Nobody is asking you to fight for them just give refuge to legitimate refugees from genocide unlike every other group that has been accepted for years. The numbers are tiny.
Great post Newmexican!! As they say,"A picture is worth a thousand words.
What bothers me about the South African refugee argument is this: Although it may be intellectually honest to be consistent in opposition to all emigration (as I am also, in principle) in the real world where life happens it becomes contradictory in practice. Our immigration system is pretty much on automatic pilot. With or without the Bores the green cards continue to flow and the illegals will sneak in, anchor babies will be born and hordes will become naturalized citizens. Refusing entry to South Africans will do nothing to affect the out of control mass migration as it is now. The numbers will not be reduced, instead it will simply make more room to bring in Hispanics, Muslims etc. who fill in the void. They will be given legal status that might have gone to some South Africans. In an immigration system that is already biased against Europeans the bias will only become worse.
I agree we need to stop all immigration for a generation, but until the time when we get strict control over immigration, the only thing keeping out South Africans will accomplish will be to further exaggerate the inherent bias against Whites that already exists in immigration policies. When we truly have control over foreigners entering our country, I will lead the charge to stop all immigration, but until then I am not going to support blocking people who are truly in danger of being murdered in mass for the benefit of those who only want to make more money.
These are criminal violence issues, same as El Salvador and other countries controlled by gangs, thugs and drug cartels. It is no different. We can't use crimes in their country as a reason to be a refugee.
Also, based on the article I posted and some others I read, the situation is still in the works, still being worked on, not final or resolved yet as to how this moves forward. I think they'll work it out.
We have become too accustomed to accepting people that use drugs and gangs as an excuse. There is a difference between being afraid of gang violence and systematic political, racial genocide.
Additionally, with the South African black empowerment laws, whites that are not farmers, can't get jobs, so they cannot support themselves and wind up living in camps. Most of the people in the camps are children.
This video is from February 18,2018, last week.
Inside South Africa's White Displacement Camps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq0GReiZyKc
Published on Feb 20, 2018
#FARMLANDS Official Site: https://goo.gl/PKkfAh
Thank you so much for watching this series from South Africa. If you'd like to know more about this particular camp and how you can help, please contact Kobus Cremer at madbtech@gmail.comIf you'd like to support me in creating more projects like this one, please check out the links below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq0GReiZyKcLauren Southern
Extra material; Lauren Southern in South Africa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB4-VtcQK_A
Palaestra Media
]Published on Jan 22, 2018
Jonas Nilsson from Boerproject interviewing Lauren Southern about her own documentary reagarding the farm attacks in South Africa. Lauren Southernhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCla6...Boerprojectwww.boerproject.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB4-VtcQK_A
South Africa is Killing the Farmlands
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFnOOfkYCs
Lauren Southern
Published on Feb 27, 2018
#FARMLANDS Official Site: https://goo.gl/PKkfAhThank you so much for watching this series from South Africa. If you'd like to support trips like this and help us turn these stories into a full-length documentary, there are a few ways you can get involved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFnOOfkYCs
We have homeless people living in far worse conditions than that. It's a sad commentary but there's sadness, racism, crime, etc., all over the world. They'll have to work it out. BUT, that said, exposing it worldwide is very important because this puts pressure on the South African problem to come to solutions. But South Africa doesn't have enough jobs for all the people, they never did, that's why it was so easy for them to arrange Apartheid policies and get away with it for so long.
White Farmers Slaughtered in South Africa | Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TfAq3LrIjg
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Feb 10, 2018
MP3: https://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3996/wh...Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneu...Lauren Southern is an independent journalist and the author of "Barbarians: How the Baby Boomers, Immigration and Islam Screwed My Generation." Order "Barbarians: How the Baby Boomers, Immigration and Islam Screwed My Generation" now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TfAq3LrIjg
The Truth About Nelson Mandela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HyuLPWF9I
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Dec 9, 2013
Nelson Mandela is portrayed in the mainstream media as a peace-loving anti-apartheid revolutionary and philanthropist. But what is the truth about Nelson Mandela?Correction: For decades, Mandela supported nationalization, but abandoned his plans after being informed of the negative effects they would likely engender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HyuLPWF9I
Rare Video: Nelson Mandela Speaking on Palestine [Extracts]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TiUhhm7cQ
BDS South Africa
Published on Dec 16, 2013
1990 Town Hall Meeting with Nelson Mandela on Palestine, Cuba and other issuesThe above video is a collection of extracts from a 1990 town hall meeting, held in New York City and chaired by Ted Koppel of ABC Networks. The meeting formed part Nelson Mandela's first visit to the USA immediately following his release from prison.
