Israel refuses to to any refugees

[bripat9643]

Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism

....Consider this 1938 article in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid still known for its bouts of right-wing populism. Its headline warned of "German Jews Pouring Into This Country." And it began as follows:

"The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."​

In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.​

No matter the alarming rhetoric of Hitler's fascist state -- and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others -- popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.

"Of all the groups in the 20th century," write the authors of the 1999 book, "Refugees in the Age of Genocide," "refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as 'genuine', but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy."

Part of that hostility was fueled, as some of the European grievances are now, by stereotypes of the refugees as harbingers of a dangerous ideology, in this instance communism and anarchist violence.

There were also economic concerns. The world was coming off the Great Depression. In France alone, there were a million people unemployed. Resentment against French and foreign Jews (large numbers from Germany and Romania had arrived by the early 1930s) led to "a new wave of antisemitism," detailed by a report put out by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Metz, for example, grumbled in 1933 that "highly undesirable" Jews "have become a veritable plague for honest French merchants." By 1935, the then French government enacted a series of quotas on certain professions -- effectively blocking Jews out. This was a precursor for the more pernicious and deadly forms of antisemitism to come.

In Britain, as a 2002 article in the Guardian recounts, perhaps as many as half a million German Jewish asylum seekers were turned away by authorities ahead of the outbreak of World War II. Many who were admitted in were given asylum less out of altruism than a need to fill low-paying domestic work "spurned by the native British." The situation was no better elsewhere:

Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).

Meanwhile, those trapped within Nazi-controlled Europe faced the horrors of the Holocaust. Millions were systematically killed. Yet it was only in 1944, when the extent of the genocide had become better known, that the United States made a real effort to rescue European Jews. Even during World War II, let alone before it started, antisemitism was rife in American political and public life.

Your article failed to list any examples of anti-semitism. It appears that Britain was opposed to all illegal immigration, just like Americans. Most of the illegals were coming from Germany because of the rise of the Nazis.

What does that prove?

From my article:

Part of that hostility was fueled, as some of the European grievances are now, by stereotypes of the refugees as harbingers of a dangerous ideology, in this instance communism and anarchist violence.

The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Metz, for example, grumbled in 1933 that "highly undesirable" Jews "have become a veritable plague for honest French merchants." By 1935, the then French government enacted a series of quotas on certain professions -- effectively blocking Jews out. This was a precursor for the more pernicious and deadly forms of antisemitism to come.


From the links in the article itself:

We've been here before

According to Whitehall And The Jews, 1933-1948 (Cambridge University Press), Louise London's definitive account of British immigration policy and the Holocaust, "The process...was designed to keep out large numbers of European Jews - perhaps 10 times as many as it let in." Around 70,000 had been admitted by the outbreak of the war, but British Jewish associations had some half a million more case files of those who had not.

Although British immigration policy was liberalised after Kristallnacht - the pogrom launched by Goebbels in November 1939, in which dozens of Jews were killed and more than 1,000 synagogues burned down - London challenges the idea that prewar Britain was a haven for those fleeing Nazi brutality. "The myth was born that Britain did all it could for the Jews between 1933 and 1945. This comfortable view has proved remarkably durable, and is still adduced to support claims that Britain has always admitted genuine refugees, and that the latest harsh measures against asylum seekers are merely designed to exclude bogus applicants. . .We remember the touching photographs and newsreel footage of unaccompanied Jewish children arriving on the Kindertransports [ by July 1939, 7,700 had arrived, compared with 1,850 admitted into Holland, 800 into France, 700 into Belgium, and 250 into Sweden]. There are no such photographs of the Jewish parents left behind in Nazi Europe. . .The Jews excluded from entry to the United Kingdom are not part of the British experience, because Britain never saw them. . .Memories of the unsuccessful public campaign to persuade the government to rescue Jews from mass murder faded quickly."

What's more, those that were granted entry were admitted only because the Jewish community guaranteed that it would bear all the expenses of accommodation and maintenance, with no burden placed on the public purse. Elsewhere, Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).


