Category Archives: Immigration

Merkel’s New Interior Minister: “Islam Does Not Belong To Germany”, by Tyler Durden

Angela Merkel has lasted as long as she has as Germany’s Chancellor because she knows how to pick up on winning themes and drop losing ones. Unlimited Islamic migration to Germany is a loser, and although she was its biggest proponent, she’s moving away from it. From Tyler Durden at

In a startling confirmation of the rising power of Germany’s populist movement, on Friday Germany’s new Interior Minister Horst Seehofer declared that “Islam does not belong to Germany” while setting out hardline immigration policies in an interview published on Friday, in an attempt to ward off rising anti-immigration challengers.

“Islam does not belong to Germany,” Seehofer said, contradicting former German president Christian Wulff who fueled a debate over immigration in 2010 by saying Islam was part of Germany. In 2015 Merkel echoed Wulff’s words at a time when anti-immigration campaign group PEGIDA – or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West – was holding marches.


Horst Seehofer

Closing the book on Merkel’s disastrous “open door” policies, Seehofer told Bild he would push through a “master plan for quicker deportations”, in his first major interview since he was sworn into office on Wednesday.

The minister – a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CSU Bavarian allies who are further to the right than her own Christian Democrats – said he would also classify more states as “safe” countries of origin, which would make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers. The statements – an obvious attempt to court populist voters – come after Merkel’s conservatives, and their coalition allies – the Social Democrats – lost ground to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in elections last year.

As Reuters notes, Seehofer is particularly keen to show his party is tackling immigration ahead of Bavaria’s October regional election, when the AfD is expected to enter that state assembly.

“Of course the Muslims living here do belong to Germany,” Seehofer said before going on to say Germany should not give up its own traditions or customs, which had Christianity at their heart.

“My message is: Muslims need to live with us, not next to us or against us,” he said.

According to the German government, between 4.4 and 4.7 million Muslims live in Germany today; most have a Turkish background and many of the more than a million migrants who have arrived in the country from the Middle East and elsewhere after Merkel adopted an open-door policy in mid-2015 are also Muslims.

To continue reading: Merkel’s New Interior Minister: “Islam Does Not Belong To Germany”



EU: More Censorship to “Protect” You, by Judith Bergman

Online the EU strives mightily to keep its citizens “safe” from “harmful” content. Offline, life becomes increasingly dangerous as EU governments fail to keep their citizens safe. From Judith Bergman at

  • There appears to be a huge disconnect here between the EU’s professedconcern for keeping Europeans safe — as expressed in the one-hour rule — and the EU’s actual refusal to keep Europeans safe in the offline world. The result is that Europeans, manipulated by an untransparent, unaccountable body, will not be kept safe either online or off. And what if the content in question, as has already occurred, may be trying to warn the public about terrorism?
  • Regardless of these facts, including that women can no longer exercise their freedom to walk in safety in many neighborhoods of European cities, the EU has staunchly refused to stop the influx of migrants. It is, therefore, difficult to take seriously in any way the European Commission’s claim that the security, offline and online, of EU citizens is a “top priority”. If that were true, why does not Europe simply close the borders? Instead, the EU actually sues EU countries — Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — who refuse to endanger their citizens by admitting the quota of migrants that the EU assigns for them.
  • These EU ultimatums also fail to take into account what a recent study showed: that the second most important factor in the radicalization of Muslims, after Islam itself, is the environment, namely the mosques and imams to which Muslims go and on which they rely. Although the internet evidently does play a role in the radicalization process, the study showed that face-to-face encounters were more important, and that dawa, proselytizing Islam, plays a central role in this process.

On March 1, The European Commission — the unelected executive branch of the European Union — told social media companies to remove illegal online terrorist content within an hour, or risk facing EU-wide legislation on the topic. The ultimatum was part of a new set of recommendations that will apply to all forms of “illegal content” online, “from terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products and copyright infringement.”

The European Commission said, “Considering that terrorist content is most harmful in the first hours of its appearance online, all companies should remove such content within one hour from its referral as a general rule”.

To continue reading: EU: More Censorship to “Protect” You

The High Price of Denial, by Douglass Murray

There are too many European immigrant problems for politicians to ignore. From Douglass Murray at

  • They are now admitting what is visible to the eyes of ordinary Europeans may be an admission that things have got so bad — and are so well known — that even Chancellor Merkel and the New York Timesare no longer able to ignore them.
  • If so, one thought must surely follow: imagine what might have been solved if the denials had never even begun?

Is it possible that mainstream politicians and the mainstream media are finally recognising what the European public can see with their own eyes? Two recent occurrences suggest that this might be so.

The first is a concession by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who almost half a year after her party’s embarrassment in national elections has finally managed to put together a coalition government. Last September saw not only Merkel’s party and her erstwhile coalition partners suffer a historic dent in their vote-share, but also saw the entry to Parliament of the five-year old anti-immigration AfD (Alternative for Germany) party, which is now so large that it constitutes the country’s official opposition. If German voters meant to send a message, it could hardly have been clearer.

Perhaps it was even listened to. On Monday February 26, Merkel gave an interview to the German broadcaster N-TV. In it she finally admitted that there are “no-go areas” in her country: “that is, areas where nobody dares to go.” She continued: “There are such areas and one has to call them by their name and do something about them.” The Chancellor claimed that she favoured a “zero tolerance” attitude towards such places but did not identify where they were. Two days later, her spokesman, Steffen Seibert stressed that “the Chancellor’s words speak for themselves.”

