“Child refugees” are coming to the UK. Why is the Jewish community so determined to bring them in?
Citizens UK Private Sponsorship Chanukah Video from Charlotte Fischer on Vimeo.
Citizens UK Private Sponsorship Chanukah Video from
Charlotte Fischer on
Vimeo.
The dismantling of the Calais “Jungle” refugee camp has been marked by huge scenes of
disorder with rioting, at least one
gang rape, and much of the camp
going up in flames. But there has been uproar in Britain too since the realisation that
most of the thousands of
“child refugees”, which the Prime Minister had agreed to accept, were neither children nor refugees.
From the moment these healthy, strapping adult male migrants
stepped off the bus in London it was obvious that the British people had been subjected to yet another massive immigration deception. Those who
enabled and organised this “child refugee” scam are brazening it out, safe in the knowledge there will be no comebacks for them.
First they attempted to prevent any more embarrassing pictures by throwing
blankets over the arrivals so they resembled state witnesses at a Mafia trial. Then a
screened walkway
from the bus alighting point to the door of the reception centre was
erected overnight for the same purpose. Dental tests to determine the
real age of these youths were
ruled out
as an “invasion of privacy.” And there is no question of having them
deported, so nothing can be done now. They’re here. Get over it.
But of course, it all works better if there is no clamour from the
public. So the powers-that-be have resorted to the tried and tested
method of stifling dissent. Anyone who sticks his head above the parapet
to raise doubts is subjected to stern lectures about their moral
shortcomings. BBC TV presenter Gary
Lineker chastised his fellow British for their “shameful” attitudes, while Labour shadow Home Secretary
Diane Abbott
attacked those who wanted to carry out dental tests to assess their age
as “racist.” Pop singer Lily Allen became a media darling when, on
behalf of the people of Britain, she made a tearful
apology to the refugees for causing their plight.
Let that sink in. Britain caused the plight of the refugees.
Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!
After voting for Brexit, for ordinary British people, who have seen
their schools, hospitals and welfare services strained to breaking
point, a fresh influx of immigrants was not exactly what they had been
looking forward to. After all, Britain has no legal or moral obligation
to take these people. They were supposed to be the responsibility of the
first country they arrived at in the EU. And why are they coming to
racist Europe anyway? It’s incredibly short-sighted of them. Why not go
to some Asian or African country? Or Israel?
This fresh burden will be placed squarely on the local authorities
that receive the immigrants, and they are going to have to dig deeply.
While the government is providing £40,000 ($48,000) per annum for each
young refugee, the total annual cost is around £133,000 ($162,000). So
tax increases — or reduced services in other areas — are predicted.
Naturally little of this will fall on the prosperous London boroughs
filled with BBC-watching, morally uplifted Whites. Instead many migrants
are being located in far-flung areas such as Devon or poorer northern
communities already thronging with refugees, such as Bradford.
The tipping point in the long battle to admit these bogus “child
refugees” seems to have been a multi-faith initiative in which more than
200 religious leaders led by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord
Williams and senior representatives from the Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and
Sikh faiths — signed a
letter urging the Prime Minister to admit 3,000.
In a speech at a London synagogue, Lord Williams described the Calais
camp as “a stain” on the British conscience. But in fact, this alleged
multi-faith support was not what it appeared to be. It was largely
organised by dozens of Jewish activists working through an organisation
called
Citizens UK
that organised the casework and poured substantial resources into
ensuring that the necessary amendments to the law would make it through
Parliament.
The Calais “Jungle” crisis has brought the Jewish community together
in a unity of purpose rarely seen outside the occasion of Israel’s
various wars. From the highest communal levels to the smallest youth
groups, it seems everyone Jewish has been mobilised in the cause of
getting uneducated, unassimilable Muslim economic migrants into Britain.
It is a campaign they have chosen to frame in entirely moral terms.
The Jewish community’s loud insistence has been that not only is Britain
under a strict moral obligation to take these migrants but that there
should be no upper limit. To do otherwise would be to undermine our
reputation as a humanitarian country that wishes to describe itself as
civilised.
Their arguments have been formed around highly emotional anecdotes
and images. Time and again we have been treated to stories of children
struggling in the squalor at the Calais “Jungle” camp. The iconic
photographs of the lifeless body of three-year-old Syrian boy
Aylan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish beach are frequently invoked.
You will notice that nowhere is there any consideration of the stress
this is causing on existing British communities, especially those in
the poorer areas where refugees are invariably housed. Nor is there any
recognition of the profound unfairness this imposes on the native White
community who will be required to support these strangers via the
welfare system, health and housing services. Such a process is not only
unaffordable, it makes a mockery of the basic idea that help from the
welfare state is in return from previous tax contributions.
There is a largely unspoken reason for this: resentment over
Britain’s perceived inadequacy in admitting Jewish refugees before World
War II. In fact, Britain admitted many tens of thousands of Jews in the
1930s, but it is an article of faith amongst many Jews that Britain
could and should have admitted many more.