Astonishingly, Britain's postwar record isn't much better. Although the immediate aftermath of the second world war saw the arrival of a large number of refugees, very few were Jewish Holocaust survivors. British postwar immigration policy deliberately excluded Jews (and non-white immigrants) because it didn't consider them assimilable. Today, asylum seekers are routinely accused of fomenting the racism that they encounter. Similarly, cabinet minutes of 1945 claimed that "the admission of a further batch of refugees, many of whom would be Jews, might provoke strong reactions from certain sections of public opinion. There was a real risk of a wave of anti-semitic feeling in this country." Yet they had no compunction in admitting the entire Ukrainian membership of the Galician division of the Waffen-SS.
​

Maleiha Malik: Muslims are now getting the same treatment Jews had a century ago

Migrants fleeing persecution and poverty settled with their children in the East End of London. As believers in one God they were devoted to their holy book, which contained strict religious laws, harsh penalties and gender inequality. Some of them established separate religious courts. The men wore dark clothes and had long beards; some women covered their hair. A royal commission warned of the grave dangers of self-segregation. Politicians said different religious dress was a sign of separation. Some migrants were members of extremist political groups. Others actively organised to overthrow the established western political order. Campaigners against the migrants carefully framed their arguments as objections to "alien extremists" and not to a race or religion. A British cabinet minister said we were facing a clash about civilisation: this was about values; a battle between progress and "arrested development".

All this happened a hundred years ago to Jewish migrants seeking asylum in Britain. The political movements with which they were closely associated were anarchism and later Bolshevism. As in the case of contemporary political violence, or even the radical Islamism supported by a minority of British Muslims, anarchism and Bolshevism only commanded minority support among the Jewish community. But shared countries of origin and a common ethnic and religious background were enough to create a racialised discourse whenever there were anarchist outrages in London in the early 20th century.

Most anarchists were peaceful, but a few resorted to violent attacks such as the bombing of Greenwich Observatory in 1894 - described at the time as an "international terrorist outrage". Anarchist violence was an international phenomenon. In Europe it claimed hundreds of lives, including those of several heads of government, and resulted in anti- terrorism laws. In the siege of Sidney Street in London in 1911, police and troops confronted east European Jewish anarchists. This violent confrontation in the heart of London created a racialised moral panic in which the whole Jewish community was stigmatised. It was claimed that London was "seething" with violent aliens, and the British establishment was said to be "in a state of denial". East End Jews were said to be "alienated", not "integrated", and a "threat to our security" a long time before anyone dreamed up the phrase "Londonistan".
​

So where is the evidence that America's immigration policy was motivated by anti-semitism? Your article talks mostly about British immigration policy. Furthermore, you quote a commentator discussing the period, but you don't quote anyone making any actual anti-Semitic statements. Your author even admits that opponents of immigration stated their objections to "alien extremists." They didn't mention Jews.

All you've got is a lot of insinuations about British policy. Nothing about American policy.

 

[Coyote]

Y

This has nothing to do with anti-semitism, so your constant harping on that canard is a waste of bandwidth.

You're trying to claim there was no anti-semitism in the 1930's and 40's and it had no bearing on allowing in Jewish refugees? Facts don't support your claim

BTW, I never claimed there was no anti-semitism in the 30s and 40s. What I claimed was that it had little to do with our immigration policy.

It had little to do with our immigration policy IN GENERAL----it had lots to do with our immigration policies, specifically of jews, in the 1930s and 40s.

Agree - and part of the anti-semitism was the prevailing belief that Jews were associated with communism (you can still see that in some of the resident whacko posts).

You have yet to post an iota of evidence that anti-semitism had any influence on our immigration policy.

Anti-Semitism

The growing anti-Semitic attitude was reflected most clearly in changes in immigration laws that were directed against eastern and southern Europeans in general, but against Jews from those regions in particular. For example, the Immigration Act of 1924 established a quota system that severely restricted Jewish immigration from most of Europe. These new limits on immigration had an immediate impact on Jews attempting to flee Europe following the rise of fascism during the 1930’s. The appointment of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to power in Germany in 1933 was rapidly followed by German legalization of discrimination against Jews. The anti-Jewish riots that began during November, 1938, were merely the prelude to the rounding up and eventual murder of Jews throughout Europe.

The resistance of the United States to Jewish immigration during the 1930’s was dramatized in the St. Louis affair in 1939. When the German ship St. Louis, carrying more than 900 Jews attempting to escape from Europe, arrived in Cuba, its passengers were not allowed to disembark, and they were ultimately refused permission to enter the United States. Most had to return to Europe, where they were eventually murdered. In 1939, the Wagner- Rogers Bill designed to admit 20,000 Jewish children from Europe was voted down in Congress. Despite the admittance of prominent individuals. such as Albert Einstein, few Jews were allowed to enter America during the 1930’s.​

Immigration Policy in World War II | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

As early as June 1942, word reached the United States that the Nazis were planning the annihilation of the European Jews. A report smuggled from Poland to London described in detail the killing centers at Chelmno and the use of gas vans, and it estimated that 700,000 people had already been killed.

Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults." Instead of relaxing immigration quotas, American officials worked in vain to persuade Latin American countries and Great Britain to admit Jewish refugees. In January 1944, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, as the only Jew in the Cabinet, presented the President with a "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews." Shamed into action, Roosevelt created the War Refugee Board, which, in turn, set up refugee camps in Italy, North Africa, and the United States.

