Discussion:
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
(too old to reply)
Ranger
2007-09-06 17:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe

By Prof Kevin McDonald

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml

February 2, 2007

In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book Collision Course:
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America

"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)

In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).

But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.

Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .

It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.

Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.

But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.

In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".

I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.

Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.

As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.

Kevin MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald [***@csulb.edu] is Professor of Psychology at
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/

Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?

http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmideastpolicyotherboot31jan07.html
Doug
2007-09-06 19:17:42 UTC
Permalink
You're a f'ing retard if you beleive this shit.
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmideastpolicyotherboot31jan07.html
Tani Jantsang ©
2007-09-06 20:39:39 UTC
Permalink
"Doug" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:snYDi.1697$***@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

Letter from a Jewish activist to Jewish organizations. Jews better listen
to him, he is quite wise and on the money.

High Noon to Midnight
Does Current Immigration Policy
Doom American Jewry?

Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight

(extended version)

Among the articles of faith in the slowly waning culture of secular
liberalism that have passed for and often served as a substitute, ersatz
religion for many mainstream American Jews, the most vulnerable tenet at
present is belief in "generous legal immigration," the euphemism for
open-borders immigration in the policy lexicon of the national
American-Jewish public affairs agencies. This is not to accuse them of
out-and-out double-talk and hypocrisy so much as engaging in intellectual
and moral trimming, followed by self-deception and denial. Having repeatedly
failed to persuade the National Immigration Forum, to which virtually all
belong, to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, they took the
path of least resistance and chose to remain in any case, made their peace,
lowered their eyes, and convinced themselves they could get away with
blurring the distinction between illusion and reality.

That they continue to pay lip-service to a bogus totem and equivocate about
an issue of enormous importance is not only deplorable as a matter of
principle, it is also increasingly untenable as a matter of policy: it puts
them fundamentally at odds with their own long-term institutional values and
interests, undermines the position of the American-Jewish community, and,
what's more, greater and greater numbers of American Jews from the
leadership on down see the sophistry for the transparent charade it is.
Survey research, plus a weight of anecdotal evidence, reveals a significant
change in attitudes among American Jews at the grassroots level, with a
plurality in public opinion polls taken in the two years following 9/11
favoring lowered immigration and some 70 percent the introduction of a
secure national identity card.

While the same survey conducted in the last year by Market Facts Inc. - the
findings were released many months ago - indicate some slippage backwards
towards traditional opinion (old habits die hard and the impact of 9/11 may
already have started to lessen), with 15 percent favoring increased
immigration, 43 percent believing it should remain the same, and 41 percent
wanting it lowered, the same survey revealed that some 55 percent believe
that Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States.

Given a barrage of media attention to Islamic anti-Semitism over the past
two years this is an extraordinarily low statistic, and a finding is worth
pausing over. It is only explicable in light of the Jewish obsession with
appearing tolerant towards groups perceived as "Other" by the dominant
culture, especially non-whites and non-Christians. Many are loath to see
Muslims as antagonists, despite evidence of pervasive virulent Islamic
anti-Semitism. Had the same question been asked of virtually any other group
in America regarding which population most hates Jews, far higher
percentages surely would have identified Muslims. One hopes it will not
require another act of major domestic terrorism to cause the same
respondents to draw the appropriate cause-and-effect connections; bolder,
more concerted efforts of the ground, including advertising in the Jewish
and secular press, can accomplish this end, as would the founding of an
entity specifically devoted to awaking America's Jews to the danger.

My experience on the ground in congregations across America shows that very
few Jews possess anything remotely resembling knowledge and understanding of
the history of Jewish immigration itself, immigration policy, including the
scale of current immigration or the engines that drive it, and frequently
all that is required to effect enormous changes in attitude is to apprise
them of data that is indisputable. Simple facts can prove transformative.

When I began my efforts at the grassroots level, the Jewish media spoke of
attitudes within the American-Jewish community as "monolithic" in support of
open-borders immigration. Now it is commonplace to describe the situation as
one in which "a raging debate is going on" (I quote the Forward). If so much
could have been accomplished principally by one individual with occasional
support by others, it is clear what an ambitious, concerted effort might
achieve. Opinion regarding this issue is volatile, based on little other
than nostalgia, and up for grabs. One can not undo the sentimental
attachments of decades or belief in powerful mythologies at one stroke; but
they can be shaken and unhinged by concerted, continuing effort, and
significant enough numbers can be detached from this loyalty to make a
political difference. Perhaps most important, among the community's
organizational leadership enthusiasm for this dangerous anachronism is a
mile wide and an inch deep.

It should be noted for the historical record that my doubts about open
borders had their origins in the powerful misgivings about it expressed by
my beloved mentor at the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Sam Rabinove of
blessed memory, AJC's Legal Director of many years and one of the giants in
the court struggles of the Civil Rights era (his amicus in Bakke was one of
the most widely-cited in the Justices' decisions), as well as the conscience
of that agency, not to mention one of the most respected figures working in
Jewish organizational life in the 20th century. In those days a
dyed-in-the-wool left/liberal, I was taken by surprise by Sam's repeated
expressions of anguish and disgust over the intellectual dishonesty of
Jewish organizations' remaining in the National Immigration Forum, knowing
what they all know about that organization's naked identity politics, its
contempt for the rule of law, and its visceral anti-Americanism. On one
memorable occasion as we left a meeting of the National Immigration Forum,
Sam turned to me with and said, "What on earth are we doing here?"

Among Jewish leadership, the inevitable collision between allegiance to
received opinion and the recognition of hard urgent new realities had begun,
if sotto voce, before 9/11, but that tremendum greatly accelerated the
process by revealing in the most terrible way the nexus between the anarchy
that has passed for immigration policy and immigration law enforcement and
the savage assault on the innocent lives and national security of the
American people. Much has occurred in its wake to drive the point home about
the dangers Jews and all Americans face. In the wake of 9/11 came the war
against Islamist terror that began in earnest in Afghanistan and continued
with the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein and the ongoing struggle
in that fractious "country" at nation-building. All the while, major news
story after news story has covered the radical upsurge of anti-Semitism in
the Muslim world (President Mahathir Muhammad's speech at the Islamic
summit, one that might have been ghost-written by Joseph Goebbels or even,
as Omer Bartov has pointed out, Adolph Hitler himself, left a searing
impression (as did the standing ovation it received from 57 leaders of
Muslim states, in addition to President Putin), as have the crazed
maunderings of Osama bin Laden and countless fanatical mullahs about Jews
and Crusaders. Significant attention in both the secular and Jewish press
has highlighted the extraordinary hostility to Jews and Israel within the
leadership and citizenry of the European Union, and there has been almost
continuous treatment of the emergence of the "New Anti-Semitism." Given all
this - plus the hatred of Jews manifested in such individual cases as the
brutal and richly symbolic murders of Daniel Peal and Nick Berg; or in the
terrorists attacks aimed at the residual Jewish presence in the Islamic
patrimony such as the bombings of synagogues in Morocco, Tunisia, and
Turkey; the multiple ongoing investigations into the connections of American
Islamic "charities," national organizations and leaders (including some that
Jews obsessed with dialogue briefly helped legitimate) to Jihadist
anti-Semitic and anti-Israel terrorist groups - it has become very difficult
to remain simultaneously credible and in a state of total denial.

"Facts are such horrid things," says Lady Susan at the close of the
epistolary novel that bears her name, Jane Austen's first published fiction.
Or, to borrow Milton Himmelfarb's famous formulation about the origins of
neo-conservatism, the American-Jewish community has been "mugged by
reality." In the contest between adhesion to a sentimental archaism and
existential horror, only those willing to be perceived as purblind or
suicidal do not eventually adjust to facts.

Thus, behind closed doors, Jewish leaders speak a very different language
than in public. This is not entirely new with regard to immigration policy,
but the disconnection between appearance and reality is much sharper now; it
constitutes a veritable chasm. In private, they express grave concern that
current immigration policy will prove politically and existentially ruinous
to the American-Jewish community, as it has for the Jews of France and will
inevitably for the Jews of Britain, indeed, throughout Western Europe. There
is particular fear about the impact on Jewish life and security, as well as
American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim community in
the United States, fueled almost entirely by current immigration policy
(conversion to Islam plays a role as well, but as a cause of concern it is a
distant second - except where shifting terrorist tactics are concerned.)

At the conclusion of many meetings with Jewish national leaders most have
told me, several using the identical formulation, "You are 1000 percent
right, but I can't go out and say it yet." While they have not yet found the
civic courage to break with the traditional consensus - an act they know
will jeopardize what remains of the unity of the old liberal coalition,
create tensions with the Latino groups they are assiduously courting, as
well as set them at odds with much of their rank and file, including some of
their strongest supporters and biggest donors - they can see the Rubicon
glinting in the distance, and many recognize that eventually they will have
to cross it.

My personal experience of more than two years' speaking on behalf of
immigration reform as a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies, to
overwhelmingly sympathetic, often packed audiences at dozens of
congregations across the country - yes, with occasional, strong, even
vitriolic dissent, including some from big shots and fat cats (I have,
albeit infrequently, been called a racist and likened to David Duke) - as
well in closed-door, off-the-record meetings with Jewish leadership at the
highest levels in New York and in Washington confirms these are the
ascending trends. Though my experience falls into that category we
denominate "anecdotal evidence," the fact is that I have spoken with more
grassroots Jews about immigration policy than any other person in the United
States. That there will be - as survey research consistently reflects - a
lag time between people's intellectual shifts and their emotional capacity
to register it, speak it aloud and act on it - sooner or later, the two will
become congruent.

The typical congregant at any one of the dozens of synagogues I have visited
across America, frequently being invited as a "scholar-in-residence,"
staying for a full weekend and thus having the opportunity to gain a firmer
handle on what's going on, is thrilled to hear a voice speaking from the
podium in the sanctuary that is not mumbling political correctness, and that
is prepared to say aloud what the great majority already think - but has yet
to find the full confidence to speak.

This is not to say change will come quickly or painlessly. While virtually
all the rabbis in the dozens of congregations where I've spoken have
generously - and often courageously - made a point of agreeing with me in
public and affirming their support of my views - and thus breaking with the
policy line of their denomination as well as what one might have assumed was
communal orthodoxy among their flocks - I have been bitterly attacked by a
handful of die-hard leftists in the pulpit. Some see themselves not as my
hosts but as my debating partners. There is and will be also strong
resistance from many quarters in the organized community, not least of all
from the professional domestic affairs staff of national Jewish
organizations, a group that can be reliably counted upon to be far to the
political left of the executive and lay leadership, whom they are adept at
misleading and sabotaging.

There is special cause for concern about staff manipulation in those
organizations that nominally grant lay leadership wide discretion in
decision-making on policy while, in fact, professional staff effectively
retains it, controlling debate by subtlety limiting options within internal
discussion, card-stacking the evidence in the preparation of background
materials, and having more "expertise" and thus intellectual authority than
the membership. This tendency for staff to overstep its position, monitor,
and even play the role of control officers for the executive and lay
leadership will become stronger as the Jewish community increasingly
questions its automatic support for the Democratic Party and its candidates,
a process that may well reach a watershed with the upcoming Presidential
race. It is not beyond possibility that the President, who received a scant
17 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, may conceivably garner 30-40 percent
of it this time around. While it is by no means clear this will come to
pass - Jewish support for Democratic candidates is tenacious and opinion
polls suspect - a shift of this magnitude is not impossible and it might
even influence the outcome in such crucial swing states such as Florida,
Ohio, and Missouri.

The most telling piece of evidence of the stubbornness of Jewish
organizational adhesion to the open borders camp, perhaps the staff/lay
dynamic described above, as well as tenacious organizational maintenance of
the status quo in the face of accumulating evidence of dissent in the ranks,
is the letter sent by eleven Jewish national organizations to members of the
Senate as recently as May 28, 2004. The letter seeks "immigration reform"
(read amnesty) that would make conditions easier for illegal aliens by the
passage of legislation to "address immigration issues, including bills to
aid farm workers immigration needs and ease education burdens for
undocumented immigrant students." Thus, at the top of the communal pyramid
all would appear unchanged, but the base is increasingly restive. For the
time being - indeed for as long as it is tenable - the propensity among
leadership will be to circle the wagons and reaffirm the traditional
position, hoping the mere organizational line-up will overawe the
opposition; the reasoning is as understandable institutionally as it is
shortsighted as a matter of policy.

The issue of immigration remains bitterly divisive among Jews, and which
organization welcomes costly internal strife? At a luncheon several months
ago following an address at one of New York City's wealthiest and most
prominent synagogues, board members clashed head-on and savagely over my
presentation, with the president of the congregation, one of those who
accused me of being a racist, being attacked by a senior board member as
being "the kind of Jew that sold out others to the Nazis." The atmosphere
was electric, and the dense toxicity that enveloped that room during the
supremely uncivil "discussion" about my remarks might have been cut with an
axe. Important segments of the leadership remain true believers in the dying
faith, and will not give it up without a fight. But that change is
inevitable is clear enough. The question, ultimately, is whether it will
come too late to make a difference to the future of America and its Jewish
community.

Though it will prove wrenching - philosophically and spiritually - to break
with the old consensus, so wrenching many are effectively paralyzed by the
very prospect right now, it must surely concentrate their minds wonderfully
to know that continuing to uphold it endangers the values, power, interests,
and perhaps even long-term viability of the community whose protection is
their raison d'être, a criticism they are beginning to hear from a rising
chorus within it. In their heart of hearts they recognize they risk a harsh
judgment by history as those responsible for "losing America," just as their
predecessors have been rightly pilloried for their failure to do more to
save European Jewry in the years leading up to and during the Holocaust.
American-Jewish leadership is understandably at sea and agonized,
experiencing profound vertigo as it seeks to chart a course within a reality
that would appear to make sense only to a schizophrenic.

Fading Anti-Semitism
On one hand, the Jewish organizational leadership cadre holds influential
positions within a community that feels a sense of belonging and inclusion
unknown in the 2000-year history of Diaspora Jewry, as well as justifiable
pride and not inconsiderable complacency stemming from the position it has
achieved within American society. The American-Jewish community has attained
success and acceptance beyond their forebear's fondest dreams. Though only a
small minority within the United States, American Jews are influential far
beyond their miniscule percentage of the population. Not only are they, per
capita, among the wealthiest and best educated of Americans, but they also
hold significant political power as well as cultural influence. Nearly half
the money spent in the presidential primaries in the Democratic Party comes
from Jewish contributors, and in recent years Jewish presence at the highest
levels of government has become routine. A majority of the cabinet members
in the Clinton administration were Jews, and while there are none in the
Bush cabinet, Jewish political advisors play key roles in national security,
foreign, and military affairs. Had Al Gore become President, an Orthodox Jew
would have been a heart-beat away from the nation's highest office. In the
upcoming Presidential election, if Senator Kerry wins, he will be the first
chief executive with Jewish roots. Jews are concentrated in states with the
highest votes in the Electoral College, and they vote at a higher rate than
any other group of Americans, amortizing their otherwise limited demographic
presence.

To repeat some of the well-known indicators of the Jewish community's
success, ten per-cent of the Unites States Senate is Jewish. Currently, the
majority of the presidents at Ivy League universities are Jews, and
faculties and student bodies at elite colleges and universities are
typically 30-40 percent Jewish, often constituting a plurality at these
institutions. Jews continue to form a high percentage of the membership in
the learned professions (law, medicine, academia, scientific research) and
among the chattering classes, i.e., among writers, journalists, and
publishers of some of the nation's leading national newspapers and
periodicals, and as creators and disseminators of both high and popular
culture. Though not necessarily representing Jewish interests or values,
American Jews play the predominant role in Hollywood (nearly 70 percent of
movie and TV producers and directors are Jewish), and thus shape much of the
popular imagery central to the national life. Jews also hold key positions
within many leading financial institutions in the country, especially within
investment banking and the brokerage industry.

The principal cause, as well as a symptom of these successes, anti-Semitism
has fallen to historic lows among the white Christians that still form
America's dominant cultural group; indeed what was once a significant factor
in mainstream American life is now, at most, a peripheral phenomenon. A
recent ADL study found that only some 12 percent of white Christian
Americans hold anti-Semitic attitudes; this represents a 50-percent drop
over just the past 30 years. Indeed, one of the leading factors contributing
to the crisis in Jewish continuity is the fact that our neighbors like us,
are prepared and often eager to marry us and have children with us. It's
important to emphasize this as Jews often find it hard to hear good news,
even as their leadership is often capable of suppressing bad news, at least
when it comes from politically correct quarters. Among the more significant
examples of the "bad news" is that survey research has consistently shown
high levels of anti-Semitism among Latinos, with percentages in the
neighborhood of 47 percent holding hostile attitudes towards Jews. Moreover,
this finding has remained stubbornly constant. It is cited in the major
survey of inter-group attitudes Taking America's Pulse conducted by the
National Conference of Christians and Jews in 1992 and again in a recent
study sponsored by the ADL.

A risible but interesting indicator of how marginal anti-Semitism has become
within the dominant culture is how candidate after candidate for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination is "discovering" his Jewish
roots, or, if he is not so lucky to have any, emphasizes the fact that his
wife or wife and children are Jewish. In an earlier America, these candidate's
forebears thought it prudent to conceal their Judaism by changing their
names or converting to Christianity; their descendants now see a distinct
advantage in flaunting what their antecedents sought to hide.

Having cited these examples of the success of the American-Jewish community,
one feels compelled to add a caveat to anticipate the responses such
observations invariably elicit from anti-Semites and other neo-Nazis,
fascists, paranoiac Jew-haters, fanatic Latino nationalists, and Islamist
crazies, as well as from such protean political curiosities as Michael Lind,
an often interesting political analyst who unfortunately appears to have an
unhealthy fixation with Jews. The last thing one wishes to do is provide
this ilk further "evidence" to justify their hatred of or distaste for the
American-Jewish community. When I discussed the admirable situation of the
America's Jews in my first CIS Backgrounder in 2001, this crowd chose to
view my open avowals of the self-evident either as a rare glimpse into the
arcane secret workings of the vast Jewish conspiracy, or saw their nutty,
hair-brained analyses as having "outed" one of the key conspirators. In what
constitutes a classic case of unconscious humor, they acted as if they were
sleuths who had uncovered what I freely offered. (David Duke described me as
"one of the most powerful Jews in America," an assessment I wish had been
shared by my former employers at the American Jewish Committee, and one I
would gladly have shared with my mother had the source not been so
scabrous.)

Perhaps most bizarre, Michael Lind feigned shock and dismay that the Jewish
community uses its economic position and resources to advance its political
agenda, sounding like nothing so much as the outraged, newly arrived virgin
in the whorehouse, a stock character in Western comedy since Roman times.
One would have thought the connection between money and political power had
never been previously explored; but one doesn't need to know the work of Sir
Lewis Namier: all that's needed is what one famous tabloid calls an
inquiring mind. No, Virginia, there is no conspiracy, and I am not, sad to
say, "One of the most powerful Jews in America." Rather, valuing hard work
and education, with an accumulated store of inventiveness and intellectual
energy maintained, indeed hoarded, within the stifling and oppressive
confines of the largely ghettoized European societies which they abandoned
or fled, with a facility for languages and cultural adaptability that their
historical condition had forced upon them, free to advance within a society
which became increasingly meritocratic as well as one in which anti-Semitism
yielded quickly to tolerance and then full inclusion, Jews have achieved the
American Dream by fair means. That the American Jewish community should be
concerned, perhaps more than most others, with gaining and maintaining
political influence and access should come as a surprise to no one that
understands that powerlessness was key to the annihilation of a third of
world Jewry in living memory.

Romanticized Image of Immigration
Yet for all its accumulated historical consciousness and above-average
political acuity, the American-Jewish community, like any other, believes in
myths, and these die slowly because they represent enduring values and
ideals, not realities. The meaning and power of any myth does not derive
from its demonstrability as fact, and the mythopoeiac power of the immigrant
experience among American Jews will lose force only slowly. Of all the
pieces of Americana that most middle-aged American Jews, at least, know by
heart, one of the best known and most-cherished is that verse from the
well-known poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me
your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ."

That poem was written, of course, by a Jewish schoolgirl poet in New York in
response to the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia. For more than a
century it has given expression to a highly romanticized image of the
immigrant experience in America, one that has become iconic and
all-encompassing despite its decided irrelevance to much it purports to
represent. This quote has a great deal to do with refugees and asylum
seekers, and they and the policy universe to which they belong are separate
and distinct from that of immigrants and immigration policy per se. If
American Jews are going to get this issue right, they need to disaggregate
the two, something many Jews have failed to do intellectually or
emotionally. For the truth is that Jewish immigrant experience far more
closely parallels the experience of refugees and asylum seekers than typical
immigrants - then or now. Jews have reason to get misty-eyed about what the
Statue of Liberty stands for, but the same is not quite the case for the
vast majority of immigrants who passed beneath it on their way to Ellis
Island.

No group has ever exemplified, revered, and clung to this romanticized
notion of immigration to the United States as much as the Jews who landed
here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and their descendants. My own
forebears did not come on the Mayflower, nor were they among the small group
of Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam aboard the St. Katerina from Recife,
Brazil, 350 years ago and remained, the New World's first permanent Jewish
pilgrims. I'm a first-generation American. My father fled the pogroms that
swept the Russian Empire during the Civil War that followed the Bolshevik
Revolution. He was born in a small village in Ukraine outside Kiev, a city
that was Judenrein by law; my maternal grandmother and her family had
arrived some years earlier from Riga, Latvia.

Given the horror that engulfed those Jews that remained in Europe -
including the many who might have been saved had the United States not
substantially closed its doors to immigration in 1924 and slammed them shut
entirely on Jews fleeing Nazism and the Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s -
the utter abandonment of the Jews by the Western democracies will resonate
forever deeply within the consciousness of every self-identifying Jew, and
particularly America's grudging acceptance of a mere 1,500 refugees who were
interned in Camp Oswego in Upstate New York - it is fair to say that no
immigrant group has appreciated the blessings of being immigrants to America
more than Jews. Against this backdrop, American Jews must now contend with
one of the most intellectually and emotionally anguishing questions that has
arisen in the entirety of their history in the United States: whether to
support the continuation of the current great wave of immigration, though a
more accurate metaphor for what is taking place now would be that of a
continuous, pounding surf than a wave, that has now reached an historically
unprecedented level, or exercise their still considerable political and
economic clout to seek to curtail the current record influx.

With approximately 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants entering and
settling annually - by far the greatest number illegal - roughly equivalent
to the population of Philadelphia - the United States now has the highest
number of foreign-born residents in its history. As a percentage of the
total population, the 32 million foreign-born, being strengthened
continuously, are fast approaching and will soon surpass a level not seen
since the first decade of the 20th century, and will in only a few years
constitute the largest percentage of foreign-born residents in the nation's
history.

For American Jewry, the debate over immigration is a classic confrontation
between the heart and head, nostalgia and foresight, illusion and reality.
In their gut, many American Jews feel that substantially reducing the level
of immigration betrays the legacy of their parents and grandparents. There
is a strong communal aversion to the notion of kicking the hands on the rung
of the social ladder beneath your own. But a growing number have reached the
conclusion that to continue along these lines betrays their children and
grandchildren. The danger arises because mass immigration is conterminous
with the importation of mass anti-Semitism. It's no accident that the rise
of widespread and increasingly violent anti-Semitism in Western Europe and,
to this point at a far lower level in America, tracks perfectly with mass
immigration, especially that of Muslims. Mass immigration also tracks with,
indeed, is the ultimate generator of, Balkanizing notions of extreme
multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism was not invented on some particularly benighted college
campus; nor did it fall from the sky: it is the direct outgrowth of the kind
of mass, uncontrolled immigration the United States has been experiencing
for decades. Having worked for more nearly a century through its communal
organizations and in the context of inter-faith encounters to achieve an
America largely free of anti-Semitism, it is difficult for American Jews to
sit back and watch mass immigration, most of it the consequence of the
wholesale violation of the rule of law, reverse that outcome.

However uncomfortable it is to grapple with the issue of immigration policy,
both as Jews and as Americans, it is a political question American Jews
cannot avoid. More than any other group of Americans, Jews have most at
stake in how this policy plays out in the coming years. Perhaps
counter-intuitively but right on the target, the immigration reform movement
sees American Jews with their significant political power, wealth,
substantial presence in the media and among opinion-makers to be the group
that may have the capacity to break this conspiracy of silence in a society
where issues of nationhood, sovereignty, race, ethnicity, and culture are
infinitely more indelicate to speak of than sex.

That conspiracy is maintained by a curious alliance among the leadership of
the major political parties, the ethnic lobbies, and Big Business. This
conspiracy sees to it that despite that fact that every survey shows HUGE
majorities of Americans favoring an outright moratorium on immigration -
differing only whether the moratorium should be for five years or for 10 -
their opinion does not register. Why not? The answer lies in who controls
public policy debates in America. These "debates," or, in this case, the
lack of any genuine debate, is the result of a distorted, skewed,
manipulated process dominated by those with the most to gain immediately and
palpably, financially and personally, with respect to any given issue.
Clearly, any alien, especially one from the Third World, experiences an
incalculable gain upon entering the United States. The worker from Mexico
that made five dollars a day will now make five dollars an hour. The ethnic
lobbies that purport to speak on his behalf also gain by the appearance and
often reality of a growing constituency. As do the employers of "cheap"
immigrant labor - cheap for them, of course, though not for the American
taxpayer, for whom this scenario represents the obverse of a "win/win"
situation.

It's been estimated that over the course of a lifetime, a typical illegal
alien in California will use more than $75,000 in public services than he
will ever pay in taxes. The education of the children of illegal aliens, the
cost of the emergency medical services and healthcare they most typically
use (the most expensive in a costly market), as well as the cost of a host
of other direct and indirect services from which they benefit are paid for
by the taxes of the American people. Similarly, the wages of American
workers earning at the bottom third of the workforce have fallen by some 7
percent in a decade as a direct result of competition from illegal aliens.
Still, the immediate tangible losses suffered by the average American
citizens are not felt to be nearly commensurate with the very tangible and
enormous material benefits gained by illegal aliens, their employers, and
their self-appointed parasitic "representatives."

Not a Right/Left Contest
Perhaps there's a politically useful silk purse in this sow's ear for those
of us seeking immigration reform and converts to the cause among
ever-over-anxious, too-eager to-be-loved and not-to-offend, politically
progressive and socially liberal American Jews. The news that the battle
over immigration is not a rightwing vs. leftwing battle tends to salve their
consciences as they pursue their rational self-interests and those of
America as a whole. It's always a help to remind audiences at a synagogue
event that the strongest proponents of open-borders immigration are the Wall
Street Journal and the Chambers of Commerce. And why, pray, is this so, I
regularly ask? Is it because the employers of sweated labor are in love with
the gorgeous mosaic of ethnic diversity? It doesn't take much to convince a
largely liberal constituency the cause is greed, the desire for an unending
supply of cheap labor to exploit in order to engorge their profits in the
service sector and agro-business and depress wages across the board, all the
while caring not a whit for any other consideration, whether political,
cultural, or environmental. Among the considerations to be thrown overboard
include American political democracy, including fundamental Constitutional
principles, such as the bedrock concept of the nation state as comprised of
a cohesive citizenry expressing its political will through democratic
processes.

President Bush's proposal for "immigration reform," a disgraceful fraud
that, if passed, will effectively amnesty some 10-15 million illegal aliens
by transforming them into wage slaves, members of a new legal permanent
underclass of Guest Workers in America - a policy idea that is an affront to
the deepest ideals and values of American political and social culture from
the Founders on, as well as constituting the death-knell of the American
Dream of immigrant inclusion, upward mobility, and naturalization - will
make it far easier to persuade Jewish progressives that open-borders
immigration is not a cause that should continue to enlist their support. The
transparency of the attempt to label this cynical, socially reactionary,
money-grubbing ploy as an instance of "Compassionate Conservatism" is not
selling well. Coming as it did, on the heels of Bush's memo circulated by
his Labor Department telling employers how they can avoid paying workers
overtime, it is clear this represents nothing less than a massive assault on
the American middle class in the interest of the wealthiest of the wealthy,
as well as smarmy, lame-brained, ineffectual election-year pandering to the
Latino lobby. It is also not lost on many American Jews - and we will keep
it in the forefront of their consciousness of those that need reminding -
that this amnesty will legalize the presence in the United States of what is
estimated to be some 300,000 individuals from countries on the terrorist
watch list! Given the President's current low ratings in the polls, as well
as greatly heightened concerns around domestic security - concern likely to
be significantly amplified by the report of the 9/11 Commission, it is
unlikely he will wage a full-court press on behalf of this unpopular plan.

According to a recent ABC news poll, more than half of Americans aren't
buying this attempted legislative murder of the American Dream, and
recognize the cynical sham it for what it is: by a 2-1 majority they see it
as an assault on the dignity and interests of American labor, as nothing
more than a strategy to drive down wages. This survey also shows that
support for real immigration reform is the ascendant trend; a similar survey
conducted in 2000 showed Americans split on this issue; now a solid majority
stands in opposition. Opposition is also broad and cuts across the spectrum,
uniting political opponents. The Bush proposal - that guarantees the
indentured servants legal status for only three years - has already been
opposed by the National Council of La Raza for failing to provide illegal
aliens everything as part of its strategy goal of political and demographic
Reconquista; it is opposed by the AFL-CIO; it was even attacked by Governor
Howard Dean during his failed race for the Democratic nomination (at only
one press conference, however: at least his opportunistic populist political
instincts saw opposition to this scheme as a winner); and by moderates and
conservatives that are appalled by this surrender to and complicity in the
wholesale violation of American law - one that will prove a powerful
stimulus to further massive violation of law as such law-breaking is seen to
carry rewards rather than consequence. And, of course, despite the
assurances that these recipients of "compassionate conservatism" will go
home after three years of being exploited, the example of Western Europe
over the past thirty years tells us something quite different: guest workers
never go home; they disappear into a society that seemingly has no means of
keeping track of any one.

It is also being denounced by principled Americans of all political stripes
that see this proposal for the enormous danger it constitutes to fundamental
American principles: if enacted, Bush's scheme would, at a stroke, transform
the United States of America to the best approximation the modern world has
ever known of the democratic ideal represented by the Athens of Pericles
into Sparta, a hierarchical state with rigid social distinctions carried on
the backs of a class of helots. Should this proposal be enacted into law,
writers and poets should begin composing epitaphs for the American Dream.

The great majority at any gathering are also horrified to learn that in many
states illegal aliens are voting, in direct contravention of the
Constitution of the United States. These are citizens of foreign countries,
in most case of Mexico, who obtain drivers' licenses and have thus passed
what now constitutes the ultimate test of inclusion: a driver's license.
That they have no loyalty to the United States, sense of belonging to the
American nation, or evince no desire to naturalize are seen as mere
formalities by those in positions of power willing to wink at this outrage.
If you have a driver's license you can vote; it's just that simple. And as a
direct result the American people are losing control over the destiny of
their own country, at the same time that the ideal of membership and
inclusion have been cheapened, sold to the lowest bidder.

The Demographic Handwriting is on the Wall
Of the manifold concerns about current immigration policy felt by all
Americans and American Jews in particular, none is more disturbing than the
manner in which it fuels Muslim immigration, making Islam the fastest
growing religion in the country, forming an expanding anti-Israel and
anti-Semitic constituency, and providing an ever-expanding sea in which
terrorist fish swim undetected. The lead article in the May 14, 2003 edition
of the Toronto Globe & Mail announced that Muslims now outnumber Jews in
Canada. It noted that this dramatic demographic shift "could ultimately
affect [Canada's] position toward the protracted Middle East conflict." The
good news is that Canada is hardly a major player on the geopolitical stage.
But what happened there in just the past decade should concern the 5.3
million Jews who live south of the 54th Parallel, as well as those who chart
Israel's course in the halls of the Knesset.

Muslim ascendancy in Canada is a harbinger of things to come in the United
States, with potentially enormous impact for both American Jewry and
American foreign policy. According to the 1991 Canadian Census, there were
25 percent more Jews in Canada than Muslims. Within a single decade that
demographic advantage was obliterated. According to the 2001 census, the
Muslim population of Canada exceeded the Jewish population by 75 percent.

Only recently news stories on CNN and ABC News reported a doubling of the
Arab population in the U.S. in just two decades. Both news outlets suggest
the number of Arabs alone (we are not now talking of Muslims in general) is
already nearly 1.3 million, with the largest population in New York,
followed by the Detroit suburbs. For virtually its entire history, Arab
immigration to the United States was primarily Christian and lopsidedly
Lebanese; now it is virtually all Muslim, with the immigrants' lands of
origin mainly Egypt, the West Bank, and Yemen.

That dramatic demographic turnaround in Canada, the U.S., and Europe can be
accounted for by a single factor: immigration. Muslim immigration has or is
dramatically altering demography in all these places, and with it,
inevitably, the political landscape. This phenomenon has already had
enormous - and frightful - impact on Jewish life in Europe, and has turned
European foreign policy on the Middle East from one of even-handedness to
one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic or tolerant of
it.

Symbolizing the transition was the EU's failure to condemn the recent vile
speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister. Or, perhaps even more shocking,
witness the current moral and intellectual scandal of the EU's rejection of
the report it recently commissioned from the German Technical University on
the dramatic upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. The report was rejected and
labeled as "racist" because it identified by far the greatest numbers of
perpetrators of anti-Semitic outrages as Muslim. The propensity of the
willfully blind to shoot the messenger never seems to go out of style. The
highly suspect follow-up study predictably came up with the
politically-correct conclusion: the plague of violence was in fact the work
of skinheads and Neo-Nazis. One is reminded of Claude Reines' sardonic
remark in Casablanca when he orders the Vichy police to "round up the usual
suspects."

The demographic change has caused European Jews to live under profoundly
insecure and threatening conditions, something virtually unknown since the
rise of fascism. Lest anyone imagine that hostility to Israel is only a
factor among leaders of European governments or hostile elites, a recent
survey conducted by the European Commission called "Iraq and Peace in the
World" revealed that more ordinary Europeans consider Israel a threat to
world peace than any other country. Asked whether certain countries posed a
risk to world peace, Israel topped all other nations with 59 percent of
Europeans answering in the affirmative, placing Israel ahead of Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and even North Korea. Among the 15-member
union, only in Italy did fewer than 50 percent identify Israel as a threat,
and leading the anti-Israel pack were Holland at 74 percent and Luxembourg
at 66 percent. (The U.S. was identified by some 53 percent, the same number
as North Korea.)

Because of sustained large-scale immigration, we're on the threshold of a
similar demographic shift in the U.S. Currently, some 5.3 million Jews live
in the U.S., compared to approximately 4 million Muslims. Islamist groups
often cite the grossly inflated and entirely spurious figure of 7 million.
Such wild exaggerations have been their stock in trade; they have no
research capacity and simply make up figures. None of which would represent
a problem if such Big Lies weren't ultimately accepted as truths, even among
supposedly "reliable sources." Thus when the Washington Post last year
congratulated the "7 million strong American Muslim community" on the
celebration of the Eid at the close of Ramadan, myth became reality.

