2004 May 07 Friday
Immigration Trends Pose Threat To American Jews

Dr. Steven M. Steinlight has an excellent and lengthy analysis of why current immigration trends are a threat to the safety and influence of American Jews. It is entitled High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry

Survey research, plus mountains of anecdotal evidence, reveals a profound change in attitude among American Jews. Opinion polls in the three years following the attacks of September 11, 2001 show a plurality favoring lowered immigration, 70 percent the introduction of a secure national identity card, and 55 percent believing Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States. It may not require another domestic terrorist enormity for respondents to discern simple cause-and-effect relationships; more ambitious efforts to persuade might suffice.

My experience at the grassroots suggests Jews know little about the history of their own immigration, immigration policy, the scale of immigration, or the engines that drive it. Frequently, all thatís required to effect attitudinal change is apprising them. When I began my efforts, the Jewish media spoke of Jewish attitudes in favor of open-borders immigration as "monolithic;" now itís commonplace to speak of "a raging debate."

Steinlight sees many changes that weaken the forces for assimilation.

Perhaps the chief distinction between todayís immigration and that of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that assimilated even the most recalcitrant. These forces have been weakened by multiculturalist ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics; the demise of Americanization programs; the death of civic education; the rise of bilingualism; and the elimination of obligatory national service.

Technological differences also carry gigantic consequences: the revolution in modern transportation and communications allows immigrants to maintain continuous, ongoing ties with native lands, cultures and languages ó something not possible a hundred years ago. Many "immigrants" are permanent resident aliens who live in two societies simultaneously but maintain primary loyalty to the cultural and political heritage of their countries of origin.

It is highly unlikely todayís immigrants will be as rapidly or fully absorbed into the mainstream as were our parents and grandparents. The immigrants are different; the country and its social institutions are different; the economy is different; technology is different; what is deemed normative is different. To believe the outcome will be the same under a wholly distinct set of conditions and socio-political constructs is not merely willful thinking: it is absurd.

Demographic changes can happen very rapidly.

Of the manifold concerns about immigration felt by all Americans and American Jews in particular, the way it fuels Muslim immigration is most worrying. The May 14, 2003, Globe & Mail announced that Muslims outnumber Jews in Canada, noting this demographic shift "could ultimately affect [Canadaís] position toward the protracted Middle East conflict."

Muslim ascendancy in Canada is a harbinger of things to come in America, 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 erased. According to the 2001 census, the Muslim population of Canada exceeded the Jewish population by 75 percent.

CNN and ABC News recently reported a doubling of the Arab population in the United States in just two decades. The number of Arabs alone (not Muslims in general) is already nearly 1.3 million. For virtually its entire history, Arab immigration was primarily Christian and lopsidedly Lebanese; now itís virtually all Muslim, with the immigrantsí lands of origin mainly Egypt, the West Bank, and Yemen.

Muslim immigration has fundamentally altered demography, culture, and the political landscape of Western Europe. Its impact on Jewish life is disastrous, and it has turned European foreign policy on the Middle East from even-handedness to one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic. Symbolizing the transition was the EUís failure to condemn the Nazi oration by the former Malaysian Prime Minister. Also shocking was the EUís rejection of the report it commissioned from the German Technical University on the upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. It was labeled as "racist" because it identified by far the greatest numbers of perpetrators of anti-Semitic outrages as Muslim. In todayís Islamized Europe, Jews live under physical threat, something unknown since the rise of fascism.

Steinlight points out that Hispanic immigrants come from Latin American Catholic societies where anti-semitism is still widespread and socially acceptable. He worries that this will contribute to the growth of anti-semitism in the United States as Hispanic imimgrants are too numerous to assimilate to US norms and too tied to their cultures and societies of origin.

Steinlight forecasts that eventually the Muslim vote and money in the United States will cancel out the Jewish influence and the United States will cease its strong support for Israel.

It is worth examining trends in Europe to see what the future holds for Jews in America as the size of the Muslim population in America increases and eventually surpasses the size of the Jewish population. One problem is the Muslim imam preachers who are hostile to non-believers.

Overwhelmingly foreign, and sometimes speaking only Arabic, Europe's imams often have little understanding of their host countries, and their teachings run counter to modern European values and gender roles, say Muslim leaders and government officials. But there seems little chance of any change soon, they add.

Salafist Imams preach messages that sway many young Muslims toward the path of jihad and terrorism.

According to Olivier Roy, a French expert on political and radical Islam, the issue is not whether these men belong to what are widely considered to be terrorist groups - he says they do not - but the spread of extremist messages.

"There are no terrorist groups operating in mosques - neither in France nor elsewhere. Al-Qaeda does not organise itself in mosques," he told BBC News Online.

"The rationale behind the French move is that fundamentalism, or Salafism, may push some youths towards radical Islam and possibly terrorism. Radical imams are seen as providing the ideological framework for terror - so as well as a political perspective, there is an issue of security involved.

The Interior Minister of France wants to train Imams in France to replace the dangerous foreign ones.

The French interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, said yesterday that the country must urgently begin training Muslim clerics in a moderate Islam that respects human rights and the republican code.

France, Italy, and Britain have each deported a small number of radical Muslim preachers.

Britain jailed an imam from Jamaica for nine years in March 2003 for urging followers to kill Hindus, Jews and Americans. It is now trying to deport another high-profile cleric, Abu Hamza al-Masri, accusing him of advising and supporting terrorist groups,.