​

Different era...same rhetoric...amazing.

 

[Coyote]

Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism

....Consider this 1938 article in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid still known for its bouts of right-wing populism. Its headline warned of "German Jews Pouring Into This Country." And it began as follows:

"The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."​

In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.​

No matter the alarming rhetoric of Hitler's fascist state -- and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others -- popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.

"Of all the groups in the 20th century," write the authors of the 1999 book, "Refugees in the Age of Genocide," "refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as 'genuine', but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy."

Part of that hostility was fueled, as some of the European grievances are now, by stereotypes of the refugees as harbingers of a dangerous ideology, in this instance communism and anarchist violence.

There were also economic concerns. The world was coming off the Great Depression. In France alone, there were a million people unemployed. Resentment against French and foreign Jews (large numbers from Germany and Romania had arrived by the early 1930s) led to "a new wave of antisemitism," detailed by a report put out by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Metz, for example, grumbled in 1933 that "highly undesirable" Jews "have become a veritable plague for honest French merchants." By 1935, the then French government enacted a series of quotas on certain professions -- effectively blocking Jews out. This was a precursor for the more pernicious and deadly forms of antisemitism to come.

In Britain, as a 2002 article in the Guardian recounts, perhaps as many as half a million German Jewish asylum seekers were turned away by authorities ahead of the outbreak of World War II. Many who were admitted in were given asylum less out of altruism than a need to fill low-paying domestic work "spurned by the native British." The situation was no better elsewhere:

Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).

Meanwhile, those trapped within Nazi-controlled Europe faced the horrors of the Holocaust. Millions were systematically killed. Yet it was only in 1944, when the extent of the genocide had become better known, that the United States made a real effort to rescue European Jews. Even during World War II, let alone before it started, antisemitism was rife in American political and public life.

Your article failed to list any examples of anti-semitism. It appears that Britain was opposed to all illegal immigration, just like Americans. Most of the illegals were coming from Germany because of the rise of the Nazis.

What does that prove?

From my article:

Part of that hostility was fueled, as some of the European grievances are now, by stereotypes of the refugees as harbingers of a dangerous ideology, in this instance communism and anarchist violence.

The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Metz, for example, grumbled in 1933 that "highly undesirable" Jews "have become a veritable plague for honest French merchants." By 1935, the then French government enacted a series of quotas on certain professions -- effectively blocking Jews out. This was a precursor for the more pernicious and deadly forms of antisemitism to come.


From the links in the article itself:

We've been here before

According to Whitehall And The Jews, 1933-1948 (Cambridge University Press), Louise London's definitive account of British immigration policy and the Holocaust, "The process...was designed to keep out large numbers of European Jews - perhaps 10 times as many as it let in." Around 70,000 had been admitted by the outbreak of the war, but British Jewish associations had some half a million more case files of those who had not.

Although British immigration policy was liberalised after Kristallnacht - the pogrom launched by Goebbels in November 1939, in which dozens of Jews were killed and more than 1,000 synagogues burned down - London challenges the idea that prewar Britain was a haven for those fleeing Nazi brutality. "The myth was born that Britain did all it could for the Jews between 1933 and 1945. This comfortable view has proved remarkably durable, and is still adduced to support claims that Britain has always admitted genuine refugees, and that the latest harsh measures against asylum seekers are merely designed to exclude bogus applicants. . .We remember the touching photographs and newsreel footage of unaccompanied Jewish children arriving on the Kindertransports [ by July 1939, 7,700 had arrived, compared with 1,850 admitted into Holland, 800 into France, 700 into Belgium, and 250 into Sweden]. There are no such photographs of the Jewish parents left behind in Nazi Europe. . .The Jews excluded from entry to the United Kingdom are not part of the British experience, because Britain never saw them. . .Memories of the unsuccessful public campaign to persuade the government to rescue Jews from mass murder faded quickly."

What's more, those that were granted entry were admitted only because the Jewish community guaranteed that it would bear all the expenses of accommodation and maintenance, with no burden placed on the public purse. Elsewhere, Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).