This shift is a certainty because the exponential growth of the Muslim
population is paralleled by a precipitous decline in the number of American
Jews, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the overall population over
the past 30 years; further, there is no reason to believe the factors that
have caused this will be reversed. Only a decade ago we spoke of 5.8 million
Jews; now we speak of 5.3. Jewish fertility is flat, well below replacement
level; its population is aging; nearly half of all Jews intermarry, and all
efforts to promote "Jewish Continuity" have thus far yielded zero results.
The recent findings of the UJC Population Study confirm the worst fears of
those anguished about this specter.

Unless the religious leadership of the American Jewish community takes a
radical step and returns to ancient traditional Jewish practice - the
seeking of converts from among non-Jews - a scripturally sanctioned practice
made a capital offense by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine when he adopted
Christianity as the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire (a
position embraced by the forward-thinking Allen Dershowitz as well as Dennis
Prager) - as well as use the philanthropic resources made available to the
failed and philosophically flawed effort at "Jewish Continuity" by also
encouraging Jews to have larger families by establishing college accounts so
more families will have 3 or 4 children - projecting 20 or 30 years ahead,
Muslims will no longer need to exaggerate their numbers to have a major
influence on both domestic and foreign policies.

Unlike Canada, or even Western Europe, the foreign policy of the United
States matters enormously. The United States is not only the world's sole
superpower; it is also Israel's only reliable ally in an increasingly
hostile world. Without discounting the sincerity of many American Christians
in their support for Israel, it would be naïve to believe that American
politicians will not respond to an ever-growing Islamic voting bloc, one
that will eventually far outnumber Jewish voters.

Whatever their manifold shortcomings, no one should ever underestimate the
ability of American politicians to count - count votes and campaign
contributions. As Muslim Americans become politically organized - and they
are well on their way - politicians will certainly not ignore the votes and
campaign dollars of a rapidly growing segment of the electorate. Unlike
Latinos, Muslims naturalize and vote at higher than average percentages - 65
percent in the last Presidential race. And, like Jews, they are concentrated
in states with large voting blocs in the Electoral College; they are
everywhere Jews are.

Importing Anti-Semitism
It is not only Israel that will face increasing hostility and radically
diminished American military, economic, and political support as Muslim
immigration swells. The outbreak of violent anti-Semitism that has swept
Europe in recent years has far less to do with that continent's latent
hatred of Jews by Christians than it does with the hatred for Jews among its
young, poor, and alienated Muslim population.

As we've noted, more often than not, attacks on synagogues and desecration
of Jewish cemeteries in Europe are perpetrated not by skinheads, but by
young Muslims indoctrinated in the hatred of Jews by Islamist imams and
preachers in the radical mosques that dominate Islamic life in Europe.
Virtually every major city in Western Europe already has a central mosque,
funded by the Saudis, that preaches Wahabbi doctrine, one of the most
extreme, violent, atavistic, anti-Western forms of Islam. These mosques,
that have spawned the likes of Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, double
as recruiting centers and financial support networks for Muslim terrorist
cells.

In the banlieues - the lawless ramshackle "suburban" slums that surround
Paris and other major French cities - Jews and Jewish institutions are
subject to repeated attacks by marauding gangs of Muslim hoodlums. (CNN
recently reported that violent attacks on Jews in Paris come at the average
rate of 12 a day.) Reminiscent of Germany circa 1930, when Hitler's Brown
Shirts ruled the streets while a timid government and press kept silent,
governments and the media in Western Europe today turn a blind eye to
Islamic anti-Semitism and violence out of fear of their growing political
power and an adherence to political correctness. Chirac's recent decision
opposing religious freedom in the classroom - the banning of headscarves for
Muslim girls, kepahs, and crosses, is not only woefully misguided and
insufficient; it's absurdly incommensurate with the scale of the problem -
though it is clear from the recent pronouncements of France's erstwhile
friends among Islamic theocracies and within anti-Israel terrorist
movements, such as Hezbollah, that it may well pay a price for this "assault
on Islam."

One would like to think these threats - some of which may be carried out in
the form of terrorist acts committed in France - will lead to a reassessment
by French authorities of the cynical policies they have pursued, but given
its history of twisted if cleverly self-serving diplomacy, the French are
likely to paper things over with their friends in the Arab world, including
among its radicals and terrorists, rather than recognize that they are
subjecting France, and especially the ideals of the French Republic, to a
slow, painful, and shameful death. While the Muslim underclass is detested
and discriminated against by increasingly xenophobic ordinary Europeans as
well as the European elite, they and their unwelcome guests share a common
hatred of American preeminence in the world, as well as the belief that
Israel is a tool of an imperialist United States.

A chilling article in the June 2003 issue of Vanity Fair by Marie Brenner
about the anti-Jewish violence in France describes the new reality facing
Europe's largest Jewish population. This was recently followed by a front
page story along the same lines in the Washington Post.

Living amidst a Muslim population that now outnumbers it ten to one, and a
political establishment that up till very recently could be described
charitably as utterly indifferent to the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping the
country, beleaguered French Jews are enduring conditions not witnessed in
Europe for more than half a century. Although overt violence is less common
in Great Britain - rioting second generation South Asian youth shouting
"death to the Jews" in the Midlands a year ago may be a harbinger - Britain
has become home to the most radical elements in the Islamic world; those who
track the worldwide Islamist movement refer to the British capital as
"Londonistan." The recent arrest of the Mullah of the Finsbury mosque, who
has been openly calling for the murder of Jews and Christians, because of
his alleged link to Al Qaeda is welcome news, but this is merely the tip of
the iceberg.

While it is admittedly risky to draw conclusions based on what's happening
in one country and applying it, wholesale, to another - the United States is
not France, or Germany, or even Canada - it would be equally foolhardy to
ignore what is happening abroad. Jews are not entitled to the luxury of
assuming that what has already happened in Western Europe and is beginning
to take place in Canada has no relevance to them. A people that lost
one-third of its total world population in living memory due to
powerlessness has no choice but to adopt a posture of high vigilance. Unless
fundamental changes are made in U.S. immigration policy and enforced sooner
rather than later, the same transformation will occur in this county, at
incalculable cost to American Jews and their interests. Moreover, it will
happen much more quickly than most might imagine.

As we've noted, the price of averting - or at least postponing - this
outcome will be enormous cultural discomfort among American Jews and
potentially a major political realignment as Jewish leaders will be forced
to take positions that will further strain an already attenuated
relationship with the liberal coalition that was forged under Franklin
Roosevelt and reached its zenith in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.
It is not impossible that the frayed bond will tear apart and prove
irreparable. This will constitute a full-blown identity crisis for the many
Jews who have regarded political liberalism as a constituent element of
their Judaism. But faced with the choice between loyalty to a largely broken
alliance and their own long-term survival, the great majority of America's
Jews will make a rational choice.

Because of the way U.S. immigration laws work, an exponential growth in the
Islamic population in the coming years is a statutory certainty. Having
established a foothold in the U.S. over the past 30 years and attained
citizenship, these relatively new Americans have the right to petition to
bring large numbers of extended family members to this country. Current U.S.
immigration policy entitles U.S. citizens to bring not only their nuclear
families, i.e., spouse and unmarried minor children, but parents, adult
children and their spouses and children, and adult siblings and their
spouses and children. Moreover, over time, all of these extended family
members can eventually bring a similar range of extended relatives here as
well, in an unbreakable chain. What begins as a single immigrant can result
in the immigration of an entire village. In fact, in some West Bank towns,
as is the case with many villages in rural Mexico, as much as half the
population either now lives in the U.S. or has U.S. citizenship.

Readers unfamiliar with the political bedfellows of AILA (American
Immigration Lawyer's Association) need to learn that its connections provide
stunning evidence that it is far from a non-partisan, non-ideological
professional association. It is a driving force behind these policies. It is
both disturbing and revealing to know that Jane Butterfield, the President
of AILA, was, for the greatest part of her career, the head of the American
Solidarity Committee for Palestine, and has been a long-time supporter of
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group identified on the
State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Demographic and economic realities within the Islamic world suggest we will
face a tidal wave of Islamic immigration for the foreseeable future - unless
some cut-off mechanism is put in place. Those ineluctable realities include
a worldwide Islamic population of 1.3 billion people, most living in
poverty-stricken and politically oppressive countries. A rare moment of
political candor was the important recent speech by President Bush
discussing the danger posed by the lack of democracy anywhere in the Arab
world, one that even acknowledged the historical complicity of American
policy in enabling Islamic tyranny.

Indeed, two-thirds of the poorest people on earth live in socially,
economically, technologically, and intellectually fossilized Muslim
societies. Given the chance to immigrate to a country like the United
States, countless millions would jump at the opportunity - at the same time
that they not only harbor hatred and contempt for American political
institutions and American culture, but are also members of a religious and
political culture much of which is currently under the dangerous delusion
that it will, can, and must achieve global domination. Many of these
immigrants - a decent percentage of whom might better be identified as
infiltrators than immigrants - are part of a well-organized and extremely
well-funded movement to subvert and destroy American institutions and the
American infra-structure.

By contrast, the global Jewish population is estimated to be between 13-15
million - a mere one one-hundredth of that of Islam. One-third of all the
Jews in the world already live in the United States, a third more live in
Israel, while the remainder are spread mainly among First World nations
where the political and economic forces that generally drive immigration do
not exist. Thus, Jews have very little to gain directly from an open door
U.S. immigration policy. And even in a worst-case scenario for the remaining
Jews in the former Soviet Union, Latin America, and perhaps even parts of
Western Europe, the existence of Israel, in spite of its security and
economic troubles, guarantees a safe haven for any Jew who needs one.

Also, one byproduct of powerful Jewish political influence has been that
persecuted Jews have been able to go to the head of the refugee line for
resettlement in the United States. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, hundreds
of thousands of Jews from the former-U.S.S.R. were able to enter the
country, ahead of millions of other refugees who, arguably, faced greater
persecution and danger in places like Central America and Africa. One of the
potential casualties of the loss of political power could be the special
consideration now afforded Jewish refugees.

Jews stand to lose a great deal more than any other group currently living
in the United States from an immigration policy that brings millions of
people from cultures that range from antipathetic to antithetic to Jews and
the State of Israel. Muslim immigrants are certainly the most likely to feel
savage hostility toward Jews at the moment and are intent on destroying
Jewish political power in the United States as a pre-requisite for weakening
Israel. Thus, this is most emphatically not the time for Jews to be reticent
or "polite" for fear of antagonizing or offending Muslims: American-Muslim
organizations have shown no such compunctions when it comes to Jews or to
Israel - or the sensibilities or predilections of dyed-in-the-wood extreme
multiculturalists who view the Balkanization of American society either with
neutrality or favor. Jewish leadership must step up to the plate and speak
frankly and courageously on behalf of the community they are supposed to
lead and protect.

Common sense demands that the source of the danger be identified. Within the
vast Islamic universe is a fast-spreading totalitarian political ideology
whose name is Islamism, though some know it by other names - Jihadism,
Salafi Islamism, Wâhhabism, and the more generic term Fundamentalism.
Nomenclature counts for nothing; the names make no difference; the
phenomenon is broadly identical in philosophy and tactics, though there are
minor doctrinal differences among its adherents from country to country as
well as ethnic and personal rivalries. Its goal is world domination by Islam
and the imposition of the harshest and most inhumane incarnation of rigid,
unchanging, and unchangeable hide-bound Islamic law on all nations and
peoples. It pursues its agenda through brainwashing, pie-in-the-sky theology
for desperate people, intimidation, selective assassination, terrorism,
political repression, and, on occasion - such as in Bangladesh when it
declared its independence from Pakistan in 1971 - genocide; the murder of
some two million Bengali men, women, and children, and the rape of hundreds
of thousands of women by members of the Pakistani army, the local Islamists
know as razakars, and thousands of madrassah students must not be permitted
to disappear into the black hole of historical forgetfulness. The people of
Bangladesh were, for the greatest part, pious Muslims; their crime was to
wish to the separation of religion and government.

Islamism, like the European fascism it resembles in so many ways and from
which it borrowed heavily in terms of attitudes to many questions, its
paranoid vision of Jews among them, embodies the politics of the culture of
despair - reflecting the catastrophic inability of every other movement in
the Arab and Muslim world to bring power, a decent living standards, and
prestige to the Islamic patrimony -especially the failures of secular
nationalism and Pan-Arabism to take root in the 1950s and 1960s.

The modern Islamist movement began in Egypt in 1928 with the Muslim
Brotherhood whose heyday spans the years 1930-1950 (its philosophical
luminary being Sayyid Qutb); the two other seminal figures of 20th century
Islamism are Mawlana Mawduddi (first of India and then Pakistan), founder of
the fundamentalist Deobandi Movement with its political party and vast
network of propagandistic madrassahs, and the Ayatolla Ruholla Khomeini in
Iran. One could argue, however, that in essence, Islamism has always been a
potent force within Islam; indeed, it has been its dark twin from the very
birth of the faith, and not an aberration born in the 18th century as a
product of the alliance from the 1760s on of the House of Saud under its
then leader Muhammad ibn Saud and the fundamentalist Ibn Abd al Wahhab,
founder of the Wahabbi movement. Nor does its origins lie in the work of
Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya of the 13th century - though he heavily influenced
it - who responded to the disaster of the destruction of the Abbassid empire
by the Mongols by accentuating the earliest teachings of the Koran, the
concept of Jihad, emphasizing piety over the literature of textual
commentary that had formed a considerable body of Islamic thought for
centuries and, perhaps most of all, the demand that temporal Muslim rulers
subordinate themselves to a strict interpretation of the Koran. It was
surely this "dark twin" that also stirred the Mogul conquerors of India to
commit one of the greatest genocides in history: the Hindu Kush, or Hindu
slaughter, which some historians have suggested produced a body count
totaling near 8 million human beings. But one needs to go no further than
the Koran itself, with its multiple suras, especially in the Medinan
revelations, calling for the murder of infidels and the necessity of Islamic
military and political global dominance.

In the 20th century, Islamism was repressed violently for decades by the
secular nationalist regimes, mostly brutal corrupt dictatorships that
flirted with the Soviet Union in Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo (Sayyid Qutb
was hanged in Egypt in 1966), but with the rise to power of the Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran it secured its temporal power base, followed by
the coup that made General Zia ul Haq military dictator of Pakiststan, a
great admirer of Mulana Mawdudi, whose party, the Jamat-e-Islami had been
repressed under Zia's predecessor Zulfikar Ali Butto. With Zia's seizure of
power, the Jamat-e- Islami found that its Islamist philosophy had achieved
the position of the official ideology of the state, which Zia began to
thoroughly Islamize in a series of measures begun in 1979. Once in the
wilderness, the Islamist movement now ruled the key political power and
religious powr centers of Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Some otherwise
excellent scholars of the movement (Gilles Keppel, author of the superb
study Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, being one) have made one signal
error: arguing it has already crested. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

This movement is gathering strength almost everywhere. Witness the recent
resurgence of Shiite religious fanaticism in Iraq, epitomized in the
rebellion of Muqtada Al Sadr's Shiite militia in Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf
(which may represent less of a renegade phenomenon than official opinion
would have us believe) that may reignite what appeared to many to be the
waning of the movement's virulence in Iran; the New York Times only recently
head-lined the story that the most secular Arab nation, Syria, now has a
growing and vibrant Islamist movement. It is alive and well in Afghanistan
in the "tribal areas" that hug the border with Pakistan, and it is a bomb or
bullet away from re-taking control of Pakistan (how many assassination
attempts can the apparently sincere Kemalist General Musharraf survive?
Something of an enigma, his latest moves toward peace with India, lowering
the temperature in Kashmir, and attacks on extremism in the Pakistani
Parliament that led to an Islamist party walkout suggests his modernist
gestures may be for real: so was Sadat.) It dominates the richest of all
Arab states, Saudi Arabia, the most important banker for this movement,
which is increasingly facing an internal violent opposition even more
extreme in its Islamism than the Saudi monarchy itself, which it views as a
sellout to the West; it governs in the Sudan, in Yemen, in Somalia, and
rules the street in much of East Africa. It threatens to turn the largely
moderate Islam of India into an increasingly militant one; it may well
overthrow what had been a comparatively moderate Muslim society and regime
in Bangladesh, one that is trying to avert the outcome by providing
increasing quiet support to the Jihadists.

The Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star ran a story as recently as January
13 regarding an American Congressman's visit with representatives of
minority religions at the Dhakeswari National Temple, where he was informed
that the country's "minority religions are persecuted, oppressed and
marginalized in society." It has produced a body count of slaughtered
innocents in Algeria that runs into the tens of thousands and threatens
other regimes in the supposedly Europeanized Maghreb. Many were stunned to
learn of the rise of an Al Qaeda-like terrorist network based in "moderate"
Morocco that was responsible for the bloody Madrid bombing. Perhaps of
greatest interest to those of us who track the correlation between lax
immigration policy and the spread of Islamism, the Moroccan terrorists
practice a doctrine known as Takfir wal Hijara, which is the advocacy of
using immigration as part of a stealth strategy of establishing a Jihadist
presence in the heart of the enemy: in Western Europe. Islamism is also
gaining ground in the Caucasus; and there are Islamist insurgencies
throughout South East Asia, from the Southern Thailand to the Philippines. A
militant Albania and break-away Kosovo endanger not just little Macedonia,
but pose an Islamist threat across the Balkans.

The fact is that if free and open elections were held tomorrow across the
Muslim world, the pan-Islamists would likely take power in the great
majority of states. And then, of course, there would be no more elections.
This movement hates pluralism, individual rights, freedom of conscience,
freedom of expression, secular civil society, the separation of religion and
government, the rule of law as we understand it in the West, human rights,
women's rights, gay rights, the rights of religious minorities,
Christianity, the West in general and the United States in particular, and
most of all it has identified Jews and Israel as its foremost enemies -
enemies to be exterminated. Many scholars of contemporary movements in the
Islamic world who are not Islamist or apologists for Islamism put the number
of active adherents of this dangerous movement at between 100-300 million,
with a majority of the non-activists cheering from the sidelines. It is a
movement that has kept most of Islam in a pre-Enlightenment stage of
development. The mentality within wide sections of the Islamic world is some
500 years behind the rest of humanity.

Do we need further evidence of Muslim hatred of Jews than the keynote
address by the former "moderate" prime minister of Malaysia, who has
compounded the original offense in a series of bizarre interviews since,
including with the Israeli press? His speech at the World Organization of
Islamic Nations repeated all the familiar canards of crazed, paranoid
anti-Semitism: that the diabolically clever and all-powerful Jews run the
world, control its banks, the IMF, world media, and even "invented" such
ideologies as democracy, human rights, socialism, and communism as means of
protecting their own interests. Worst of all, however, was the reaction of
the other heads of State that filled the hall to overflowing. It wasn't
stony, embarrassed silence; they didn't lower their heads and look away.
They gave him a standing ovation, and those wildly applauding leaders
included our friends and "allies" General Musharraf of Pakistan, King
Abdullah of Jordan, the Egyptian President, the King of Saudi Arabia, our
own newly-installed President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Karzai, and yes, Mr.
Putin, "representing" Russia's Muslims.

Will this movement achieve world domination? Of course it will not, at least
by military means. But the patent absurdity and unreality of the goal does
not lessen the danger is represents, nor should any one feel the least bit
secure, let alone complacent. Nazism and Communism harbored similar
delusions. Our final victory over them could not bring back to life the
millions upon millions annihilated in their names, including 1/3 of all the
Jews in the world nor the millions of Allied soldiers, including some
400,000 Americans as well as partisans throughout occupied Europe who gave
their lives to defeat them. And how many of us really believe that 9/11 will
be the last enormity to be committed on American soil? Our national leaders
tell us again and again there is something like a 100 percent certainty that
they will strike again, and powerfully. Some months ago another huge
terrorist assault on the United States utilizing aircraft was reportedly
uncovered and prevented, one that included attacks on nuclear facilities,
major population centers, infrastructure, and national symbols.

The recent bombing in Madrid with its huge death toll (in excess of 200)
underscores the continuing threat as well as its special character: the
technical sophistication of its perpetrators and their wish to inflict
maximum casualties on an innocent civilian population who are demonized by
virtue of being infidels. Indeed, it is far more likely that the Moroccan
bombers responsible for the slaughter in Spain were motivated by the belief
that Spain is Islamic land - Al Andalus - and must revert to Muslim control
rather than were reacting to the meager contribution of troops the Spanish
government then in power had made to the occupation of Iraq.

While the Islamists are incapable of conquering the lands of the infidels
through military means they have another extremely potent weapon in their
arsenal, and we are not speaking of the terrorism that will almost certainly
continue to plague the world for decades to come. The most potent weapon in
their possession is demography: their capacity to slowly and quietly
overwhelm and come to dominate non-Muslim societies through sheer strength
of numbers. This is where the critical nexus between the Islamic dream of
global conquest, beginning with their third historical assault on Western
Europe, and irrational, self-destructive Western immigration policy reveals
itself most dramatically.

Almost two months ago, London's Daily Telegraph reported the predictions of
a group of renowned demographers that France - the great capital of European
secularism in Paris and an atrophying but still predominant traditional
Catholicism in the countryside - will become a majority Muslim country
within 20-30 years! Their reasoning was neither arcane nor their predictions
hysterical: to the contrary, it was all terribly prosaic. All they did was
plug the demographic facts into the standard formulae to come up with their
results. Though the precise percentage of Muslims is hard to know for a
certainty given the fact that the French government does not share the data
it denies collecting on the race and ethnicity of its population, most
demographers place the current figure somewhere between 18-25 percent. The
fertility of the average French family is 1.2, while that of the average
Muslim family is 4.6, with even higher birthrates among the black African
Muslim population (almost 5). Among the most fertile sections of the
population, young men and women ranging in age from 17-30, Muslims already
constitute 35 percent. Intermarriage is also frequent, with the most
prevalent pattern that of a French Catholic young woman marrying a Muslim
man, converting to Islam, and then rearing a large family. A similar pattern
is evident in Belgium, where in the schools of Brussels Muslim children far
outnumber Belgian Christian youth.

Then there is the story of Pym Fortun and Dutch immigration. Pym Fortun was
a gay Dutch professor of literature who became a vocal spokesperson in the
immigration reform movement in the Netherlands because he did not wish to
see the massive influx of a population who regard the killing of homosexuals
as religiously sanctioned and who have shown little or no interest in
assimilating into liberal Dutch society. He was, in short, vigorously
opposed to tolerating intolerance. An opponent of his views assassinated him
a little more than a year ago. But a backlash was brewing all along. Some
six weeks ago the Dutch parliament passed a resolution barring all
immigration to Holland for five years, including that of refugees and asylum
seekers. Something similar is happening in Denmark, where the government has
made it clear that Muslim immigrants are welcome in Denmark only if they are
prepared to teach their children Danish, assimilate to the norms of Danish
society, and balance their Islam with a strong sense of loyalty to their new
homeland. Should they not follow this course, they will be strongly
pressured to leave Denmark.

With these hopeful exceptions, however, the Europeans in the main continue
to make a Devil's bargain with the Islamic world for short-term financial
gain and in order to buy a brief respite from trouble that makes the present
moment resemble the Phony War more than anything else. While the Sitzkrieg
continues, conditions on the ground are undergoing a vast transformation.
Their own societies are undergoing a profound metamorphosis that is making
them unrecognizable, and in ways they will come to bemoan, perhaps when it
is too late to undo it.

They also risk engendering violent nationalist reactions on their own soil
as their own dominant culture groups begin to strike back as they perceive
their familiar world, interests, and most basic values threatened as the
demographic balance reaches the tipping point. Whether or not they are fully
aware of what they are doing, they are conjuring the ghost of Oswald
Moseley, or at the very least that of Enoch Powell. One imagines that sooner
rather than later there will be dozens of rightist demagogues in Western
Europe giving their own versions of Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. But
unlike Powell, who was gazing at the distant future, they will be responding
to what large numbers will perceive as an immediate threat to their way of
life. Needless to say, it would be infinitely wiser for European countries
to adopt sensible immigration policies now that will prevent the thorough
Islamization of their societies and the rise of the Urabia journalists
rather than risk civil war on their streets in the coming decades.

Muslim hatred of Jews is the greatest danger we face, but they're not the
only group now entering the United States en mass with troublesome views
about Jews. Attitudes toward Jews in the Latin American societies that are
the largest source of immigration today - some 60 percent of all immigrants
come from Mexico and Central America - are steeped in a culture of
theological anti-Semitism that has defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment
of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they any mitigating
history of residential closeness to Jews, little knowledge and no direct or
familial experience of the Holocaust, and they regard Jews simply as among
the most privileged of white people in the United States; privileged white
people who killed God. Speaking in support of a July 2002 congressional
resolution deploring anti-Semitism in Europe, Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
noted dark clouds on the American horizon. According to Smith, "17 percent
of Americans are showing real anti-Semitic beliefs and the ugliness of it.
Sadly, among Latinos and African Americans, it is about 35 percent." The ADL's
studies indicate that some 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic
attitudes.

It's true that current Mexican disinterest in naturalization will protect
America's Jews to some extent for perhaps another decade or two; of the
massive demographic bulge that entered the U.S. in the early 80s, fewer than
20 percent has become citizens, and of that number fewer still bother to
vote. In the last presidential election, Jews outpolled Latinos in LA
County! Will this sleeping giant awaken is one of the huge political
questions everyone ponders. The Democrats will say nothing about immigration
reform because they expect this demographic will join their ranks, and they
don't wish to run the risk of alienating it; and the Republicans will mostly
say nothing because they get tons of campaign monies from the Fast Food
Industry, the whole service sector, and Agro-Business and don't want to
alienate them. The timetable for the demographic transformation will be
greatly accelerated if President Bush's "immigration reform" proposal,
announced in January, is enacted.

Even if the powerful assimilative forces of American culture eventually
prevail, as they did among previous waves of immigrants, it will take
several generations, and it is certainly arguable that they will never fully
succeed with Muslims unless an Islamic "Enlightenment" comes about, an
extremely unlikely scenario given the benighted condition of much of the
Muslim world and the fact that its proponents will be branded as infidels by
traditional religious authorities - as they have always been - and targeted
for murder.

Among the myriad mythologies that surround American immigration experience
is the belief that the process of assimilation magically transformed
immigrants into English-speaking patriotic devotees of Jeffersonian
democracy and tolerance virtually as soon as they set foot on these shores.
This proposition is about as accurate as the notion that America's streets
were paved with gold. Assimilating millions of Irish, Eastern, and Southern
European immigrants into mainstream Americans (people, who were not long ago
called "ethnics" and today are loosely and ironically defined as "Anglos")
was a long and often painful process, and depended on a set a of historical
conditions and cultural circumstances that have vanished.

The Jewish Immigrant Experience Was Atypical
Popular perceptions of immigrant experience in America have been oddly
skewed because the story has been largely told by Jews about Jews. The
Jewish narrative has come to be understood as prototypical when, in fact, it
was unique. This has led to profound misapprehension of the more common
pattern - an error that carries large consequences for immigration policy
and attitudes towards immigrants -on the part of great numbers of people,
Jews included, who ought to know better. Jews have always been the exception
to the rule. Almost each critical aspect of their immigration experience -
the reasons they emigrated to the U.S., their communal history in their
countries of origin, and how they acculturated into America - is vastly
different from the circumstances of almost every other immigrant group,
Armenians excepted.

First and foremost, as we've noted, the Jews who arrived in the great wave
of immigration at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries
more closely resembled refugees and asylum seekers than immigrants. Though
the quest for economic opportunity motivated many Jews to come to America,
they came chiefly to escape religious persecution and political oppression.
Unlike the substantial percentage of Italians, Poles, and the other Slavs
who eventually returned to Europe, Jews migrated in only one direction.
Given where they had come from and what they had left behind, often fleeing
for their very lives, Jewish immigrants enthusiastically embraced the ideals
of patriotic assimilation into American society (indeed too enthusiastically
for those concerned with a loss of Jewish identity). Within a few years of
arrival in the United States, Jewish immigrants mastered English. Within a
generation, Yiddish was rarely, if ever, spoken by their American-born
children.

Distinct, de facto and de jure, from the majority culture in every society
in which they had previously lived, Jewish immigrants did not bring to
America any lingering allegiance to their countries of origin or to the
dominant political or religious culture or ideologies that flourished there
(with the exceptions of socialism and Marxism, sympathies that evaporated
within a few years following their arrival), as did almost every other group
of immigrants. Having lived for centuries as minority cultural outsiders in
often hostile societies gave Jews a distinct advantage over millions of
people who were experiencing minority status for the first time. In places
like Poland and Czarist Russia Jews had developed survival mechanisms that
made the adjustment to America relatively easy.

In those countries, segments of the host Christian population, often
semi-governmental bodies like the Black Hundreds in Russia, often sought to
kill them; in America the host population was satisfied with keeping them
out of their neighborhoods, professional associations, country clubs, and
elite universities. Distinct as the Jewish immigrant experience was from
that of other immigrants who came at the same time, it is even more
different from that of today's immigrants.

While the non-Jewish immigrants of a century ago also maintained strong
emotional ties to their countries of origin, their societies and cultures
were neither hostile to America nor obsessed with it, and they certainly did
not blame America for their every problem. Much of the non-European world
and virtually all the Muslim world was then part of the British, French, or
Russian colonial empires; before the First World War America was not a great
global power. And, of course, at the end of that conflict it was Woodrow
Wilson in his uplifting if delusional Fourteen Points who preached against
empire and advocated home-rule for many colonized peoples. Political
circumstances and attitudes could not be more different now. Anti-American
hostility is a hallmark of the societies from which most Muslim immigrants
and many Latinos hail, and the values inculcated in people from a host of
corrupt and brutal dictatorial regimes and quasi-fascist theocracies are
very much at odds with those most Americans hold dear.

Between the worldview of the United States, indeed between the worldview of
most non-Muslim nations and the Islamic one, is a much deeper, perhaps
unbridgeable cultural divide that bears directly on the question of Muslim
acculturation - this falls into the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis that has
gained great strength in recent years. The very concept of the nation state
commanding the loyalty of its citizens is a highly problematic one in much
of the Muslim world, and not only because many of the countries that
comprise it were drawn haphazardly on maps by European colonial diplomats
and statesmen who were shockingly ignorant of the religion and the culture
of the peoples under their sway, and whose "nation-building" in the Muslim
world was largely secondary to and a mere offshoot of the rivalry for global
power among them.

For much of the world's Muslim population, the central organizing communal
principle is not the polity of the state but the Umma, the world that is
ruled by the laws of the Koran, not by any temporal ruler, set of secular
constitutional principles, or territories denominated as countries flying
different flags. It is no accident that when Osama bin Laden expresses his
ideal of the right global order, he recalls the Caliphates and the Ottoman
Empire - pan-national Islamic domains in which the unifying idea was Islamic
religion and law, and in which the idea of the nation state had no place. It
is arguable that it is impossible for a devout Muslim ever to be a patriot
in a non-Muslim society.

Even among the Mexicans who comprise the dominant immigrant group in America
today there is a strong tradition of anti-U.S. resentment and historical
grievance. A widely-shared belief among many Mexicans is that the gringos
are responsible for their chronic economic woes. Nor have they forgotten
that a sizable chunk of the American Southwest was conquered by the United
States in the Mexican War of 1846-1848. For some, the act of flooding
America with their Mexican countrymen, legally or illegally, is part of an
undeclared, low-intensity war of Reconquista. Because the two nations are
joined by a long porous border - the longest on earth between a First World
and a Third World country - continuous two-way migration inhibits any strong
identification with the United States. When I worked as National Affairs
Director at AJC I was, ipso facto, a board member of the National
Immigration Forum, the main lobbying group for open borders, and the extent
of the anti-Americanism and language of Reconquista was shocking even to one
who saw himself in those days as a card-carrying liberal multiculturalist.

Perhaps the most important distinction between today's immigrants and those
of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that
eventually forced assimilation upon even the most reluctant immigrant
groups. These forces have been weakened by the prevailing multiculturalist
ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics, the demise of
Americanization programs that inculcated patriotic assimilation
(multiculturalism denies the very existence or even desirability of a
legitimate, cohesive American culture), the death of civic education, the
rise of bilingualism, and the elimination of any obligation to do national
service. As noted, it is massive immigration itself that creates Balkanizing
multiculturalism; it did not fall from the sky.

Then there are the simple practical differences that carry gigantic
consequences: the revolution in modern transportation and communications
technology allows immigrants to maintain strong bonds with native lands,
cultures, and languages - something not true a hundred years ago. As a
result, many "immigrants" are in fact permanent resident aliens who live
simultaneously in two societies but who naturally maintain primary loyalty
to the cultural and political heritage of their countries of origin - the
places where they were reared, had their early formative experiences, were
educated, and socialized.

Thus, to assume automatically today's immigrants will be as rapidly absorbed
into the mainstream as were our parents and grandparents constitutes a
one-legged leap of faith and very risky proposition. There is no reason to
believe that the unique Jewish experience, unrepresentative even of an age
when Americanization was upheld as the ideal, will be replicated in one in
which that ideal is ridiculed and rejected by the practitioners of ethnic
identity politics who work for an array of ethnic lobby groups and human
relations organizations largely created and financed by a group of
left-leaning, multiculturalist, major national foundations, the
politically-correct professorate, and many influential mainstream media
opinion-makers.

So much is different today: the immigrants are different; the country and
its social institutions are different; the economy is different; the
technology is different; and what is deemed normative is different. To
believe the outcome will be the same under an entirely distinct set of
conditions on the ground as well as in social and political constructs is
not merely willful thinking: it is simply preposterous.

Trouble on the Home Front
While American Jews have an emotional stake in the survival and success of
Israel, they have personal stake in anti-Semitism in the United States.
Anti-Semitism is an immensely complex phenomenon attributable to a myriad of
social, cultural, economic, political, psychological, religious, even
metaphysical factors. But on a purely practical level, some very important
distinctions are simple enough, as well as crucial; there is a great
difference between harboring anti-Semitic sentiments, and feeling the
license to act on them. In the Western democracies where the vast majority
of Jews outside Israel reside, the degree to which anti-Semitism is felt and
expressed is closely linked to immigration. As noted by the Anti-Defamation
League - which dogmatically supports open immigration and routinely savages
anyone who is critical of current U.S. immigration policies - Western Europe
holds the dubious distinction of leading the world in anti-Semitic violence.
Recent waves of anti-Jewish violence, ADL observes, "have tended to
originate chiefly among Muslim immigrant circles in Europe, with extreme
right groups jumping on the bandwagon."

While overt acts of anti-Semitic violence are much rarer in the United
States, they are not unheard of, and are increasingly perpetrated by Muslim
youth. Nowhere in America has the resurgence of anti-Semitism more
manifested itself, sometimes thinly disguised as anti-Zionism, than on
college campuses. Anti-Jewish hate speech masquerading as anti-Zionism is
commonplace on campuses all across the United State today, and has on a
number of occasions crossed the thin line that separates free speech from
incitement. Indeed, at the present time, the campus is the most inhospitable
place for Jews and supporters of Israel in the U.S., something the national
Jewish organizations have come to recognize. Hillel, the most typical
institutional Jewish presence on America's campuses, is belatedly addressing
this by developing talking-points and backgrounders for Jewish students so
they can defend themselves against assaults on Israel and Judaism by the
growing numbers of politically active Arab and Islamist students. There is
an active movement advocating the divesting of any university assets
invested in Israel, and while it has not gained much momentum, with college
president after president bravely rejecting the idea out of hand -Israel is
not the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa - it adds to the air of
toxicity surrounding attitudes towards the Jewish state.

