Happy Monday FR readers! As always, today’s post is by Stephen Hall. Thanks, Stephen!!
Anyone who is aware of the recent change in South African law which permits the outright government confiscation of the property of white farmers without that reasonable compensation that the American Constitution would require.
The President has also recently ordered the government to look into the possibility of opening up the borders to white, Christian refugees fleeing South Africa. Talk has also been discussed in giving refugee status in nations as far flung as Australia and Canada for displaced white minorities from South Africa.
While it is not seriously questioned that the murder rate against the South African farmer is very high, there is some question as to what will happen in the near future:
https://www.wnd.com/2017/04/murder-rate-for-these-white-farmers-20-times-international-average/
This situation is eerily reminiscent of the treatment of white farms and farmers in neighboring Zimbabwe under President Mugabe, which devastated a large part of the economy and is still generating some odd economic situations in that nation.
The prospect of President Trump potentially allowing white, Christian refugees from South Africa while simultaneously trying to close the porous border with Mexico to illegal immigration and cracking down on visa overstays has many on the left crying racism and discrimination for the disparate treatment of the two groups.
The left further paints all conservatives and Republicans along the same line because of their opposition to a massive orchestrated influx of “refugees” from war torn Muslim nations of Syria, Iraq, and Somalia. They claim that their political opposition are racist because they opposed the influx of these Semitic and African population.
There are many people in America and Europe who oppose the massive flood of immigrant “refugees” from Iraq and Afghanistan through Turkey, and from all over Africa passing through Libya and Algeria and across the Mediterranean into Italy, Greece, and Spain.
One must not forget the trainload of about 1500 so-called asylum seekers fleeing the socialist utopian paradise of Venezuela because of the horrid economic poverty, aided and abetted by Mexico helping to fund their travels across their nation to attempt to dump them on American’s border.
Of course, the observation that once a “refugee” passes out of the war torn area into a safe country but continues going through a number of countries almost the entire length of a continent that they might no longer be properly considered a “refugee” is lost on the left. Once they were safe in Algeria or Turkey, there their progress ought to have stopped because they were no longer fleeing.
However, I would rather examine the validity of this comparison of those whom President Obama called “refugees”, or those illegal aliens seeking “asylum” from South America versus the potential refugees from South Africa or other groups which were abandoned and ignored by the Obama administration which could have justifiably been deemed legitimate refugees.
As always, one ought to start with the proper definition. What is a “refugee” for purposes of seeking asylum by United States law? Then let us examine the actual nature of those various groups by the standard of that definition.
“The term “refugee” means (A) any person who . . . is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . .” 8 U.S. Code § 1101(a)(42)(A)
First, let us dismiss the ignorant blanket language the left is so prone to throw about without regard to specifics of the definition of the words themselves, that is to say to call everyone who disagrees with them a racist.
Looking at the people permitted under “refugee” status under the Obama administration, first from Iraq and Syria, we note that the “refugees” were an Islamic admixture of Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Arabs. For simplicity, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Arabs are all various Semitic groups.
Could such refugees fear persecution on account of race? They were Caucasian the same as those from whom they claimed to be fleeing. Could it be on account of religion? They were Muslim the same as the ISIS rebels from whom they fled. Could it be from their nationality? The very definition of a civil war, is a war within a single nation. This was not an invasion, so there was no nationality difference.
If we look at Somalian refugees, we see the same situation, they are from the majority religion, of the same race, and of the same nationality from which they claim to be fleeing. Looking at Venezuela, we see the same thing again. Those on the asylum train were native Venezuelans, the same race, and the same Catholic religion as the socialist nation they were fleeing.
Looking at the European “refugee crisis”, albeit from the inapplicable prism of American law, those orientals (middle easterners to Americans) from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were the same group as those seeking refuge in America, thus no real difference.
Those from poverty stricken, often Muslim, regions of Africa such as Angola, Algeria, Lybia, Mali, and a variety of other nations who were pouring into Europe we see a similar situation to those fleeing to America from Venezuela.
These groups are universally fleeing either civil unrest or poverty or a combination of both. As much as one may wish to feel sorry for their native situation, neither civil unrest nor economic hardship are proper grounds under the aforementioned statute to justify a status of “refugee” under American law.
Thus, the Obama administration thumbed their nose at the law because they willfully ignored the very language of the law which defines a refugee.
What about other groups who were actually eligible to seek asylum under the law in America?
At the start of the Iraq War, there were an estimated two million Christians living in the country of Iraq, as well as a number of Christians in Syria. After the rise of ISIS and years of sectarian violence in the country even under the new Iraqi government which refused to include a freedom of religion provision in their new Constitution, the estimated number of Christians in Iraq declined officially to about five hundred thousand.
Stories of ISIS invading Yazidi territory, killing their men, raping their women, and auctioning their daughters off as wives and concubines to the conquering ISIS warriors abound. The Yazidi are both a ethnic minority as well as practitioners of a distinct and separate ancient religion.
White farmers in South Africa, and Zimbabwe, are clearly an ethnic minority within those nations. The unequivocal evidence demonstrates that they are currently suffering a systematic persecution not only in practice but clearly authorized by the government law.
One could imagine that the black Christians in southern Sudan would, if they sought it, though there has been no indication that they have, would also qualify as a people being persecuted on the basis of their religion as a minority people.
What these groups share is that their persecution clearly falls into the language of the refugee definition. They do not share the same nationality, the same religion, or even the same race if one were to include the Sudanese. The basis for the refugee status is not some arbitrary discriminatory reason as the leftist pretend, but a logical basis by definition of law of peoples who actually qualify for refugee status.
The left would ban legitimate refugees, heartlessly leaving these unfortunates to suffer in their native lands, while importing those politically hostile to America who are not, by definition, refugees.
