◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Ann Coulter’s new column:
by ANN COULTER 1 Feb
Has the world “Coulter” appeared often enough yet?
Everything said about President Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a lie — including that it’s a Muslim ban.
… it has been indignantly claimed that it’s illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.
This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.
Julia Ioffe, Max Boot, the Gessen siblings … how many more?
For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as “refugees.”
That’s what my latest Taki’s Magazine column, “Extended Stay America,” is about: how, even though my relations are not particularly exotic, I can come up with four examples of how my relatives were affected by or involved with America’s immigration law preference for Soviet Jews. For example, about 45 years ago my cousin Mike, recently out of Georgetown Law, got a job working for Senator Henry Jackson, who went on to author the once-hugely famous Jackson-Vanik Amendment to benefit Soviet Jews.
Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.
Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a “refugee,” to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.
The “Save Soviet Jews” obsession of the Brezhnev Era was a brilliant Nixon Administration ploy to detach American Jews from the Left.
This may have been good policy, but let’s not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.
If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes “targeting” Muslims, then our immigration policy “targeted” Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.
Elliott Abrams wrote last year on the Council of Foreign Relations blog about Syrian refugees:
But when you have been running a refugee program for years, and you have accepted 10,612 Sunni refugees and 56 Christians, and it is obvious why and obvious how to fix it, and nothing is done to fix it, well, the results speak more loudly than speeches, laws, intentions, or excuses. In effect we make it almost impossible for Christian refugees to get here.
The most straightforward explanation for this Disparate Impact is that former President Obama, after many years in the White House, still liked Muslims but was sick of Arabs, as his exit interview with Jeffrey Goldberg suggests, so Christian Arabs were particularly out of luck.
Back to Ann:
Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then! …
In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did.
Ted Kennedy merely wanted to admit more distant cousins to vote for himself and for future Kennedys. (Similarly, Ariel Sharon admitted lots of marginally Jewish Russians t0 Israel who found it natural to believe that making Sharon Prime Minister of Israel was a good idea, although Israel’s rabbis tended to disagree that they were Jewish enough. Some of them have since moved to my neighborhood.)
People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.
The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any “expert” in a storm, I guess.)
Ann attended the private part of Cornell, she’d like you to know, unlike Bill Maher (or is it Keith Olberman?), who attended the public part.
… As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described “diversity” in Der Spiegel: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
That’s our immigration policy — plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus’ insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!) …
Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?
Similarly, Julia Ioffe who writes articles about how racist Americans are for not taking in more immigrants, is one of 60 members of her clan that got into the U.S. for being Soviet/Russian Jews.