In May 2002, a small group of Jewish students and faculty, demonstrating on
the campus of San Francisco State University in favor of a peaceful solution
to violence in the Middle East, were surrounded by a much larger mob of
mostly Islamic students who threatened them physically and taunted them with
chants like, "Death to the Jews" and "Hitler didn't finish the job."
Eventually, the trapped Jewish students and faculty had to be escorted to
safety by the San Francisco Police. Far from mobilizing the university's
leadership to confront overt anti-Semitism, the incident was hushed up so as
not to create tension with the campus' large and militant Arab student
population.

Similar incidents, in which Jewish students and supporters of Israel have
been subjected to overt intimidation, have occurred all across the U.S. and
Canada. On the campus of Concordia University in Canada, Muslim students
forced the cancellation of a speech by former Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu by threatening organized violence.

Only a few months ago, Nathan Scharansky was hit in the face with a pie on
the campus at Rutgers, by a convenient Jewish idiot. Faculty committees
across the country have worked to ban from their campuses scholars on the
Middle East that are not deemed politically correct, Daniel Pipes being a
key example. It also appears that Senators Kennedy and Harkin, as well as
some eight other Senators, on the Committee that oversees appointments to
the U.S. Institute for Peace, regard the poor, brilliant scholar Daniel
Pipes as an unfit bigot because of his temerity to tell the truth about
Islamism. Luckily President Bush has made a recess appointment.

To date, assaults on Jews and Jewish institutions have been far fewer than
in Europe, but American Jews already live under a state of heightened
threat. A visit to New York, home to America's largest Jewish population,
provides startling and irrefutable visual evidence that Jews no longer live
in safety and security. Virtually every high-profile Jewish institution in
New York is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs from
exploding too close to the building, while being checked by security guards
and passing through metal detectors are now as routine a part of attending
synagogue services as putting on a kepah, or skullcap. The sense of Jewish
insecurity is by no means confined to New York. Throughout the country, in
communities with a substantial Muslim presence, security is now a critical
part of planning any sort of Jewish political or communal event - especially
those intended to demonstrate support for Israel. A speech by an outside
speaker known as a supporter of Israel or a critic of Islamism is sufficient
to ensure an armed police presence.

Reality is beginning to dawn on many American Jews that something is amiss,
although it still seems to be lost on some of the country's most venerable
Jewish organizations. There is a sad if also somewhat comic irony to the
fact that legions of employees at organizations like ADL, the American
Jewish Committee, and the Presidents' Conference must pass through a
gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double
bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from
radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and then
disseminating reports on the "threat" posed by Evangelical Christians or the
non-issue of Mormon conversion of dead Jews or the imaginary anti-Semitism
that "The Passion of the Christ" did not produce. Meanwhile, the legislative
affairs staffs of these same organizations are directed to lobby against the
very immigration reforms that could minimize the danger.

In recent years - particularly since Sept. 11, 2001 - Jewish organizations
have devoted increased resources and attention to the activities of radical
Islamic groups in the United States. The web sites of most major Jewish
groups are filled with alarming information about the activities of these
groups, many with documented ties to those that blow Israeli schoolchildren
to bits on buses and in pizzerias. Amazingly, however, these Jewish watchdog
organizations fail to employ the most basic logic and ask the most obvious
question: How did they get here? When will they stop kidding themselves and
simply connect the dots? Not one of these groups has even been willing to
examine the potential impact of mass immigration, including mass Muslim and
Islamist immigration, on American Jewry, much less take a position calling
for changes in U.S. immigration policy.

One of the most troubling phenomena that has been widely reported by people
such as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, and many others - including courageous
dissidents within the Muslim community - though largely ignored by the
mainstream media and the political establishment: many of the key "American"
Islamic civic and charitable institutions that have sprung up in the United
States over the past 30 years are little more than domestic incarnations of
foreign Islamist political parties. Among the primary objectives the
U.S.-based Arab and Muslim organizations are the undermining of Jewish
political influence in the United States, the propagation of anti-Semitism
and Holocaust denial, and the destruction of Israel.

Frequently masquerading as ethnic anti-discrimination organizations, such
entities as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American
Muslim Council (AMC), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), and the Islamic
Circle of North America (ICNA) are either offshoots of or maintain close
ties to some of the most radical terrorist groups round the globe. Many
"mainstream" Islamic organizations have their roots firmly planted in the
same bloody soil that spawned groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
Hezbollah, and even al-Qaeda. In addition, many American mosques, often
built, maintained and controlled with money from the fundamentalist
Saudi-based Wahabbi sect - serve as hosts to radical preachers from across
the Islamic world who manage to slip through the notoriously lax U.S. visa
issuance process. In one recent and particularly flagrant case, a mullah was
arrested in Europe after boasting of having raised $20 million for Osama bin
Laden at the El Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn.

As recently as January 12, 2004, it was reported in the New York Times that
a prominent Muslim cleric, Fawaz Mohammed Damrah, who runs the largest
mosque in Ohio, was arrested for concealing his ties to terrorist
organizations when he entered the United States 10 years ago. In the
language of the indictment, Damrah lied to immigration officials about his
active involvement in religious persecution "when in fact he had previously
incited and/or assisted others, including terrorist organizations, that
advocated the persecution of Jews and others by means of violent terrorist
attacks." It is sadly true of many mosques in the United States that the
Friday sermon is regularly used to preach the hatred of Jews. Dr. Martin
Luther King once noted that Sunday morning was the "most segregated time in
the week" in an America that has largely, thankfully, passed into history.
It might be noted that in today's America, in mosques all across the land,
Friday afternoon is the "most hateful" time of the week.

The true nature of virtually all Islamic organizations in America is
reflected by the fact that more than half of all Islamic "charities"
operating in the United States have been closed down as a result of
investigations launched after 9/11. These so-called charities, which had
operated openly with tax-exempt status, were front groups that served as
recruiting agencies and financial support mechanisms for Islamic terrorist
organizations from all over the world. In some cases, these "charities" were
found to be directly funding terrorism against Israel and compensating the
families of terrorist bombers who murdered school children, diners,
shoppers, and bus riders in Israel.

Concern over the nature and real agendas of Islamic organizations in America
is hardly a parochial Jewish matter. The Muslim terrorists on 9/11 did not
distinguish among Americans based on religion, or indeed any other factor;
they slaughtered Americans of every background, and their hatred of America
comes right behind their hatred of Jews - wherever they are found. Thus, a
seamless confluence of interests (among them simple survival) unites all
Americans - Jewish or otherwise - with regard to the danger represented by
the Muslim-Islamist presence in the United States. That this is a national
concern is made clear in a news story in the Washington Post of January 14,
which concerns a request by the Senate Finance Committee to the Internal
Revenue Service to provide it "confidential tax and financial records,
including donors lists, of dozens of Muslim charities and foundations as
part of a widening Congressional investigation into alleged ties between
tax-exempt organizations and terrorist groups." The request by the Finance
Committee comes on the heels of two-years of investigations by the Treasury
Department, the FBI, and other agencies of the federal government into
Muslim "charities" with suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

Needless to say, such Islamist organizations as CAIR (Council of American
Islamic Relations) are charging the investigators with bias and bigotry, of
conducting a "fishing expedition" into the Muslim community rather than
acknowledging that any problem exists. Among the "charities" and foundations
of principal interest to the Senate Finance Committee are: the SAAR
Foundation and associated entities; Global Relief, an organization whose
founder has been deported; as well as the largest of all Muslim "charities"
in the United States, the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development, an organization that investigators believe is tied to the
terrorist group Hamas. And it does not stop there; also under investigation
for links to Islamist terrorism are the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the
Muslim World League, and the Islamic Society of North America.

This is not the appropriate context in which to engage in a full discussion
about attitudes towards Jews in so-called classical Islam - we are focusing
on what is referred to as political Islam. But it must be pointed out, as
many of my friends and colleagues who grew up as orthodox Muslims across the
Islamic patrimony have said to me in agonizing personal confessions, friends
that went through madrassah education and then advanced learning in Islam in
countries ranging from Morocco, to Egypt, to Bosnia, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh, that it is virtually impossible to be reared in classical Islam
and not be educated to hate Jews - based on a literalist reading of the
Koran, where many of the Suras concerning Jews are monstrously hateful,
murderous, terrifying, as well as the literature of the Sunnah. These texts
also regard Jews as a spiritually fraudulent entity - all the prophets and
great figures of the Hebrew Bible, according to Islamic teaching, were
Muslims, not Jews. No wonder Yassir Arafat, and old graduate of the Egyptian
Brotherhood and far more a pan-Islamist than a Palestinian nationalist,
denies any connection between Jews and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

It is hard to hear, and extremely painful to say it, but at his historical
moment, barring an Islamic Enlightenment, arguably the only way to be a
Muslim and not a Jew-hater is to be a lapsed Muslim or - if one continues to
call oneself a Muslim and practice the faith - to conduct what is, in
essence, a private and personal "reformation" and do what no devout Muslim
would ever publicly confess: pick and choose among the content of Muslim
holy scripture, then treat the Koran as the divinely-inspired work of human
beings but not the literal word of God. This is happening everywhere, of
course, whether among more moderate Muslims in such places as Morocco,
especially among its Berbers, or among Turkish Muslims. But the act
constitutes heresy according to all leading Islamic authorities. Such
picking and choosing, leaving behind the rude and barbarous aspect of sacred
text that reflects the barbarous historical conditions of its authors, is
routine for the overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews in the world
that view the New Testament or the Hebrew Bible as the divinely-inspired
work of human beings, and thus as historically conditioned, and amenable to
interpretation, emphasis, and de-emphasis.

But the status of the Koran among devout Muslims is different than that
accorded Holy Scripture by virtually all Christians and Jews: the Koran more
closely approximates what the Eucharist represents for religious Christians:
it is the body of God, the direct word of God, and thus any interpretive
enterprise, any effort to build a community of scholarly discourse regarding
the continuing validity of outworn usages, is regarded as heretical, and
heretics are still sentenced to death in Islamic societies.

Still, many are accomplishing this hopeful version of the Greater Jihad, the
internal struggle for spiritual growth, but until religious and even secular
authorities with the Islamic patrimony publicly embrace this shift, there
will be no political counterweight to Islamism. One can only pray that in
time, what I believe to be millions of silent reformations will find their
public voice, and then there might be safety, as well as solidarity, in
numbers. As my Muslim friends that are scholars of Islam remind me, the
intellectual work of this reform was accomplished long ago - one sees it as
early as in the 8th century "heresy" committed under the early Abbasid
Caliphate that chose to view sacred text as Jews and Christians regard
theirs: not as a living incarnation of the Divine nor as a fetish, but as
the divinely inspired works of human beings, children of their time, and
subject to limited historical understanding.

The intellectual work has been accomplished long ago; Muslims know precisely
what to do. The impediment is the political power and ruthlessness of their
enemies, the capacity and willingness of their enemies to forever stunt the
growth of a great living breathing humane Islam through intimidation and
murder, an Islam that that might yet have so much to offer to the world.
Whatever the risks, these secret Muslims of the enlightenment must step
forward, ignore the charge that will be leveled against them that they are
engaging in takfir (impiety), an accusation that leads to excommunication
from Islam in the eyes of "the faithful," and save Islam from itself.

There are, of course, non-devout Muslim Americans that hail from Islamic
societies that don't support the radical agendas of those that purport to
represent their interests in the United States. Some independent Muslim
thinkers believe that such moderates form a silent majority within Islamic
America. But if such a majority exists, their silence would appear to
indicate assent rather than opposition - though it may also indicate
self-censorship out of fear of retribution. With the exception of a tiny
group of courageous American Muslims - mostly academics, journalists, and
freelance writers - who have spoken out and condemned extremism,
anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, the "Muslim Street" in the U.S. has yet
to show its disapproval of this philosophical and political agenda.

As we've intimated, one reason so few American Muslims have publicly broken
with the Islamist orthodoxy that increasingly dominates American-Muslim
communal life is because these organizations, their members and
fellow-travelers, employ physical intimidation, threats of violence,
economic pressure, and foster shunning, enforcing conformity and isolating
and destroying independent-minded Muslims. They have orchestrated fatwas by
foreign mullahs against dissident Muslim secular intellectuals who have been
forced to take refuge in safe houses; instigated death threats against such
prominent religious moderates as the Sufi leader Sheik Hisham Muhammad
Kabbani (whose movement, the Islamic Supreme Council of America, has 200
mosques); have organized boycotts against and then threatened the life of
the wife of the Muslim publisher of a critically-acclaimed newspaper dealing
with events in Pakistan; and routinely issue hysterical attacks against
books and articles (which of course go unread) or speech that deals
objectively with any aspect of Islamic history, politics, belief, or
practice.

Of course it is incomparably worse throughout the Islamic world, where
courageous independent Muslim thinkers are routinely murdered by Islamists;
their body count in only the last few decades runs into the hundreds of
thousands. This has not silenced luminaries like Mehmet Aydin in Turkey, Ali
Asghar Engineer in India; Abdel Rahman Lakassi in Morrocco, Bassam Tibi in
Germany, Rashid Ahmad Jullundri in Pakistan, or Muslim believers in
pluralism and freedom of conscience associated with the Ibn Khaldún Society
founded and led by the fearless Khalid Durán. One hopes the day will dawn
when their work and that of American-Muslim scholars like Radwan Masmoudi,
Sohail Hasmi and others will find a larger and larger audience and end the
intellectual fossilization of Islam and the war between Islam, democracy,
and pluralism. But that day lies in the distant future; our first
responsibility now is protecting America from the Islamism that produced
9/11 and targets "Jews and Crusaders."

I should note, in anticipation of the inevitable charge that I am a racist
or a xenophobe, that my dear moderate Muslim friends, many who go by the
name "Freethinkers," are equally adamant about opposing large-scale
Muslim/Islamist immigration at time when extremism is so rife among the
populations seeking entry to the United States. The adherents of those
movements pose not only a danger to the Constitutional values and democratic
pluralism they came to American to find, but they also poses a direct
physical danger to these courageous dissident Muslims. Those of us seeking
to curtail the anarchy that passes for current immigration have, and will
find, many allies among intellectuals from the Arab and larger Islamic
patrimony that wish to create a new Islam under American circumstances, and
do not wish to be stopped dead in their tracks - or shot dead - by members
of the benighted masses that enter this country, socialized only to hate
pluralism and free thought.

The Potential Loss of Political Influence
It would be an understatement to say that American Jews have achieved
unprecedented political power and influence in the United States. We have
already cited a good deal of the evidence. This power and influence stands
as testament to how successfully Jews, who represent just above 2 percent of
the U.S. population, have assimilated (in the most positive sense of that
word) into the American political, cultural, and economic mainstream. It
also stands as a tribute to the openness and the tolerance of the vast
majority of the American people who have come to accept Jews as full-fledged
Americans who happen to practice a different religion.

Living at the high noon of Jewish political power, it will strike some as
alarmist and counter-intuitive to suggest that the sky may be about to fall.
Yet that is precisely what may happen within the next 20 years. The Jewish
population of the United States is about to be eclipsed by an ethnic group
whose interests are in direct conflict with those of American Jews and many
of whose leaders and members are openly hostile to Jews. The American
constitution, the basic integrity of the vast majority of the American
population, and the professionalism of American law enforcement may militate
against the kind of anti-Semitic violence taking place in France and
elsewhere in Europe; they will at least slow down its progress. What those
two intangible attributes will not be able to prevent, however, is the loss
of political support for Israel that would doom the Jewish state to complete
political isolation.

Without minimizing the effectiveness of lobby organizations like AIPAC and
other American Jewish organization in steering U.S. foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction, it must be noted that for many years they have been
pushing on an open door. Once the old Arabist crowd at the State Department
and the several notably anti-Semitic Secretaries of State and members of the
diplomatic corps departed the scene, except for politicians on the extreme
left or right who have an ideological antipathy for Israel and are generally
unsympathetic to the Jewish community, support for Israel and high levels of
deference towards the concerns of the American-Jewish community has been a
political no-brainer. It has brought substantial benefits and no downside.

The fact is that the celebrated "Jewish lobby" won battle after battle by
simple default. A politician who supported Israel could count on the backing
of Jewish voters in his home state or district. Even if there were no Jewish
voters back home to speak of, there would always be Jewish money available
to support the campaigns of Israel's friends in Congress. The political
benefits of supporting Israel, combined with what was often a genuine
empathy for a reliable American ally and the region's only democracy, has
resulted in a U.S. foreign policy - though it has had its ups and downs -
that has generally tilted in Israel's direction for 40 years.

What's been missing from the political equation was a strong counter-veiling
force. There has never been a significant constituency that has felt as
strongly opposed to Israel as American Jews have felt in favor of Israel.
There has certainly never been an anti-Israel constituency that was
motivated enough to organize politically, form political PACs, and vote for
or against a candidate based on his or her stance on Middle East policy. Now
there is, and it is growing very rapidly and as a direct result of current
immigration policy.

According to an October, 2002, Zogby poll, half of Arab-American voters
state that Mideast policy is a "very important" consideration in determining
their vote. The feeling is most intense among the growing pool of Arab
voters who were born outside the United States, with nearly 60 percent of
that cohort assessing the Mideast conflict as "very important." The more
established, U.S.-born Arab population is heavily Christian, while Arab
immigration over the past 30 years has been predominantly Muslim. Thus, the
fastest growing segment of the Arab American electorate is the segment that
feels most intensely about and opposes U.S. policy in the Middle East. In a
report on Arab-American polling results commissioned by Abu Dhabi Television
after the 2000 elections, the Zogby Polling organization noted, "While
recent immigrant Arab-Americans, in fact, show greater intensity of concern
[about U.S. policy in the Middle East], the depth of concern of the first,
second and third generation Arab Americans is still impressive." In other
words, the Arab-American electorate is growing rapidly; the largest growth
is taking place among people who feel a deep, emotional stake in the
Arab-Israeli conflict; and the depth of that feeling remains intense even
after several generations in the United States. Additionally, Arab-American
voter participation - 62 percent in 1996, 65 percent in 2000 - is
substantially higher than that of the general population, adding even more
weight to their growing numbers.

Even after Muslims outnumber Jews in the United States, Jews are likely to
maintain a political advantage for a time by virtue of the fact that they
are well entrenched in the "old boys" network in Washington and other
centers of power. Israel will also continue to enjoy strong support from
millions of Evangelical Christians who see the Jews' return to the Holy
Land - and their continuance there - as part of the biblical prophecy that
presages the Second Coming. And not only that; the tens of thousands of
Evangelical Christians that travel regularly to Israel have also developed
warm personal relations with individual Israelis and a love for the country.
Certainly their theology is what primarily motivates them, but they also
form natural, prosaic human attachments.

The clock will eventually run out on such advantages. The fastest growing
religious group in America, Muslims are organizing politically to promote
their interests. Ironically, they often cite Jewish political organizations
as their model for wielding influence in the United States. Demography plus
money equals political power. American Jews, in a good economic year,
typically contributes about $600 million to Israel. By contrast, the Saudi
regime spends about $5 billion annually to promote "Islamization" around the
world. To further underscore the imbalance in resources, the $600 million
American Jews sent to Israel was equaled by what the Saudis spent last year
alone in Bosnia, a country of 1.5 million people. Though foreign regimes
cannot, by law, pump money into domestic U.S. political races, Saudi and
other Arab oil money can mount huge indirect campaigns aimed at influencing
U.S. public opinion and policy. Combined with a growing and highly motivated
Islamic voting bloc in the U.S., the demography + money equation will
inevitably work against strong political support for Israel.

In addition, social liberals who tend to be most supportive of open
immigration will also find that a growing, influential, and socially
conservative Muslim population is at odds with their most cherished
allegiances. Church-state separation, sacred to secular liberals, is
anathema to the Islamic clerics who run the vast majority of mosques and
religious schools in the United States. Social liberals, and no cohort in
America is more socially liberal than Jews, will also find fierce Islamist
opposition to freedom of expression, women's rights, abortion rights, and
gay rights. There is also little if any tolerance from these quarters for
speech and writings that are deemed offensive to Islam, or the Prophet. Even
if they cannot impose official censorship against blasphemers, the
experience of Salman Rushdie in Europe stands as an object lesson of the
sort of self-censorship that can occur when an offended minority group vents
its righteous indignation over words and ideas that they find highly
objectionable. The informal censorship imposed by fear of reprisal by
fanatics can be just as effective a mechanism to control free expression as
state power.

Muslim and Arab political PACs are springing up all across the country
preparing for the day when their numbers make them a force to be reckoned
with. The defeat of two strongly pro-Palestinian House members in bitterly
contested Democratic primary races in 2002 is being used as a clarion call
by Arab and Muslim American groups to redouble their political organizing
efforts. In analyzing the defeats of two black Southern Democrats, Earl
Hilliard (Alabama) and Cynthia McKinney (Georgia), James Zogby, president of
the Arab-American Institute noted that "Arab-Americans have substantial
political resources and allies and we can work to overcome the impact of
these setbacks." Prominent Arab and Muslim Americans must avoid the kind of
political "foolishness" that led a leader of the self-described "mainstream"
American Muslim Council to stand in front of the White House and declare his
support for Hamas and Hezbollah while the video cameras were rolling,
cautions Zogby. That leader, by the way, Mr. Allamoudy, is now under
indictment for laundering money for terrorist organizations.

In addition to political strength derived from their own increasing numbers,
the Arab and Palestinian cause has the backing of a coalition of aggrieved
minority groups who see themselves and Muslim Americans as victims of an
oppressive power structure. They also enjoy strong backing among foreign
policy multilateralists plus anti-globalists, like those who took to the
streets to oppose U.S. action in Iraq, who want to see international
matters - like the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict - left to bodies
like the United Nations.

Upsetting the Status Quo
There is something analogous to religious faith among American Jews in the
Constitution as the ultimate protector of our rights and security in the
United States. Certainly the Constitution is the most enlightened governing
treatise ever devised by human beings. But in the final analysis it is still
just words on a piece of paper. Many nations have had enlightened
constitutions, expressing lofty ideals and, nevertheless, turned on the Jews
and other minorities. France is the perfect example.

What sets the United States apart from other societies in which Jews live
and have lived over the centuries is the nexus between the principles
asserted in the Constitution and the American people themselves. The
protections of the Constitution would mean nothing were it not for a
population that has believed in it, bled for it, and struggled with itself
to see to it that its principles are applied to all who live in the United
States. The Constitution has made the American people what they are, but the
American people make the Constitution a living, breathing document.

American Jews have also been blessed to live in a society where the
contagion of anti-Semitism has never been as deeply rooted or as widespread
as it is in much of the rest of the world. This is attributable to many
factors, but it is primarily a tribute to the social and cultural forces
that have shaped the nation. No country has ever been completely free of
anti-Semitism, but since the middle of the 20th century, the United States
has come as close as any society ever has.

Nevertheless, change is well underway. Unceasing large-scale immigration,
unprecedented in its magnitude and duration, is in the process of reshaping
the nation. By the middle of this century, the United States will become a
nation without a majority ethnic population, a situation that is not
necessarily problematic by itself, though it will undoubtedly represent a
challenge to social cohesion. Infinitely more worrying, strong multicultural
forces are simultaneously deconstructing in theory and in fact the ideal and
reality of a dominant, common culture, one that links Americans of all
racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. During this volatile
transformation period, the balance between group identity and a larger sense
of national belonging has swung decidedly in the direction of tribal
identity among many new immigrants. Many of these new cultures being
introduced to the multicultural "salad bowl" harbor long traditions of
anti-Semitism, and in the case of Muslims, are in direct conflict with Jews
over issues that command the deepest emotional allegiances of both
communities.

Perhaps this prognosis is too gloomy and it will all work itself out for the
best in the end. Perhaps the assimilative forces that liberated last century's
European immigrants from their deeply rooted anti-Semitic prejudices will
succeed in tempering the animosity of Muslim and Latin-Catholic immigrants.
But if American Jewish leaders are going to continue to support this sort of
mass immigration, or at least tacitly accept it, they must understand and
honestly acknowledge the risks. And they must stop acting like ghetto Jews
and confront the dangers of Islamism in this country openly and with
confidence. They will find their concerns, as well as their well-being, are
supported by the great majority of Americans. They can and should have
greater confidence in their Christian neighbors.

Should the day come when Jews find themselves disempowered, vulnerable, and
threatened 20 or 30 years from now in a very different America, the one
thing Jewish leaders as well as ordinary American Jews must never be allowed
to say is, "We didn't see it coming." The historical record of America's
major Jewish organizations in confronting the rise of Hitler and the
Holocaust is cause for shame; at the very least it is cause for a
considerable measure of humility and a far greater willingness to
re-evaluate long-held positions in the face of new realities.

Two stories from those terrible years suffice: in the summer of 1939, when
the St. Louis stood offshore with its desperate cargo of German-Jewish
refugees, symbolizing for all the world the plight of Jews seeking to escape
the devouring maw of Nazism, the American Jewish Committee was unable to
assemble its Executive Board to meet because the members could not be
troubled to interrupt their summer vacations. Then there was the celebrated
meeting of Jan Karski, the heroic Polish Christian officer and courier of
the Home Army (Armija Krajowka) who had been twice smuggled into the Warsaw
Ghetto, as well as the Majdanek Concentration Camp so he could see with his
own eyes and record with precision for posterity the annihilation of the
Jews of Poland, risking only his own life in doing this, but also that of
his entire family.

Those who have seen Claude Lanzmann's magisterial documentary film Shoah
will recall the elderly Karski in the film's opening sequences, a man so
overwhelmed with pain and recalled agony he can barely speak. He relates his
meeting with F.D.R. who could not be made to show the least interest in the
terrible, earth-shattering message he was bringing back from hell to the
"normal" world. What is less well-known is his equally ill-fated attempt to
deliver his message to the most prominent court Jew of the day, Supreme
Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. When Karski completed his long narrative of
what he had seen, one filled with carefully observed details in which he
concentrated on fact after fact in order not to be accused of seeking to
overwhelm with emotion, Justice Frankfurter turned to him and said, "Sir, I
do not believe a single word you are telling me."

Today's leaders of those same organizations should humbly recall this vast
historic catastrophe - as well as the total and utter failure of their
predecessors as guardians of the Jewish people - as they look at this issue,
consider the future, and ponder the choices they can evade no longer.

Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight is a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
He is also currently a Fellow at Timothy Dwight College, Yale University.
For more than six years he was the Director of National Affairs at the
American Jewish Committee and for two years served as a Senior Fellow at the
AJC. Mr. Steinlight is co-editor of Fractious Nation: Race, Class and
Culture in America at the End of the Twentieth Century,(UC Berkeley Press).
z
2007-09-06 21:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Freedom Fighter
2007-09-06 21:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Jewish organizations are certainly behind the massive influx of Russian
immigrants to Brooklyn, NY.
As a result, the Russian Mob now pretty much owns Brighton Beach! They have
actually displaced the Italians.
If these were Hispanic or Black immigrants, no matter how well-behaved, you
can be sure these same organizations would have done all they could to keep
them out.
z
2007-09-07 14:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Freedom Fighter
If these were Hispanic or Black immigrants, no matter how well-behaved, you
can be sure these same organizations would have done all they could to keep
them out.
You do understand that Mr. Ranger's "point" was that the Jews are
**behind** the Hispanic and Black immigrants, right?
an old fiend
2007-09-07 16:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
You're a f'ing retard if you beleive this shit.
you have been fooled and hoodwinked into to follow the trail breadcrumbs of
a gruop of vile net stalkers I welcome to this site recovered largely as
result of that rotteneighboor.com posting just gott this sit back uner my
control you will soon find find link two my other blog that explore bisexal
ham radio and the peoples in it.

http://ipunce.blogspot.com/index.html

Shalom

Shalom
Post by Doug
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmideastpolicyotherboot31jan07.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
an old fiend
2007-09-07 16:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
You're a f'ing retard if you beleive this shit.
you have been fooled and hoodwinked into to follow the trail breadcrumbs of
a gruop of vile net stalkers I welcome to this site recovered largely as
result of that rotteneighboor.com posting just gott this sit back uner my
control you will soon find find link two my other blog that explore bisexal
ham radio and the peoples in it.

http://ipunce.blogspot.com/index.html

Shalom

Shalom
Post by Doug
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmideastpolicyotherboot31jan07.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
an old fiend
2007-09-07 16:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
You're a f'ing retard if you beleive this shit.
you have been fooled and hoodwinked into to follow the trail breadcrumbs of
a gruop of vile net stalkers I welcome to this site recovered largely as
result of that rotteneighboor.com posting just gott this sit back uner my
control you will soon find find link two my other blog that explore bisexal
ham radio and the peoples in it.

http://ipunce.blogspot.com/index.html

Shalom

Shalom
Post by Doug
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmideastpolicyotherboot31jan07.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
M***@TayleorRobesin.org
2007-09-07 19:47:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:11:34 -0400, "an old fiend"
<***@puncegotcha.com> wrote:
"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Nahum Ben Abel
2007-09-06 19:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
<snip>
Post by Ranger
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
That's right! We of the ZOG will tread your porcine flesh and
bury it under our chosen feet. You gentiles don't stand a chance
against our higher test scores and liberal-message movies. You'll
never comprehend the complexities of the Yiddish language. You'll
never develop a taste for borsht. You don't even wear beanies!
Bwa ha ha! Squirm while your worst nightmares control everything!
Tani Jantsang ©
2007-09-06 21:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nahum Ben Abel
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
<snip>
Post by Ranger
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
That's right! We of the ZOG
Christian Zionism? Rev. Hagee?
Post by Nahum Ben Abel
will tread your porcine flesh
Now you sound like an Islamic Jihadist with that porcine bit.

and
Post by Nahum Ben Abel
bury it under our chosen feet. You gentiles don't stand a chance
against our higher test scores and liberal-message movies. You'll
never comprehend the complexities of the Yiddish language. You'll
never develop a taste for borsht. You don't even wear beanies!
Bwa ha ha! Squirm while your worst nightmares control everything!
Funny. One word, if I can spell it: Ahmedinajad.

Europe will become Islamic.

Jewish organizations did do what MaDonald said they did, and they don't deny
it. Prof. Steinlight, who is Jewish and an activist, is addressing the
moves they made and trying to get them to see how this is horribly
backfiring.

My guess is that they won't listen - tho they are kinda accepting friendship
from the Christian Zionists lately and telling Jews that object to "shut
up." Who knows.

Jews did this kind of thing out of a very reasonable FEAR. But the thing
is, too often people that fear some monster, manage to create that monster
without realizing it.
Stuart Jackson
2007-09-06 22:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Funny. One word, if I can spell it: Ahmedinajad.
Israel won't last. Demographics will crush them. Arabs have way more
kids than Jews. The Arab population within Israel proper is growing
like crazy.
Plus, eventually, push will come to shove and we'll see an all out war
involving Israel. The Zionists will do something stupid like use one
of their nukes against Tehran and then Pakistan will demolish Tel Aviv
with one of their nukes.
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Europe will become Islamic.
This is true, thanks mostly to far-left Marxists jews who are steering
Europe towards this demographic shift with liberal immigration
policies. These leftists don't care one bit about Muslims, they only
see them as a Western wrecking agent (ie. WASP wreckers).
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Jewish organizations did do what MaDonald said they did, and they don't deny
it. Prof. Steinlight, who is Jewish and an activist, is addressing the
moves they made and trying to get them to see how this is horribly
backfiring.
I once drove by a Synogogue in Los Angeles and it got blasted by the
18th street Mexican gang. I mean blasted with graffiti, really bad.
The gang markings of, "XVIII" were everywhere on the exterior church
walls, doors, and the entire surrounding neighborhood. I kind of
laughed though and thought, "hey jews, this is what you wanted, how do
you like it now??"
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
My guess is that they won't listen - tho they are kinda accepting friendship
from the Christian Zionists lately and telling Jews that object to "shut
up." Who knows.
The so-called Christian Zionists are absolute morons. Jews just use
them for their cash contributions to Israel. Check out the CNN
special, "God's Warriors". I thought CNN did a pretty good job of
showing the truth about Zionism and the idiot Christian Zionists who
support Israel.
Doug
2007-09-06 23:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Europe will become Islamic.
This is true, thanks mostly to far-left Marxists jews who are steering
Europe towards this demographic shift with liberal immigration
policies. These leftists don't care one bit about Muslims, they only
see them as a Western wrecking agent (ie. WASP wreckers).
The jews want an islamic state? LOL! YEAH, they want to annihilate
themselves!
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Jewish organizations did do what MaDonald said they did, and they don't deny
it. Prof. Steinlight, who is Jewish and an activist, is addressing the
moves they made and trying to get them to see how this is horribly
backfiring.
I once drove by a Synogogue in Los Angeles and it got blasted by the
18th street Mexican gang. I mean blasted with graffiti, really bad.
The gang markings of, "XVIII" were everywhere on the exterior church
walls, doors, and the entire surrounding neighborhood. I kind of
laughed though and thought, "hey jews, this is what you wanted, how do
you like it now??"
The one in Boyle Heights? It's funny but 60 years ago Boyle HEights
was a nice Jewish community. I could've walked thru BOyle Heights
60 years ago w/a US flag held high and never had to worry about it,
why don't YOU try that NOW and tell me it's better.

I've never heard of any Jewish street gangs either.

Anyone who's afraid of the jews should take a walk through Santa Ana,
CA; Boyle Heights, CA; or E. LA, CA on a Friday or Saturday night. Make
sure to carry a US flag.
Tani Jantsang ©
2007-09-07 04:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Europe will become Islamic.
This is true, thanks mostly to far-left Marxists jews who are steering
Europe towards this demographic shift with liberal immigration
policies. These leftists don't care one bit about Muslims, they only
see them as a Western wrecking agent (ie. WASP wreckers).
The jews want an islamic state? LOL! YEAH, they want to annihilate
themselves!
I doubt they expected it to lead to that.
Post by Doug
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Jewish organizations did do what MaDonald said they did, and they don't deny
it. Prof. Steinlight, who is Jewish and an activist, is addressing the
moves they made and trying to get them to see how this is horribly
backfiring.
I once drove by a Synogogue in Los Angeles and it got blasted by the
18th street Mexican gang. I mean blasted with graffiti, really bad.
The gang markings of, "XVIII" were everywhere on the exterior church
walls, doors, and the entire surrounding neighborhood. I kind of
laughed though and thought, "hey jews, this is what you wanted, how do
you like it now??"
Steinlight addresses this.
Post by Doug
The one in Boyle Heights? It's funny but 60 years ago Boyle HEights
was a nice Jewish community. I could've walked thru BOyle Heights
60 years ago w/a US flag held high and never had to worry about it,
why don't YOU try that NOW and tell me it's better.
I've never heard of any Jewish street gangs either.
Anyone who's afraid of the jews should take a walk through Santa Ana,
CA; Boyle Heights, CA; or E. LA, CA on a Friday or Saturday night. Make
sure to carry a US flag.
Read Steinlight's letter to his fellow Jews in those organizations.
I'll repost it. It's worth downloading, keeping and printing out to read.
It's a gem.