Astonishingly, Britain's postwar record isn't much better. Although the immediate aftermath of the second world war saw the arrival of a large number of refugees, very few were Jewish Holocaust survivors. British postwar immigration policy deliberately excluded Jews (and non-white immigrants) because it didn't consider them assimilable. Today, asylum seekers are routinely accused of fomenting the racism that they encounter. Similarly, cabinet minutes of 1945 claimed that "the admission of a further batch of refugees, many of whom would be Jews, might provoke strong reactions from certain sections of public opinion. There was a real risk of a wave of anti-semitic feeling in this country." Yet they had no compunction in admitting the entire Ukrainian membership of the Galician division of the Waffen-SS.
​

Maleiha Malik: Muslims are now getting the same treatment Jews had a century ago

Migrants fleeing persecution and poverty settled with their children in the East End of London. As believers in one God they were devoted to their holy book, which contained strict religious laws, harsh penalties and gender inequality. Some of them established separate religious courts. The men wore dark clothes and had long beards; some women covered their hair. A royal commission warned of the grave dangers of self-segregation. Politicians said different religious dress was a sign of separation. Some migrants were members of extremist political groups. Others actively organised to overthrow the established western political order. Campaigners against the migrants carefully framed their arguments as objections to "alien extremists" and not to a race or religion. A British cabinet minister said we were facing a clash about civilisation: this was about values; a battle between progress and "arrested development".

All this happened a hundred years ago to Jewish migrants seeking asylum in Britain. The political movements with which they were closely associated were anarchism and later Bolshevism. As in the case of contemporary political violence, or even the radical Islamism supported by a minority of British Muslims, anarchism and Bolshevism only commanded minority support among the Jewish community. But shared countries of origin and a common ethnic and religious background were enough to create a racialised discourse whenever there were anarchist outrages in London in the early 20th century.

Most anarchists were peaceful, but a few resorted to violent attacks such as the bombing of Greenwich Observatory in 1894 - described at the time as an "international terrorist outrage". Anarchist violence was an international phenomenon. In Europe it claimed hundreds of lives, including those of several heads of government, and resulted in anti- terrorism laws. In the siege of Sidney Street in London in 1911, police and troops confronted east European Jewish anarchists. This violent confrontation in the heart of London created a racialised moral panic in which the whole Jewish community was stigmatised. It was claimed that London was "seething" with violent aliens, and the British establishment was said to be "in a state of denial". East End Jews were said to be "alienated", not "integrated", and a "threat to our security" a long time before anyone dreamed up the phrase "Londonistan".
​

So where is the evidence that America's immigration policy was motivated by anti-semitism? Your article talks mostly about British immigration policy. Furthermore, you quote a commentator discussing the period, but you don't quote anyone making any actual anti-Semitic statements. Your author even admits that opponents of immigration stated their objections to "alien extremists." They didn't mention Jews.

All you've got is a lot of insinuations about British policy. Nothing about American policy.

I just posted it. How far are you going go in pretending there was little anti-semitism and it didn't affect policies? Seriously?

 

[Coyote]

BTW, I never claimed there was no anti-semitism in the 30s and 40s. What I claimed was that it had little to do with our immigration policy.

It had little to do with our immigration policy IN GENERAL----it had lots to do with our immigration policies, specifically of jews, in the 1930s and 40s.

Agree - and part of the anti-semitism was the prevailing belief that Jews were associated with communism (you can still see that in some of the resident whacko posts).

yes----they get it from recent islamo Nazi propaganda----and that of the 50s---but not that of the 30s.

No, it was from much earlier - 20's, 30's etc.

In the 20s islamo Nazis were complaining in propaganda promulgated in the
USA that DA JOOOOOS are communists? Since we are way back in the
20s------you can leave the "islamo" out I do not recall any allusions to communism in that really old stuff.

I already posted an article describing it - they were associated with anarchists, bolsheviks and communism.

 

[irosie91]

It had little to do with our immigration policy IN GENERAL----it had lots to do with our immigration policies, specifically of jews, in the 1930s and 40s.

Agree - and part of the anti-semitism was the prevailing belief that Jews were associated with communism (you can still see that in some of the resident whacko posts).

yes----they get it from recent islamo Nazi propaganda----and that of the 50s---but not that of the 30s.

No, it was from much earlier - 20's, 30's etc.

In the 20s islamo Nazis were complaining in propaganda promulgated in the
USA that DA JOOOOOS are communists? Since we are way back in the
20s------you can leave the "islamo" out I do not recall any allusions to communism in that really old stuff.

I already posted an article describing it - they were associated with anarchists, bolsheviks and communism.

oh-----ok ----must have been for the HIGHLY educated anti-semites-------
the Nazis in my childhood town would not have known those words

 

[bripat9643]

Y

You're trying to claim there was no anti-semitism in the 1930's and 40's and it had no bearing on allowing in Jewish refugees? Facts don't support your claim

BTW, I never claimed there was no anti-semitism in the 30s and 40s. What I claimed was that it had little to do with our immigration policy.

It had little to do with our immigration policy IN GENERAL----it had lots to do with our immigration policies, specifically of jews, in the 1930s and 40s.

Agree - and part of the anti-semitism was the prevailing belief that Jews were associated with communism (you can still see that in some of the resident whacko posts).