A significant part of the town hall meeting focused on Nelson Mandela's advocating (on behalf of the African National Congress and the larger South African liberation struggle) for sanctions to be applied against Apartheid South Africa, his and the ANC's support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as well as his close friendship with Yasser Arafat (of Palestine) and Fidel Castro (of Cuba).
The town hall meeting took place in 1990, long before the world had embraced Nelson Mandela as a "giant of justice". However, even then, when it may have been unfashionable and unpopular to support the Palestinians against, what Mandela termed, Israeli "colonialism", Mandela stood firm and resolute on his principles and the policies of the ANC - Mandela was, after all, conveying the long-standing positions held by the ANC and the larger South African liberation movement. Nelson Mandela supported the Palestinian struggle when it was unfashionable and unpopular, he was a true leader. Hamba Kahle Tata...
For more information: http://ymlp.com/zKJiYw--------------------
REFERENCES MADE BY NELSON MANDELAPLO:
The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was created in 1964 with the purpose of advancing the struggle for Palestinian self determination. The PLO is recognised as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" by over 100 countries with which it holds diplomatic relations. Like South Africa's (now ruling ANC) the PLO was considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organisation until 1991. In 1993 Israel officially recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.YASSER ARAFAT: Late leader of the Palestinian people as well as chairman of the PLO.--------------------FULL VERSION OF THE INTERVIEW AND VIDEO: http://youtu.be/q6eE9BIUfBg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TiUhhm7cQ
Land or Death: Mandela's Failed Rainbow Nation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-G9hMY-qk
Lauren Southern
[COLOR=var(--ytd-video-publish-date-color)]Published on Feb 10, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-G9hMY-qk[/COLOR]
Multiculturalism has worked well for me. I have no problem recognizing or respecting a different culture.
We all have motives for fighting illegal immigration. The only reason I'm not in favor of illegal immigration is because I believe it is unfair. So in my mind, fighting against illegal immigration is fighting inequality. I couldn't care less about race unless I'm fighting for racial equality inside of the borders of the US.
I will not get bogged down with anything dealing with perpetuating racial inequality.
The land was commandeered by force and it needs to return to it's rightful owners.
I do believe in giving people refuge.
But then we get into politics. Temporary Protection Status has proven to be a failure regarding it's purpose. People simply never leave.
Where was this outcry during apartheid? Did you think people in Soweto needed refuge?
The undercover nature of race based political moves can be found out just by what you do and say.
For example the so called "Opiate Crisis" is only a crisis because those mostly affected are white. Back in the 80s when the "Crack Crisis" was destroying whole cities, "Lock them up", was the response.
I will not be a part furthering racial inequality in any way, shape or form
South Africa was completely segregated. Blacks were in those awful tenement camps during Apatheid which started not the 400 years ago, but with some new idea that came around after 1913.
Yep. The people of South Africa need to work this out, and I believe they will. The radicals will stir things up and tragically commit some horrible crimes, but those people are not really political, they just use politics as an excuse to do what really turns them on which is hurting and killing people. The vast majority of South Africans will not support that, they want some justice for the past, so they'll have to work out some solutions to that among themselves.
Oh I wasn't talking about working out the racism, I was talking about South Africans working out some solutions to the injustice of Apartheid.
South Africa has an unemployment rate of over 27%. That is beyond most of our abilities to comprehend in a country with over 55 million people. They are in a drought now to boot. Everyone in the country will be having a hard time, not just the Afrikaners.
Their particular brand of racism will preempt any talks that they would be willing to have. It's a lost cause.
South Africa was created, in large part, to drive out the people living there. The cape was very important as a shipping and supply point
on the way to India and China for trade. Tea and silk cost many African people their very lives.
After that kind of history, it would be fantasy to think that the children of the murderers are any more civilized that their parents.
The times have changed but not the people.