High Noon to Midnight
Does Current Immigration Policy
Doom American Jewry?

Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight

(extended version)

Among the articles of faith in the slowly waning culture of secular
liberalism that have passed for and often served as a substitute, ersatz
religion for many mainstream American Jews, the most vulnerable tenet at
present is belief in "generous legal immigration," the euphemism for
open-borders immigration in the policy lexicon of the national
American-Jewish public affairs agencies. This is not to accuse them of
out-and-out double-talk and hypocrisy so much as engaging in intellectual
and moral trimming, followed by self-deception and denial. Having repeatedly
failed to persuade the National Immigration Forum, to which virtually all
belong, to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, they took the
path of least resistance and chose to remain in any case, made their peace,
lowered their eyes, and convinced themselves they could get away with
blurring the distinction between illusion and reality.

That they continue to pay lip-service to a bogus totem and equivocate about
an issue of enormous importance is not only deplorable as a matter of
principle, it is also increasingly untenable as a matter of policy: it puts
them fundamentally at odds with their own long-term institutional values and
interests, undermines the position of the American-Jewish community, and,
what's more, greater and greater numbers of American Jews from the
leadership on down see the sophistry for the transparent charade it is.
Survey research, plus a weight of anecdotal evidence, reveals a significant
change in attitudes among American Jews at the grassroots level, with a
plurality in public opinion polls taken in the two years following 9/11
favoring lowered immigration and some 70 percent the introduction of a
secure national identity card.

While the same survey conducted in the last year by Market Facts Inc. - the
findings were released many months ago - indicate some slippage backwards
towards traditional opinion (old habits die hard and the impact of 9/11 may
already have started to lessen), with 15 percent favoring increased
immigration, 43 percent believing it should remain the same, and 41 percent
wanting it lowered, the same survey revealed that some 55 percent believe
that Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States.

Given a barrage of media attention to Islamic anti-Semitism over the past
two years this is an extraordinarily low statistic, and a finding is worth
pausing over. It is only explicable in light of the Jewish obsession with
appearing tolerant towards groups perceived as "Other" by the dominant
culture, especially non-whites and non-Christians. Many are loath to see
Muslims as antagonists, despite evidence of pervasive virulent Islamic
anti-Semitism. Had the same question been asked of virtually any other group
in America regarding which population most hates Jews, far higher
percentages surely would have identified Muslims. One hopes it will not
require another act of major domestic terrorism to cause the same
respondents to draw the appropriate cause-and-effect connections; bolder,
more concerted efforts of the ground, including advertising in the Jewish
and secular press, can accomplish this end, as would the founding of an
entity specifically devoted to awaking America's Jews to the danger.

My experience on the ground in congregations across America shows that very
few Jews possess anything remotely resembling knowledge and understanding of
the history of Jewish immigration itself, immigration policy, including the
scale of current immigration or the engines that drive it, and frequently
all that is required to effect enormous changes in attitude is to apprise
them of data that is indisputable. Simple facts can prove transformative.

When I began my efforts at the grassroots level, the Jewish media spoke of
attitudes within the American-Jewish community as "monolithic" in support of
open-borders immigration. Now it is commonplace to describe the situation as
one in which "a raging debate is going on" (I quote the Forward). If so much
could have been accomplished principally by one individual with occasional
support by others, it is clear what an ambitious, concerted effort might
achieve. Opinion regarding this issue is volatile, based on little other
than nostalgia, and up for grabs. One can not undo the sentimental
attachments of decades or belief in powerful mythologies at one stroke; but
they can be shaken and unhinged by concerted, continuing effort, and
significant enough numbers can be detached from this loyalty to make a
political difference. Perhaps most important, among the community's
organizational leadership enthusiasm for this dangerous anachronism is a
mile wide and an inch deep.

It should be noted for the historical record that my doubts about open
borders had their origins in the powerful misgivings about it expressed by
my beloved mentor at the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Sam Rabinove of
blessed memory, AJC's Legal Director of many years and one of the giants in
the court struggles of the Civil Rights era (his amicus in Bakke was one of
the most widely-cited in the Justices' decisions), as well as the conscience
of that agency, not to mention one of the most respected figures working in
Jewish organizational life in the 20th century. In those days a
dyed-in-the-wool left/liberal, I was taken by surprise by Sam's repeated
expressions of anguish and disgust over the intellectual dishonesty of
Jewish organizations' remaining in the National Immigration Forum, knowing
what they all know about that organization's naked identity politics, its
contempt for the rule of law, and its visceral anti-Americanism. On one
memorable occasion as we left a meeting of the National Immigration Forum,
Sam turned to me with and said, "What on earth are we doing here?"

Among Jewish leadership, the inevitable collision between allegiance to
received opinion and the recognition of hard urgent new realities had begun,
if sotto voce, before 9/11, but that tremendum greatly accelerated the
process by revealing in the most terrible way the nexus between the anarchy
that has passed for immigration policy and immigration law enforcement and
the savage assault on the innocent lives and national security of the
American people. Much has occurred in its wake to drive the point home about
the dangers Jews and all Americans face. In the wake of 9/11 came the war
against Islamist terror that began in earnest in Afghanistan and continued
with the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein and the ongoing struggle
in that fractious "country" at nation-building. All the while, major news
story after news story has covered the radical upsurge of anti-Semitism in
the Muslim world (President Mahathir Muhammad's speech at the Islamic
summit, one that might have been ghost-written by Joseph Goebbels or even,
as Omer Bartov has pointed out, Adolph Hitler himself, left a searing
impression (as did the standing ovation it received from 57 leaders of
Muslim states, in addition to President Putin), as have the crazed
maunderings of Osama bin Laden and countless fanatical mullahs about Jews
and Crusaders. Significant attention in both the secular and Jewish press
has highlighted the extraordinary hostility to Jews and Israel within the
leadership and citizenry of the European Union, and there has been almost
continuous treatment of the emergence of the "New Anti-Semitism." Given all
this - plus the hatred of Jews manifested in such individual cases as the
brutal and richly symbolic murders of Daniel Peal and Nick Berg; or in the
terrorists attacks aimed at the residual Jewish presence in the Islamic
patrimony such as the bombings of synagogues in Morocco, Tunisia, and
Turkey; the multiple ongoing investigations into the connections of American
Islamic "charities," national organizations and leaders (including some that
Jews obsessed with dialogue briefly helped legitimate) to Jihadist
anti-Semitic and anti-Israel terrorist groups - it has become very difficult
to remain simultaneously credible and in a state of total denial.

"Facts are such horrid things," says Lady Susan at the close of the
epistolary novel that bears her name, Jane Austen's first published fiction.
Or, to borrow Milton Himmelfarb's famous formulation about the origins of
neo-conservatism, the American-Jewish community has been "mugged by
reality." In the contest between adhesion to a sentimental archaism and
existential horror, only those willing to be perceived as purblind or
suicidal do not eventually adjust to facts.

Thus, behind closed doors, Jewish leaders speak a very different language
than in public. This is not entirely new with regard to immigration policy,
but the disconnection between appearance and reality is much sharper now; it
constitutes a veritable chasm. In private, they express grave concern that
current immigration policy will prove politically and existentially ruinous
to the American-Jewish community, as it has for the Jews of France and will
inevitably for the Jews of Britain, indeed, throughout Western Europe. There
is particular fear about the impact on Jewish life and security, as well as
American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim community in
the United States, fueled almost entirely by current immigration policy
(conversion to Islam plays a role as well, but as a cause of concern it is a
distant second - except where shifting terrorist tactics are concerned.)

At the conclusion of many meetings with Jewish national leaders most have
told me, several using the identical formulation, "You are 1000 percent
right, but I can't go out and say it yet." While they have not yet found the
civic courage to break with the traditional consensus - an act they know
will jeopardize what remains of the unity of the old liberal coalition,
create tensions with the Latino groups they are assiduously courting, as
well as set them at odds with much of their rank and file, including some of
their strongest supporters and biggest donors - they can see the Rubicon
glinting in the distance, and many recognize that eventually they will have
to cross it.

My personal experience of more than two years' speaking on behalf of
immigration reform as a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies, to
overwhelmingly sympathetic, often packed audiences at dozens of
congregations across the country - yes, with occasional, strong, even
vitriolic dissent, including some from big shots and fat cats (I have,
albeit infrequently, been called a racist and likened to David Duke) - as
well in closed-door, off-the-record meetings with Jewish leadership at the
highest levels in New York and in Washington confirms these are the
ascending trends. Though my experience falls into that category we
denominate "anecdotal evidence," the fact is that I have spoken with more
grassroots Jews about immigration policy than any other person in the United
States. That there will be - as survey research consistently reflects - a
lag time between people's intellectual shifts and their emotional capacity
to register it, speak it aloud and act on it - sooner or later, the two will
become congruent.

The typical congregant at any one of the dozens of synagogues I have visited
across America, frequently being invited as a "scholar-in-residence,"
staying for a full weekend and thus having the opportunity to gain a firmer
handle on what's going on, is thrilled to hear a voice speaking from the
podium in the sanctuary that is not mumbling political correctness, and that
is prepared to say aloud what the great majority already think - but has yet
to find the full confidence to speak.

This is not to say change will come quickly or painlessly. While virtually
all the rabbis in the dozens of congregations where I've spoken have
generously - and often courageously - made a point of agreeing with me in
public and affirming their support of my views - and thus breaking with the
policy line of their denomination as well as what one might have assumed was
communal orthodoxy among their flocks - I have been bitterly attacked by a
handful of die-hard leftists in the pulpit. Some see themselves not as my
hosts but as my debating partners. There is and will be also strong
resistance from many quarters in the organized community, not least of all
from the professional domestic affairs staff of national Jewish
organizations, a group that can be reliably counted upon to be far to the
political left of the executive and lay leadership, whom they are adept at
misleading and sabotaging.

There is special cause for concern about staff manipulation in those
organizations that nominally grant lay leadership wide discretion in
decision-making on policy while, in fact, professional staff effectively
retains it, controlling debate by subtlety limiting options within internal
discussion, card-stacking the evidence in the preparation of background
materials, and having more "expertise" and thus intellectual authority than
the membership. This tendency for staff to overstep its position, monitor,
and even play the role of control officers for the executive and lay
leadership will become stronger as the Jewish community increasingly
questions its automatic support for the Democratic Party and its candidates,
a process that may well reach a watershed with the upcoming Presidential
race. It is not beyond possibility that the President, who received a scant
17 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, may conceivably garner 30-40 percent
of it this time around. While it is by no means clear this will come to
pass - Jewish support for Democratic candidates is tenacious and opinion
polls suspect - a shift of this magnitude is not impossible and it might
even influence the outcome in such crucial swing states such as Florida,
Ohio, and Missouri.

The most telling piece of evidence of the stubbornness of Jewish
organizational adhesion to the open borders camp, perhaps the staff/lay
dynamic described above, as well as tenacious organizational maintenance of
the status quo in the face of accumulating evidence of dissent in the ranks,
is the letter sent by eleven Jewish national organizations to members of the
Senate as recently as May 28, 2004. The letter seeks "immigration reform"
(read amnesty) that would make conditions easier for illegal aliens by the
passage of legislation to "address immigration issues, including bills to
aid farm workers immigration needs and ease education burdens for
undocumented immigrant students." Thus, at the top of the communal pyramid
all would appear unchanged, but the base is increasingly restive. For the
time being - indeed for as long as it is tenable - the propensity among
leadership will be to circle the wagons and reaffirm the traditional
position, hoping the mere organizational line-up will overawe the
opposition; the reasoning is as understandable institutionally as it is
shortsighted as a matter of policy.

The issue of immigration remains bitterly divisive among Jews, and which
organization welcomes costly internal strife? At a luncheon several months
ago following an address at one of New York City's wealthiest and most
prominent synagogues, board members clashed head-on and savagely over my
presentation, with the president of the congregation, one of those who
accused me of being a racist, being attacked by a senior board member as
being "the kind of Jew that sold out others to the Nazis." The atmosphere
was electric, and the dense toxicity that enveloped that room during the
supremely uncivil "discussion" about my remarks might have been cut with an
axe. Important segments of the leadership remain true believers in the dying
faith, and will not give it up without a fight. But that change is
inevitable is clear enough. The question, ultimately, is whether it will
come too late to make a difference to the future of America and its Jewish
community.

Though it will prove wrenching - philosophically and spiritually - to break
with the old consensus, so wrenching many are effectively paralyzed by the
very prospect right now, it must surely concentrate their minds wonderfully
to know that continuing to uphold it endangers the values, power, interests,
and perhaps even long-term viability of the community whose protection is
their raison d'être, a criticism they are beginning to hear from a rising
chorus within it. In their heart of hearts they recognize they risk a harsh
judgment by history as those responsible for "losing America," just as their
predecessors have been rightly pilloried for their failure to do more to
save European Jewry in the years leading up to and during the Holocaust.
American-Jewish leadership is understandably at sea and agonized,
experiencing profound vertigo as it seeks to chart a course within a reality
that would appear to make sense only to a schizophrenic.

Fading Anti-Semitism
On one hand, the Jewish organizational leadership cadre holds influential
positions within a community that feels a sense of belonging and inclusion
unknown in the 2000-year history of Diaspora Jewry, as well as justifiable
pride and not inconsiderable complacency stemming from the position it has
achieved within American society. The American-Jewish community has attained
success and acceptance beyond their forebear's fondest dreams. Though only a
small minority within the United States, American Jews are influential far
beyond their miniscule percentage of the population. Not only are they, per
capita, among the wealthiest and best educated of Americans, but they also
hold significant political power as well as cultural influence. Nearly half
the money spent in the presidential primaries in the Democratic Party comes
from Jewish contributors, and in recent years Jewish presence at the highest
levels of government has become routine. A majority of the cabinet members
in the Clinton administration were Jews, and while there are none in the
Bush cabinet, Jewish political advisors play key roles in national security,
foreign, and military affairs. Had Al Gore become President, an Orthodox Jew
would have been a heart-beat away from the nation's highest office. In the
upcoming Presidential election, if Senator Kerry wins, he will be the first
chief executive with Jewish roots. Jews are concentrated in states with the
highest votes in the Electoral College, and they vote at a higher rate than
any other group of Americans, amortizing their otherwise limited demographic
presence.

To repeat some of the well-known indicators of the Jewish community's
success, ten per-cent of the Unites States Senate is Jewish. Currently, the
majority of the presidents at Ivy League universities are Jews, and
faculties and student bodies at elite colleges and universities are
typically 30-40 percent Jewish, often constituting a plurality at these
institutions. Jews continue to form a high percentage of the membership in
the learned professions (law, medicine, academia, scientific research) and
among the chattering classes, i.e., among writers, journalists, and
publishers of some of the nation's leading national newspapers and
periodicals, and as creators and disseminators of both high and popular
culture. Though not necessarily representing Jewish interests or values,
American Jews play the predominant role in Hollywood (nearly 70 percent of
movie and TV producers and directors are Jewish), and thus shape much of the
popular imagery central to the national life. Jews also hold key positions
within many leading financial institutions in the country, especially within
investment banking and the brokerage industry.

The principal cause, as well as a symptom of these successes, anti-Semitism
has fallen to historic lows among the white Christians that still form
America's dominant cultural group; indeed what was once a significant factor
in mainstream American life is now, at most, a peripheral phenomenon. A
recent ADL study found that only some 12 percent of white Christian
Americans hold anti-Semitic attitudes; this represents a 50-percent drop
over just the past 30 years. Indeed, one of the leading factors contributing
to the crisis in Jewish continuity is the fact that our neighbors like us,
are prepared and often eager to marry us and have children with us. It's
important to emphasize this as Jews often find it hard to hear good news,
even as their leadership is often capable of suppressing bad news, at least
when it comes from politically correct quarters. Among the more significant
examples of the "bad news" is that survey research has consistently shown
high levels of anti-Semitism among Latinos, with percentages in the
neighborhood of 47 percent holding hostile attitudes towards Jews. Moreover,
this finding has remained stubbornly constant. It is cited in the major
survey of inter-group attitudes Taking America's Pulse conducted by the
National Conference of Christians and Jews in 1992 and again in a recent
study sponsored by the ADL.

A risible but interesting indicator of how marginal anti-Semitism has become
within the dominant culture is how candidate after candidate for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination is "discovering" his Jewish
roots, or, if he is not so lucky to have any, emphasizes the fact that his
wife or wife and children are Jewish. In an earlier America, these candidate's
forebears thought it prudent to conceal their Judaism by changing their
names or converting to Christianity; their descendants now see a distinct
advantage in flaunting what their antecedents sought to hide.

Having cited these examples of the success of the American-Jewish community,
one feels compelled to add a caveat to anticipate the responses such
observations invariably elicit from anti-Semites and other neo-Nazis,
fascists, paranoiac Jew-haters, fanatic Latino nationalists, and Islamist
crazies, as well as from such protean political curiosities as Michael Lind,
an often interesting political analyst who unfortunately appears to have an
unhealthy fixation with Jews. The last thing one wishes to do is provide
this ilk further "evidence" to justify their hatred of or distaste for the
American-Jewish community. When I discussed the admirable situation of the
America's Jews in my first CIS Backgrounder in 2001, this crowd chose to
view my open avowals of the self-evident either as a rare glimpse into the
arcane secret workings of the vast Jewish conspiracy, or saw their nutty,
hair-brained analyses as having "outed" one of the key conspirators. In what
constitutes a classic case of unconscious humor, they acted as if they were
sleuths who had uncovered what I freely offered. (David Duke described me as
"one of the most powerful Jews in America," an assessment I wish had been
shared by my former employers at the American Jewish Committee, and one I
would gladly have shared with my mother had the source not been so
scabrous.)

Perhaps most bizarre, Michael Lind feigned shock and dismay that the Jewish
community uses its economic position and resources to advance its political
agenda, sounding like nothing so much as the outraged, newly arrived virgin
in the whorehouse, a stock character in Western comedy since Roman times.
One would have thought the connection between money and political power had
never been previously explored; but one doesn't need to know the work of Sir
Lewis Namier: all that's needed is what one famous tabloid calls an
inquiring mind. No, Virginia, there is no conspiracy, and I am not, sad to
say, "One of the most powerful Jews in America." Rather, valuing hard work
and education, with an accumulated store of inventiveness and intellectual
energy maintained, indeed hoarded, within the stifling and oppressive
confines of the largely ghettoized European societies which they abandoned
or fled, with a facility for languages and cultural adaptability that their
historical condition had forced upon them, free to advance within a society
which became increasingly meritocratic as well as one in which anti-Semitism
yielded quickly to tolerance and then full inclusion, Jews have achieved the
American Dream by fair means. That the American Jewish community should be
concerned, perhaps more than most others, with gaining and maintaining
political influence and access should come as a surprise to no one that
understands that powerlessness was key to the annihilation of a third of
world Jewry in living memory.

Romanticized Image of Immigration
Yet for all its accumulated historical consciousness and above-average
political acuity, the American-Jewish community, like any other, believes in
myths, and these die slowly because they represent enduring values and
ideals, not realities. The meaning and power of any myth does not derive
from its demonstrability as fact, and the mythopoeiac power of the immigrant
experience among American Jews will lose force only slowly. Of all the
pieces of Americana that most middle-aged American Jews, at least, know by
heart, one of the best known and most-cherished is that verse from the
well-known poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me
your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ."

That poem was written, of course, by a Jewish schoolgirl poet in New York in
response to the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia. For more than a
century it has given expression to a highly romanticized image of the
immigrant experience in America, one that has become iconic and
all-encompassing despite its decided irrelevance to much it purports to
represent. This quote has a great deal to do with refugees and asylum
seekers, and they and the policy universe to which they belong are separate
and distinct from that of immigrants and immigration policy per se. If
American Jews are going to get this issue right, they need to disaggregate
the two, something many Jews have failed to do intellectually or
emotionally. For the truth is that Jewish immigrant experience far more
closely parallels the experience of refugees and asylum seekers than typical
immigrants - then or now. Jews have reason to get misty-eyed about what the
Statue of Liberty stands for, but the same is not quite the case for the
vast majority of immigrants who passed beneath it on their way to Ellis
Island.

No group has ever exemplified, revered, and clung to this romanticized
notion of immigration to the United States as much as the Jews who landed
here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and their descendants. My own
forebears did not come on the Mayflower, nor were they among the small group
of Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam aboard the St. Katerina from Recife,
Brazil, 350 years ago and remained, the New World's first permanent Jewish
pilgrims. I'm a first-generation American. My father fled the pogroms that
swept the Russian Empire during the Civil War that followed the Bolshevik
Revolution. He was born in a small village in Ukraine outside Kiev, a city
that was Judenrein by law; my maternal grandmother and her family had
arrived some years earlier from Riga, Latvia.

Given the horror that engulfed those Jews that remained in Europe -
including the many who might have been saved had the United States not
substantially closed its doors to immigration in 1924 and slammed them shut
entirely on Jews fleeing Nazism and the Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s -
the utter abandonment of the Jews by the Western democracies will resonate
forever deeply within the consciousness of every self-identifying Jew, and
particularly America's grudging acceptance of a mere 1,500 refugees who were
interned in Camp Oswego in Upstate New York - it is fair to say that no
immigrant group has appreciated the blessings of being immigrants to America
more than Jews. Against this backdrop, American Jews must now contend with
one of the most intellectually and emotionally anguishing questions that has
arisen in the entirety of their history in the United States: whether to
support the continuation of the current great wave of immigration, though a
more accurate metaphor for what is taking place now would be that of a
continuous, pounding surf than a wave, that has now reached an historically
unprecedented level, or exercise their still considerable political and
economic clout to seek to curtail the current record influx.

With approximately 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants entering and
settling annually - by far the greatest number illegal - roughly equivalent
to the population of Philadelphia - the United States now has the highest
number of foreign-born residents in its history. As a percentage of the
total population, the 32 million foreign-born, being strengthened
continuously, are fast approaching and will soon surpass a level not seen
since the first decade of the 20th century, and will in only a few years
constitute the largest percentage of foreign-born residents in the nation's
history.

For American Jewry, the debate over immigration is a classic confrontation
between the heart and head, nostalgia and foresight, illusion and reality.
In their gut, many American Jews feel that substantially reducing the level
of immigration betrays the legacy of their parents and grandparents. There
is a strong communal aversion to the notion of kicking the hands on the rung
of the social ladder beneath your own. But a growing number have reached the
conclusion that to continue along these lines betrays their children and
grandchildren. The danger arises because mass immigration is conterminous
with the importation of mass anti-Semitism. It's no accident that the rise
of widespread and increasingly violent anti-Semitism in Western Europe and,
to this point at a far lower level in America, tracks perfectly with mass
immigration, especially that of Muslims. Mass immigration also tracks with,
indeed, is the ultimate generator of, Balkanizing notions of extreme
multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism was not invented on some particularly benighted college
campus; nor did it fall from the sky: it is the direct outgrowth of the kind
of mass, uncontrolled immigration the United States has been experiencing
for decades. Having worked for more nearly a century through its communal
organizations and in the context of inter-faith encounters to achieve an
America largely free of anti-Semitism, it is difficult for American Jews to
sit back and watch mass immigration, most of it the consequence of the
wholesale violation of the rule of law, reverse that outcome.

However uncomfortable it is to grapple with the issue of immigration policy,
both as Jews and as Americans, it is a political question American Jews
cannot avoid. More than any other group of Americans, Jews have most at
stake in how this policy plays out in the coming years. Perhaps
counter-intuitively but right on the target, the immigration reform movement
sees American Jews with their significant political power, wealth,
substantial presence in the media and among opinion-makers to be the group
that may have the capacity to break this conspiracy of silence in a society
where issues of nationhood, sovereignty, race, ethnicity, and culture are
infinitely more indelicate to speak of than sex.

That conspiracy is maintained by a curious alliance among the leadership of
the major political parties, the ethnic lobbies, and Big Business. This
conspiracy sees to it that despite that fact that every survey shows HUGE
majorities of Americans favoring an outright moratorium on immigration -
differing only whether the moratorium should be for five years or for 10 -
their opinion does not register. Why not? The answer lies in who controls
public policy debates in America. These "debates," or, in this case, the
lack of any genuine debate, is the result of a distorted, skewed,
manipulated process dominated by those with the most to gain immediately and
palpably, financially and personally, with respect to any given issue.
Clearly, any alien, especially one from the Third World, experiences an
incalculable gain upon entering the United States. The worker from Mexico
that made five dollars a day will now make five dollars an hour. The ethnic
lobbies that purport to speak on his behalf also gain by the appearance and
often reality of a growing constituency. As do the employers of "cheap"
immigrant labor - cheap for them, of course, though not for the American
taxpayer, for whom this scenario represents the obverse of a "win/win"
situation.

It's been estimated that over the course of a lifetime, a typical illegal
alien in California will use more than $75,000 in public services than he
will ever pay in taxes. The education of the children of illegal aliens, the
cost of the emergency medical services and healthcare they most typically
use (the most expensive in a costly market), as well as the cost of a host
of other direct and indirect services from which they benefit are paid for
by the taxes of the American people. Similarly, the wages of American
workers earning at the bottom third of the workforce have fallen by some 7
percent in a decade as a direct result of competition from illegal aliens.
Still, the immediate tangible losses suffered by the average American
citizens are not felt to be nearly commensurate with the very tangible and
enormous material benefits gained by illegal aliens, their employers, and
their self-appointed parasitic "representatives."

Not a Right/Left Contest
Perhaps there's a politically useful silk purse in this sow's ear for those
of us seeking immigration reform and converts to the cause among
ever-over-anxious, too-eager to-be-loved and not-to-offend, politically
progressive and socially liberal American Jews. The news that the battle
over immigration is not a rightwing vs. leftwing battle tends to salve their
consciences as they pursue their rational self-interests and those of
America as a whole. It's always a help to remind audiences at a synagogue
event that the strongest proponents of open-borders immigration are the Wall
Street Journal and the Chambers of Commerce. And why, pray, is this so, I
regularly ask? Is it because the employers of sweated labor are in love with
the gorgeous mosaic of ethnic diversity? It doesn't take much to convince a
largely liberal constituency the cause is greed, the desire for an unending
supply of cheap labor to exploit in order to engorge their profits in the
service sector and agro-business and depress wages across the board, all the
while caring not a whit for any other consideration, whether political,
cultural, or environmental. Among the considerations to be thrown overboard
include American political democracy, including fundamental Constitutional
principles, such as the bedrock concept of the nation state as comprised of
a cohesive citizenry expressing its political will through democratic
processes.

President Bush's proposal for "immigration reform," a disgraceful fraud
that, if passed, will effectively amnesty some 10-15 million illegal aliens
by transforming them into wage slaves, members of a new legal permanent
underclass of Guest Workers in America - a policy idea that is an affront to
the deepest ideals and values of American political and social culture from
the Founders on, as well as constituting the death-knell of the American
Dream of immigrant inclusion, upward mobility, and naturalization - will
make it far easier to persuade Jewish progressives that open-borders
immigration is not a cause that should continue to enlist their support. The
transparency of the attempt to label this cynical, socially reactionary,
money-grubbing ploy as an instance of "Compassionate Conservatism" is not
selling well. Coming as it did, on the heels of Bush's memo circulated by
his Labor Department telling employers how they can avoid paying workers
overtime, it is clear this represents nothing less than a massive assault on
the American middle class in the interest of the wealthiest of the wealthy,
as well as smarmy, lame-brained, ineffectual election-year pandering to the
Latino lobby. It is also not lost on many American Jews - and we will keep
it in the forefront of their consciousness of those that need reminding -
that this amnesty will legalize the presence in the United States of what is
estimated to be some 300,000 individuals from countries on the terrorist
watch list! Given the President's current low ratings in the polls, as well
as greatly heightened concerns around domestic security - concern likely to
be significantly amplified by the report of the 9/11 Commission, it is
unlikely he will wage a full-court press on behalf of this unpopular plan.

According to a recent ABC news poll, more than half of Americans aren't
buying this attempted legislative murder of the American Dream, and
recognize the cynical sham it for what it is: by a 2-1 majority they see it
as an assault on the dignity and interests of American labor, as nothing
more than a strategy to drive down wages. This survey also shows that
support for real immigration reform is the ascendant trend; a similar survey
conducted in 2000 showed Americans split on this issue; now a solid majority
stands in opposition. Opposition is also broad and cuts across the spectrum,
uniting political opponents. The Bush proposal - that guarantees the
indentured servants legal status for only three years - has already been
opposed by the National Council of La Raza for failing to provide illegal
aliens everything as part of its strategy goal of political and demographic
Reconquista; it is opposed by the AFL-CIO; it was even attacked by Governor
Howard Dean during his failed race for the Democratic nomination (at only
one press conference, however: at least his opportunistic populist political
instincts saw opposition to this scheme as a winner); and by moderates and
conservatives that are appalled by this surrender to and complicity in the
wholesale violation of American law - one that will prove a powerful
stimulus to further massive violation of law as such law-breaking is seen to
carry rewards rather than consequence. And, of course, despite the
assurances that these recipients of "compassionate conservatism" will go
home after three years of being exploited, the example of Western Europe
over the past thirty years tells us something quite different: guest workers
never go home; they disappear into a society that seemingly has no means of
keeping track of any one.

It is also being denounced by principled Americans of all political stripes
that see this proposal for the enormous danger it constitutes to fundamental
American principles: if enacted, Bush's scheme would, at a stroke, transform
the United States of America to the best approximation the modern world has
ever known of the democratic ideal represented by the Athens of Pericles
into Sparta, a hierarchical state with rigid social distinctions carried on
the backs of a class of helots. Should this proposal be enacted into law,
writers and poets should begin composing epitaphs for the American Dream.

The great majority at any gathering are also horrified to learn that in many
states illegal aliens are voting, in direct contravention of the
Constitution of the United States. These are citizens of foreign countries,
in most case of Mexico, who obtain drivers' licenses and have thus passed
what now constitutes the ultimate test of inclusion: a driver's license.
That they have no loyalty to the United States, sense of belonging to the
American nation, or evince no desire to naturalize are seen as mere
formalities by those in positions of power willing to wink at this outrage.
If you have a driver's license you can vote; it's just that simple. And as a
direct result the American people are losing control over the destiny of
their own country, at the same time that the ideal of membership and
inclusion have been cheapened, sold to the lowest bidder.

The Demographic Handwriting is on the Wall
Of the manifold concerns about current immigration policy felt by all
Americans and American Jews in particular, none is more disturbing than the
manner in which it fuels Muslim immigration, making Islam the fastest
growing religion in the country, forming an expanding anti-Israel and
anti-Semitic constituency, and providing an ever-expanding sea in which
terrorist fish swim undetected. The lead article in the May 14, 2003 edition
of the Toronto Globe & Mail announced that Muslims now outnumber Jews in
Canada. It noted that this dramatic demographic shift "could ultimately
affect [Canada's] position toward the protracted Middle East conflict." The
good news is that Canada is hardly a major player on the geopolitical stage.
But what happened there in just the past decade should concern the 5.3
million Jews who live south of the 54th Parallel, as well as those who chart
Israel's course in the halls of the Knesset.

Muslim ascendancy in Canada is a harbinger of things to come in the United
States, with potentially enormous impact for both American Jewry and
American foreign policy. According to the 1991 Canadian Census, there were
25 percent more Jews in Canada than Muslims. Within a single decade that
demographic advantage was obliterated. According to the 2001 census, the
Muslim population of Canada exceeded the Jewish population by 75 percent.

Only recently news stories on CNN and ABC News reported a doubling of the
Arab population in the U.S. in just two decades. Both news outlets suggest
the number of Arabs alone (we are not now talking of Muslims in general) is
already nearly 1.3 million, with the largest population in New York,
followed by the Detroit suburbs. For virtually its entire history, Arab
immigration to the United States was primarily Christian and lopsidedly
Lebanese; now it is virtually all Muslim, with the immigrants' lands of
origin mainly Egypt, the West Bank, and Yemen.

That dramatic demographic turnaround in Canada, the U.S., and Europe can be
accounted for by a single factor: immigration. Muslim immigration has or is
dramatically altering demography in all these places, and with it,
inevitably, the political landscape. This phenomenon has already had
enormous - and frightful - impact on Jewish life in Europe, and has turned
European foreign policy on the Middle East from one of even-handedness to
one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic or tolerant of
it.

Symbolizing the transition was the EU's failure to condemn the recent vile
speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister. Or, perhaps even more shocking,
witness the current moral and intellectual scandal of the EU's rejection of
the report it recently commissioned from the German Technical University on
the dramatic upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. The report was rejected and
labeled as "racist" because it identified by far the greatest numbers of
perpetrators of anti-Semitic outrages as Muslim. The propensity of the
willfully blind to shoot the messenger never seems to go out of style. The
highly suspect follow-up study predictably came up with the
politically-correct conclusion: the plague of violence was in fact the work
of skinheads and Neo-Nazis. One is reminded of Claude Reines' sardonic
remark in Casablanca when he orders the Vichy police to "round up the usual
suspects."

The demographic change has caused European Jews to live under profoundly
insecure and threatening conditions, something virtually unknown since the
rise of fascism. Lest anyone imagine that hostility to Israel is only a
factor among leaders of European governments or hostile elites, a recent
survey conducted by the European Commission called "Iraq and Peace in the
World" revealed that more ordinary Europeans consider Israel a threat to
world peace than any other country. Asked whether certain countries posed a
risk to world peace, Israel topped all other nations with 59 percent of
Europeans answering in the affirmative, placing Israel ahead of Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and even North Korea. Among the 15-member
union, only in Italy did fewer than 50 percent identify Israel as a threat,
and leading the anti-Israel pack were Holland at 74 percent and Luxembourg
at 66 percent. (The U.S. was identified by some 53 percent, the same number
as North Korea.)

Because of sustained large-scale immigration, we're on the threshold of a
similar demographic shift in the U.S. Currently, some 5.3 million Jews live
in the U.S., compared to approximately 4 million Muslims. Islamist groups
often cite the grossly inflated and entirely spurious figure of 7 million.
Such wild exaggerations have been their stock in trade; they have no
research capacity and simply make up figures. None of which would represent
a problem if such Big Lies weren't ultimately accepted as truths, even among
supposedly "reliable sources." Thus when the Washington Post last year
congratulated the "7 million strong American Muslim community" on the
celebration of the Eid at the close of Ramadan, myth became reality.

This shift is a certainty because the exponential growth of the Muslim
population is paralleled by a precipitous decline in the number of American
Jews, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the overall population over
the past 30 years; further, there is no reason to believe the factors that
have caused this will be reversed. Only a decade ago we spoke of 5.8 million
Jews; now we speak of 5.3. Jewish fertility is flat, well below replacement
level; its population is aging; nearly half of all Jews intermarry, and all
efforts to promote "Jewish Continuity" have thus far yielded zero results.
The recent findings of the UJC Population Study confirm the worst fears of
those anguished about this specter.