You have yet to post an iota of evidence that anti-semitism had any influence on our immigration policy.

Anti-Semitism

The growing anti-Semitic attitude was reflected most clearly in changes in immigration laws that were directed against eastern and southern Europeans in general, but against Jews from those regions in particular. For example, the Immigration Act of 1924 established a quota system that severely restricted Jewish immigration from most of Europe. These new limits on immigration had an immediate impact on Jews attempting to flee Europe following the rise of fascism during the 1930’s. The appointment of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to power in Germany in 1933 was rapidly followed by German legalization of discrimination against Jews. The anti-Jewish riots that began during November, 1938, were merely the prelude to the rounding up and eventual murder of Jews throughout Europe.

The resistance of the United States to Jewish immigration during the 1930’s was dramatized in the St. Louis affair in 1939. When the German ship St. Louis, carrying more than 900 Jews attempting to escape from Europe, arrived in Cuba, its passengers were not allowed to disembark, and they were ultimately refused permission to enter the United States. Most had to return to Europe, where they were eventually murdered. In 1939, the Wagner- Rogers Bill designed to admit 20,000 Jewish children from Europe was voted down in Congress. Despite the admittance of prominent individuals. such as Albert Einstein, few Jews were allowed to enter America during the 1930’s.​

Immigration Policy in World War II | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

As early as June 1942, word reached the United States that the Nazis were planning the annihilation of the European Jews. A report smuggled from Poland to London described in detail the killing centers at Chelmno and the use of gas vans, and it estimated that 700,000 people had already been killed.

Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults." Instead of relaxing immigration quotas, American officials worked in vain to persuade Latin American countries and Great Britain to admit Jewish refugees. In January 1944, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, as the only Jew in the Cabinet, presented the President with a "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews." Shamed into action, Roosevelt created the War Refugee Board, which, in turn, set up refugee camps in Italy, North Africa, and the United States.

​

Different era...same rhetoric...amazing.

Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.[1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.
​

Nope, there's nothing in the Immigration Act of 1924 that specifically mentions Jews. All the complaints your author makes against U.S. immigration policy are of the nature that it didn't make exceptions for Jews fleeing from Europe. You can speculate about motives all you want, but the actual legislation doesn't support your case.

Even if you admit that American immigration policy was motivated by anti-semitism, it wasn't because Jews were viewed as dangerous. Americans were Christians and they were prejudiced against non Christians.

Objections to Muslim immigration, on the other hand, is not motivated by the knowledge that these people are violent and hostile towards western democracy and free institutions. That point isn't arguable. It's simply a fact. Poll after poll has demonstrated that the majority of Muslims support the imposition of Sharia law.

That being said, a large influx of people from any particular culture that has sharp differences with Western culture is not desirable. That is, unless you view your own culture as undesirable. Only America hating drones have that attitude.

 

[Coyote]

Y

BTW, I never claimed there was no anti-semitism in the 30s and 40s. What I claimed was that it had little to do with our immigration policy.

It had little to do with our immigration policy IN GENERAL----it had lots to do with our immigration policies, specifically of jews, in the 1930s and 40s.

Agree - and part of the anti-semitism was the prevailing belief that Jews were associated with communism (you can still see that in some of the resident whacko posts).

You have yet to post an iota of evidence that anti-semitism had any influence on our immigration policy.

Anti-Semitism

The growing anti-Semitic attitude was reflected most clearly in changes in immigration laws that were directed against eastern and southern Europeans in general, but against Jews from those regions in particular. For example, the Immigration Act of 1924 established a quota system that severely restricted Jewish immigration from most of Europe. These new limits on immigration had an immediate impact on Jews attempting to flee Europe following the rise of fascism during the 1930’s. The appointment of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to power in Germany in 1933 was rapidly followed by German legalization of discrimination against Jews. The anti-Jewish riots that began during November, 1938, were merely the prelude to the rounding up and eventual murder of Jews throughout Europe.

The resistance of the United States to Jewish immigration during the 1930’s was dramatized in the St. Louis affair in 1939. When the German ship St. Louis, carrying more than 900 Jews attempting to escape from Europe, arrived in Cuba, its passengers were not allowed to disembark, and they were ultimately refused permission to enter the United States. Most had to return to Europe, where they were eventually murdered. In 1939, the Wagner- Rogers Bill designed to admit 20,000 Jewish children from Europe was voted down in Congress. Despite the admittance of prominent individuals. such as Albert Einstein, few Jews were allowed to enter America during the 1930’s.​

Immigration Policy in World War II | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

As early as June 1942, word reached the United States that the Nazis were planning the annihilation of the European Jews. A report smuggled from Poland to London described in detail the killing centers at Chelmno and the use of gas vans, and it estimated that 700,000 people had already been killed.

Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults." Instead of relaxing immigration quotas, American officials worked in vain to persuade Latin American countries and Great Britain to admit Jewish refugees. In January 1944, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, as the only Jew in the Cabinet, presented the President with a "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews." Shamed into action, Roosevelt created the War Refugee Board, which, in turn, set up refugee camps in Italy, North Africa, and the United States.

​

Different era...same rhetoric...amazing.

Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.[1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.
​

Nope, there's nothing in the Immigration Act of 1924 that specifically mentions Jews. All the complaints your author makes against U.S. immigration policy are of the nature that it didn't make exceptions for Jews fleeing from Europe. You can speculate about motives all you want, but the actual legislation doesn't support your case.

Yet:

"Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law."​

and

"The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe[where?] were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.[18]"​

hmmm...nothing to do with antisemitism of course...

Even if you admit that American immigration policy was motivated by anti-semitism, it wasn't because Jews were viewed as dangerous. Americans were Christians and they were prejudiced against non Christians.

I already posted articles showing that they were viewed as dangerous and "racially subhuman" according to the eugenist mentality at the time - they were considered anarchists and bolsheviks and the entire group was blamed for the actions of extremists.

Objections to Muslim immigration, on the other hand, is not motivated by the knowledge that these people are violent and hostile towards western democracy and free institution. That point isn't arguable. It's simply a fact. Poll after poll has demonstrated it to be the case.

Sure...keep saying that - you echo the earlier era, just replacing "Jewish" with "Muslim"....it's "simply a fact"

Polls reflect opinion...not fact. That's why they are called "opinion polls".

That being said, a large influx of people from any particular culture that has sharp differences with Western culture is not desirable. That is, unless you view your own culture as undesirable. Only America hating drones have that attitude.

I view our culture as an amalgrum of all the many immigrant groups that made it what it is.

 

[irosie91]

I support the immediate development of nice ---comfy housing for Syrian refugees in muslim countries-------like INDONESIA and IRAN Christians from Iraq and Syria should come to the USA where their relatives will greet the with opened arms----
we got lots of Syrian Christians in the USA ------LOTS-------we need them-----Syrian Christian girls are very pretty -----lots of them look greek . Germany and Austria and France and Sweden ------cannot accommodate them------it's cruel to dump them
there------it will bring hardship to both the people in those countries now and the
refugees themselves

 

[irosie91]

another marvelous idea-------Christians from Lebanon should move to the USA and the muslims can take all of LEBANON ---lock stock and barrel-----where they have HEZBOLLAH to love and protect them

 

[bripat9643]

Y

It had little to do with our immigration policy IN GENERAL----it had lots to do with our immigration policies, specifically of jews, in the 1930s and 40s.

Agree - and part of the anti-semitism was the prevailing belief that Jews were associated with communism (you can still see that in some of the resident whacko posts).

You have yet to post an iota of evidence that anti-semitism had any influence on our immigration policy.

Anti-Semitism

The growing anti-Semitic attitude was reflected most clearly in changes in immigration laws that were directed against eastern and southern Europeans in general, but against Jews from those regions in particular. For example, the Immigration Act of 1924 established a quota system that severely restricted Jewish immigration from most of Europe. These new limits on immigration had an immediate impact on Jews attempting to flee Europe following the rise of fascism during the 1930’s. The appointment of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to power in Germany in 1933 was rapidly followed by German legalization of discrimination against Jews. The anti-Jewish riots that began during November, 1938, were merely the prelude to the rounding up and eventual murder of Jews throughout Europe.

The resistance of the United States to Jewish immigration during the 1930’s was dramatized in the St. Louis affair in 1939. When the German ship St. Louis, carrying more than 900 Jews attempting to escape from Europe, arrived in Cuba, its passengers were not allowed to disembark, and they were ultimately refused permission to enter the United States. Most had to return to Europe, where they were eventually murdered. In 1939, the Wagner- Rogers Bill designed to admit 20,000 Jewish children from Europe was voted down in Congress. Despite the admittance of prominent individuals. such as Albert Einstein, few Jews were allowed to enter America during the 1930’s.​

Immigration Policy in World War II | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

As early as June 1942, word reached the United States that the Nazis were planning the annihilation of the European Jews. A report smuggled from Poland to London described in detail the killing centers at Chelmno and the use of gas vans, and it estimated that 700,000 people had already been killed.

Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults." Instead of relaxing immigration quotas, American officials worked in vain to persuade Latin American countries and Great Britain to admit Jewish refugees. In January 1944, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, as the only Jew in the Cabinet, presented the President with a "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews." Shamed into action, Roosevelt created the War Refugee Board, which, in turn, set up refugee camps in Italy, North Africa, and the United States.