Typical of this attitude was the speech of Rabbi Herschel Gluck,
founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum. He says he lost over 100 relatives
in the Holocaust and implied that Britain’s wartime attitudes to
refugees were to blame for this. “I feel obliged to ensure we don’t make
the same mistakes,” he said.
Numerous references were made to the Kindertransport programme by
which Jewish children from Europe were smuggled into Britain. (The
TOO has already
debunked much of this greatly mythologised episode.)
A veteran of that same Kindertransport is the figurehead for the Calais refugee crusade. eighty-four year old
Lord Alf Dubs
, a veteran Labour politician. He has tirelessly campaigned for mass
immigration all his life. A former director of the Refugee Council, he
somehow arrived in Britain aged six in 1939 despite Britain’s horrendous
attitudes at the time, and was shown much Christian charity. Since
then, he has chosen to repay this kindness by devoting his life to
opening Britain’s borders to non-Whites from around the globe.
According to EU law, refugees should have been processed at the first
country they arrived at, so some ruse had to dreamed up whereby Britain
could allow their entry. This was done through a device known as the
EU’s Dublin III regulation, whereby lone refugee children could be taken
to any European country where they have a relative.
This was not enough for Lord Dubs. He wanted the “child refugees” in
the Calais “Jungle” admitted to Britain without any “family reunion”
qualification and pushed his own amendment which would oblige the
British government to transfer to the UK any unaccompanied refugee
children from Europe.
To this end Lord Dubs was able to count on wholesale establishment support. Not just the Archbishop of Canterbury but
charities, NGOs and even
economists all rallied round.
TOO has
already shown
the hugely disproportionate Jewish influence on a similar letter from
senior lawyers. The same disproportionately Jewish influence can be seen
in the plea from the 126 economists. One of the signatories was
Jonathan Portes, who can be fairly regarded as the architect of
Tony Blair’s mass immigration disaster.
So it seemed as if the passing of the Dubs amendment to an
immigration bill was a foregone conclusion. But then at the vote in the
House of Commons there was a problem. For Conservative politicians had
not long finished fighting a general election campaign in which their
voters had left them in no doubt how they felt about the never-ending
waves of mass immigration.
In the House of Commons the Dubs amendment was
defeated. Jewish campaigners could barely contain their anger. The nagging, scolding words of
Dr. Edie Friedman, director of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, were characteristic.
As a result, children across Europe will remain cold,
alone and at risk over the coming months. This was an opportunity to
stand on the right side of history, to bring relief to just 3,000 of the
95,000 unaccompanied children who applied for asylum in Europe last
year.
We wake up this morning on the wrong side of history and on the wrong
side of compassion.The Immigration Bill has shown the UK at its worst,
uncaring about the suffering of children a mere 30 miles away in places
like Calais, but it has also shown us (sic!) at our best.
Rabbi Harry Jacobi too was beside himself with anger at MPs voting in
accordance with their electorate’s wishes. For him loomed the shadow of
1938, when Britain decided to stop the flood of Jewish refugees.
Too many MPs with hardened hearts, just like the biblical
story of Pharaoh. To close their eyes and hearts to unaccompanied
children, to insist that it is alright to detain pregnant women, and
that refugees can still be detained indefinitely simply on the say so of
an immigration official. These are not the actions of a world-leading
moral civilisation.
Then, in one of his last acts as Prime Minister, David Cameron
did a U-turn
and announced he would allow the amendment to go through unopposed. Now
Britain could admit the bogus 3,000 “refugee children” unilaterally.
Citizens UK’s main task seems to be getting migrants or “refugees”
into Britain and dispersed around the country. It describes itself as a
“community organiser’s hub,” but is in fact an arm of the state with
deep pockets and a nationwide network of affiliated organisations. It
has fought many legal battles for refugees and succeeded in getting
migrant “child asylum seekers” released from detention centres and
housed in the wider community.
So how Jewish is it? At letterhead level it seems to be drawn from a
cross-section of the community, but at organiser level, the Citizens UK
appears to be disproportionately Jewish. (This tactic of recruiting
sympathetic non-Jews and giving them highly visible position in
Jewish-dominated causes has a very long history, going back at least to
immigration battles in the early twentieth century, as recounted in
Chapter 6 of SAID [p. 192ff] and
Chapter 7 of
Culture of Critique [e.g., pp. 249-250].) They include the Citizens UK
spokeswoman,
Rabbi Janet Darley, who, of course, has a tear-jerking story to tell.
She said it was when a 15-year-old migrant fell under the wheels of a
truck he was trying to board that she felt that she had to get involved.
For me, that was the deal breaker — I knew I couldn’t
live with myself if I didn’t do everything I could to make sure there
were no more dead children. … The Torah warns us against the wronging of
a stranger. For us, this is core teaching and not an optional extra.