Unless the religious leadership of the American Jewish community takes a
radical step and returns to ancient traditional Jewish practice - the
seeking of converts from among non-Jews - a scripturally sanctioned practice
made a capital offense by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine when he adopted
Christianity as the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire (a
position embraced by the forward-thinking Allen Dershowitz as well as Dennis
Prager) - as well as use the philanthropic resources made available to the
failed and philosophically flawed effort at "Jewish Continuity" by also
encouraging Jews to have larger families by establishing college accounts so
more families will have 3 or 4 children - projecting 20 or 30 years ahead,
Muslims will no longer need to exaggerate their numbers to have a major
influence on both domestic and foreign policies.

Unlike Canada, or even Western Europe, the foreign policy of the United
States matters enormously. The United States is not only the world's sole
superpower; it is also Israel's only reliable ally in an increasingly
hostile world. Without discounting the sincerity of many American Christians
in their support for Israel, it would be naïve to believe that American
politicians will not respond to an ever-growing Islamic voting bloc, one
that will eventually far outnumber Jewish voters.

Whatever their manifold shortcomings, no one should ever underestimate the
ability of American politicians to count - count votes and campaign
contributions. As Muslim Americans become politically organized - and they
are well on their way - politicians will certainly not ignore the votes and
campaign dollars of a rapidly growing segment of the electorate. Unlike
Latinos, Muslims naturalize and vote at higher than average percentages - 65
percent in the last Presidential race. And, like Jews, they are concentrated
in states with large voting blocs in the Electoral College; they are
everywhere Jews are.

Importing Anti-Semitism
It is not only Israel that will face increasing hostility and radically
diminished American military, economic, and political support as Muslim
immigration swells. The outbreak of violent anti-Semitism that has swept
Europe in recent years has far less to do with that continent's latent
hatred of Jews by Christians than it does with the hatred for Jews among its
young, poor, and alienated Muslim population.

As we've noted, more often than not, attacks on synagogues and desecration
of Jewish cemeteries in Europe are perpetrated not by skinheads, but by
young Muslims indoctrinated in the hatred of Jews by Islamist imams and
preachers in the radical mosques that dominate Islamic life in Europe.
Virtually every major city in Western Europe already has a central mosque,
funded by the Saudis, that preaches Wahabbi doctrine, one of the most
extreme, violent, atavistic, anti-Western forms of Islam. These mosques,
that have spawned the likes of Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, double
as recruiting centers and financial support networks for Muslim terrorist
cells.

In the banlieues - the lawless ramshackle "suburban" slums that surround
Paris and other major French cities - Jews and Jewish institutions are
subject to repeated attacks by marauding gangs of Muslim hoodlums. (CNN
recently reported that violent attacks on Jews in Paris come at the average
rate of 12 a day.) Reminiscent of Germany circa 1930, when Hitler's Brown
Shirts ruled the streets while a timid government and press kept silent,
governments and the media in Western Europe today turn a blind eye to
Islamic anti-Semitism and violence out of fear of their growing political
power and an adherence to political correctness. Chirac's recent decision
opposing religious freedom in the classroom - the banning of headscarves for
Muslim girls, kepahs, and crosses, is not only woefully misguided and
insufficient; it's absurdly incommensurate with the scale of the problem -
though it is clear from the recent pronouncements of France's erstwhile
friends among Islamic theocracies and within anti-Israel terrorist
movements, such as Hezbollah, that it may well pay a price for this "assault
on Islam."

One would like to think these threats - some of which may be carried out in
the form of terrorist acts committed in France - will lead to a reassessment
by French authorities of the cynical policies they have pursued, but given
its history of twisted if cleverly self-serving diplomacy, the French are
likely to paper things over with their friends in the Arab world, including
among its radicals and terrorists, rather than recognize that they are
subjecting France, and especially the ideals of the French Republic, to a
slow, painful, and shameful death. While the Muslim underclass is detested
and discriminated against by increasingly xenophobic ordinary Europeans as
well as the European elite, they and their unwelcome guests share a common
hatred of American preeminence in the world, as well as the belief that
Israel is a tool of an imperialist United States.

A chilling article in the June 2003 issue of Vanity Fair by Marie Brenner
about the anti-Jewish violence in France describes the new reality facing
Europe's largest Jewish population. This was recently followed by a front
page story along the same lines in the Washington Post.

Living amidst a Muslim population that now outnumbers it ten to one, and a
political establishment that up till very recently could be described
charitably as utterly indifferent to the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping the
country, beleaguered French Jews are enduring conditions not witnessed in
Europe for more than half a century. Although overt violence is less common
in Great Britain - rioting second generation South Asian youth shouting
"death to the Jews" in the Midlands a year ago may be a harbinger - Britain
has become home to the most radical elements in the Islamic world; those who
track the worldwide Islamist movement refer to the British capital as
"Londonistan." The recent arrest of the Mullah of the Finsbury mosque, who
has been openly calling for the murder of Jews and Christians, because of
his alleged link to Al Qaeda is welcome news, but this is merely the tip of
the iceberg.

While it is admittedly risky to draw conclusions based on what's happening
in one country and applying it, wholesale, to another - the United States is
not France, or Germany, or even Canada - it would be equally foolhardy to
ignore what is happening abroad. Jews are not entitled to the luxury of
assuming that what has already happened in Western Europe and is beginning
to take place in Canada has no relevance to them. A people that lost
one-third of its total world population in living memory due to
powerlessness has no choice but to adopt a posture of high vigilance. Unless
fundamental changes are made in U.S. immigration policy and enforced sooner
rather than later, the same transformation will occur in this county, at
incalculable cost to American Jews and their interests. Moreover, it will
happen much more quickly than most might imagine.

As we've noted, the price of averting - or at least postponing - this
outcome will be enormous cultural discomfort among American Jews and
potentially a major political realignment as Jewish leaders will be forced
to take positions that will further strain an already attenuated
relationship with the liberal coalition that was forged under Franklin
Roosevelt and reached its zenith in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.
It is not impossible that the frayed bond will tear apart and prove
irreparable. This will constitute a full-blown identity crisis for the many
Jews who have regarded political liberalism as a constituent element of
their Judaism. But faced with the choice between loyalty to a largely broken
alliance and their own long-term survival, the great majority of America's
Jews will make a rational choice.

Because of the way U.S. immigration laws work, an exponential growth in the
Islamic population in the coming years is a statutory certainty. Having
established a foothold in the U.S. over the past 30 years and attained
citizenship, these relatively new Americans have the right to petition to
bring large numbers of extended family members to this country. Current U.S.
immigration policy entitles U.S. citizens to bring not only their nuclear
families, i.e., spouse and unmarried minor children, but parents, adult
children and their spouses and children, and adult siblings and their
spouses and children. Moreover, over time, all of these extended family
members can eventually bring a similar range of extended relatives here as
well, in an unbreakable chain. What begins as a single immigrant can result
in the immigration of an entire village. In fact, in some West Bank towns,
as is the case with many villages in rural Mexico, as much as half the
population either now lives in the U.S. or has U.S. citizenship.

Readers unfamiliar with the political bedfellows of AILA (American
Immigration Lawyer's Association) need to learn that its connections provide
stunning evidence that it is far from a non-partisan, non-ideological
professional association. It is a driving force behind these policies. It is
both disturbing and revealing to know that Jane Butterfield, the President
of AILA, was, for the greatest part of her career, the head of the American
Solidarity Committee for Palestine, and has been a long-time supporter of
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group identified on the
State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Demographic and economic realities within the Islamic world suggest we will
face a tidal wave of Islamic immigration for the foreseeable future - unless
some cut-off mechanism is put in place. Those ineluctable realities include
a worldwide Islamic population of 1.3 billion people, most living in
poverty-stricken and politically oppressive countries. A rare moment of
political candor was the important recent speech by President Bush
discussing the danger posed by the lack of democracy anywhere in the Arab
world, one that even acknowledged the historical complicity of American
policy in enabling Islamic tyranny.

Indeed, two-thirds of the poorest people on earth live in socially,
economically, technologically, and intellectually fossilized Muslim
societies. Given the chance to immigrate to a country like the United
States, countless millions would jump at the opportunity - at the same time
that they not only harbor hatred and contempt for American political
institutions and American culture, but are also members of a religious and
political culture much of which is currently under the dangerous delusion
that it will, can, and must achieve global domination. Many of these
immigrants - a decent percentage of whom might better be identified as
infiltrators than immigrants - are part of a well-organized and extremely
well-funded movement to subvert and destroy American institutions and the
American infra-structure.

By contrast, the global Jewish population is estimated to be between 13-15
million - a mere one one-hundredth of that of Islam. One-third of all the
Jews in the world already live in the United States, a third more live in
Israel, while the remainder are spread mainly among First World nations
where the political and economic forces that generally drive immigration do
not exist. Thus, Jews have very little to gain directly from an open door
U.S. immigration policy. And even in a worst-case scenario for the remaining
Jews in the former Soviet Union, Latin America, and perhaps even parts of
Western Europe, the existence of Israel, in spite of its security and
economic troubles, guarantees a safe haven for any Jew who needs one.

Also, one byproduct of powerful Jewish political influence has been that
persecuted Jews have been able to go to the head of the refugee line for
resettlement in the United States. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, hundreds
of thousands of Jews from the former-U.S.S.R. were able to enter the
country, ahead of millions of other refugees who, arguably, faced greater
persecution and danger in places like Central America and Africa. One of the
potential casualties of the loss of political power could be the special
consideration now afforded Jewish refugees.

Jews stand to lose a great deal more than any other group currently living
in the United States from an immigration policy that brings millions of
people from cultures that range from antipathetic to antithetic to Jews and
the State of Israel. Muslim immigrants are certainly the most likely to feel
savage hostility toward Jews at the moment and are intent on destroying
Jewish political power in the United States as a pre-requisite for weakening
Israel. Thus, this is most emphatically not the time for Jews to be reticent
or "polite" for fear of antagonizing or offending Muslims: American-Muslim
organizations have shown no such compunctions when it comes to Jews or to
Israel - or the sensibilities or predilections of dyed-in-the-wood extreme
multiculturalists who view the Balkanization of American society either with
neutrality or favor. Jewish leadership must step up to the plate and speak
frankly and courageously on behalf of the community they are supposed to
lead and protect.

Common sense demands that the source of the danger be identified. Within the
vast Islamic universe is a fast-spreading totalitarian political ideology
whose name is Islamism, though some know it by other names - Jihadism,
Salafi Islamism, Wâhhabism, and the more generic term Fundamentalism.
Nomenclature counts for nothing; the names make no difference; the
phenomenon is broadly identical in philosophy and tactics, though there are
minor doctrinal differences among its adherents from country to country as
well as ethnic and personal rivalries. Its goal is world domination by Islam
and the imposition of the harshest and most inhumane incarnation of rigid,
unchanging, and unchangeable hide-bound Islamic law on all nations and
peoples. It pursues its agenda through brainwashing, pie-in-the-sky theology
for desperate people, intimidation, selective assassination, terrorism,
political repression, and, on occasion - such as in Bangladesh when it
declared its independence from Pakistan in 1971 - genocide; the murder of
some two million Bengali men, women, and children, and the rape of hundreds
of thousands of women by members of the Pakistani army, the local Islamists
know as razakars, and thousands of madrassah students must not be permitted
to disappear into the black hole of historical forgetfulness. The people of
Bangladesh were, for the greatest part, pious Muslims; their crime was to
wish to the separation of religion and government.

Islamism, like the European fascism it resembles in so many ways and from
which it borrowed heavily in terms of attitudes to many questions, its
paranoid vision of Jews among them, embodies the politics of the culture of
despair - reflecting the catastrophic inability of every other movement in
the Arab and Muslim world to bring power, a decent living standards, and
prestige to the Islamic patrimony -especially the failures of secular
nationalism and Pan-Arabism to take root in the 1950s and 1960s.

The modern Islamist movement began in Egypt in 1928 with the Muslim
Brotherhood whose heyday spans the years 1930-1950 (its philosophical
luminary being Sayyid Qutb); the two other seminal figures of 20th century
Islamism are Mawlana Mawduddi (first of India and then Pakistan), founder of
the fundamentalist Deobandi Movement with its political party and vast
network of propagandistic madrassahs, and the Ayatolla Ruholla Khomeini in
Iran. One could argue, however, that in essence, Islamism has always been a
potent force within Islam; indeed, it has been its dark twin from the very
birth of the faith, and not an aberration born in the 18th century as a
product of the alliance from the 1760s on of the House of Saud under its
then leader Muhammad ibn Saud and the fundamentalist Ibn Abd al Wahhab,
founder of the Wahabbi movement. Nor does its origins lie in the work of
Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya of the 13th century - though he heavily influenced
it - who responded to the disaster of the destruction of the Abbassid empire
by the Mongols by accentuating the earliest teachings of the Koran, the
concept of Jihad, emphasizing piety over the literature of textual
commentary that had formed a considerable body of Islamic thought for
centuries and, perhaps most of all, the demand that temporal Muslim rulers
subordinate themselves to a strict interpretation of the Koran. It was
surely this "dark twin" that also stirred the Mogul conquerors of India to
commit one of the greatest genocides in history: the Hindu Kush, or Hindu
slaughter, which some historians have suggested produced a body count
totaling near 8 million human beings. But one needs to go no further than
the Koran itself, with its multiple suras, especially in the Medinan
revelations, calling for the murder of infidels and the necessity of Islamic
military and political global dominance.

In the 20th century, Islamism was repressed violently for decades by the
secular nationalist regimes, mostly brutal corrupt dictatorships that
flirted with the Soviet Union in Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo (Sayyid Qutb
was hanged in Egypt in 1966), but with the rise to power of the Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran it secured its temporal power base, followed by
the coup that made General Zia ul Haq military dictator of Pakiststan, a
great admirer of Mulana Mawdudi, whose party, the Jamat-e-Islami had been
repressed under Zia's predecessor Zulfikar Ali Butto. With Zia's seizure of
power, the Jamat-e- Islami found that its Islamist philosophy had achieved
the position of the official ideology of the state, which Zia began to
thoroughly Islamize in a series of measures begun in 1979. Once in the
wilderness, the Islamist movement now ruled the key political power and
religious powr centers of Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Some otherwise
excellent scholars of the movement (Gilles Keppel, author of the superb
study Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, being one) have made one signal
error: arguing it has already crested. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

This movement is gathering strength almost everywhere. Witness the recent
resurgence of Shiite religious fanaticism in Iraq, epitomized in the
rebellion of Muqtada Al Sadr's Shiite militia in Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf
(which may represent less of a renegade phenomenon than official opinion
would have us believe) that may reignite what appeared to many to be the
waning of the movement's virulence in Iran; the New York Times only recently
head-lined the story that the most secular Arab nation, Syria, now has a
growing and vibrant Islamist movement. It is alive and well in Afghanistan
in the "tribal areas" that hug the border with Pakistan, and it is a bomb or
bullet away from re-taking control of Pakistan (how many assassination
attempts can the apparently sincere Kemalist General Musharraf survive?
Something of an enigma, his latest moves toward peace with India, lowering
the temperature in Kashmir, and attacks on extremism in the Pakistani
Parliament that led to an Islamist party walkout suggests his modernist
gestures may be for real: so was Sadat.) It dominates the richest of all
Arab states, Saudi Arabia, the most important banker for this movement,
which is increasingly facing an internal violent opposition even more
extreme in its Islamism than the Saudi monarchy itself, which it views as a
sellout to the West; it governs in the Sudan, in Yemen, in Somalia, and
rules the street in much of East Africa. It threatens to turn the largely
moderate Islam of India into an increasingly militant one; it may well
overthrow what had been a comparatively moderate Muslim society and regime
in Bangladesh, one that is trying to avert the outcome by providing
increasing quiet support to the Jihadists.

The Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star ran a story as recently as January
13 regarding an American Congressman's visit with representatives of
minority religions at the Dhakeswari National Temple, where he was informed
that the country's "minority religions are persecuted, oppressed and
marginalized in society." It has produced a body count of slaughtered
innocents in Algeria that runs into the tens of thousands and threatens
other regimes in the supposedly Europeanized Maghreb. Many were stunned to
learn of the rise of an Al Qaeda-like terrorist network based in "moderate"
Morocco that was responsible for the bloody Madrid bombing. Perhaps of
greatest interest to those of us who track the correlation between lax
immigration policy and the spread of Islamism, the Moroccan terrorists
practice a doctrine known as Takfir wal Hijara, which is the advocacy of
using immigration as part of a stealth strategy of establishing a Jihadist
presence in the heart of the enemy: in Western Europe. Islamism is also
gaining ground in the Caucasus; and there are Islamist insurgencies
throughout South East Asia, from the Southern Thailand to the Philippines. A
militant Albania and break-away Kosovo endanger not just little Macedonia,
but pose an Islamist threat across the Balkans.

The fact is that if free and open elections were held tomorrow across the
Muslim world, the pan-Islamists would likely take power in the great
majority of states. And then, of course, there would be no more elections.
This movement hates pluralism, individual rights, freedom of conscience,
freedom of expression, secular civil society, the separation of religion and
government, the rule of law as we understand it in the West, human rights,
women's rights, gay rights, the rights of religious minorities,
Christianity, the West in general and the United States in particular, and
most of all it has identified Jews and Israel as its foremost enemies -
enemies to be exterminated. Many scholars of contemporary movements in the
Islamic world who are not Islamist or apologists for Islamism put the number
of active adherents of this dangerous movement at between 100-300 million,
with a majority of the non-activists cheering from the sidelines. It is a
movement that has kept most of Islam in a pre-Enlightenment stage of
development. The mentality within wide sections of the Islamic world is some
500 years behind the rest of humanity.

Do we need further evidence of Muslim hatred of Jews than the keynote
address by the former "moderate" prime minister of Malaysia, who has
compounded the original offense in a series of bizarre interviews since,
including with the Israeli press? His speech at the World Organization of
Islamic Nations repeated all the familiar canards of crazed, paranoid
anti-Semitism: that the diabolically clever and all-powerful Jews run the
world, control its banks, the IMF, world media, and even "invented" such
ideologies as democracy, human rights, socialism, and communism as means of
protecting their own interests. Worst of all, however, was the reaction of
the other heads of State that filled the hall to overflowing. It wasn't
stony, embarrassed silence; they didn't lower their heads and look away.
They gave him a standing ovation, and those wildly applauding leaders
included our friends and "allies" General Musharraf of Pakistan, King
Abdullah of Jordan, the Egyptian President, the King of Saudi Arabia, our
own newly-installed President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Karzai, and yes, Mr.
Putin, "representing" Russia's Muslims.

Will this movement achieve world domination? Of course it will not, at least
by military means. But the patent absurdity and unreality of the goal does
not lessen the danger is represents, nor should any one feel the least bit
secure, let alone complacent. Nazism and Communism harbored similar
delusions. Our final victory over them could not bring back to life the
millions upon millions annihilated in their names, including 1/3 of all the
Jews in the world nor the millions of Allied soldiers, including some
400,000 Americans as well as partisans throughout occupied Europe who gave
their lives to defeat them. And how many of us really believe that 9/11 will
be the last enormity to be committed on American soil? Our national leaders
tell us again and again there is something like a 100 percent certainty that
they will strike again, and powerfully. Some months ago another huge
terrorist assault on the United States utilizing aircraft was reportedly
uncovered and prevented, one that included attacks on nuclear facilities,
major population centers, infrastructure, and national symbols.

The recent bombing in Madrid with its huge death toll (in excess of 200)
underscores the continuing threat as well as its special character: the
technical sophistication of its perpetrators and their wish to inflict
maximum casualties on an innocent civilian population who are demonized by
virtue of being infidels. Indeed, it is far more likely that the Moroccan
bombers responsible for the slaughter in Spain were motivated by the belief
that Spain is Islamic land - Al Andalus - and must revert to Muslim control
rather than were reacting to the meager contribution of troops the Spanish
government then in power had made to the occupation of Iraq.

While the Islamists are incapable of conquering the lands of the infidels
through military means they have another extremely potent weapon in their
arsenal, and we are not speaking of the terrorism that will almost certainly
continue to plague the world for decades to come. The most potent weapon in
their possession is demography: their capacity to slowly and quietly
overwhelm and come to dominate non-Muslim societies through sheer strength
of numbers. This is where the critical nexus between the Islamic dream of
global conquest, beginning with their third historical assault on Western
Europe, and irrational, self-destructive Western immigration policy reveals
itself most dramatically.

Almost two months ago, London's Daily Telegraph reported the predictions of
a group of renowned demographers that France - the great capital of European
secularism in Paris and an atrophying but still predominant traditional
Catholicism in the countryside - will become a majority Muslim country
within 20-30 years! Their reasoning was neither arcane nor their predictions
hysterical: to the contrary, it was all terribly prosaic. All they did was
plug the demographic facts into the standard formulae to come up with their
results. Though the precise percentage of Muslims is hard to know for a
certainty given the fact that the French government does not share the data
it denies collecting on the race and ethnicity of its population, most
demographers place the current figure somewhere between 18-25 percent. The
fertility of the average French family is 1.2, while that of the average
Muslim family is 4.6, with even higher birthrates among the black African
Muslim population (almost 5). Among the most fertile sections of the
population, young men and women ranging in age from 17-30, Muslims already
constitute 35 percent. Intermarriage is also frequent, with the most
prevalent pattern that of a French Catholic young woman marrying a Muslim
man, converting to Islam, and then rearing a large family. A similar pattern
is evident in Belgium, where in the schools of Brussels Muslim children far
outnumber Belgian Christian youth.

Then there is the story of Pym Fortun and Dutch immigration. Pym Fortun was
a gay Dutch professor of literature who became a vocal spokesperson in the
immigration reform movement in the Netherlands because he did not wish to
see the massive influx of a population who regard the killing of homosexuals
as religiously sanctioned and who have shown little or no interest in
assimilating into liberal Dutch society. He was, in short, vigorously
opposed to tolerating intolerance. An opponent of his views assassinated him
a little more than a year ago. But a backlash was brewing all along. Some
six weeks ago the Dutch parliament passed a resolution barring all
immigration to Holland for five years, including that of refugees and asylum
seekers. Something similar is happening in Denmark, where the government has
made it clear that Muslim immigrants are welcome in Denmark only if they are
prepared to teach their children Danish, assimilate to the norms of Danish
society, and balance their Islam with a strong sense of loyalty to their new
homeland. Should they not follow this course, they will be strongly
pressured to leave Denmark.

With these hopeful exceptions, however, the Europeans in the main continue
to make a Devil's bargain with the Islamic world for short-term financial
gain and in order to buy a brief respite from trouble that makes the present
moment resemble the Phony War more than anything else. While the Sitzkrieg
continues, conditions on the ground are undergoing a vast transformation.
Their own societies are undergoing a profound metamorphosis that is making
them unrecognizable, and in ways they will come to bemoan, perhaps when it
is too late to undo it.

They also risk engendering violent nationalist reactions on their own soil
as their own dominant culture groups begin to strike back as they perceive
their familiar world, interests, and most basic values threatened as the
demographic balance reaches the tipping point. Whether or not they are fully
aware of what they are doing, they are conjuring the ghost of Oswald
Moseley, or at the very least that of Enoch Powell. One imagines that sooner
rather than later there will be dozens of rightist demagogues in Western
Europe giving their own versions of Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. But
unlike Powell, who was gazing at the distant future, they will be responding
to what large numbers will perceive as an immediate threat to their way of
life. Needless to say, it would be infinitely wiser for European countries
to adopt sensible immigration policies now that will prevent the thorough
Islamization of their societies and the rise of the Urabia journalists
rather than risk civil war on their streets in the coming decades.

Muslim hatred of Jews is the greatest danger we face, but they're not the
only group now entering the United States en mass with troublesome views
about Jews. Attitudes toward Jews in the Latin American societies that are
the largest source of immigration today - some 60 percent of all immigrants
come from Mexico and Central America - are steeped in a culture of
theological anti-Semitism that has defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment
of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they any mitigating
history of residential closeness to Jews, little knowledge and no direct or
familial experience of the Holocaust, and they regard Jews simply as among
the most privileged of white people in the United States; privileged white
people who killed God. Speaking in support of a July 2002 congressional
resolution deploring anti-Semitism in Europe, Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
noted dark clouds on the American horizon. According to Smith, "17 percent
of Americans are showing real anti-Semitic beliefs and the ugliness of it.
Sadly, among Latinos and African Americans, it is about 35 percent." The ADL's
studies indicate that some 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic
attitudes.

It's true that current Mexican disinterest in naturalization will protect
America's Jews to some extent for perhaps another decade or two; of the
massive demographic bulge that entered the U.S. in the early 80s, fewer than
20 percent has become citizens, and of that number fewer still bother to
vote. In the last presidential election, Jews outpolled Latinos in LA
County! Will this sleeping giant awaken is one of the huge political
questions everyone ponders. The Democrats will say nothing about immigration
reform because they expect this demographic will join their ranks, and they
don't wish to run the risk of alienating it; and the Republicans will mostly
say nothing because they get tons of campaign monies from the Fast Food
Industry, the whole service sector, and Agro-Business and don't want to
alienate them. The timetable for the demographic transformation will be
greatly accelerated if President Bush's "immigration reform" proposal,
announced in January, is enacted.

Even if the powerful assimilative forces of American culture eventually
prevail, as they did among previous waves of immigrants, it will take
several generations, and it is certainly arguable that they will never fully
succeed with Muslims unless an Islamic "Enlightenment" comes about, an
extremely unlikely scenario given the benighted condition of much of the
Muslim world and the fact that its proponents will be branded as infidels by
traditional religious authorities - as they have always been - and targeted
for murder.

Among the myriad mythologies that surround American immigration experience
is the belief that the process of assimilation magically transformed
immigrants into English-speaking patriotic devotees of Jeffersonian
democracy and tolerance virtually as soon as they set foot on these shores.
This proposition is about as accurate as the notion that America's streets
were paved with gold. Assimilating millions of Irish, Eastern, and Southern
European immigrants into mainstream Americans (people, who were not long ago
called "ethnics" and today are loosely and ironically defined as "Anglos")
was a long and often painful process, and depended on a set a of historical
conditions and cultural circumstances that have vanished.

The Jewish Immigrant Experience Was Atypical
Popular perceptions of immigrant experience in America have been oddly
skewed because the story has been largely told by Jews about Jews. The
Jewish narrative has come to be understood as prototypical when, in fact, it
was unique. This has led to profound misapprehension of the more common
pattern - an error that carries large consequences for immigration policy
and attitudes towards immigrants -on the part of great numbers of people,
Jews included, who ought to know better. Jews have always been the exception
to the rule. Almost each critical aspect of their immigration experience -
the reasons they emigrated to the U.S., their communal history in their
countries of origin, and how they acculturated into America - is vastly
different from the circumstances of almost every other immigrant group,
Armenians excepted.

First and foremost, as we've noted, the Jews who arrived in the great wave
of immigration at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries
more closely resembled refugees and asylum seekers than immigrants. Though
the quest for economic opportunity motivated many Jews to come to America,
they came chiefly to escape religious persecution and political oppression.
Unlike the substantial percentage of Italians, Poles, and the other Slavs
who eventually returned to Europe, Jews migrated in only one direction.
Given where they had come from and what they had left behind, often fleeing
for their very lives, Jewish immigrants enthusiastically embraced the ideals
of patriotic assimilation into American society (indeed too enthusiastically
for those concerned with a loss of Jewish identity). Within a few years of
arrival in the United States, Jewish immigrants mastered English. Within a
generation, Yiddish was rarely, if ever, spoken by their American-born
children.

Distinct, de facto and de jure, from the majority culture in every society
in which they had previously lived, Jewish immigrants did not bring to
America any lingering allegiance to their countries of origin or to the
dominant political or religious culture or ideologies that flourished there
(with the exceptions of socialism and Marxism, sympathies that evaporated
within a few years following their arrival), as did almost every other group
of immigrants. Having lived for centuries as minority cultural outsiders in
often hostile societies gave Jews a distinct advantage over millions of
people who were experiencing minority status for the first time. In places
like Poland and Czarist Russia Jews had developed survival mechanisms that
made the adjustment to America relatively easy.

In those countries, segments of the host Christian population, often
semi-governmental bodies like the Black Hundreds in Russia, often sought to
kill them; in America the host population was satisfied with keeping them
out of their neighborhoods, professional associations, country clubs, and
elite universities. Distinct as the Jewish immigrant experience was from
that of other immigrants who came at the same time, it is even more
different from that of today's immigrants.

While the non-Jewish immigrants of a century ago also maintained strong
emotional ties to their countries of origin, their societies and cultures
were neither hostile to America nor obsessed with it, and they certainly did
not blame America for their every problem. Much of the non-European world
and virtually all the Muslim world was then part of the British, French, or
Russian colonial empires; before the First World War America was not a great
global power. And, of course, at the end of that conflict it was Woodrow
Wilson in his uplifting if delusional Fourteen Points who preached against
empire and advocated home-rule for many colonized peoples. Political
circumstances and attitudes could not be more different now. Anti-American
hostility is a hallmark of the societies from which most Muslim immigrants
and many Latinos hail, and the values inculcated in people from a host of
corrupt and brutal dictatorial regimes and quasi-fascist theocracies are
very much at odds with those most Americans hold dear.

Between the worldview of the United States, indeed between the worldview of
most non-Muslim nations and the Islamic one, is a much deeper, perhaps
unbridgeable cultural divide that bears directly on the question of Muslim
acculturation - this falls into the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis that has
gained great strength in recent years. The very concept of the nation state
commanding the loyalty of its citizens is a highly problematic one in much
of the Muslim world, and not only because many of the countries that
comprise it were drawn haphazardly on maps by European colonial diplomats
and statesmen who were shockingly ignorant of the religion and the culture
of the peoples under their sway, and whose "nation-building" in the Muslim
world was largely secondary to and a mere offshoot of the rivalry for global
power among them.

For much of the world's Muslim population, the central organizing communal
principle is not the polity of the state but the Umma, the world that is
ruled by the laws of the Koran, not by any temporal ruler, set of secular
constitutional principles, or territories denominated as countries flying
different flags. It is no accident that when Osama bin Laden expresses his
ideal of the right global order, he recalls the Caliphates and the Ottoman
Empire - pan-national Islamic domains in which the unifying idea was Islamic
religion and law, and in which the idea of the nation state had no place. It
is arguable that it is impossible for a devout Muslim ever to be a patriot
in a non-Muslim society.

Even among the Mexicans who comprise the dominant immigrant group in America
today there is a strong tradition of anti-U.S. resentment and historical
grievance. A widely-shared belief among many Mexicans is that the gringos
are responsible for their chronic economic woes. Nor have they forgotten
that a sizable chunk of the American Southwest was conquered by the United
States in the Mexican War of 1846-1848. For some, the act of flooding
America with their Mexican countrymen, legally or illegally, is part of an
undeclared, low-intensity war of Reconquista. Because the two nations are
joined by a long porous border - the longest on earth between a First World
and a Third World country - continuous two-way migration inhibits any strong
identification with the United States. When I worked as National Affairs
Director at AJC I was, ipso facto, a board member of the National
Immigration Forum, the main lobbying group for open borders, and the extent
of the anti-Americanism and language of Reconquista was shocking even to one
who saw himself in those days as a card-carrying liberal multiculturalist.

Perhaps the most important distinction between today's immigrants and those
of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that
eventually forced assimilation upon even the most reluctant immigrant
groups. These forces have been weakened by the prevailing multiculturalist
ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics, the demise of
Americanization programs that inculcated patriotic assimilation
(multiculturalism denies the very existence or even desirability of a
legitimate, cohesive American culture), the death of civic education, the
rise of bilingualism, and the elimination of any obligation to do national
service. As noted, it is massive immigration itself that creates Balkanizing
multiculturalism; it did not fall from the sky.

Then there are the simple practical differences that carry gigantic
consequences: the revolution in modern transportation and communications
technology allows immigrants to maintain strong bonds with native lands,
cultures, and languages - something not true a hundred years ago. As a
result, many "immigrants" are in fact permanent resident aliens who live
simultaneously in two societies but who naturally maintain primary loyalty
to the cultural and political heritage of their countries of origin - the
places where they were reared, had their early formative experiences, were
educated, and socialized.

Thus, to assume automatically today's immigrants will be as rapidly absorbed
into the mainstream as were our parents and grandparents constitutes a
one-legged leap of faith and very risky proposition. There is no reason to
believe that the unique Jewish experience, unrepresentative even of an age
when Americanization was upheld as the ideal, will be replicated in one in
which that ideal is ridiculed and rejected by the practitioners of ethnic
identity politics who work for an array of ethnic lobby groups and human
relations organizations largely created and financed by a group of
left-leaning, multiculturalist, major national foundations, the
politically-correct professorate, and many influential mainstream media
opinion-makers.

So much is different today: the immigrants are different; the country and
its social institutions are different; the economy is different; the
technology is different; and what is deemed normative is different. To
believe the outcome will be the same under an entirely distinct set of
conditions on the ground as well as in social and political constructs is
not merely willful thinking: it is simply preposterous.

Trouble on the Home Front
While American Jews have an emotional stake in the survival and success of
Israel, they have personal stake in anti-Semitism in the United States.
Anti-Semitism is an immensely complex phenomenon attributable to a myriad of
social, cultural, economic, political, psychological, religious, even
metaphysical factors. But on a purely practical level, some very important
distinctions are simple enough, as well as crucial; there is a great
difference between harboring anti-Semitic sentiments, and feeling the
license to act on them. In the Western democracies where the vast majority
of Jews outside Israel reside, the degree to which anti-Semitism is felt and
expressed is closely linked to immigration. As noted by the Anti-Defamation
League - which dogmatically supports open immigration and routinely savages
anyone who is critical of current U.S. immigration policies - Western Europe
holds the dubious distinction of leading the world in anti-Semitic violence.
Recent waves of anti-Jewish violence, ADL observes, "have tended to
originate chiefly among Muslim immigrant circles in Europe, with extreme
right groups jumping on the bandwagon."

While overt acts of anti-Semitic violence are much rarer in the United
States, they are not unheard of, and are increasingly perpetrated by Muslim
youth. Nowhere in America has the resurgence of anti-Semitism more
manifested itself, sometimes thinly disguised as anti-Zionism, than on
college campuses. Anti-Jewish hate speech masquerading as anti-Zionism is
commonplace on campuses all across the United State today, and has on a
number of occasions crossed the thin line that separates free speech from
incitement. Indeed, at the present time, the campus is the most inhospitable
place for Jews and supporters of Israel in the U.S., something the national
Jewish organizations have come to recognize. Hillel, the most typical
institutional Jewish presence on America's campuses, is belatedly addressing
this by developing talking-points and backgrounders for Jewish students so
they can defend themselves against assaults on Israel and Judaism by the
growing numbers of politically active Arab and Islamist students. There is
an active movement advocating the divesting of any university assets
invested in Israel, and while it has not gained much momentum, with college
president after president bravely rejecting the idea out of hand -Israel is
not the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa - it adds to the air of
toxicity surrounding attitudes towards the Jewish state.

In May 2002, a small group of Jewish students and faculty, demonstrating on
the campus of San Francisco State University in favor of a peaceful solution
to violence in the Middle East, were surrounded by a much larger mob of
mostly Islamic students who threatened them physically and taunted them with
chants like, "Death to the Jews" and "Hitler didn't finish the job."
Eventually, the trapped Jewish students and faculty had to be escorted to
safety by the San Francisco Police. Far from mobilizing the university's
leadership to confront overt anti-Semitism, the incident was hushed up so as
not to create tension with the campus' large and militant Arab student
population.