​

Different era...same rhetoric...amazing.

Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.[1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.
​

Nope, there's nothing in the Immigration Act of 1924 that specifically mentions Jews. All the complaints your author makes against U.S. immigration policy are of the nature that it didn't make exceptions for Jews fleeing from Europe. You can speculate about motives all you want, but the actual legislation doesn't support your case.

Yet:

"Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law."​

and

"The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe[where?] were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.[18]"​

hmmm...nothing to do with antisemitism of course...

The law doesn't not mention Jews, so your claim is based entirely on speculation about motives. The law was aimed at getting a balance of immigration from various nations. Southern and Eastern Europe were backwards areas of the world. The people coming from these areas were uneducated, unskilled and less civilized than Northern Europeans, and like Mexicans they were willing to work for much lower wages than Americans, so it's entirely reasonable that Americans didn't want to get swamped by the cultures of these areas.

Even if you admit that American immigration policy was motivated by anti-semitism, it wasn't because Jews were viewed as dangerous. Americans were Christians and they were prejudiced against non Christians.

I already posted articles showing that they were viewed as dangerous and "racially subhuman" according to the eugenist mentality at the time - they were considered anarchists and bolsheviks and the entire group was blamed for the actions of extremists.

Many Jews were anarchists and Bolsheviks, so that's hardly an unreasonable position. Keep in mind that eugenics was an idea founded by progressives like Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson, so those are the people you are attacking, not right wingers.

The idea that America shouldn't be choosy about who it allows to immigrate here is one of the ultimate absurdities of liberals. Not all cultures and peoples are equally civilized. Any claim that they are crashes on the known facts. The reason countries like Mexico are so fucked up is the fact that's populated by Mexicans.

Immigration from some cultures is beneficial, or at least not harmful to the country. Immigration from other cultures is definitely harmful. Our immigration laws should be written to benefit America, not to benefit immigrants. If they aren't a net positive contribution to this country, then we have no justification for allowing them in. Their personal circumstances are beside the point.

Objections to Muslim immigration, on the other hand, is motivated by the knowledge that these people are violent and hostile towards western democracy and free institution. That point isn't arguable. It's simply a fact. Poll after poll has demonstrated it to be the case.

Sure...keep saying that - you echo the earlier era, just replacing "Jewish" with "Muslim"....it's "simply a fact"

Polls reflect opinion...not fact. That's why they are called "opinion polls".

So if a poll says people believe the sky is blue, is that a fact or just an opinion?

That being said, a large influx of people from any particular culture that has sharp differences with Western culture is not desirable. That is, unless you view your own culture as undesirable. Only America hating drones have that attitude.

I view our culture as an amalgrum of all the many immigrant groups that made it what it is.

There's no doubt that it's an amalgam. At least it used to be. Now it's more of a salad. However, America didn't benefit from all the immigrants that came here. We didn't benefit from the Irish or the Italians who were the sources of most of the organized crime in the country. We don't benefit now from the influx of Mexicans and Muslims.

 

[defcon4]

No, it was from much earlier - 20's, 30's etc.

Recorded by Charles Coteworth Pinckney

Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787

(This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)


"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.


"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.


"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.


"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.


"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.


"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."


-Benjamin Franklin,

1787, at The Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Founding Father Quotes :

I was reading Founding Fathers' Quotes and came across this. I did not verify accuracy, anybody knows if it is an actual quote?

 

[Coyote]

No, it was from much earlier - 20's, 30's etc.

Recorded by Charles Coteworth Pinckney

Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787

(This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)


"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.


"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.


"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.


"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.


"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.


"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."


-Benjamin Franklin,

1787, at The Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Founding Father Quotes :

I was reading Founding Fathers' Quotes and came across this. I did not verify accuracy, anybody knows if it is an actual quote?

False: Franklin Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

[

The law doesn't not mention Jews, so your claim is based entirely on speculation about motives. The law was aimed at getting a balance of immigration from various nations. Southern and Eastern Europe were backwards areas of the world. The people coming from these areas were uneducated, unskilled and less civilized than Northern Europeans, and like Mexicans they were willing to work for much lower wages than Americans, so it's entirely reasonable that Americans didn't want to get swamped by the cultures of these areas.