To continue reading: The High Price of Denial

Globalists and Nationalists: Who Owns the Future? by Patrick J. Buchanan

The nation-state refuses to go quietly into that good night. From Patrick J. Buchanan at

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

“I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe — drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience.

To continue reading: Globalists & Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?

Cutting welfare to illegal aliens would pay for Trump’s wall, by Paul Sperry

The open borders crowd doesn’t like to tally the tab for illegal immigration. From Paul Sperry at

Mexico won’t have to pay for the wall, after all. US taxpayers won’t have to pick up the tab, either. The controversial barrier, rather, will cover its own cost just by closing the border to illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal dole.

That’s the finding of recent immigration studies showing the $18 billion wall President Trump plans to build along the southern border will pay for itself by curbing the importation of not only crime and drugs, but poverty.

“The wall could pay for itself even if it only modestly reduced illegal crossings and drug smuggling,” Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Post.

Federal data shows that a wall would work. A two-story corrugated metal fence in El Paso, Texas, first erected under the Bush administration has already curtailed illegal border crossings there by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which it was built.

Absent a wall, the Homeland Security Department forecasts an additional 1.7 million illegal crossings at the US-Mexico border over the next decade.

If a wall stopped just 200,000 of those future crossings, Camarota says, it would pay for itself in fiscal savings from welfare, public education, refundable tax credits and other benefits currently given to low-income, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

If a wall stopped 50 percent of those expected crossings, he says, it would save American taxpayers a whopping $64 billion — almost four times the wall’s cost — to say nothing of the additional billions in federal savings from reduced federal drug interdiction and border-security enforcement.

To continue reading: Cutting welfare to illegal aliens would pay for Trump’s wall

Tyranny of Shaming, by Nonie Darwish

Nonie Darwish, an immigrant, says America has nothing to be ashamed of, and pointing out the shameful conditions in many of the countries of the Middle East is not Islamaphobia. From Darwish at

  • The bias of many Americans against American values has blinded them from seeing the reasons we immigrants went through hell to come to this country. Many Americans believe that those who criticize the culture from which we escaped must be “Islamophobic.” They seem not to understand why we never again want to see what we have gone through so much to escape from.
  • Such attacks on the white majority in Americans are, bluntly, racist. It is a shame that so many Americans are unable or refuse to see what many immigrants see: that it was under this white majority that millions of oppressed people — of all colors and creeds — from around the world were rescued from tyranny, Sharia law, slavery, discrimination, Islamism and a miserable existence under corrupt, war-torn and famine-stricken nations. Instead, many seem to want to bring all that here.
  • We watched American freedoms as a dream: to be able to smile back at a man who opened the door for you without accusations of being a loose woman for smiling. To be able to wear what you want, go out when you want, work or get an education or not, and venture to hope one day to live under a system that respects monogamy and equal rights for women and minorities. Yes, it is the American culture where whites are the majority, no problem with that, that made our dreams come true. Despite its shortcomings no other country in the world offers its citizens the chance to be whatever they would like. We might never get back what we already have.

Every day we hear on television, “We need an honest discussion about race in this country”.

Many well-meaning Americans, however, may have had enough of this endless, empty and dysfunctional discussion of race. To an outsider, Americans seem obsessed with race; and the discussion always deteriorates to shouting, insulting, blaming, finger-pointing, distorting reality and removing any hope of taking responsibility for oneself. The goal of the discussion always seems to be to try to claim that “I am holier than thou.”

To continue reading: Tyranny of Shaming

NYT Admits ‘Trump Is Right’ About Grenade and AK-47 Attacks In Sweden, by Tyler Durden

How many times have we seen the mainstream media in an uproar over something “outrageous” that Trump said, only to see them walk it back later, and still later, quietly confirm it? From Tyler Durden at

Update: During President Trump’s joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven today, he reminded everyone that he was right about his view of immigration policies in Sweden.

“Now that you spend some time with our prime minister, how do you view Sweden, in general?” the reporter asked.

“What is your take? And also on our immigration politics?”

“Certainly you have a problem with the immigration,” Trump replied.

“It’s caused problems in Sweden. I was one of the first ones to say it. I took a little heat, but that was okay, because I proved to be right.”

As we detailed earlier, in the latest installment of our focus on Sweden, the New York Times diverted from the establishment media playbook, publishing an astonishing report detailing Sweden’s increasing problem with immigrant gangs using hand grenades and Kalashnikovs in crime sprees across the country — more than a year after the dying liberal paper scolded President Trump for bringing awareness to the issue.

The NYT — which titled the weekend piece “Hand Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden’s Middle Class,” uncovers the troubling truth of what the mainstream media was not permitted to share with the rest of the world for the past year: weapons of war ended up in the hands of refugee gangs on the streets of Sweden.

Weapons from a faraway, long-ago war are flowing into immigrant neighborhoods here, puncturing Swedes’ sense of confidence and security. The country’s murder rate remains low, by American standards, and violent crime is stable or dropping in many places. But gang-related assaults and shootings are becoming more frequent, and the number of neighborhoods categorized by the police as “marred by crime, social unrest and insecurity” is rising. Crime and immigration are certain to be key issues in September’s general election, alongside the traditional debates over education and health care.

To continue reading: NYT Admits ‘Trump Is Right’ About Grenade and AK-47 Attacks In Sweden