Another Jewish Citizens UK activist is senior organiser Charlotte Fischer, who is
lobbying for Britain to increase the total number of “Syrian” refugees it has
agreed to take from 20,000 to 50,000. “We are doing shamefully compared to Canada” she chides.
But the UK is doing awesomely compared to Israel. Doesn’t that count for anything?
Citizens UK campaigner Rabbi Danny Rich is
co-chair
of yet another arm of the refugee industry, the National Refugee
Welcome Board. He clearly has the magic touch when it comes to getting
access on the BBC. Since the beginning of September he has graced at
least half a dozen BBC outlets including the main BBC TV news and the
BBC World Service and gets softball kidglove treatment from all of them.
He blithely
brushed aside
the concerns of ordinary British people: “Look at the Kindertransport
and the contribution made to Britain over the last 70 years by those who
escaped the Nazis. Look at the contributions made today by doctors,
nurses and care workers, many of who were not English born.” Anyone
doubting the distinctly Jewish flavour of Citizens UK would be advised
to look at this promotional
video, also featured at the beginning of this article.
Of course, no British refugee campaign would be complete without the presence of
Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner
who can be guaranteed to be at the forefront at any number of “multi
faith” immigrant events including a Citizens UK vigil outside the House
of Commons.
Citizens UK is an umbrella organisation overseeing local grass roots
initiatives for refugees all over the country, many of which are
Jewish-organised. One of the main ones is called
Safe Passage UK. In an article for the
Jewish Chronicle, the two Jewish organisers
described their work as “fighting injustice.” Apparently a group of synagogues had raised £200,000 for them in just a few weeks.
Rabbi Rebecca Birk was recently
named by the
Evening Standard
as one of London’s most influential people for her fund raising for
Safe Passage UK. Again, her entire rationale is bound up with her Jewish
identity, framed, of course, as a moral imperative stemming from the
inherently moral essence of Judaism. She
says:
The Jewish identity is predicated on being a foreigner,
relying on the kindness of strangers, it runs through our own theology
really: doing good, mending the world. We talk of three pillars the
world stands on — the Torah, divine service, and kind acts. It’s an
anathema to be a Jew and only be concerned with oneself.
A clear sense of Jewish identity also informed the efforts of the
three fashionable north London women who decided to put their media careers on hold to set up the
Help Refugees
charity in the Calais “Jungle.” The women, two of whom are Jewish, have
tapped into a lucrative market indeed, and their outfit was one of the
biggest players in Calais. It has been a massive, trendy,
profile-raising success. After setting up, they were inundated with
corporate contributions, and now they run 26 projects from Israel and on
the migrant trail all the way across Europe. Articles
about them
focus on “child refugees.” And because Hollywood is well-known for its
high moralism, it is not surprising that actors such as Benedict
Cumberbatch and Lena Dunham have lent their support.
Help Refugees even has a mobile kitchen on to the shores of Greece
where their volunteers are helping refugees from Turkey from their
dinghies and then seeing them off on their long journey across Europe.
One of these women, Dani Lawrence, insists her parents fled
anti-Semitism in Morocco in the sixties.
The Jewish community has an extremely high opinion of its charitable
efforts. Their strong Jewish identities and loyalty to their tribe are
obvious, and it is wonderful that all that philanthropy makes them feel
so good about themselves. But it might be worthwhile for the White
British to ask what exactly is in it for them, apart from Kosher
certification?
It is time to ask some searching questions about the real motives
that lie behind all this Jewish selflessness. After all, a charitable
disposition towards Muslims is not exactly a characteristic of Jewish
life anywhere else and certainly not in the Palestinian territories. And
no question is guaranteed to infuriate Jewish activists more than
asking why Israel doesn’t admit any refugees from Syria which is, after
all, next door?
So what do they get out of this sudden influx of unassimilable
immigrants who have neither the temperament nor inclination to fit into
modern Britain? Sadly, as readers of
TOO are all to familiar with (see, e.g., “
Is immigration a Jewish value?“),
the motivation is not compassion but veiled ethnic vindictiveness aimed
at undermining and dispossessing ordinary British people.
One of the questions that British people might also ask themselves is
this: If those British people in the 1930s who had admitted waves of
Jewish refugees could see the fruits of what they had done, what would
they think?
If those British people, who were to suffer so much in a war they
were told was about “freedom”, if they were to see the streets of
Peckham, Newham or any number of London boroughs or cities today overrun
by Third-Worlders, what would they think?
And if they were to then told, in detail, about the role of Jewish
activism, power and “philanthropy” in bringing about this
transformation, what would their thoughts be then?Perhaps they would
agree with so many of us. That the Jewish invocation to “heal the
world” seems to be code-words for eradicating White identity and
eradicating the power of Whites to control their own destiny.
And perhaps, instead of admitting these “child refugees,” Britain
would have been better off remembering the words of another Jewish sage,
economist Milton Friedman, who said “You can have a welfare state or
you can have open borders, but you cannot have both.”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/10/where-are-the-child-refugees/