wrong------ever see the MOVIE ----starring ---no less than Gregory Peck----
GENTLEMEN's AGREEMENT ------the exclusion of jewish immigrants was
a GENTLEMAN's agreement in the 1930s and 40s I grew up in a GENTELMAN's AGREEMENT town in the north east USA There were no blacks at all--------my dad was a world war II veteran and that town had transformed its farmland into -------HOUSES for the baby boomer market----MY dad had -----the VA HOUSE MORTGAGE benefit-------and five kids-----he managed
to buy a house------he claimed because he always SALUTED the fomer navy
officer who owned it. The town was all white bread and all Nazi way back
then ---when I was five years old, It was post world war II----but the notions lingered along with the propaganda pamphlets---------I do know what was going
on pre world war II I know from my relatives who could not save theirs from
Adolf and I know the "philosophies" of my waspish playmates -----and I even
read your propaganda ---------at age ten I was a very precocious reader. I read
the stuff that the islamo Nazis on this message board still PARROT------circa
1960 PS---that a jewish family with five kids moved in was something like
a CRISIS in my childhood town--------at age five my contemporaries-----little girls I did not even know threw rocks at me and accused me of killing some person named
"jesus"

 

[Sally]

No, it was from much earlier - 20's, 30's etc.

Recorded by Charles Coteworth Pinckney

Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787

(This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)


"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.


"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.


"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.


"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.


"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.


"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."


-Benjamin Franklin,

1787, at The Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Founding Father Quotes :

I was reading Founding Fathers' Quotes and came across this. I did not verify accuracy, anybody knows if it is an actual quote?

False: Franklin Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been a long time since someone dragged that up from the hate sites. We are going to have to upgrade DefCon4 to Defcon5 because he is really starting to look dangerous to civilized people. This instead of just having a full ID check when DefCon4 is in effect on military bases, perhaps they will also make you get out of your car and pat you down.

Say, maybe the heirs of Haym Salomon can ask DefCon4 to give them back the money that was used to finance the American Revolution..

 

[Sally]

here you go , some new invaders like these pervs and headed to Europe and England to have a little fun while the fun lasts . --- Aylesbury child sex ring members jailed for 'grotesque' abuse of vulnerable schoolgirls --- then off to jail for a few years for room and board amongst their 'peers' Coyote .

Wow...I forgot all about that. All the child sex rings are run only by muslims. Dang.

You're so funny pismoe

I hate to say it, but so much of that is going on by Muslims. I remember when it was being discussed on a forum, and a Paki Brit poster said that was OK because those girls are only White meat.

 

[Sally]

Gee, maybe the United Nations can carve out a piece of Israel and give the refugees their own state.

It is amusing how all the Jew-haters come crawling out of the woodwork like a bunch of cockroaches. How about a parcel of land in Saudi Arabia where they can make the desert bloom?

Why don't you tell us all how someone can express their opposition to Israeli policy without have to put up with old bags calling them anti-Semitic?

Hey, old man, you are not fooling anyone. Do you really believe that most people really think you would even concern yourself with Israel if there were no Jews there. I don't think anyone has ever seen you crawl onto these board and actually discussed other Middle East countries. Lots of things happening, so why have you been so silent? No problem with innocent people being killed in Yemen??? No problem with all the executions going on in Iran and Saudi Arabia??? Oh, I see -- there are no Jews involved.

 

[Sally]

Most of our soldiers come back to their families. None of those men you are cutting from their families are likely to come back. Would you have sent the Jewish men back to Europe to fight the Nazi's?

Absolutely...

Not only that, but you would have been happy to send them to the gas chambers.

Now just what the fuck is your problem? Gas chambers… how in the fuck that came about? Military aged men should fight for their families not hiding… what a moron...

I guess Defcon4 is on the same page as the Ayatollahs in Iran.

 

[Sally]

The zionazis have caused the palestinians migration who became refugees since 60 years, why they should receive syrian refugees?!

Oh look, here is that devout Muslim Freeman riding in on his camel. Naturally he will never tell us about all the murders his Sunni brethren have committed and are still committing. So, Freeman, why don't you enlighten us as to why in this day and age the different Muslim sects are at each other's throat and are murdering each other. If you live in America, you don't see this happening here even though the inhabitants follow many different religions? I can understand why the Ahmadiyaa Muslims say that the only place they feel safe is in America. By the way, Freeman, can you tell us how the Sunnis in whatever Muslim country you come from think about this particular sect which seems rather peaceful to me.

 

[defcon4]

It has been a long time since someone dragged that up from the hate sites. We are going to have to upgrade DefCon4 to Defcon5 because he is really starting to look dangerous to civilized people. This instead of just having a full ID check when DefCon4 is in effect on military bases, perhaps they will also make you get out of your car and pat you down.

Say, maybe the heirs of Haym Salomon can ask DefCon4 to give them back the money that was used to finance the American Revolution..

If you are good looking honey I'll be happy if you patting me down..and up… and down…. could you do it topless?

 

[defcon4]

I guess Defcon4 is on the same page as the Ayatollahs in Iran.

What makes you think that?