Similar incidents, in which Jewish students and supporters of Israel have
been subjected to overt intimidation, have occurred all across the U.S. and
Canada. On the campus of Concordia University in Canada, Muslim students
forced the cancellation of a speech by former Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu by threatening organized violence.

Only a few months ago, Nathan Scharansky was hit in the face with a pie on
the campus at Rutgers, by a convenient Jewish idiot. Faculty committees
across the country have worked to ban from their campuses scholars on the
Middle East that are not deemed politically correct, Daniel Pipes being a
key example. It also appears that Senators Kennedy and Harkin, as well as
some eight other Senators, on the Committee that oversees appointments to
the U.S. Institute for Peace, regard the poor, brilliant scholar Daniel
Pipes as an unfit bigot because of his temerity to tell the truth about
Islamism. Luckily President Bush has made a recess appointment.

To date, assaults on Jews and Jewish institutions have been far fewer than
in Europe, but American Jews already live under a state of heightened
threat. A visit to New York, home to America's largest Jewish population,
provides startling and irrefutable visual evidence that Jews no longer live
in safety and security. Virtually every high-profile Jewish institution in
New York is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs from
exploding too close to the building, while being checked by security guards
and passing through metal detectors are now as routine a part of attending
synagogue services as putting on a kepah, or skullcap. The sense of Jewish
insecurity is by no means confined to New York. Throughout the country, in
communities with a substantial Muslim presence, security is now a critical
part of planning any sort of Jewish political or communal event - especially
those intended to demonstrate support for Israel. A speech by an outside
speaker known as a supporter of Israel or a critic of Islamism is sufficient
to ensure an armed police presence.

Reality is beginning to dawn on many American Jews that something is amiss,
although it still seems to be lost on some of the country's most venerable
Jewish organizations. There is a sad if also somewhat comic irony to the
fact that legions of employees at organizations like ADL, the American
Jewish Committee, and the Presidents' Conference must pass through a
gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double
bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from
radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and then
disseminating reports on the "threat" posed by Evangelical Christians or the
non-issue of Mormon conversion of dead Jews or the imaginary anti-Semitism
that "The Passion of the Christ" did not produce. Meanwhile, the legislative
affairs staffs of these same organizations are directed to lobby against the
very immigration reforms that could minimize the danger.

In recent years - particularly since Sept. 11, 2001 - Jewish organizations
have devoted increased resources and attention to the activities of radical
Islamic groups in the United States. The web sites of most major Jewish
groups are filled with alarming information about the activities of these
groups, many with documented ties to those that blow Israeli schoolchildren
to bits on buses and in pizzerias. Amazingly, however, these Jewish watchdog
organizations fail to employ the most basic logic and ask the most obvious
question: How did they get here? When will they stop kidding themselves and
simply connect the dots? Not one of these groups has even been willing to
examine the potential impact of mass immigration, including mass Muslim and
Islamist immigration, on American Jewry, much less take a position calling
for changes in U.S. immigration policy.

One of the most troubling phenomena that has been widely reported by people
such as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, and many others - including courageous
dissidents within the Muslim community - though largely ignored by the
mainstream media and the political establishment: many of the key "American"
Islamic civic and charitable institutions that have sprung up in the United
States over the past 30 years are little more than domestic incarnations of
foreign Islamist political parties. Among the primary objectives the
U.S.-based Arab and Muslim organizations are the undermining of Jewish
political influence in the United States, the propagation of anti-Semitism
and Holocaust denial, and the destruction of Israel.

Frequently masquerading as ethnic anti-discrimination organizations, such
entities as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American
Muslim Council (AMC), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), and the Islamic
Circle of North America (ICNA) are either offshoots of or maintain close
ties to some of the most radical terrorist groups round the globe. Many
"mainstream" Islamic organizations have their roots firmly planted in the
same bloody soil that spawned groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
Hezbollah, and even al-Qaeda. In addition, many American mosques, often
built, maintained and controlled with money from the fundamentalist
Saudi-based Wahabbi sect - serve as hosts to radical preachers from across
the Islamic world who manage to slip through the notoriously lax U.S. visa
issuance process. In one recent and particularly flagrant case, a mullah was
arrested in Europe after boasting of having raised $20 million for Osama bin
Laden at the El Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn.

As recently as January 12, 2004, it was reported in the New York Times that
a prominent Muslim cleric, Fawaz Mohammed Damrah, who runs the largest
mosque in Ohio, was arrested for concealing his ties to terrorist
organizations when he entered the United States 10 years ago. In the
language of the indictment, Damrah lied to immigration officials about his
active involvement in religious persecution "when in fact he had previously
incited and/or assisted others, including terrorist organizations, that
advocated the persecution of Jews and others by means of violent terrorist
attacks." It is sadly true of many mosques in the United States that the
Friday sermon is regularly used to preach the hatred of Jews. Dr. Martin
Luther King once noted that Sunday morning was the "most segregated time in
the week" in an America that has largely, thankfully, passed into history.
It might be noted that in today's America, in mosques all across the land,
Friday afternoon is the "most hateful" time of the week.

The true nature of virtually all Islamic organizations in America is
reflected by the fact that more than half of all Islamic "charities"
operating in the United States have been closed down as a result of
investigations launched after 9/11. These so-called charities, which had
operated openly with tax-exempt status, were front groups that served as
recruiting agencies and financial support mechanisms for Islamic terrorist
organizations from all over the world. In some cases, these "charities" were
found to be directly funding terrorism against Israel and compensating the
families of terrorist bombers who murdered school children, diners,
shoppers, and bus riders in Israel.

Concern over the nature and real agendas of Islamic organizations in America
is hardly a parochial Jewish matter. The Muslim terrorists on 9/11 did not
distinguish among Americans based on religion, or indeed any other factor;
they slaughtered Americans of every background, and their hatred of America
comes right behind their hatred of Jews - wherever they are found. Thus, a
seamless confluence of interests (among them simple survival) unites all
Americans - Jewish or otherwise - with regard to the danger represented by
the Muslim-Islamist presence in the United States. That this is a national
concern is made clear in a news story in the Washington Post of January 14,
which concerns a request by the Senate Finance Committee to the Internal
Revenue Service to provide it "confidential tax and financial records,
including donors lists, of dozens of Muslim charities and foundations as
part of a widening Congressional investigation into alleged ties between
tax-exempt organizations and terrorist groups." The request by the Finance
Committee comes on the heels of two-years of investigations by the Treasury
Department, the FBI, and other agencies of the federal government into
Muslim "charities" with suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

Needless to say, such Islamist organizations as CAIR (Council of American
Islamic Relations) are charging the investigators with bias and bigotry, of
conducting a "fishing expedition" into the Muslim community rather than
acknowledging that any problem exists. Among the "charities" and foundations
of principal interest to the Senate Finance Committee are: the SAAR
Foundation and associated entities; Global Relief, an organization whose
founder has been deported; as well as the largest of all Muslim "charities"
in the United States, the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development, an organization that investigators believe is tied to the
terrorist group Hamas. And it does not stop there; also under investigation
for links to Islamist terrorism are the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the
Muslim World League, and the Islamic Society of North America.

This is not the appropriate context in which to engage in a full discussion
about attitudes towards Jews in so-called classical Islam - we are focusing
on what is referred to as political Islam. But it must be pointed out, as
many of my friends and colleagues who grew up as orthodox Muslims across the
Islamic patrimony have said to me in agonizing personal confessions, friends
that went through madrassah education and then advanced learning in Islam in
countries ranging from Morocco, to Egypt, to Bosnia, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh, that it is virtually impossible to be reared in classical Islam
and not be educated to hate Jews - based on a literalist reading of the
Koran, where many of the Suras concerning Jews are monstrously hateful,
murderous, terrifying, as well as the literature of the Sunnah. These texts
also regard Jews as a spiritually fraudulent entity - all the prophets and
great figures of the Hebrew Bible, according to Islamic teaching, were
Muslims, not Jews. No wonder Yassir Arafat, and old graduate of the Egyptian
Brotherhood and far more a pan-Islamist than a Palestinian nationalist,
denies any connection between Jews and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

It is hard to hear, and extremely painful to say it, but at his historical
moment, barring an Islamic Enlightenment, arguably the only way to be a
Muslim and not a Jew-hater is to be a lapsed Muslim or - if one continues to
call oneself a Muslim and practice the faith - to conduct what is, in
essence, a private and personal "reformation" and do what no devout Muslim
would ever publicly confess: pick and choose among the content of Muslim
holy scripture, then treat the Koran as the divinely-inspired work of human
beings but not the literal word of God. This is happening everywhere, of
course, whether among more moderate Muslims in such places as Morocco,
especially among its Berbers, or among Turkish Muslims. But the act
constitutes heresy according to all leading Islamic authorities. Such
picking and choosing, leaving behind the rude and barbarous aspect of sacred
text that reflects the barbarous historical conditions of its authors, is
routine for the overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews in the world
that view the New Testament or the Hebrew Bible as the divinely-inspired
work of human beings, and thus as historically conditioned, and amenable to
interpretation, emphasis, and de-emphasis.

But the status of the Koran among devout Muslims is different than that
accorded Holy Scripture by virtually all Christians and Jews: the Koran more
closely approximates what the Eucharist represents for religious Christians:
it is the body of God, the direct word of God, and thus any interpretive
enterprise, any effort to build a community of scholarly discourse regarding
the continuing validity of outworn usages, is regarded as heretical, and
heretics are still sentenced to death in Islamic societies.

Still, many are accomplishing this hopeful version of the Greater Jihad, the
internal struggle for spiritual growth, but until religious and even secular
authorities with the Islamic patrimony publicly embrace this shift, there
will be no political counterweight to Islamism. One can only pray that in
time, what I believe to be millions of silent reformations will find their
public voice, and then there might be safety, as well as solidarity, in
numbers. As my Muslim friends that are scholars of Islam remind me, the
intellectual work of this reform was accomplished long ago - one sees it as
early as in the 8th century "heresy" committed under the early Abbasid
Caliphate that chose to view sacred text as Jews and Christians regard
theirs: not as a living incarnation of the Divine nor as a fetish, but as
the divinely inspired works of human beings, children of their time, and
subject to limited historical understanding.

The intellectual work has been accomplished long ago; Muslims know precisely
what to do. The impediment is the political power and ruthlessness of their
enemies, the capacity and willingness of their enemies to forever stunt the
growth of a great living breathing humane Islam through intimidation and
murder, an Islam that that might yet have so much to offer to the world.
Whatever the risks, these secret Muslims of the enlightenment must step
forward, ignore the charge that will be leveled against them that they are
engaging in takfir (impiety), an accusation that leads to excommunication
from Islam in the eyes of "the faithful," and save Islam from itself.

There are, of course, non-devout Muslim Americans that hail from Islamic
societies that don't support the radical agendas of those that purport to
represent their interests in the United States. Some independent Muslim
thinkers believe that such moderates form a silent majority within Islamic
America. But if such a majority exists, their silence would appear to
indicate assent rather than opposition - though it may also indicate
self-censorship out of fear of retribution. With the exception of a tiny
group of courageous American Muslims - mostly academics, journalists, and
freelance writers - who have spoken out and condemned extremism,
anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, the "Muslim Street" in the U.S. has yet
to show its disapproval of this philosophical and political agenda.

As we've intimated, one reason so few American Muslims have publicly broken
with the Islamist orthodoxy that increasingly dominates American-Muslim
communal life is because these organizations, their members and
fellow-travelers, employ physical intimidation, threats of violence,
economic pressure, and foster shunning, enforcing conformity and isolating
and destroying independent-minded Muslims. They have orchestrated fatwas by
foreign mullahs against dissident Muslim secular intellectuals who have been
forced to take refuge in safe houses; instigated death threats against such
prominent religious moderates as the Sufi leader Sheik Hisham Muhammad
Kabbani (whose movement, the Islamic Supreme Council of America, has 200
mosques); have organized boycotts against and then threatened the life of
the wife of the Muslim publisher of a critically-acclaimed newspaper dealing
with events in Pakistan; and routinely issue hysterical attacks against
books and articles (which of course go unread) or speech that deals
objectively with any aspect of Islamic history, politics, belief, or
practice.

Of course it is incomparably worse throughout the Islamic world, where
courageous independent Muslim thinkers are routinely murdered by Islamists;
their body count in only the last few decades runs into the hundreds of
thousands. This has not silenced luminaries like Mehmet Aydin in Turkey, Ali
Asghar Engineer in India; Abdel Rahman Lakassi in Morrocco, Bassam Tibi in
Germany, Rashid Ahmad Jullundri in Pakistan, or Muslim believers in
pluralism and freedom of conscience associated with the Ibn Khaldún Society
founded and led by the fearless Khalid Durán. One hopes the day will dawn
when their work and that of American-Muslim scholars like Radwan Masmoudi,
Sohail Hasmi and others will find a larger and larger audience and end the
intellectual fossilization of Islam and the war between Islam, democracy,
and pluralism. But that day lies in the distant future; our first
responsibility now is protecting America from the Islamism that produced
9/11 and targets "Jews and Crusaders."

I should note, in anticipation of the inevitable charge that I am a racist
or a xenophobe, that my dear moderate Muslim friends, many who go by the
name "Freethinkers," are equally adamant about opposing large-scale
Muslim/Islamist immigration at time when extremism is so rife among the
populations seeking entry to the United States. The adherents of those
movements pose not only a danger to the Constitutional values and democratic
pluralism they came to American to find, but they also poses a direct
physical danger to these courageous dissident Muslims. Those of us seeking
to curtail the anarchy that passes for current immigration have, and will
find, many allies among intellectuals from the Arab and larger Islamic
patrimony that wish to create a new Islam under American circumstances, and
do not wish to be stopped dead in their tracks - or shot dead - by members
of the benighted masses that enter this country, socialized only to hate
pluralism and free thought.

The Potential Loss of Political Influence
It would be an understatement to say that American Jews have achieved
unprecedented political power and influence in the United States. We have
already cited a good deal of the evidence. This power and influence stands
as testament to how successfully Jews, who represent just above 2 percent of
the U.S. population, have assimilated (in the most positive sense of that
word) into the American political, cultural, and economic mainstream. It
also stands as a tribute to the openness and the tolerance of the vast
majority of the American people who have come to accept Jews as full-fledged
Americans who happen to practice a different religion.

Living at the high noon of Jewish political power, it will strike some as
alarmist and counter-intuitive to suggest that the sky may be about to fall.
Yet that is precisely what may happen within the next 20 years. The Jewish
population of the United States is about to be eclipsed by an ethnic group
whose interests are in direct conflict with those of American Jews and many
of whose leaders and members are openly hostile to Jews. The American
constitution, the basic integrity of the vast majority of the American
population, and the professionalism of American law enforcement may militate
against the kind of anti-Semitic violence taking place in France and
elsewhere in Europe; they will at least slow down its progress. What those
two intangible attributes will not be able to prevent, however, is the loss
of political support for Israel that would doom the Jewish state to complete
political isolation.

Without minimizing the effectiveness of lobby organizations like AIPAC and
other American Jewish organization in steering U.S. foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction, it must be noted that for many years they have been
pushing on an open door. Once the old Arabist crowd at the State Department
and the several notably anti-Semitic Secretaries of State and members of the
diplomatic corps departed the scene, except for politicians on the extreme
left or right who have an ideological antipathy for Israel and are generally
unsympathetic to the Jewish community, support for Israel and high levels of
deference towards the concerns of the American-Jewish community has been a
political no-brainer. It has brought substantial benefits and no downside.

The fact is that the celebrated "Jewish lobby" won battle after battle by
simple default. A politician who supported Israel could count on the backing
of Jewish voters in his home state or district. Even if there were no Jewish
voters back home to speak of, there would always be Jewish money available
to support the campaigns of Israel's friends in Congress. The political
benefits of supporting Israel, combined with what was often a genuine
empathy for a reliable American ally and the region's only democracy, has
resulted in a U.S. foreign policy - though it has had its ups and downs -
that has generally tilted in Israel's direction for 40 years.

What's been missing from the political equation was a strong counter-veiling
force. There has never been a significant constituency that has felt as
strongly opposed to Israel as American Jews have felt in favor of Israel.
There has certainly never been an anti-Israel constituency that was
motivated enough to organize politically, form political PACs, and vote for
or against a candidate based on his or her stance on Middle East policy. Now
there is, and it is growing very rapidly and as a direct result of current
immigration policy.

According to an October, 2002, Zogby poll, half of Arab-American voters
state that Mideast policy is a "very important" consideration in determining
their vote. The feeling is most intense among the growing pool of Arab
voters who were born outside the United States, with nearly 60 percent of
that cohort assessing the Mideast conflict as "very important." The more
established, U.S.-born Arab population is heavily Christian, while Arab
immigration over the past 30 years has been predominantly Muslim. Thus, the
fastest growing segment of the Arab American electorate is the segment that
feels most intensely about and opposes U.S. policy in the Middle East. In a
report on Arab-American polling results commissioned by Abu Dhabi Television
after the 2000 elections, the Zogby Polling organization noted, "While
recent immigrant Arab-Americans, in fact, show greater intensity of concern
[about U.S. policy in the Middle East], the depth of concern of the first,
second and third generation Arab Americans is still impressive." In other
words, the Arab-American electorate is growing rapidly; the largest growth
is taking place among people who feel a deep, emotional stake in the
Arab-Israeli conflict; and the depth of that feeling remains intense even
after several generations in the United States. Additionally, Arab-American
voter participation - 62 percent in 1996, 65 percent in 2000 - is
substantially higher than that of the general population, adding even more
weight to their growing numbers.

Even after Muslims outnumber Jews in the United States, Jews are likely to
maintain a political advantage for a time by virtue of the fact that they
are well entrenched in the "old boys" network in Washington and other
centers of power. Israel will also continue to enjoy strong support from
millions of Evangelical Christians who see the Jews' return to the Holy
Land - and their continuance there - as part of the biblical prophecy that
presages the Second Coming. And not only that; the tens of thousands of
Evangelical Christians that travel regularly to Israel have also developed
warm personal relations with individual Israelis and a love for the country.
Certainly their theology is what primarily motivates them, but they also
form natural, prosaic human attachments.

The clock will eventually run out on such advantages. The fastest growing
religious group in America, Muslims are organizing politically to promote
their interests. Ironically, they often cite Jewish political organizations
as their model for wielding influence in the United States. Demography plus
money equals political power. American Jews, in a good economic year,
typically contributes about $600 million to Israel. By contrast, the Saudi
regime spends about $5 billion annually to promote "Islamization" around the
world. To further underscore the imbalance in resources, the $600 million
American Jews sent to Israel was equaled by what the Saudis spent last year
alone in Bosnia, a country of 1.5 million people. Though foreign regimes
cannot, by law, pump money into domestic U.S. political races, Saudi and
other Arab oil money can mount huge indirect campaigns aimed at influencing
U.S. public opinion and policy. Combined with a growing and highly motivated
Islamic voting bloc in the U.S., the demography + money equation will
inevitably work against strong political support for Israel.

In addition, social liberals who tend to be most supportive of open
immigration will also find that a growing, influential, and socially
conservative Muslim population is at odds with their most cherished
allegiances. Church-state separation, sacred to secular liberals, is
anathema to the Islamic clerics who run the vast majority of mosques and
religious schools in the United States. Social liberals, and no cohort in
America is more socially liberal than Jews, will also find fierce Islamist
opposition to freedom of expression, women's rights, abortion rights, and
gay rights. There is also little if any tolerance from these quarters for
speech and writings that are deemed offensive to Islam, or the Prophet. Even
if they cannot impose official censorship against blasphemers, the
experience of Salman Rushdie in Europe stands as an object lesson of the
sort of self-censorship that can occur when an offended minority group vents
its righteous indignation over words and ideas that they find highly
objectionable. The informal censorship imposed by fear of reprisal by
fanatics can be just as effective a mechanism to control free expression as
state power.

Muslim and Arab political PACs are springing up all across the country
preparing for the day when their numbers make them a force to be reckoned
with. The defeat of two strongly pro-Palestinian House members in bitterly
contested Democratic primary races in 2002 is being used as a clarion call
by Arab and Muslim American groups to redouble their political organizing
efforts. In analyzing the defeats of two black Southern Democrats, Earl
Hilliard (Alabama) and Cynthia McKinney (Georgia), James Zogby, president of
the Arab-American Institute noted that "Arab-Americans have substantial
political resources and allies and we can work to overcome the impact of
these setbacks." Prominent Arab and Muslim Americans must avoid the kind of
political "foolishness" that led a leader of the self-described "mainstream"
American Muslim Council to stand in front of the White House and declare his
support for Hamas and Hezbollah while the video cameras were rolling,
cautions Zogby. That leader, by the way, Mr. Allamoudy, is now under
indictment for laundering money for terrorist organizations.

In addition to political strength derived from their own increasing numbers,
the Arab and Palestinian cause has the backing of a coalition of aggrieved
minority groups who see themselves and Muslim Americans as victims of an
oppressive power structure. They also enjoy strong backing among foreign
policy multilateralists plus anti-globalists, like those who took to the
streets to oppose U.S. action in Iraq, who want to see international
matters - like the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict - left to bodies
like the United Nations.

Upsetting the Status Quo
There is something analogous to religious faith among American Jews in the
Constitution as the ultimate protector of our rights and security in the
United States. Certainly the Constitution is the most enlightened governing
treatise ever devised by human beings. But in the final analysis it is still
just words on a piece of paper. Many nations have had enlightened
constitutions, expressing lofty ideals and, nevertheless, turned on the Jews
and other minorities. France is the perfect example.

What sets the United States apart from other societies in which Jews live
and have lived over the centuries is the nexus between the principles
asserted in the Constitution and the American people themselves. The
protections of the Constitution would mean nothing were it not for a
population that has believed in it, bled for it, and struggled with itself
to see to it that its principles are applied to all who live in the United
States. The Constitution has made the American people what they are, but the
American people make the Constitution a living, breathing document.

American Jews have also been blessed to live in a society where the
contagion of anti-Semitism has never been as deeply rooted or as widespread
as it is in much of the rest of the world. This is attributable to many
factors, but it is primarily a tribute to the social and cultural forces
that have shaped the nation. No country has ever been completely free of
anti-Semitism, but since the middle of the 20th century, the United States
has come as close as any society ever has.

Nevertheless, change is well underway. Unceasing large-scale immigration,
unprecedented in its magnitude and duration, is in the process of reshaping
the nation. By the middle of this century, the United States will become a
nation without a majority ethnic population, a situation that is not
necessarily problematic by itself, though it will undoubtedly represent a
challenge to social cohesion. Infinitely more worrying, strong multicultural
forces are simultaneously deconstructing in theory and in fact the ideal and
reality of a dominant, common culture, one that links Americans of all
racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. During this volatile
transformation period, the balance between group identity and a larger sense
of national belonging has swung decidedly in the direction of tribal
identity among many new immigrants. Many of these new cultures being
introduced to the multicultural "salad bowl" harbor long traditions of
anti-Semitism, and in the case of Muslims, are in direct conflict with Jews
over issues that command the deepest emotional allegiances of both
communities.

Perhaps this prognosis is too gloomy and it will all work itself out for the
best in the end. Perhaps the assimilative forces that liberated last century's
European immigrants from their deeply rooted anti-Semitic prejudices will
succeed in tempering the animosity of Muslim and Latin-Catholic immigrants.
But if American Jewish leaders are going to continue to support this sort of
mass immigration, or at least tacitly accept it, they must understand and
honestly acknowledge the risks. And they must stop acting like ghetto Jews
and confront the dangers of Islamism in this country openly and with
confidence. They will find their concerns, as well as their well-being, are
supported by the great majority of Americans. They can and should have
greater confidence in their Christian neighbors.

Should the day come when Jews find themselves disempowered, vulnerable, and
threatened 20 or 30 years from now in a very different America, the one
thing Jewish leaders as well as ordinary American Jews must never be allowed
to say is, "We didn't see it coming." The historical record of America's
major Jewish organizations in confronting the rise of Hitler and the
Holocaust is cause for shame; at the very least it is cause for a
considerable measure of humility and a far greater willingness to
re-evaluate long-held positions in the face of new realities.

Two stories from those terrible years suffice: in the summer of 1939, when
the St. Louis stood offshore with its desperate cargo of German-Jewish
refugees, symbolizing for all the world the plight of Jews seeking to escape
the devouring maw of Nazism, the American Jewish Committee was unable to
assemble its Executive Board to meet because the members could not be
troubled to interrupt their summer vacations. Then there was the celebrated
meeting of Jan Karski, the heroic Polish Christian officer and courier of
the Home Army (Armija Krajowka) who had been twice smuggled into the Warsaw
Ghetto, as well as the Majdanek Concentration Camp so he could see with his
own eyes and record with precision for posterity the annihilation of the
Jews of Poland, risking only his own life in doing this, but also that of
his entire family.

Those who have seen Claude Lanzmann's magisterial documentary film Shoah
will recall the elderly Karski in the film's opening sequences, a man so
overwhelmed with pain and recalled agony he can barely speak. He relates his
meeting with F.D.R. who could not be made to show the least interest in the
terrible, earth-shattering message he was bringing back from hell to the
"normal" world. What is less well-known is his equally ill-fated attempt to
deliver his message to the most prominent court Jew of the day, Supreme
Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. When Karski completed his long narrative of
what he had seen, one filled with carefully observed details in which he
concentrated on fact after fact in order not to be accused of seeking to
overwhelm with emotion, Justice Frankfurter turned to him and said, "Sir, I
do not believe a single word you are telling me."

Today's leaders of those same organizations should humbly recall this vast
historic catastrophe - as well as the total and utter failure of their
predecessors as guardians of the Jewish people - as they look at this issue,
consider the future, and ponder the choices they can evade no longer.


Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight is a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
He is also currently a Fellow at Timothy Dwight College, Yale University.
For more than six years he was the Director of National Affairs at the
American Jewish Committee and for two years served as a Senior Fellow at the
AJC. Mr. Steinlight is co-editor of Fractious Nation: Race, Class and
Culture in America at the End of the Twentieth Century,(UC Berkeley Press).
Stuart Jackson
2007-09-07 07:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Post by Doug
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Europe will become Islamic.
This is true, thanks mostly to far-left Marxists jews who are steering
Europe towards this demographic shift with liberal immigration
policies. These leftists don't care one bit about Muslims, they only
see them as a Western wrecking agent (ie. WASP wreckers).
The jews want an islamic state? LOL! YEAH, they want to annihilate
themselves!
I doubt they expected it to lead to that.
Post by Doug
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Tani Jantsang ©
Jewish organizations did do what MaDonald said they did, and they don't deny
it. Prof. Steinlight, who is Jewish and an activist, is addressing the
moves they made and trying to get them to see how this is horribly
backfiring.
I once drove by a Synogogue in Los Angeles and it got blasted by the
18th street Mexican gang. I mean blasted with graffiti, really bad.
The gang markings of, "XVIII" were everywhere on the exterior church
walls, doors, and the entire surrounding neighborhood. I kind of
laughed though and thought, "hey jews, this is what you wanted, how do
you like it now??"
Steinlight addresses this.
Post by Doug
The one in Boyle Heights? It's funny but 60 years ago Boyle HEights
was a nice Jewish community. I could've walked thru BOyle Heights
60 years ago w/a US flag held high and never had to worry about it,
why don't YOU try that NOW and tell me it's better.
I've never heard of any Jewish street gangs either.
Anyone who's afraid of the jews should take a walk through Santa Ana,
CA; Boyle Heights, CA; or E. LA, CA on a Friday or Saturday night. Make
sure to carry a US flag.
Read Steinlight's letter to his fellow Jews in those organizations.
I'll repost it. It's worth downloading, keeping and printing out to read.
It's a gem.
High Noon to Midnight
Does Current Immigration Policy
Doom American Jewry?
Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight
(extended version)
Among the articles of faith in the slowly waning culture of secular
liberalism that have passed for and often served as a substitute, ersatz
religion for many mainstream American Jews, the most vulnerable tenet at
present is belief in "generous legal immigration," the euphemism for
open-borders immigration in the policy lexicon of the national
American-Jewish public affairs agencies. This is not to accuse them of
out-and-out double-talk and hypocrisy so much as engaging in intellectual
and moral trimming, followed by self-deception and denial. Having repeatedly
failed to persuade the National Immigration Forum, to which virtually all
belong, to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, they took the
path of least resistance and chose to remain in any case, made their peace,
lowered their eyes, and convinced themselves they could get away with
blurring the distinction between illusion and reality.
That they continue to pay lip-service to a bogus totem and equivocate about
an issue of enormous importance is not only deplorable as a matter of
principle, it is also increasingly untenable as a matter of policy: it puts
them fundamentally at odds with their own long-term institutional values and
interests, undermines the position of the American-Jewish community, and,
what's more, greater and greater numbers of American Jews from the
leadership on down see the sophistry for the transparent charade it is.
Survey research, plus a weight of anecdotal evidence, reveals a significant
change in attitudes among American Jews at the grassroots level, with a
plurality in public opinion polls taken in the two years following 9/11
favoring lowered immigration and some 70 percent the introduction of a
secure national identity card.
While the same survey conducted in the last year by Market Facts Inc. - the
findings were released many months ago - indicate some slippage backwards
towards traditional opinion (old habits die hard and the impact of 9/11 may
already have started to lessen), with 15 percent favoring increased
immigration, 43 percent believing it should remain the same, and 41 percent
wanting it lowered, the same survey revealed that some 55 percent believe
that Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States.
Given a barrage of media attention to Islamic anti-Semitism over the past
two years this is an extraordinarily low statistic, and a finding is worth
pausing over. It is only explicable in light of the Jewish obsession with
appearing tolerant towards groups perceived as "Other" by the dominant
culture, especially non-whites and non-Christians. Many are loath to see
Muslims as antagonists, despite evidence of pervasive virulent Islamic
anti-Semitism. Had the same question been asked of virtually any other group
in America regarding which population most hates Jews, far higher
percentages surely would have identified Muslims. One hopes it will not
require another act of major domestic terrorism to cause the same
respondents to draw the appropriate cause-and-effect connections; bolder,
more concerted efforts of the ground, including advertising in the Jewish
and secular press, can accomplish this end, as would the founding of an
entity specifically devoted to awaking America's Jews to the danger.
My experience on the ground in congregations across America shows that very
few Jews possess anything remotely resembling knowledge and understanding of
the history of Jewish immigration itself, immigration policy, including the
scale of current immigration or the engines that drive it, and frequently
all that is required to effect enormous changes in attitude is to apprise
them of data that is indisputable. Simple facts can prove transformative.
When I began my efforts at the grassroots level, the Jewish media spoke of
attitudes within the American-Jewish community as "monolithic" in support of
open-borders immigration. Now it is commonplace to describe the situation as
one in which "a raging debate is going on" (I quote the Forward). If so much
could have been accomplished principally by one individual with occasional
support by others, it is clear what an ambitious, concerted effort might
achieve. Opinion regarding this issue is volatile, based on little other
than nostalgia, and up for grabs. One can not undo the sentimental
attachments of decades or belief in powerful mythologies at one stroke; but
they can be shaken and unhinged by concerted, continuing effort, and
significant enough numbers can be detached from this loyalty to make a
political difference. Perhaps most important, among the community's
organizational leadership enthusiasm for this dangerous anachronism is a
mile wide and an inch deep.
It should be noted for the historical record that my doubts about open
borders had their origins in the powerful misgivings about it expressed by
my beloved mentor at the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Sam Rabinove of
blessed memory, AJC's Legal Director of many years and one of the giants in
the court struggles of the Civil Rights era (his amicus in Bakke was one of
the most widely-cited in the Justices' decisions), as well as the conscience
of that agency, not to mention one of the most respected figures working in
Jewish organizational life in the 20th century. In those days a
dyed-in-the-wool left/liberal, I was taken by surprise by Sam's repeated
expressions of anguish and disgust over the intellectual dishonesty of
Jewish organizations' remaining in the National Immigration Forum, knowing
what they all know about that organization's naked identity politics, its
contempt for the rule of law, and its visceral anti-Americanism. On one
memorable occasion as we left a meeting of the National Immigration Forum,
Sam turned to me with and said, "What on earth are we doing here?"
Among Jewish leadership, the inevitable collision between allegiance to
received opinion and the recognition of hard urgent new realities had begun,
if sotto voce, before 9/11, but that tremendum greatly accelerated the
process by revealing in the most terrible way the nexus between the anarchy
that has passed for immigration policy and immigration law enforcement and
the savage assault on the innocent lives and national security of the
American people. Much has occurred in its wake to drive the point home about
the dangers Jews and all Americans face. In the wake of 9/11 came the war
against Islamist terror that began in earnest in Afghanistan and continued
with the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein and the ongoing struggle
in that fractious "country" at nation-building. All the while, major news
story after news story has covered the radical upsurge of anti-Semitism in
the Muslim world (President Mahathir Muhammad's speech at the Islamic
summit, one that might have been ghost-written by Joseph Goebbels or even,
as Omer Bartov has pointed out, Adolph Hitler himself, left a searing
impression (as did the standing ovation it received from 57 leaders of
Muslim states, in addition to President Putin), as have the crazed
maunderings of Osama bin Laden and countless fanatical mullahs about Jews
and Crusaders. Significant attention in both the secular and Jewish press
has highlighted the extraordinary hostility to Jews and Israel within the
leadership and citizenry of the European Union, and there has been almost
continuous treatment of the emergence of the "New Anti-Semitism." Given all
this - plus the hatred of Jews manifested in such individual cases as the
brutal and richly symbolic murders of Daniel Peal and Nick Berg; or in the
terrorists attacks aimed at the residual Jewish presence in the Islamic
patrimony such as the bombings of synagogues in Morocco, Tunisia, and
Turkey; the multiple ongoing investigations into the connections of American
Islamic "charities," national organizations and leaders (including some that
Jews obsessed with dialogue briefly helped legitimate) to Jihadist
anti-Semitic and anti-Israel terrorist groups - it has become very difficult
to remain simultaneously credible and in a state of total denial.
"Facts are such horrid things," says Lady Susan at the close of the
epistolary novel that bears her name, Jane Austen's first published fiction.
Or, to borrow Milton Himmelfarb's famous formulation about the origins of
neo-conservatism, the American-Jewish community has been "mugged by
reality." In the contest between adhesion to a sentimental archaism and
existential horror, only those willing to be perceived as purblind or
suicidal do not eventually adjust to facts.
Thus, behind closed doors, Jewish leaders speak a very different language
than in public. This is not entirely new with regard to immigration policy,
but the disconnection between appearance and reality is much sharper now; it
constitutes a veritable chasm. In private, they express grave concern that
current immigration policy will prove politically and existentially ruinous
to the American-Jewish community, as it has for the Jews of France and will
inevitably for the Jews of Britain, indeed, throughout Western Europe. There
is particular fear about the impact on Jewish life and security, as well as
American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim community in
the United States, fueled almost entirely by current immigration policy
(conversion to Islam plays a role as well, but as a cause of concern it is a
distant second - except where shifting terrorist tactics are concerned.)
At the conclusion of many meetings with Jewish national leaders most have
told me, several using the identical formulation, "You are 1000 percent
right, but I can't go out and say it yet." While they have not yet found the
civic courage to break with the traditional consensus - an act they know
will jeopardize what remains of the unity of the old liberal coalition,
create tensions with the Latino groups they are assiduously courting, as
well as set them at odds with much of their rank and file, including some of
their strongest supporters and biggest donors - they can see the Rubicon
glinting in the distance, and many recognize that eventually they will have
to cross it.
My personal experience of more than two years' speaking on behalf of
immigration reform as a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies, to
overwhelmingly sympathetic, often packed audiences at dozens of
congregations across the country - yes, with occasional, strong, even
vitriolic dissent, including some from big shots and fat cats (I have,
albeit infrequently, been called a racist and likened to David Duke) - as
well in closed-door, off-the-record meetings with Jewish leadership at the
highest levels in New York and in Washington confirms these are the
ascending trends. Though my experience falls into that category we
denominate "anecdotal evidence," the fact is that I have spoken with more
grassroots Jews about immigration policy than any other person in the United
States. That there will be - as survey research consistently reflects - a
lag time between people's intellectual shifts and their emotional capacity
to register it, speak it aloud and act on it - sooner or later, the two will
become congruent.
The typical congregant at any one of the dozens of synagogues I have visited
across America, frequently being invited as a "scholar-in-residence,"
staying for a full weekend and thus having the opportunity to gain a firmer
handle on what's going on, is thrilled to hear a voice speaking from the
podium in the sanctuary that is not mumbling political correctness, and that
is prepared to say aloud what the great majority already think - but has yet
to find the full confidence to speak.
This is not to say change will come quickly or painlessly. While virtually
all the rabbis in the dozens of congregations where I've spoken have
generously - and often courageously - made a point of agreeing with me in
public and affirming their support of my views - and thus breaking with the
policy line of their denomination as well as what one might have assumed was
communal orthodoxy among their flocks - I have been bitterly attacked by a
handful of die-hard leftists in the pulpit. Some see themselves not as my
hosts but as my debating partners. There is and will be also strong
resistance from many quarters in the organized community, not least of all
from the professional domestic affairs staff of national Jewish
organizations, a group that can be reliably counted upon to be far to the
political left of the executive and lay leadership, whom they are adept at
misleading and sabotaging.
There is special cause for concern about staff manipulation in those
organizations that nominally grant lay leadership wide discretion in
decision-making on policy while, in fact, professional staff effectively
retains it, controlling debate by subtlety limiting options within internal
discussion, card-stacking the evidence in the preparation of background
materials, and having more "expertise" and thus intellectual authority than
the membership. This tendency for staff to overstep its position, monitor,
and even play the role of control officers for the executive and lay
leadership will become stronger as the Jewish community increasingly
questions its automatic support for the Democratic Party and its candidates,
a process that may well reach a watershed with the upcoming Presidential
race. It is not beyond possibility that the President, who received a scant
17 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, may conceivably garner 30-40 percent
of it this time around. While it is by no means clear this will come to
pass - Jewish support for Democratic candidates is tenacious and opinion
polls suspect - a shift of this magnitude is not impossible and it might
even influence the outcome in such crucial swing states such as Florida,
Ohio, and Missouri.
The most telling piece of evidence of the stubbornness of Jewish
organizational adhesion to the open borders camp, perhaps the staff/lay
dynamic described above, as well as tenacious organizational maintenance of
the status quo in the face of accumulating evidence of dissent in the ranks,
is the letter sent by eleven Jewish national organizations to members of the
Senate as recently as May 28, 2004. The letter seeks "immigration reform"
(read amnesty) that would make conditions easier for illegal aliens by the
passage of legislation to "address immigration issues, including bills to
aid farm workers immigration needs and ease education burdens for
undocumented immigrant students." Thus, at the top of the communal pyramid
all would appear unchanged, but the base is increasingly restive. For the
time being - indeed for as long as it is tenable - the propensity among
leadership will be to circle the wagons and reaffirm the traditional
position, hoping the mere organizational line-up will overawe the
opposition; the reasoning is as understandable institutionally as it is
shortsighted as a matter of policy.
The issue of immigration remains bitterly divisive among Jews, and which
organization welcomes costly internal strife? At a luncheon several months
ago following an address at one of New York City's wealthiest and most
prominent synagogues, board members clashed head-on and savagely over my
presentation, with the president of the congregation, one of those who
accused me of being a racist, being attacked by a senior board member as
being "the kind of Jew that sold out others to the Nazis." The atmosphere
was electric, and the dense toxicity that enveloped that room during the
supremely uncivil "discussion" about my remarks might have been cut with an
axe. Important segments of the leadership remain true believers in the dying
faith, and will not give it up without a fight. But that change is
inevitable is clear enough. The question, ultimately, is whether it will
come too late to make a difference to the future of America and its Jewish
community.
Though it will prove wrenching - philosophically and spiritually - to break
with the old consensus, so wrenching many are effectively paralyzed by the
very prospect right now, it must surely concentrate their minds wonderfully
to know that continuing to uphold it endangers the values, power, interests,
and perhaps even long-term viability of the community whose protection is
their raison d'être, a criticism they are beginning to hear from a rising
chorus within it. In their heart of hearts they recognize they risk a harsh
judgment by history as those responsible for "losing America," just as their
predecessors have been rightly pilloried for their failure to do more to
save European Jewry in the years leading up to and during the Holocaust.
American-Jewish leadership is understandably at sea and agonized,
experiencing profound vertigo as it seeks to chart a course within a reality
that would appear to make sense only to a schizophrenic.
Fading Anti-Semitism
On one hand, the Jewish organizational leadership cadre holds influential
positions within a community that feels a sense of belonging and inclusion
unknown in the 2000-year history of Diaspora Jewry, as well as justifiable
pride and not inconsiderable complacency stemming from the position it has
achieved within American society. The American-Jewish community has attained
success and acceptance beyond their forebear's fondest dreams. Though only a
small minority within the United States, American Jews are influential far
beyond their miniscule percentage of the population. Not only are they, per
capita, among the wealthiest and best educated of Americans, but they also
hold significant political power as well as cultural influence. Nearly half
the money spent in the presidential primaries in the Democratic Party comes
from Jewish contributors, and in recent years Jewish presence at the highest
levels of government has become routine. A majority of the cabinet members
in the Clinton administration were Jews, and while there are none in the
Bush cabinet, Jewish political advisors play key roles in national security,
foreign, and military affairs. Had Al Gore become President, an Orthodox Jew
would have been a heart-beat away from the nation's highest office. In the
upcoming Presidential election, if Senator Kerry wins, he will be the first
chief executive with Jewish roots. Jews are concentrated in states with the
highest votes in the Electoral College, and they vote at a higher rate than
any other group of Americans, amortizing their otherwise limited demographic
presence.
To repeat some of the well-known indicators of the Jewish community's
success, ten per-cent of the Unites States Senate is Jewish. Currently, the
majority of the presidents at Ivy League universities are Jews, and
faculties and student bodies at elite colleges and universities are
typically 30-40 percent Jewish, often constituting a plurality at these
institutions. Jews continue to form a high percentage of the membership in
the learned professions (law, medicine, academia, scientific research) and
among the chattering classes, i.e., among writers, journalists, and
publishers of some of the nation's leading national newspapers and
periodicals, and as creators and disseminators of both high and popular
culture. Though not necessarily representing Jewish interests or values,
American Jews play the predominant role in Hollywood (nearly 70 percent of
movie and TV producers and directors are Jewish), and thus shape much of the
popular imagery central to the national life. Jews also hold key positions
within many leading financial institutions in the country, especially within
investment banking and the brokerage industry.
The principal cause, as well as a symptom of these successes, anti-Semitism
has fallen to historic lows among the white Christians that still form
America's dominant cultural group; indeed what was once a significant factor
in mainstream American life is now, at most, a peripheral phenomenon. A
recent ADL study found that only some 12 percent of white Christian
Americans hold anti-Semitic attitudes; this represents a 50-percent drop
over just the past 30 years. Indeed, one of the leading factors contributing
to the crisis in Jewish continuity is the fact that our neighbors like us,
are prepared and often eager to marry us and have children with us. It's
important to emphasize this as Jews often find it hard to hear good news,
even as their leadership is often capable of suppressing bad news, at least
when it comes from politically correct quarters. Among the more significant
examples of the "bad news" is that survey research has consistently shown
high levels of anti-Semitism among Latinos, with percentages in the
neighborhood of 47 percent holding hostile attitudes towards Jews. Moreover,
this finding has remained stubbornly constant. It is cited in the major
survey of inter-group attitudes Taking America's Pulse conducted by the
National Conference of Christians and Jews in 1992 and again in a recent
study sponsored by the ADL.
A risible but interesting indicator of how marginal anti-Semitism has become
within the dominant culture is how candidate after candidate for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination is "discovering" his Jewish
roots, or, if he is not so lucky to have any, emphasizes the fact that his
wife or wife and children are Jewish. In an earlier America, these candidate's
forebears thought it prudent to conceal their Judaism by changing their
names or converting to Christianity; their descendants now see a distinct
advantage in flaunting what their antecedents sought to hide.
Having cited these examples of the success of the American-Jewish community,
one feels compelled to add a caveat to anticipate the responses such
observations invariably elicit from anti-Semites and other neo-Nazis,
fascists, paranoiac Jew-haters, fanatic Latino nationalists, and Islamist
crazies, as well as from such protean political curiosities as Michael Lind,
an often interesting political analyst who unfortunately appears to have an
unhealthy fixation with Jews. The last thing one wishes to do is provide
this ilk further "evidence" to justify their hatred of or distaste for the
American-Jewish community. When I discussed the admirable situation of the
America's Jews in my first CIS Backgrounder in 2001, this crowd chose to
view my open avowals of the self-evident either as a rare glimpse into the
arcane secret workings of the vast Jewish conspiracy, or saw their nutty,
hair-brained analyses as having "outed" one of the key conspirators. In what
constitutes a classic case of unconscious humor, they acted as if they were
sleuths who had uncovered what I freely offered. (David Duke described me as
"one of the most powerful Jews in America," an assessment I wish had been
shared by my former employers at the American Jewish Committee, and one I
would gladly have shared with my mother had the source not been so
scabrous.)
Perhaps most bizarre, Michael Lind feigned shock and dismay that the Jewish
community uses its economic position and resources to advance its political
agenda, sounding like nothing so much as the outraged, newly arrived virgin
in the whorehouse, a stock character in Western comedy since Roman times.
One would have thought the connection between money and political power had
never been previously explored; but one doesn't need to know the work of Sir
Lewis Namier: all that's needed is what one famous tabloid calls an
inquiring mind. No, Virginia, there is no conspiracy, and I am not, sad to
say, "One of the most powerful Jews in America." Rather, valuing hard work
and education, with an accumulated store of inventiveness and intellectual
energy maintained, indeed hoarded, within the stifling and oppressive
confines of the largely ghettoized European societies which they abandoned
or fled, with a facility for languages and cultural adaptability that their
historical condition had forced upon them, free to advance within a society
which became increasingly meritocratic as well as one in which anti-Semitism
yielded quickly to tolerance and then full inclusion, Jews have achieved the
American Dream by fair means. That the American Jewish community should be
concerned, perhaps more than most others, with gaining and maintaining
political influence and access should come as a surprise to no one that
understands that powerlessness was key to the annihilation of a third of
world Jewry in living memory.
Romanticized Image of Immigration
Yet for all its accumulated historical consciousness and above-average
political acuity, the American-Jewish community, like any other, believes in
myths, and these die slowly because they represent enduring values and
ideals, not realities. The meaning and power of any myth does not derive
from its demonstrability as fact, and the mythopoeiac power of the immigrant
experience among American Jews will lose force only slowly. Of all the
pieces of Americana that most middle-aged American Jews, at least, know by
heart, one of the best known and most-cherished is that verse from the
well-known poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me
your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ."
That poem was written, of course, by a Jewish schoolgirl poet in New York in
response to the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia. For more than a
century it has given expression to a highly romanticized image of the
immigrant experience in America, one that has become iconic and
all-encompassing despite its decided irrelevance to much it purports to
represent. This quote has a great deal to do with refugees and asylum
seekers, and they and the policy universe to which they belong are separate
and distinct from that of immigrants and immigration policy per se. If
American Jews are going to get this issue right, they need to disaggregate
the two, something many Jews have failed to do intellectually or
emotionally. For the truth is that Jewish immigrant experience far more
closely parallels the experience of refugees and asylum seekers than typical
immigrants - then or now. Jews have reason to get misty-eyed about what the
Statue of Liberty stands for, but the same is not quite the case for the
vast majority of immigrants who passed beneath it on their way to Ellis
Island.
No group has ever exemplified, revered, and clung to this romanticized
notion of immigration to the United States as much as the Jews who landed
here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and their descendants. My own
forebears did not come on the Mayflower, nor were they among the small group
of Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam aboard the St. Katerina from Recife,
Brazil, 350 years ago and remained, the New World's first permanent Jewish
pilgrims. I'm a first-generation American. My father fled the pogroms that
swept the Russian Empire during the Civil War that followed the Bolshevik
Revolution. He was born in a small village in Ukraine outside Kiev, a city
that was Judenrein by law; my maternal grandmother and her family had
arrived some years earlier from Riga, Latvia.
Given the horror that engulfed those Jews that remained in Europe -
including the many who might have been saved had the United States not
substantially closed its doors to immigration in 1924 and slammed them shut
entirely on Jews fleeing Nazism and the Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s -
the utter abandonment of the Jews by the Western democracies will resonate
forever deeply within the consciousness of every self-identifying Jew, and
particularly America's grudging acceptance of a mere 1,500 refugees who were
interned in Camp Oswego in Upstate New York - it is fair to say that no
immigrant group has appreciated the blessings of being immigrants to America
more than Jews. Against this backdrop, American Jews must now contend with
one of the most intellectually and emotionally anguishing questions that has
arisen in the entirety of their history in the United States: whether to
support the continuation of the current great wave of immigration, though a
more accurate metaphor for what is taking place now would be that of a
continuous, pounding surf than a wave, that has now reached an historically
unprecedented level, or exercise their still considerable political and
economic clout to seek to curtail the current record influx.
With approximately 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants entering and
settling annually - by far the greatest number illegal - roughly equivalent
to the population of Philadelphia - the United States now has the highest
number of foreign-born residents in its history. As a percentage of the
total population, the 32 million foreign-born, being strengthened
continuously, are fast approaching and will soon surpass a level not seen
since the first decade of the 20th century, and will in only a few years
constitute the largest percentage of foreign-born residents in the nation's
history.
For American Jewry, the debate over immigration is a classic confrontation
between the heart and head, nostalgia and foresight, illusion and reality.
In their gut, many American Jews feel that substantially reducing the level
of immigration betrays the legacy of their parents and grandparents. There
is a strong communal aversion to the notion of kicking the hands on the rung
of the social ladder beneath your own. But a growing number have reached the
conclusion that to continue along these lines betrays their children and
grandchildren. The danger arises because mass immigration is conterminous
with the importation of mass anti-Semitism. It's no accident that the rise
of widespread and increasingly violent anti-Semitism in Western Europe and,
to this point at a far lower level in America, tracks perfectly with mass
immigration, especially that of Muslims. Mass immigration also tracks with,
indeed, is the ultimate generator of, Balkanizing notions of extreme
multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was not invented on some particularly benighted college
campus; nor did it fall from the sky: it is the direct outgrowth of the kind
of mass, uncontrolled immigration the United States has been experiencing
for decades. Having worked for more nearly a century through its communal
organizations and in the context of inter-faith encounters to achieve an
America largely free of anti-Semitism, it is difficult for American Jews to
sit back and watch mass immigration, most of it the consequence of the
wholesale violation of the rule of law, reverse that outcome.
However uncomfortable it is to grapple with the issue of immigration policy,
both as Jews and as Americans, it is a political question American Jews
cannot avoid. More than any other group of Americans, Jews have most at
stake in how this policy plays out in the coming years. Perhaps
counter-intuitively but right on the target, the immigration reform movement
sees American Jews with their significant political power, wealth,
substantial presence in the media and among opinion-makers to be the group
that may have the capacity to break this conspiracy of silence in a society
where issues of nationhood, sovereignty, race, ethnicity, and culture are
infinitely more indelicate to speak of than sex.
That conspiracy is maintained by a curious alliance among the leadership of
the major political parties, the ethnic lobbies, and Big Business. This
conspiracy sees to it that despite that fact that every survey shows HUGE
majorities of Americans favoring an outright moratorium on immigration -
differing only whether the moratorium should be for five years or for 10 -
their opinion does not register. Why not? The answer lies in who controls
public policy debates in America. These "debates," or, in this case, the
lack of any genuine debate, is the result of a distorted, skewed,
manipulated process dominated by those with the most to gain immediately and
palpably, financially and personally, with respect to any given issue.
Clearly, any alien, especially one from the Third World, experiences an
incalculable gain upon entering the United States. The worker from Mexico
that made five dollars a day will now make five dollars an hour. The ethnic
lobbies that purport to speak on his behalf also gain by the appearance and
often reality of a growing constituency. As do the employers of "cheap"
immigrant labor - cheap for them, of course, though not for the American
taxpayer, for whom this scenario represents the obverse of a "win/win"
situation.
It's been estimated that over the course of a lifetime, a typical illegal
alien in California will use more than $75,000 in public services than he
will ever pay in taxes. The education of the children of illegal aliens, the
cost of the emergency medical services and healthcare they most typically
use (the most expensive in a costly market), as well as the cost of a host
of other direct and indirect services from which they benefit are paid for
by the taxes of the American people. Similarly, the wages of American
workers earning at the bottom third of the workforce have fallen by some 7
percent in a decade as a direct result of competition from illegal aliens.
Still, the immediate tangible losses suffered by the average American
citizens are not felt to be nearly commensurate with the very tangible and
enormous material benefits gained by illegal aliens, their employers, and
their self-appointed parasitic "representatives."
Not a Right/Left Contest
Perhaps there's a politically useful silk purse in this sow's ear for those
of us seeking immigration reform and converts to the cause among
ever-over-anxious, too-eager to-be-loved and not-to-offend, politically
progressive and socially liberal American Jews. The news that the battle
over immigration is not a rightwing vs. leftwing battle tends to salve their
consciences as they pursue their rational self-interests and those of
America as a whole. It's always a help to remind audiences at a synagogue
event that the strongest proponents of open-borders immigration are the Wall
Street Journal and the Chambers of Commerce. And why, pray, is this so, I
regularly ask? Is it because the employers of sweated labor are in love with
the gorgeous mosaic of ethnic diversity? It doesn't take much to convince a
largely liberal constituency the cause is greed, the desire for an unending
supply of cheap labor to exploit in order to engorge their profits in the
service sector and agro-business and depress wages across the board, all the
while caring not a whit for any other consideration, whether political,
cultural, or environmental. Among the considerations to be thrown overboard
include American political democracy, including fundamental Constitutional
principles, such as the bedrock concept of the nation state as comprised of
a cohesive citizenry expressing its political will through democratic
processes.
President Bush's proposal for "immigration reform," a disgraceful fraud
that, if passed, will effectively amnesty some 10-15 million illegal aliens
by transforming them into wage slaves, members of a new legal permanent
underclass of Guest Workers in America - a policy idea that is an affront to
the deepest ideals and values of American political and social culture from
the Founders on, as well as constituting the death-knell of the American
Dream of immigrant inclusion, upward mobility, and naturalization - will
make it far easier to persuade Jewish progressives that open-borders
immigration is not a cause that should continue to enlist their support. The
transparency of the attempt to label this cynical, socially reactionary,
money-grubbing ploy as an instance of "Compassionate Conservatism" is not
selling well. Coming as it did, on the heels of Bush's memo circulated by
his Labor Department telling employers how they can avoid paying workers
overtime, it is clear this represents nothing less than a massive assault on
the American middle class in the interest of the wealthiest of the wealthy,
as well as smarmy, lame-brained, ineffectual election-year pandering to the
Latino lobby. It is also not lost on many American Jews - and we will keep
it in the forefront of their consciousness of those that need reminding -
that this amnesty will legalize the presence in the United States of what is
estimated to be some 300,000 individuals from countries on the terrorist
watch list! Given the President's current low ratings in the polls, as well
as greatly heightened concerns around domestic security - concern likely to
be significantly amplified by the report of the 9/11 Commission, it is
unlikely he will wage a full-court press on behalf of this unpopular plan.
According to a recent ABC news poll, more than half of Americans aren't
buying this attempted legislative murder of the American Dream, and
recognize the cynical sham it for what it is: by a 2-1 majority they see it
as an assault on the dignity and interests of American labor, as nothing
more than a strategy to drive down wages. This survey also shows that
support for real immigration reform is the ascendant trend; a similar survey
conducted in 2000 showed Americans split on this issue; now a solid majority
stands in opposition. Opposition is also broad and cuts across the spectrum,
uniting political opponents. The Bush proposal - that guarantees the
indentured servants legal status for only three years - has already been
opposed by the National Council of La Raza for failing to provide illegal
aliens everything as part of its strategy goal of political and demographic
Reconquista; it is opposed by the AFL-CIO; it was even attacked by Governor
Howard Dean during his failed race for the Democratic nomination (at only
one press conference, however: at least his opportunistic populist political
instincts saw opposition to this scheme as a winner); and by moderates and
conservatives that are appalled by this surrender to and complicity in the
wholesale violation of American law - one that will prove a powerful
stimulus to further massive violation of law as such law-breaking is seen to
carry rewards rather than consequence. And, of course, despite the
assurances that these recipients of "compassionate conservatism" will go
home after three years of being exploited, the example of Western Europe
over the past thirty years tells us something quite different: guest workers
never go home; they disappear into a society that seemingly has no means of
keeping track of any one.
It is also being denounced by principled Americans of all political stripes
that see this proposal for the enormous danger it constitutes to fundamental
American principles: if enacted, Bush's scheme would, at a stroke, transform
the United States of America to the best approximation the modern world has
ever known of the democratic ideal represented by the Athens of Pericles
into Sparta, a hierarchical state with rigid social distinctions carried on
the backs of a class of helots. Should this proposal be enacted into law,
writers and poets should begin composing epitaphs for the American Dream.
The great majority at any gathering are also horrified to learn that in many
states illegal aliens are voting, in direct contravention of the
Constitution of the United States. These are citizens of foreign countries,
in most case of Mexico, who obtain drivers' licenses and have thus passed
what now constitutes the ultimate test of inclusion: a driver's license.
That they have no loyalty to the United States, sense of belonging to the
American nation, or evince no desire to naturalize are seen as mere
formalities by those in positions of power willing to wink at this outrage.
If you have a driver's license you can vote; it's just that simple. And as a
direct result the American people are losing control over the destiny of
their own country, at the same time that the ideal of membership and
inclusion have been cheapened, sold to the lowest bidder.
The Demographic Handwriting is on the Wall
Of the manifold concerns about current immigration policy felt by all
Americans and American Jews in particular, none is more disturbing than the
manner in which it fuels Muslim immigration, making Islam the fastest
growing religion in the country, forming an expanding anti-Israel and
anti-Semitic constituency, and providing an ever-expanding sea in which
terrorist fish swim undetected. The lead article in the May 14, 2003 edition
of the Toronto Globe & Mail announced that Muslims now outnumber Jews in
Canada. It noted that this dramatic demographic shift "could ultimately
affect [Canada's] position toward the protracted Middle East conflict." The
good news is that Canada is hardly a major player on the geopolitical stage.
But what happened there in just the past decade should concern the 5.3
million Jews who live south of the 54th Parallel, as well as those who chart
Israel's course in the halls of the Knesset.
Muslim ascendancy in Canada is a harbinger of things to come in the United
States, with potentially enormous impact for both American Jewry and
American foreign policy. According to the 1991 Canadian Census, there were
25 percent more Jews in Canada than Muslims. Within a single decade that
demographic advantage was obliterated. According to the 2001 census, the
Muslim population of Canada exceeded the Jewish population by 75 percent.
Only recently news stories on CNN and ABC News reported a doubling of the
Arab population in the U.S. in just two decades. Both news outlets suggest
the number of Arabs alone (we are not now talking of Muslims in general) is
already nearly 1.3 million, with the largest population in New York,
followed by the Detroit suburbs. For virtually its entire history, Arab
immigration to the United States was primarily Christian and lopsidedly
Lebanese; now it is virtually all Muslim, with the immigrants' lands of
origin mainly Egypt, the West Bank, and Yemen.
That dramatic demographic turnaround in Canada, the U.S., and Europe can be
accounted for by a single factor: immigration. Muslim immigration has or is
dramatically altering demography in all these places, and with it,
inevitably, the political landscape. This phenomenon has already had
enormous - and frightful - impact on Jewish life in Europe, and has turned
European foreign policy on the Middle East from one of even-handedness to
one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic or tolerant of
it.
Symbolizing the transition was the EU's failure to condemn the recent vile
speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister. Or, perhaps even more shocking,
witness the current moral and intellectual scandal of the EU's rejection of
the report it recently commissioned from the German Technical University on
the dramatic upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. The report was rejected and
labeled as "racist" because it identified by far the greatest numbers of
perpetrators of anti-Semitic outrages as Muslim. The propensity of the
willfully blind to shoot the messenger never seems to go out of style. The
highly suspect follow-up study predictably came up with the
politically-correct conclusion: the plague of violence was in fact the work
of skinheads and Neo-Nazis. One is reminded of Claude Reines' sardonic
remark in Casablanca when he orders the Vichy police to "round up the usual
suspects."
The demographic change has caused European Jews to live under profoundly
insecure and threatening conditions, something virtually unknown since the
rise of fascism. Lest anyone imagine that hostility to Israel is only a
factor among leaders of European governments or hostile elites, a recent
survey conducted by the European Commission called "Iraq and Peace in the
World" revealed that more ordinary Europeans consider Israel a threat to
world peace than any other country. Asked whether certain countries posed a
risk to world peace, Israel topped all other nations with 59 percent of
Europeans answering in the affirmative, placing Israel ahead of Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and even North Korea. Among the 15-member
union, only in Italy did fewer than 50 percent identify Israel as a threat,
and leading the anti-Israel pack were Holland at 74 percent and Luxembourg
at 66 percent. (The U.S. was identified by some 53 percent, the same number
as North Korea.)
Because of sustained large-scale immigration, we're on the threshold of a
similar demographic shift in the U.S. Currently, some 5.3 million Jews live
in the U.S., compared to approximately 4 million Muslims. Islamist groups
often cite the grossly inflated and entirely spurious figure of 7 million.
Such wild exaggerations have been their stock in trade; they have no
research capacity and simply make up figures. None of which would represent
a problem if such Big Lies weren't ultimately accepted as truths, even among
supposedly "reliable sources." Thus when the Washington Post last year
congratulated the "7 million strong American Muslim community" on the
celebration of the Eid at the close of Ramadan, myth became reality.
This shift is a certainty because the exponential growth of the Muslim
population is paralleled by a precipitous decline in the number of American
Jews, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the overall population over
the past 30 years; further, there is no reason to believe the factors that
have caused this will be reversed. Only a decade ago we spoke of 5.8 million
Jews; now we speak of 5.3. Jewish fertility is flat, well below replacement
level; its population is aging; nearly half of all Jews intermarry, and all
efforts to promote "Jewish Continuity" have thus far yielded zero results.
The recent findings of the UJC Population Study confirm the worst fears of
those anguished about this specter.
Unless the religious leadership of the American Jewish community takes a
radical step and returns to ancient traditional Jewish practice - the
seeking of converts from among non-Jews - a scripturally sanctioned practice
made a capital offense by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine when he adopted
Christianity as the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire (a
position embraced by the forward-thinking Allen Dershowitz as well as Dennis
Prager) - as well as use the philanthropic resources made available to the
failed and philosophically flawed effort at "Jewish Continuity" by also
encouraging Jews to have larger families by establishing college accounts so
more families will have 3 or 4 children - projecting 20 or 30 years ahead,
Muslims will no longer need to exaggerate their numbers to have a major
influence on both domestic and foreign policies.
Unlike Canada, or even Western Europe, the foreign policy of the United
States matters enormously. The United States is not only the world's sole
superpower; it is also Israel's only reliable ally in an increasingly
hostile world. Without discounting the sincerity of many American Christians
in their support for Israel, it would be naïve to believe that American
politicians will not respond to an ever-growing Islamic voting bloc, one
that will eventually far outnumber Jewish voters.
Whatever their manifold shortcomings, no one should ever underestimate the
ability of American politicians to count - count votes and campaign
contributions. As Muslim Americans become politically organized - and they
are well on their way - politicians will certainly not ignore the votes and
campaign dollars of a rapidly growing segment of the electorate. Unlike
Latinos, Muslims naturalize and vote at higher than average percentages - 65
percent in the last Presidential race. And, like Jews, they are concentrated
in states with large voting blocs in the Electoral College; they are
everywhere Jews are.
Importing Anti-Semitism
It is not only Israel that will face increasing hostility and radically
diminished American military, economic, and political support as Muslim
immigration swells. The outbreak of violent anti-Semitism that has swept
Europe in recent years has far less to do with that continent's latent
hatred of Jews by Christians than it does with the hatred for Jews among its
young, poor, and alienated Muslim population.
As we've noted, more often than not, attacks on synagogues and desecration
of Jewish cemeteries in Europe are perpetrated not by skinheads, but by
young Muslims indoctrinated in the hatred of Jews by Islamist imams and
preachers in the radical mosques that dominate Islamic life in Europe.
Virtually every major city in Western Europe already has a central mosque,
funded by the Saudis, that preaches Wahabbi doctrine, one of the most
extreme, violent, atavistic, anti-Western forms of Islam. These mosques,
that have spawned the likes of Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, double
as recruiting centers and financial support networks for Muslim terrorist
cells.
In the banlieues - the lawless ramshackle "suburban" slums that surround
Paris and other major French cities - Jews and Jewish institutions are
subject to repeated attacks by marauding gangs of Muslim hoodlums. (CNN
recently reported that violent attacks on Jews in Paris come at the average
rate of 12 a day.) Reminiscent of Germany circa 1930, when Hitler's Brown
Shirts ruled the streets while a timid government and press kept silent,
governments and the media in Western Europe today turn a blind eye to
Islamic anti-Semitism and violence out of fear of their growing political
power and an adherence to political correctness. Chirac's recent decision
opposing religious freedom in the classroom - the banning of headscarves for
Muslim girls, kepahs, and crosses, is not only woefully misguided and
insufficient; it's absurdly incommensurate with the scale of the problem -
though it is clear from the recent pronouncements of France's erstwhile
friends among Islamic theocracies and within anti-Israel terrorist
movements, such as Hezbollah, that it may well pay a price for this "assault
on Islam."
One would like to think these threats - some of which may be carried out in
the form of terrorist acts committed in France - will lead to a reassessment
by French authorities of the cynical policies they have pursued, but given
its history of twisted if cleverly self-serving diplomacy, the French are
likely to paper things over with their friends in the Arab world, including
among its radicals and terrorists, rather than recognize that they are
subjecting France, and especially the ideals of the French Republic, to a
slow, painful, and shameful death. While the Muslim underclass is detested
and discriminated against by increasingly xenophobic ordinary Europeans as
well as the European elite, they and their unwelcome guests share a common
hatred of American preeminence in the world, as well as the belief that
Israel is a tool of an imperialist United States.
A chilling article in the June 2003 issue of Vanity Fair by Marie Brenner
about the anti-Jewish violence in France describes the new reality facing
Europe's largest Jewish population. This was recently followed by a front
page story along the same lines in the Washington Post.
Living amidst a Muslim population that now outnumbers it ten to one, and a
political establishment that up till very recently could be described
charitably as utterly indifferent to the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping the
country, beleaguered French Jews are enduring conditions not witnessed in
Europe for more than half a century. Although overt violence is less common
in Great Britain - rioting second generation South Asian youth shouting
"death to the Jews" in the Midlands a year ago may be a harbinger - Britain
has become home to the most radical elements in the Islamic world; those who
track the worldwide Islamist movement refer to the British capital as
"Londonistan." The recent arrest of the Mullah of the Finsbury mosque, who
has been openly calling for the murder of Jews and Christians, because of
his alleged link to Al Qaeda is welcome news, but this is merely the tip of
the iceberg.
While it is admittedly risky to draw conclusions based on what's happening
in one country and applying it, wholesale, to another - the United States is
not France, or Germany, or even Canada - it would be equally foolhardy to
ignore what is happening abroad. Jews are not entitled to the luxury of
assuming that what has already happened in Western Europe and is beginning
to take place in Canada has no relevance to them. A people that lost
one-third of its total world population in living memory due to
powerlessness has no choice but to adopt a posture of high vigilance. Unless
fundamental changes are made in U.S. immigration policy and enforced sooner
rather than later, the same transformation will occur in this county, at
incalculable cost to American Jews and their interests. Moreover, it will
happen much more quickly than most might imagine.
As we've noted, the price of averting - or at least postponing - this
outcome will be enormous cultural discomfort among American Jews and
potentially a major political realignment as Jewish leaders will be forced
to take positions that will further strain an already attenuated
relationship with the liberal coalition that was forged under Franklin
Roosevelt and reached its zenith in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.
It is not impossible that the frayed bond will tear apart and prove
irreparable. This will constitute a full-blown identity crisis for the many
Jews who have regarded political liberalism as a constituent element of
their Judaism. But faced with the choice between loyalty to a largely broken
alliance and their own long-term survival, the great majority of America's
Jews will make a rational choice.
Because of the way U.S. immigration laws work, an exponential growth in the
Islamic population in the coming years is a statutory certainty. Having
established a foothold in the U.S. over the past 30 years and attained
citizenship, these relatively new Americans have the right to petition to
bring large numbers of extended family members to this country. Current U.S.
immigration policy entitles U.S. citizens to bring not only their nuclear
families, i.e., spouse and unmarried minor children, but parents, adult
children and their spouses and children, and adult siblings and their
spouses and children. Moreover, over time, all of these extended family
members can eventually bring a similar range of extended relatives here as
well, in an unbreakable chain. What begins as a single immigrant can result
in the immigration of an entire village. In fact, in some West Bank towns,
as is the case with many villages in rural Mexico, as much as half the
population either now lives in the U.S. or has U.S. citizenship.
Readers unfamiliar with the political bedfellows of AILA (American
Immigration Lawyer's Association) need to learn that its connections provide
stunning evidence that it is far from a non-partisan, non-ideological
professional association. It is a driving force behind these policies. It is
both disturbing and revealing to know that Jane Butterfield, the President
of AILA, was, for the greatest part of her career, the head of the American
Solidarity Committee for Palestine, and has been a long-time supporter of
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group identified on the
State Department list of terrorist organizations.
Demographic and economic realities within the Islamic world suggest we will
face a tidal wave of Islamic immigration for the foreseeable future - unless
some cut-off mechanism is put in place. Those ineluctable realities include
a worldwide Islamic population of 1.3 billion people, most living in
poverty-stricken and politically oppressive countries. A rare moment of
political candor was the important recent speech by President Bush
discussing the danger posed by the lack of democracy anywhere in the Arab
world, one that even acknowledged the historical complicity of American
policy in enabling Islamic tyranny.
Indeed, two-thirds of the poorest people on earth live in socially,
economically, technologically, and intellectually fossilized Muslim
societies. Given the chance to immigrate to a country like the United
States, countless millions would jump at the opportunity - at the same time
that they not only harbor hatred and contempt for American political
institutions and American culture, but are also members of a religious and
political culture much of which is currently under the dangerous delusion
that it will, can, and must achieve global domination. Many of these
immigrants - a decent percentage of whom might better be identified as
infiltrators than immigrants - are part of a well-organized and extremely
well-funded movement to subvert and destroy American institutions and the
American infra-structure.
By contrast, the global Jewish population is estimated to be between 13-15
million - a mere one one-hundredth of that of Islam. One-third of all the
Jews in the world already live in the United States, a third more live in
Israel, while the remainder are spread mainly among First World nations
where the political and economic forces that generally drive immigration do
not exist. Thus, Jews have very little to gain directly from an open door
U.S. immigration policy. And even in a worst-case scenario for the remaining
Jews in the former Soviet Union, Latin America, and perhaps even parts of
Western Europe, the existence of Israel, in spite of its security and
economic troubles, guarantees a safe haven for any Jew who needs one.
Also, one byproduct of powerful Jewish political influence has been that
persecuted Jews have been able to go to the head of the refugee line for
resettlement in the United States. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, hundreds
of thousands of Jews from the former-U.S.S.R. were able to enter the
country, ahead of millions of other refugees who, arguably, faced greater
persecution and danger in places like Central America and Africa. One of the
potential casualties of the loss of political power could be the special
consideration now afforded Jewish refugees.
Jews stand to lose a great deal more than any other group currently living
in the United States from an immigration policy that brings millions of
people from cultures that range from antipathetic to antithetic to Jews and
the State of Israel. Muslim immigrants are certainly the most likely to feel
savage hostility toward Jews at the moment and are intent on destroying
Jewish political power in the United States as a pre-requisite for weakening
Israel. Thus, this is most emphatically not the time for Jews to be reticent
or "polite" for fear of antagonizing or offending Muslims: American-Muslim
organizations have shown no such compunctions when it comes to Jews or to
Israel - or the sensibilities or predilections of dyed-in-the-wood extreme
multiculturalists who view the Balkanization of American society either with
neutrality or favor. Jewish leadership must step up to the plate and speak
frankly and courageously on behalf of the community they are supposed to
lead and protect.
Common sense demands that the source of the danger be identified. Within the
vast Islamic universe is a fast-spreading totalitarian political ideology
whose name is Islamism, though some know it by other names - Jihadism,
Salafi Islamism, Wâhhabism, and the more generic term Fundamentalism.
Nomenclature counts for nothing; the names make no difference; the
phenomenon is broadly identical in philosophy and tactics, though there are
minor doctrinal differences among its adherents from country to country as
well as ethnic and personal rivalries. Its goal is world domination by Islam
and the imposition of the harshest and most inhumane incarnation of rigid,
unchanging, and unchangeable hide-bound Islamic law on all nations and
peoples. It pursues its agenda through brainwashing, pie-in-the-sky theology
for desperate people, intimidation, selective assassination, terrorism,
political repression, and, on occasion - such as in Bangladesh when it
declared its independence from Pakistan in 1971 - genocide; the murder of
some two million Bengali men, women, and children, and the rape of hundreds
of thousands of women by members of the Pakistani army, the local Islamists
know as razakars, and thousands of madrassah students must not be permitted
to disappear into the black hole of historical forgetfulness. The people of
Bangladesh were, for the greatest part, pious Muslims; their crime was to
wish to the separation of religion and government.
Islamism, like the European fascism it resembles in so many ways and from
which it borrowed heavily in terms of attitudes to many questions, its
paranoid vision of Jews among them, embodies the politics of the culture of
despair - reflecting the catastrophic inability of every other movement in
the Arab and Muslim world to bring power, a decent living standards, and
prestige to the Islamic patrimony -especially the failures of secular
nationalism and Pan-Arabism to take root in the 1950s and 1960s.
The modern Islamist movement began in Egypt in 1928 with the Muslim
Brotherhood whose heyday spans the years 1930-1950 (its philosophical
luminary being Sayyid Qutb); the two other seminal figures of 20th century
Islamism are Mawlana Mawduddi (first of India and then Pakistan), founder of
the fundamentalist Deobandi Movement with its political party and vast
network of propagandistic madrassahs, and the Ayatolla Ruholla Khomeini in
Iran. One could argue, however, that in essence, Islamism has always been a
potent force within Islam; indeed, it has been its dark twin from the very
birth of the faith, and not an aberration born in the 18th century as a
product of the alliance from the 1760s on of the House of Saud under its
then leader Muhammad ibn Saud and the fundamentalist Ibn Abd al Wahhab,
founder of the Wahabbi movement. Nor does its origins lie in the work of
Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya of the 13th century - though he heavily influenced
it - who responded to the disaster of the destruction of the Abbassid empire
by the Mongols by accentuating the earliest teachings of the Koran, the
concept of Jihad, emphasizing piety over the literature of textual
commentary that had formed a considerable body of Islamic thought for
centuries and, perhaps most of all, the demand that temporal Muslim rulers
subordinate themselves to a strict interpretation of the Koran. It was
surely this "dark twin" that also stirred the Mogul conquerors of India to
commit one of the greatest genocides in history: the Hindu Kush, or Hindu
slaughter, which some historians have suggested produced a body count
totaling near 8 million human beings. But one needs to go no further than
the Koran itself, with its multiple suras, especially in the Medinan
revelations, calling for the murder of infidels and the necessity of Islamic
military and political global dominance.
In the 20th century, Islamism was repressed violently for decades by the
secular nationalist regimes, mostly brutal corrupt dictatorships that
flirted with the Soviet Union in Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo (Sayyid Qutb
was hanged in Egypt in 1966), but with the rise to power of the Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran it secured its temporal power base, followed by
the coup that made General Zia ul Haq military dictator of Pakiststan, a
great admirer of Mulana Mawdudi, whose party, the Jamat-e-Islami had been
repressed under Zia's predecessor Zulfikar Ali Butto. With Zia's seizure of
power, the Jamat-e- Islami found that its Islamist philosophy had achieved
the position of the official ideology of the state, which Zia began to
thoroughly Islamize in a series of measures begun in 1979. Once in the
wilderness, the Islamist movement now ruled the key political power and
religious powr centers of Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Some otherwise
excellent scholars of the movement (Gilles Keppel, author of the superb
study Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, being one) have made one signal
error: arguing it has already crested. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
This movement is gathering strength almost everywhere. Witness the recent
resurgence of Shiite religious fanaticism in Iraq, epitomized in the
rebellion of Muqtada Al Sadr's Shiite militia in Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf
(which may represent less of a renegade phenomenon than official opinion
would have us believe) that may reignite what appeared to many to be the
waning of the movement's virulence in Iran; the New York Times only recently
head-lined the story that the most secular Arab nation, Syria, now has a
growing and vibrant Islamist movement. It is alive and well in Afghanistan
in the "tribal areas" that hug the border with Pakistan, and it is a bomb or
bullet away from re-taking control of Pakistan (how many assassination
attempts can the apparently sincere Kemalist General Musharraf survive?
Something of an enigma, his latest moves toward peace with India, lowering
the temperature in Kashmir, and attacks on extremism in the Pakistani
Parliament that led to an Islamist party walkout suggests his modernist
gestures may be for real: so was Sadat.) It dominates the richest of all
Arab states, Saudi Arabia, the most important banker for this movement,
which is increasingly facing an internal violent opposition even more
extreme in its Islamism than the Saudi monarchy itself, which it views as a
sellout to the West; it governs in the Sudan, in Yemen, in Somalia, and
rules the street in much of East Africa. It threatens to turn the largely
moderate Islam of India into an increasingly militant one; it may well
overthrow what had been a comparatively moderate Muslim society and regime
in Bangladesh, one that is trying to avert the outcome by providing
increasing quiet support to the Jihadists.
The Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star ran a story as recently as January
13 regarding an American Congressman's visit with representatives of
minority religions at the Dhakeswari National Temple, where he was informed
that the country's "minority religions are persecuted, oppressed and
marginalized in society." It has produced a body count of slaughtered
innocents in Algeria that runs into the tens of thousands and threatens
other regimes in the supposedly Europeanized Maghreb. Many were stunned to
learn of the rise of an Al Qaeda-like terrorist network based in "moderate"
Morocco that was responsible for the bloody Madrid bombing. Perhaps of
greatest interest to those of us who track the correlation between lax
immigration policy and the spread of Islamism, the Moroccan terrorists
practice a doctrine known as Takfir wal Hijara, which is the advocacy of
using immigration as part of a stealth strategy of establishing a Jihadist
presence in the heart of the enemy: in Western Europe. Islamism is also
gaining ground in the Caucasus; and there are Islamist insurgencies
throughout South East Asia, from the Southern Thailand to the Philippines. A
militant Albania and break-away Kosovo endanger not just little Macedonia,
but pose an Islamist threat across the Balkans.
The fact is that if free and open elections were held tomorrow across the
Muslim world, the pan-Islamists would likely take power in the great
majority of states. And then, of course, there would be no more elections.
This movement hates pluralism, individual rights, freedom of conscience,
freedom of expression, secular civil society, the separation of religion and
government, the rule of law as we understand it in the West, human rights,
women's rights, gay rights, the rights of religious minorities,
Christianity, the West in general and the United States in particular, and
most of all it has identified Jews and Israel as its foremost enemies -
enemies to be exterminated. Many scholars of contemporary movements in the
Islamic world who are not Islamist or apologists for Islamism put the number
of active adherents of this dangerous movement at between 100-300 million,
with a majority of the non-activists cheering from the sidelines. It is a
movement that has kept most of Islam in a pre-Enlightenment stage of
development. The mentality within wide sections of the Islamic world is some
500 years behind the rest of humanity.
Do we need further evidence of Muslim hatred of Jews than the keynote
address by the former "moderate" prime minister of Malaysia, who has
compounded the original offense in a series of bizarre interviews since,
including with the Israeli press? His speech at the World Organization of
Islamic Nations repeated all the familiar canards of crazed, paranoid
anti-Semitism: that the diabolically clever and all-powerful Jews run the
world, control its banks, the IMF, world media, and even "invented" such
ideologies as democracy, human rights, socialism, and communism as means of
protecting their own interests. Worst of all, however, was the reaction of
the other heads of State that filled the hall to overflowing. It wasn't
stony, embarrassed silence; they didn't lower their heads and look away.
They gave him a standing ovation, and those wildly applauding leaders
included our friends and "allies" General Musharraf of Pakistan, King
Abdullah of Jordan, the Egyptian President, the King of Saudi Arabia, our
own newly-installed President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Karzai, and yes, Mr.
Putin, "representing" Russia's Muslims.
Will this movement achieve world domination? Of course it will not, at least
by military means. But the patent absurdity and unreality of the goal does
not lessen the danger is represents, nor should any one feel the least bit
secure, let alone complacent. Nazism and Communism harbored similar
delusions. Our final victory over them could not bring back to life the
millions upon millions annihilated in their names, including 1/3 of all the
Jews in the world nor the millions of Allied soldiers, including some
400,000 Americans as well as partisans throughout occupied Europe who gave
their lives to defeat them. And how many of us really believe that 9/11 will
be the last enormity to be committed on American soil? Our national leaders
tell us again and again there is something like a 100 percent certainty that
they will strike again, and powerfully. Some months ago another huge
terrorist assault on the United States utilizing aircraft was reportedly
uncovered and prevented, one that included attacks on nuclear facilities,
major population centers, infrastructure, and national symbols.
The recent bombing in Madrid with its huge death toll (in excess of 200)
underscores the continuing threat as well as its special character: the
technical sophistication of its perpetrators and their wish to inflict
maximum casualties on an innocent civilian population who are demonized by
virtue of being infidels. Indeed, it is far more likely that the Moroccan
bombers responsible for the slaughter in Spain were motivated by the belief
that Spain is Islamic land - Al Andalus - and must revert to Muslim control
rather than were reacting to the meager contribution of troops the Spanish
government then in power had made to the occupation of Iraq.
While the Islamists are incapable of conquering the lands of the infidels
through military means they have another extremely potent weapon in their
arsenal, and we are not speaking of the terrorism that will almost certainly
continue to plague the world for decades to come. The most potent weapon in
their possession is demography: their capacity to slowly and quietly
overwhelm and come to dominate non-Muslim societies through sheer strength
of numbers. This is where the critical nexus between the Islamic dream of
global conquest, beginning with their third historical assault on Western
Europe, and irrational, self-destructive Western immigration policy reveals
itself most dramatically.
Almost two months ago, London's Daily Telegraph reported the predictions of
a group of renowned demographers that France - the great capital of European
secularism in Paris and an atrophying but still predominant traditional
Catholicism in the countryside - will become a majority Muslim country
within 20-30 years! Their reasoning was neither arcane nor their predictions
hysterical: to the contrary, it was all terribly prosaic. All they did was
plug the demographic facts into the standard formulae to come up with their
results. Though the precise percentage of Muslims is hard to know for a
certainty given the fact that the French government does not share the data
it denies collecting on the race and ethnicity of its population, most
demographers place the current figure somewhere between 18-25 percent. The
fertility of the average French family is 1.2, while that of the average
Muslim family is 4.6, with even higher birthrates among the black African
Muslim population (almost 5). Among the most fertile sections of the
population, young men and women ranging in age from 17-30, Muslims already
constitute 35 percent. Intermarriage is also frequent, with the most
prevalent pattern that of a French Catholic young woman marrying a Muslim
man, converting to Islam, and then rearing a large family. A similar pattern
is evident in Belgium, where in the schools of Brussels Muslim children far
outnumber Belgian Christian youth.
Then there is the story of Pym Fortun and Dutch immigration. Pym Fortun was
a gay Dutch professor of literature who became a vocal spokesperson in the
immigration reform movement in the Netherlands because he did not wish to
see the massive influx of a population who regard the killing of homosexuals
as religiously sanctioned and who have shown little or no interest in
assimilating into liberal Dutch society. He was, in short, vigorously
opposed to tolerating intolerance. An opponent of his views assassinated him
a little more than a year ago. But a backlash was brewing all along. Some
six weeks ago the Dutch parliament passed a resolution barring all
immigration to Holland for five years, including that of refugees and asylum
seekers. Something similar is happening in Denmark, where the government has
made it clear that Muslim immigrants are welcome in Denmark only if they are
prepared to teach their children Danish, assimilate to the norms of Danish
society, and balance their Islam with a strong sense of loyalty to their new
homeland. Should they not follow this course, they will be strongly
pressured to leave Denmark.
With these hopeful exceptions, however, the Europeans in the main continue
to make a Devil's bargain with the Islamic world for short-term financial
gain and in order to buy a brief respite from trouble that makes the present
moment resemble the Phony War more than anything else. While the Sitzkrieg
continues, conditions on the ground are undergoing a vast transformation.
Their own societies are undergoing a profound metamorphosis that is making
them unrecognizable, and in ways they will come to bemoan, perhaps when it
is too late to undo it.
They also risk engendering violent nationalist reactions on their own soil
as their own dominant culture groups begin to strike back as they perceive
their familiar world, interests, and most basic values threatened as the
demographic balance reaches the tipping point. Whether or not they are fully
aware of what they are doing, they are conjuring the ghost of Oswald
Moseley, or at the very least that of Enoch Powell. One imagines that sooner
rather than later there will be dozens of rightist demagogues in Western
Europe giving their own versions of Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. But
unlike Powell, who was gazing at the distant future, they will be responding
to what large numbers will perceive as an immediate threat to their way of
life. Needless to say, it would be infinitely wiser for European countries
to adopt sensible immigration policies now that will prevent the thorough
Islamization of their societies and the rise of the Urabia journalists
rather than risk civil war on their streets in the coming decades.
Muslim hatred of Jews is the greatest danger we face, but they're not the
only group now entering the United States en mass with troublesome views
about Jews. Attitudes toward Jews in the Latin American societies that are
the largest source of immigration today - some 60 percent of all immigrants
come from Mexico and Central America - are steeped in a culture of
theological anti-Semitism that has defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment
of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they any mitigating
history of residential closeness to Jews, little knowledge and no direct or
familial experience of the Holocaust, and they regard Jews simply as among
the most privileged of white people in the United States; privileged white
people who killed God. Speaking in support of a July 2002 congressional
resolution deploring anti-Semitism in Europe, Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
noted dark clouds on the American horizon. According to Smith, "17 percent
of Americans are showing real anti-Semitic beliefs and the ugliness of it.
Sadly, among Latinos and African Americans, it is about 35 percent." The ADL's
studies indicate that some 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic
attitudes.
It's true that current Mexican disinterest in naturalization will protect
America's Jews to some extent for perhaps another decade or two; of the
massive demographic bulge that entered the U.S. in the early 80s, fewer than
20 percent has become citizens, and of that number fewer still bother to
vote. In the last presidential election, Jews outpolled Latinos in LA
County! Will this sleeping giant awaken is one of the huge political
questions everyone ponders. The Democrats will say nothing about immigration
reform because they expect this demographic will join their ranks, and they
don't wish to run the risk of alienating it; and the Republicans will mostly
say nothing because they get tons of campaign monies from the Fast Food
Industry, the whole service sector, and Agro-Business and don't want to
alienate them. The timetable for the demographic transformation will be
greatly accelerated if President Bush's "immigration reform" proposal,
announced in January, is enacted.
Even if the powerful assimilative forces of American culture eventually
prevail, as they did among previous waves of immigrants, it will take
several generations, and it is certainly arguable that they will never fully
succeed with Muslims unless an Islamic "Enlightenment" comes about, an
extremely unlikely scenario given the benighted condition of much of the
Muslim world and the fact that its proponents will be branded as infidels by
traditional religious authorities - as they have always been - and targeted
for murder.
Among the myriad mythologies that surround American immigration experience
is the belief that the process of assimilation magically transformed
immigrants into English-speaking patriotic devotees of Jeffersonian
democracy and tolerance virtually as soon as they set foot on these shores.
This proposition is about as accurate as the notion that America's streets
were paved with gold. Assimilating millions of Irish, Eastern, and Southern
European immigrants into mainstream Americans (people, who were not long ago
called "ethnics" and today are loosely and ironically defined as "Anglos")
was a long and often painful process, and depended on a set a of historical
conditions and cultural circumstances that have vanished.
The Jewish Immigrant Experience Was Atypical
Popular perceptions of immigrant experience in America have been oddly
skewed because the story has been largely told by Jews about Jews. The
Jewish narrative has come to be understood as prototypical when, in fact, it
was unique. This has led to profound misapprehension of the more common
pattern - an error that carries large consequences for immigration policy
and attitudes towards immigrants -on the part of great numbers of people,
Jews included, who ought to know better. Jews have always been the exception
to the rule. Almost each critical aspect of their immigration experience -
the reasons they emigrated to the U.S., their communal history in their
countries of origin, and how they acculturated into America - is vastly
different from the circumstances of almost every other immigrant group,
Armenians excepted.
First and foremost, as we've noted, the Jews who arrived in the great wave
of immigration at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries
more closely resembled refugees and asylum seekers than immigrants. Though
the quest for economic opportunity motivated many Jews to come to America,
they came chiefly to escape religious persecution and political oppression.
Unlike the substantial percentage of Italians, Poles, and the other Slavs
who eventually returned to Europe, Jews migrated in only one direction.
Given where they had come from and what they had left behind, often fleeing
for their very lives, Jewish immigrants enthusiastically embraced the ideals
of patriotic assimilation into American society (indeed too enthusiastically
for those concerned with a loss of Jewish identity). Within a few years of
arrival in the United States, Jewish immigrants mastered English. Within a
generation, Yiddish was rarely, if ever, spoken by their American-born
children.
Distinct, de facto and de jure, from the majority culture in every society
in which they had previously lived, Jewish immigrants did not bring to
America any lingering allegiance to their countries of origin or to the
dominant political or religious culture or ideologies that flourished there
(with the exceptions of socialism and Marxism, sympathies that evaporated
within a few years following their arrival), as did almost every other group
of immigrants. Having lived for centuries as minority cultural outsiders in
often hostile societies gave Jews a distinct advantage over millions of
people who were experiencing minority status for the first time. In places
like Poland and Czarist Russia Jews had developed survival mechanisms that
made the adjustment to America relatively easy.
In those countries, segments of the host Christian population, often
semi-governmental bodies like the Black Hundreds in Russia, often sought to
kill them; in America the host population was satisfied with keeping them
out of their neighborhoods, professional associations, country clubs, and
elite universities. Distinct as the Jewish immigrant experience was from
that of other immigrants who came at the same time, it is even more
different from that of today's immigrants.
While the non-Jewish immigrants of a century ago also maintained strong
emotional ties to their countries of origin, their societies and cultures
were neither hostile to America nor obsessed with it, and they certainly did
not blame America for their every problem. Much of the non-European world
and virtually all the Muslim world was then part of the British, French, or
Russian colonial empires; before the First World War America was not a great
global power. And, of course, at the end of that conflict it was Woodrow
Wilson in his uplifting if delusional Fourteen Points who preached against
empire and advocated home-rule for many colonized peoples. Political
circumstances and attitudes could not be more different now. Anti-American
hostility is a hallmark of the societies from which most Muslim immigrants
and many Latinos hail, and the values inculcated in people from a host of
corrupt and brutal dictatorial regimes and quasi-fascist theocracies are
very much at odds with those most Americans hold dear.
Between the worldview of the United States, indeed between the worldview of
most non-Muslim nations and the Islamic one, is a much deeper, perhaps
unbridgeable cultural divide that bears directly on the question of Muslim
acculturation - this falls into the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis that has
gained great strength in recent years. The very concept of the nation state
commanding the loyalty of its citizens is a highly problematic one in much
of the Muslim world, and not only because many of the countries that
comprise it were drawn haphazardly on maps by European colonial diplomats
and statesmen who were shockingly ignorant of the religion and the culture
of the peoples under their sway, and whose "nation-building" in the Muslim
world was largely secondary to and a mere offshoot of the rivalry for global
power among them.
For much of the world's Muslim population, the central organizing communal
principle is not the polity of the state but the Umma, the world that is
ruled by the laws of the Koran, not by any temporal ruler, set of secular
constitutional principles, or territories denominated as countries flying
different flags. It is no accident that when Osama bin Laden expresses his
ideal of the right global order, he recalls the Caliphates and the Ottoman
Empire - pan-national Islamic domains in which the unifying idea was Islamic
religion and law, and in which the idea of the nation state had no place. It
is arguable that it is impossible for a devout Muslim ever to be a patriot
in a non-Muslim society.
Even among the Mexicans who comprise the dominant immigrant group in America
today there is a strong tradition of anti-U.S. resentment and historical
grievance. A widely-shared belief among many Mexicans is that the gringos
are responsible for their chronic economic woes. Nor have they forgotten
that a sizable chunk of the American Southwest was conquered by the United
States in the Mexican War of 1846-1848. For some, the act of flooding
America with their Mexican countrymen, legally or illegally, is part of an
undeclared, low-intensity war of Reconquista. Because the two nations are
joined by a long porous border - the longest on earth between a First World
and a Third World country - continuous two-way migration inhibits any strong
identification with the United States. When I worked as National Affairs
Director at AJC I was, ipso facto, a board member of the National
Immigration Forum, the main lobbying group for open borders, and the extent
of the anti-Americanism and language of Reconquista was shocking even to one
who saw himself in those days as a card-carrying liberal multiculturalist.
Perhaps the most important distinction between today's immigrants and those
of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that
eventually forced assimilation upon even the most reluctant immigrant
groups. These forces have been weakened by the prevailing multiculturalist
ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics, the demise of
Americanization programs that inculcated patriotic assimilation
(multiculturalism denies the very existence or even desirability of a
legitimate, cohesive American culture), the death of civic education, the
rise of bilingualism, and the elimination of any obligation to do national
service. As noted, it is massive immigration itself that creates Balkanizing
multiculturalism; it did not fall from the sky.
Then there are the simple practical differences that carry gigantic
consequences: the revolution in modern transportation and communications
technology allows immigrants to maintain strong bonds with native lands,
cultures, and languages - something not true a hundred years ago. As a
result, many "immigrants" are in fact permanent resident aliens who live
simultaneously in two societies but who naturally maintain primary loyalty
to the cultural and political heritage of their countries of origin - the
places where they were reared, had their early formative experiences, were
educated, and socialized.
Thus, to assume automatically today's immigrants will be as rapidly absorbed
into the mainstream as were our parents and grandparents constitutes a
one-legged leap of faith and very risky proposition. There is no reason to
believe that the unique Jewish experience, unrepresentative even of an age
when Americanization was upheld as the ideal, will be replicated in one in
which that ideal is ridiculed and rejected by the practitioners of ethnic
identity politics who work for an array of ethnic lobby groups and human
relations organizations largely created and financed by a group of
left-leaning, multiculturalist, major national foundations, the
politically-correct professorate, and many influential mainstream media
opinion-makers.
So much is different today: the immigrants are different; the country and
its social institutions are different; the economy is different; the
technology is different; and what is deemed normative is different. To
believe the outcome will be the same under an entirely distinct set of
conditions on the ground as well as in social and political constructs is
not merely willful thinking: it is simply preposterous.
Trouble on the Home Front
While American Jews have an emotional stake in the survival and success of
Israel, they have personal stake in anti-Semitism in the United States.
Anti-Semitism is an immensely complex phenomenon attributable to a myriad of
social, cultural, economic, political, psychological, religious, even
metaphysical factors. But on a purely practical level, some very important
distinctions are simple enough, as well as crucial; there is a great
difference between harboring anti-Semitic sentiments, and feeling the
license to act on them. In the Western democracies where the vast majority
of Jews outside Israel reside, the degree to which anti-Semitism is felt and
expressed is closely linked to immigration. As noted by the Anti-Defamation
League - which dogmatically supports open immigration and routinely savages
anyone who is critical of current U.S. immigration policies - Western Europe
holds the dubious distinction of leading the world in anti-Semitic violence.
Recent waves of anti-Jewish violence, ADL observes, "have tended to
originate chiefly among Muslim immigrant circles in Europe, with extreme
right groups jumping on the bandwagon."
While overt acts of anti-Semitic violence are much rarer in the United
States, they are not unheard of, and are increasingly perpetrated by Muslim
youth. Nowhere in America has the resurgence of anti-Semitism more
manifested itself, sometimes thinly disguised as anti-Zionism, than on
college campuses. Anti-Jewish hate speech masquerading as anti-Zionism is
commonplace on campuses all across the United State today, and has on a
number of occasions crossed the thin line that separates free speech from
incitement. Indeed, at the present time, the campus is the most inhospitable
place for Jews and supporters of Israel in the U.S., something the national
Jewish organizations have come to recognize. Hillel, the most typical
institutional Jewish presence on America's campuses, is belatedly addressing
this by developing talking-points and backgrounders for Jewish students so
they can defend themselves against assaults on Israel and Judaism by the
growing numbers of politically active Arab and Islamist students. There is
an active movement advocating the divesting of any university assets
invested in Israel, and while it has not gained much momentum, with college
president after president bravely rejecting the idea out of hand -Israel is
not the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa - it adds to the air of
toxicity surrounding attitudes towards the Jewish state.
In May 2002, a small group of Jewish students and faculty, demonstrating on
the campus of San Francisco State University in favor of a peaceful solution
to violence in the Middle East, were surrounded by a much larger mob of
mostly Islamic students who threatened them physically and taunted them with
chants like, "Death to the Jews" and "Hitler didn't finish the job."
Eventually, the trapped Jewish students and faculty had to be escorted to
safety by the San Francisco Police. Far from mobilizing the university's
leadership to confront overt anti-Semitism, the incident was hushed up so as
not to create tension with the campus' large and militant Arab student
population.
Similar incidents, in which Jewish students and supporters of Israel have
been subjected to overt intimidation, have occurred all across the U.S. and
Canada. On the campus of Concordia University in Canada, Muslim students
forced the cancellation of a speech by former Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu by threatening organized violence.
Only a few months ago, Nathan Scharansky was hit in the face with a pie on
the campus at Rutgers, by a convenient Jewish idiot. Faculty committees
across the country have worked to ban from their campuses scholars on the
Middle East that are not deemed politically correct, Daniel Pipes being a
key example. It also appears that Senators Kennedy and Harkin, as well as
some eight other Senators, on the Committee that oversees appointments to
the U.S. Institute for Peace, regard the poor, brilliant scholar Daniel
Pipes as an unfit bigot because of his temerity to tell the truth about
Islamism. Luckily President Bush has made a recess appointment.
To date, assaults on Jews and Jewish institutions have been far fewer than
in Europe, but American Jews already live under a state of heightened
threat. A visit to New York, home to America's largest Jewish population,
provides startling and irrefutable visual evidence that Jews no longer live
in safety and security. Virtually every high-profile Jewish institution in
New York is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs from
exploding too close to the building, while being checked by security guards
and passing through metal detectors are now as routine a part of attending
synagogue services as putting on a kepah, or skullcap. The sense of Jewish
insecurity is by no means confined to New York. Throughout the country, in
communities with a substantial Muslim presence, security is now a critical
part of planning any sort of Jewish political or communal event - especially
those intended to demonstrate support for Israel. A speech by an outside
speaker known as a supporter of Israel or a critic of Islamism is sufficient
to ensure an armed police presence.
Reality is beginning to dawn on many American Jews that something is amiss,
although it still seems to be lost on some of the country's most venerable
Jewish organizations. There is a sad if also somewhat comic irony to the
fact that legions of employees at organizations like ADL, the American
Jewish Committee, and the Presidents' Conference must pass through a
gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double
bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from
radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and then
disseminating reports on the "threat" posed by Evangelical Christians or the
non-issue of Mormon conversion of dead Jews or the imaginary anti-Semitism
that "The Passion of the Christ" did not produce. Meanwhile, the legislative
affairs staffs of these same organizations are directed to lobby against the
very immigration reforms that could minimize the danger.
In recent years - particularly since Sept. 11, 2001 - Jewish organizations
have devoted increased resources and attention to the activities of radical
Islamic groups in the United States. The web sites of most major Jewish
groups are filled with alarming information about the activities of these
groups, many with documented ties to those that blow Israeli schoolchildren
to bits on buses and in pizzerias. Amazingly, however, these Jewish watchdog
organizations fail to employ the most basic logic and ask the most obvious
question: How did they get here? When will they stop kidding themselves and
simply connect the dots? Not one of these groups has even been willing to
examine the potential impact of mass immigration, including mass Muslim and
Islamist immigration, on American Jewry, much less take a position calling
for changes in U.S. immigration policy.
One of the most troubling phenomena that has been widely reported by people
such as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, and many others - including courageous
dissidents within the Muslim community - though largely ignored by the
mainstream media and the political establishment: many of the key "American"
Islamic civic and charitable institutions that have sprung up in the United
States over the past 30 years are little more than domestic incarnations of
foreign Islamist political parties. Among the primary objectives the
U.S.-based Arab and Muslim organizations are the undermining of Jewish
political influence in the United States, the propagation of anti-Semitism
and Holocaust denial, and the destruction of Israel.
Frequently masquerading as ethnic anti-discrimination organizations, such
entities as the Council on American Islamic ...
download full message
Wow! It's an interesting read, to say the least. He speaks for
reducing immigration only because he says it will, in the long run,
hurt jews (sadly, I don't hear much concern for the majority of
Americans ie. WASPS). He has a flawless understanding of the issue
and I'm happy he's talking to other jews, but as he points out, it
will probably be too late before jews wake up to the fact that
unbridled immigration is akin to digging their own grave in the United
States.