Locally born European Muslim radicals are joining local cells and plotting terrorist attacks against European targets.

And recruitment is paired with a compelling new strategy to bring the fight to Europe.

Members of Al Qaeda have "proven themselves to be extremely opportunistic, and they have decided to try to split the Western alliance," the official continued. "They are focusing their energies on attacking the big countries" ó the United States, Britain and Spain ó so as to "scare" the smaller states.

Some Muslim recruits are going to Iraq, counterterrorism officials in Europe say, but more are remaining home, possibly joining cells that could help with terror logistics or begin operations like the one that came to notice when the British police seized 1,200 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a key bomb ingredient, in late March, and arrested nine Pakistani-Britons, five of whom have been charged with trying to build a terrorist bomb.

Writing for leftist Guardian of the UK Jeremy Seabrook affects an attitude of disdain for the British National Party for opposing Muslim immigration and the threat it poses to Britain.

The tale the BNP tells today, in the rundown streets of the fearful old and the disinherited young, is about the spread of an alien creed, aided by the fifth column of an enemy within, and of hordes of migrant strangers at our border. The detail - "islands of Islam in our communities", "a race relations industry kowtowing to the apologists for terror", even "the imminent extinction of the white man" - however ghoulish, is less significant than the narrative of the nation in danger; for this resonates strongly with earlier versions of these islands in jeopardy.

But Britain really is in danger. A growing Muslim population will turn Britain into a place that the BNP supporters really do not want to live in - and with good cause. So why shouldn't the BNP and its supporters talk this way? What is illegitimate about wanting to live in one's own culture and not in a culture that is hostile to one's beliefs, values, and culture?

The Chief Rabbi in Moscow thinks the Europeans were for rapid EU enlargement as a way to dilute their growing Muslim population.

Moscow Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt said that the European Union's relatively swift agreement to accept 10 new states was motivated by the need to ensure a supply of inexpensive workers to counter Muslim immigration to Europe.

He claimed this was one of the signs that the Europeans are beginning to recognize that Christians and not just Jews are threatened by the new demographic reality, in which 25% of French youth, and an even higher proportion of Belgian young, are Muslim. "We have to tell Europeans that if they're burning synagogues today, tomorrow they'll be burning churches," he said.

You can't count on the EU's elites to be honest about their motivations. To get a sense of just how mendacious the European Union political elite is willing to be about the threat that Muslims pose to Jews in Europe see my previous post EU Agency Misconstrues Sources Of Attacks On Jews. Jews in America need to ask themselves whether that is the kind of future they want for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren.

If you are at all taken in by the argument that immigration law is unenforcable and that illegal immigration can not be stopped then for a contrary view see the posts in my category archive Immigration Law Enforcement.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 May 07 01:26 PM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
Brock said at May 8, 2004 9:21 PM:

Have you read anything by Spengler of Asia Times? He has some very interesting views on the survivability of the Jews, and other cultures in general.

Are the Jews in danger? Yeah, probably, especially in Europe and double especially in an Islamic power gets "the Bomb."

I don't think it will be a problem here in the US though. We have an unfortunately high tolerance for disgusting acts of Anti-Semitism disguised as Pro-Arabism/Palestinian Nationalism, but acts of actual violence will not be tolerated.

And as a pure results-driven observation, how many peoples have survived for 5,000 years? Not even the Chinese have been around that long. I wouldn't count out the Jews until every last one has been dead for at least 1000 years.

PS - Randall, I haven't said it before, but your sites rock. Good stuff.

Proborders said at May 10, 2004 10:13 PM:

I think that Gentile non-Hispanic white Americans (Gentile whites) are probably more likely to be more negatively affected by immigration from Mexico (and Central America) than Jewish Americans. Gentile white adults tend to have less formal education than Jewish American adults. Therefore, Gentile white adults are more likely to have reduced wages (or be unemployed) as a result of job competition from Latin American immigrants and their descendants than Jewish American adults (this is, of course, a generalization). Overall
Gentile whites may be more likely to be negatively affected by affirmative action preferences given to Latin American immigrants and their descendants by colleges and universities than Jewish Americans because Jewish Americans tend to have higher IQ's than Gentile whites (see "The Color of Meritocracy" at http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/color_of_meritocracy.htm).

Politically it seems that Latin American immigrants and their descendants(at least in the near future) will be more likely to vote for Democrat candidates than for Republican candidates (see Steve Sailer's "Hispanic Republicans - A Media Myth" at http://www.vdare.com/sailer/pew.htm). Jewish American voters, it seems, are more likely to vote for Democrat congressional candidates than Gentile white voters (see Steve Sailer's "Analysis: GOP's Protestant appeal").

Randy McDonald said at May 15, 2004 9:14 PM:

You can't count on the EU's elites to be honest about their motivations.

Perhaps not. But given how all but three European Union countries--excluding France and Germany, the countries with the largest Muslim-origin populations--have excluded central European immigrants, one can rate Rabbi Goldschmidt's argument as unconvincing at best.

Randy McDonald said at May 15, 2004 9:16 PM:

You can't count on the EU's elites to be honest about their motivations.

Perhaps not. Considering that all but three of the EU-15--excluding France and Germany, the nations with the largest Muslim-origin populations and hence most urgently needing influxes of non-Muslim immigrants--have sharply limited migration from the central European member-states, Mr. Goldschmidt's hypothesis appears unconvincing at best.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©