groups, lasted around 100 days and resulted in close to a million deaths. While the ID cards were not a precondition to the genocide, they were a facilitating factor. Once the genocide began, the production of an identity card with the designation “Tutsi” spelled a death sentence at any roadblock.

Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944) and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.

And in the United States, post-9/11, more than 750 Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of their religion and ethnicity and detained for up to eight months. Their experiences echo those of 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were similarly detained 75 years ago following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.

You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to stop and demand identification from someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but that they are also lawful, in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not suspected of having committed some crime or other.

It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect. And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’re driving, flying or walking.

After all, government-issued bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal. Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.

Eventually, when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.

Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.

In the case of a national identification system, it might start off as a means of curtailing illegal immigration, but it will end up as a means of controlling the American people.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

Where things start to get dicey is when the stakes get higher, when there’s money to be made, when there are lives on the line. All of these government-fueled wars—on drugs, on terror, on immigration—have given risen to whole industries (defense contractors, prison contractors, security contractors, etc.) devoted to profiting off them. And “we the taxpayers” are footing the bill.

It’s easy to point fingers at the Trump Administration, but this feeding frenzy started long before Trump ascended to the White House. He’s just a red herring—as journalist Glenn Greenwald puts it, “a shiny red herring—one that distracts from the failures, corruption, and malice of the very Establishment so invested in promoting it.”

We’re in trouble, and we’re all to blame: the government bureaucrats who are marching in lockstep with the regime just as much as the populace that obeys every order, that fails to question or resist or push back against government dictates that are unjust or unconstitutional or immoral, and that allows itself to become so focused on the political circus before them that they fail to heed the danger creeping up behind them.

We have been down this road before.

Reporting on the trial of Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann for the New Yorker in 1963, Hannah Arendt describes the “submissive meekness with which Jews went to their death”:

    …arriving on time at the transportation points, walking under their own power to the places of execution, digging their own graves, undressing and making neat piles of their clothing, and lying down side by side to be shot—seemed a telling point, and the prosecutor, asking witness after witness, “Why did you not protest?,” “Why did you board the train?,” “Fifteen thousand people were standing there and hundreds of guards facing you—why didn’t you revolt and charge and attack these guards?,” harped on it for all it was worth. But the sad truth of the matter is that the point was ill taken, for no non-Jewish group or non-Jewish people had behaved differently.

The lessons of history are clear: chained, shackled and imprisoned in a detention camp, there is little chance of resistance. The time to act is now, before it’s too late. Indeed, there is power in numbers, but if those numbers will not unite and rise up against their oppressors, there can be no resistance.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

As Arendt concludes, “under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that ‘it could happen’ in most places but it did not happen everywhere.”

It does not have to happen here.


I just posted a similar article on this 4th Reich behavior the other day here.
Which led me to become pro-active about a solution.

Here's what I've come up with....


Love the website name, HAH...

http://coppermoonshinestills.com/id71.html


I HAVE LITTLE TIME, SO PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT ME ABOUT THIS INFORMATION. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT DO IT. 

Please pass on a link to this website to your friends, so that we can take back our freedom. This information was updated 10-07-2017. Do not include affidavits of citizenship. They are now denying passports with such affidavits.

Click here to download Passport Ending Treason. State Citizen passport

Click here to download Affidavit of Felony Social Secruity number

Click here to downlaod Cease and Desist template

Silver bullet to your rights secured by the Constitution.

A treatise on State Citizenship.

 

Diplomatic Immunity

This information is also posted at www.coppermoonshinestills.com

 

This treatise contains standing case law on citizenship and a 2-page example on how to fill out the passport form.

Free yourself from tyranny

  Everyone has tried many complicated and time consuming things to retrieve their rights that are secured by our constitutions, and to stop unconstitutional traffic tickets, taxes, prosecutions, foreclosures, depriving you of your second amendment right to arms and lawsuits. I will not go into all that has been tried, happened and failed. It would be too time consuming and most would not understand.  I will give a brief description of how this works.

    When you got your Social Security number, either you or your Mom or Dad checked off that you were a U.S. citizen on the SS-5 application. And then you continued to claim to be a U.S. citizen throughout your life and did so on all of the government forms and applications when you which caused you to pay taxes, get tickets and every other act of treason that has happened to you.

   The U.S. in this case, is the federal corporation the District of Columbia, also known as USDC or the UNITED STATES. It was created by the congressional act of 1871. Also see 28 USC 3002 (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;

    So a U.S. citizen is a citizen of this federal corporation, and not a union State or USA republic. So now it’s easy to see that a U.S. citizen is a legal fiction / U.S. corporation and has no rights secured by the constitution. Only people have rights secured by the constitution, not legal fictions. You should have checked off “other” on the form because you are a State Citizen of your State that you were born in, which makes you a Citizen of all states, and one of the people, and a beneficiary of, the republic U.S.A. constitution of 1789/1791. A State Citizen used to be known as a Citizen of the United States before the Civil War, but the meaning has been changed twice for the purpose of fraud. The United States of America is the dejure republic government, not the United States which is the corporation. The preamble to the constitution establishes the United States of America, not the United States. So we have Two Different and Distinct National Governments. This treachery has always been the goal of the enemy.