Jews have little if any true loyalty to the United States; their
loyalty lies with that fake country called "Israel", you know, the
1948 land grab at the expensive of the indiginous Arabs who had been
living there for 2,000 years (later known as the Palestinians).
I strongly feel that American jews are a monolithic group of secular
liberals hell bent on wrecking the United States. Perhaps they feel
they can flee one day to Israel after they trash this country?
Over the years, I have read several thousand articles related to the
immigration debate. Whenever I read a pro illegal alien piece it is
either written by a person with a hispanic surname or a jewish surname
(90% of the time). An article which is anti illegal alien is, 95% of
the time, written by a non-jew, non-hispanic.
z
2007-09-06 21:19:31 UTC
Permalink
You're right, let's deport all the legal immigrants, too. McDonald;
what tribe is that from? Lakota?
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationprom...
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go tohttp://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmide...
You're right, let's deport all the legal immigrants.
Stuart Jackson
2007-09-06 22:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationprom...
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go tohttp://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmide...
Kevin MacDonald has always been an intellectual of great integrity.
He is 100% correct. The vast majority of Jews in America are leftists
and they are leading this country to the grave (by design).
z
2007-09-07 14:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Jackson
Kevin MacDonald has always been an intellectual of great integrity.
He is 100% correct. The vast majority of Jews in America are leftists
and they are leading this country to the grave (by design).-
oh we back to that again? I thought we were still on "the Jewish
neoconservatives control the Bush administration and are leading this
country to the grave by design)"

i swear, you need a program to find out who the antisemites are
fighting each week.
Notan
2007-09-06 23:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
<drivel snipped>

These authors must have asses the size of Rhode Island,
as that's where they seem to pull all this crap out of.
--
Notan
Stuart Jackson
2007-09-07 00:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Notan
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
<drivel snipped>
These authors must have asses the size of Rhode Island,
as that's where they seem to pull all this crap out of.
--
Notan
How much does AIPAC pay you to blog?
Notan
2007-09-07 00:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Jackson
Post by Notan
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
By Prof Kevin McDonald
<drivel snipped>
These authors must have asses the size of Rhode Island,
as that's where they seem to pull all this crap out of.
--
Notan
How much does AIPAC pay you to blog?
Do you even know what "a blog" is?

Of course not. You're as dumb as the rock you crawled out from under.
--
Notan
p***@yahoo.com
2007-09-08 03:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for your useful contribution.
Scotius (Ponti Fickatur)
2007-09-10 00:13:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:03:15 -0700 7 Sep 2007 01:08:35 GMT, Ranger
Post by Ranger
Jewish Organizations Behind Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
Imbecile. Do the Jews own the industries for which most
migrants work? Idiot!
Post by Ranger
By Prof Kevin McDonald
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jewishorgsbehindillegalimmigrationpromo02feb07.shtml
February 2, 2007
In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish
organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt
The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy
in America
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas
Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been
especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To
the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive
was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative
[Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible,
but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers
such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration."(pp. 56-57)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal
immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the
public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream
Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that
come to the U.S. every year--no discussion of their effect on the
economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of
the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors
of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really
want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale
illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are
" racist" and "nativist" .
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of
livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of
"not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of
genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.)
have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The
measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is
indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard
and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and
the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative
immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it
is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration policy.
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach. For his website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay Immigration Policy: Is The Other
Boot About To Drop?
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/macdonaldmideastpolicyotherboot31jan07.html
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...