See case law….
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."
--Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.

 

It’s all about your citizenship. It’s that simple.

 

See case law…"Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens."  Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

   So you can see in the above case citations that there are two national governments and at least two types of citizens. There are actually many more types of recognized citizens including a 14th amendment citizen. But this treatise only concerns two. More case law on citizenship listed at the end.

So to reclaim your citizenship, you need to certify your citizenship by getting a passport as a “State Citizen”. Your birth certificate that is required for your passport is proof that you are a State Citizen. However, you will not find the term “State Citizen” on government forms because they are deceptively hiding it from the public.  They use terms such as “non-citizen national”, “national” or “other”. When you get your passport it will look like any other and say that your nationality is the United States of America.  This is true if you are a State Citizen, 14th amendment citizen or a U.S. citizen.  They do this to hide what they are doing. Remember that the U.S. citizen is a legal fiction, (a U.S. Corporation) with no rights. A 14th Amendment citizen has little rights. A State Citizen has absolute freedom and liberty protected by our founding documents. You are not a legal fiction, nor a U.S. corporation/US citizen, nor are you a 14th amendment citizen.

You are a State Citizen of the state you were born in, which makes you a Citizen of all of the States, and a non-citizen national of the United States of America.

Click on the link for the rest of the page.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 29964
    • View Profile
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/federal-immigration-raids-in-southern-california-target-122-businesses.html

US agents arrest more than 200 undocumented immigrants, target 122 businesses in California sweep

    A five-day immigration sweep has led to the arrest of 212 undocumented immigrants and the targeting of 122 firms in Southern California, federal officials said Friday.
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in late January targeted at least 77 businesses in Northern California.
    The Trump administration's clampdown on illegal immigration in California follows the state passing a controversial sanctuary law.
    ICE has previously said it planned to significantly increase immigration enforcement in the nation's workplace.

Jeff Daniels   | @jeffdanielsca
Published 2 Hours Ago CNBC.com
   
   
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations unit raid to apprehend immigrants without any legal status and who may be deportable in Riverside.
Irfan Khan | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

The federal government's immigration crackdown in California widened Friday with the announcement that a five-day sweep led to the arrest of 212 undocumented immigrants and the targeting of 122 businesses in Southern California.

The action comes on the heels of raids in Northern California targeting undocumented immigrant workers.

The Trump administration's clampdown on illegal immigration in California follows the state's controversial "sanctuary law," which limits local law enforcement cooperation with immigration authorities, going into effect in January.

The state also passed a law that bars employers from voluntarily giving employee information to federal authorities. In January, the state's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, warned that businesses could face a $10,000 fine if they violated the new law.

"This seems to be a battle between California as a state and the federal government," said Angelo Paparelli, an immigration attorney in the L.A. office of Seyfarth Shaw. "The employers when they are served with notices of inspection have an awareness that this isn't just a civil enforcement proceeding — it could very well lead to a criminal enforcement proceeding."

According to ICE, its deportation officers and special officers arrested 212 people for violating federal immigration laws and served notices of inspection to 122 businesses in Southern California. ICE said 88 percent of those arrested were convicted criminals, including some convicted of serious or violent offenses, such as child sex crimes, weapons charges and assault.

ICE said in a press release the week-long enforcement action in the agency's Los Angeles region targeted those "individuals who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security."

At the same time, the federal agency also said it "no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States."

"Angelenos should not have to fear raids that bring unnecessary anxiety to our homes, schools, and workplaces — and everyone is safer when our neighbors trust the officers who dedicate themselves to protecting and serving the people of this city," Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said in a statement. "The administration should focus on people who have committed serious crimes or pose a threat to national security, rather than on separating hard-working families."

In late January U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents served at least 77 businesses in the San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento areas with notices to show hiring documents. Also, there was a report this week that farms in the state's San Joaquin Valley — one of the largest agricultural production regions in the nation — have been targeted with worker audits by federal immigration authorities.

The sweep announced Friday is larger than the one in ICE's Los Angeles region announced last May by immigration enforcement authorities, in which nearly 200 people were arrested. Those raids targeted criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants and immigration fugitives. ICE's Los Angeles region includes not only L.A. County but six other Southern California counties — Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

"Because sanctuary jurisdictions like Los Angeles prevent ICE from arresting criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail, our officers are forced to conduct at-large arrests in the community, putting officers, the general public and the aliens at greater risk and increasing the incidents of collateral arrests," ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan said in a statement.

Homan said, "Fewer jail arrests mean more arrests on the street, and that also requires more resources, which is why we are forced to send additional resources to those areas to meet operational needs and officer safety."

In October, Homan spoke at a Heritage Foundation event in Washington and said the federal agency planned to increase enforcement in the worksite by "four to five times." The agency also has conducted enforcement actions outside schools and courthouses in California.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
11541 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 01:24:08 AM
by RE
0 Replies
356 Views
Last post September 24, 2015, 01:15:08 PM
by Eddie
0 Replies
355 Views
Last post May 04, 2016, 02:09:57 PM
by Surly1