I think they should go to The Netherlands and forget the false narrative that they are owed "compensation".
If they are willing to trade the land for their life, I'd be in favor of that too!
I went to South Africa during Apartheid and I saw with my own two eyes, what it was like.
I think the South African government will get together with the banks who hold loans on the property and work out partial takings so that the Afrikaners retain some of the property and the South Africans take some of it. There are some number of Afrikaners that aren't impacted, those who bought land prior to 1913. The ones impacted are those who somehow stole it through Apartheid procedures after 1913.
Whatever the issues are, the US needs to stay out of it and make it clear we are taking absolutely no refugees.
I don't think South Africa is a real country anyway. South Africa was being strangled by many nations not doing business with them.
My theory is that the S.A. elites thought of a plan to get relief. They would control most of the resources and they would end Apartheid so
the foreign money and investments will start pouring into the country. Can you name a person that got out of prison and
went directly to the presidency? I can't. Mandela was a sure pick to distract everyone and to get the money flowing again.
Side note: Ronald Reagan and Thatcher loved South African's leaders. I'm glad they are both dead.
There wasn't anything Reagan or Thatcher could do. It's something the South Africans have to work out. There's a lot of strategic interests in South Africa, and none of those interests are in the people of South Africa. It's just the way it is. SAD! We have 50 states, with most of them in trouble in one way or another. There are almost 200 countries around the world who all have their own issues. Until we take care of all of our 50 states, we can't be taking care of other countries. Americans are exhausted, broke, and tired of war. Yet, we have a big one on the horizon that will involve an invasion and refugees all over the place. So sorry Afrikaners, there's just nothing we can do for you at this time.
poor BOERS
Red October: The Plight of Whites in the New South Africa
https://images.enca.com/encadrupal/s...3/IMG_2440.JPG
Members of the Afrikaans community marched on the Union Buildings in Pretoria to protest what some are calling the "genocide" of white South Africans. Photo: eNCA / Nickolaus Bauer
https://images.enca.com/encadrupal/s...3/IMG_2445.JPG
A woman holds up a protest sign that reads, "South Africa, our land, our land of mourning." The group marched on the Union Buildings to protest what it calls a "white genocide" in the country. Photo: eNCA / Nickolaus Bauer
JOHANNESBURG - Approximately 250 protestors clad in red and brandishing balloons of the same colour hit the streets of Pretoria on Thursday demonstrating against white genocide.
Red October aims to draw attention to oppression of and violence against White South Africans.
It was a protest that was mirrored in cities across South Africa - and in some around the globe.
“This is an international call to action. It’s time we make a stand and tell our government that enough is enough,” Sunette Bridges, Red October organiser and Afrikaans singer told the mostly white Afrikaner crowd.
“17 of our people are murdered every month by a black person. Now I can only imagine the international outcry if 17 black people a month were murdered by a white person.”
The march took place on what has traditionally been celebrated as Kruger Day, the birthday of Boer resistance leader Paul Kruger.
And although right wing mainstays such as the Vierkleur old South African flags were widespread among the protestors, organisers claim the march was solely about fighting for minoritity rights.
"Everyone is welcome here," Afrikaans folk hero Steve Hofmeyr told the crowd.
"We are marching to prove that there are South Africans left who won't acclimatise to the sub-standard."
The group also delivered a memorandum calling for an end to black-on-white violence and what it deems as reverse discrimination in the health, education and employment sectors.
But in spite of claims, the march itself was very much about the rape and murder of white people at the hands of black people.
Marchers held up placards and posters depicting farm murders and decrying the alleged savagery that is meted out to whites by blacks.
“When a white person gets murdered by a black person its normal – its crime. But when a black gets killed by a white, then its racism and persecution,” Willem Bester told eNCA.
“I am here today to say that this is not right. We cannot be simply slaughtered like animals.”
But Red October’s facts and figures are disputed.
Statistics suggest white South Africans are less likely to be murdered than their black or coloured counterparts
A 2009 analysis by the SAPS of police murder dockets show how that in 86.9% of murder cases, the victims were black.
While whites only accounted for 1.8% of the cases – even though they make up over 8% of the population.
“Immaterial of the statistics, we are not used this mortality rate. We are not used to being raped at this rate. Most importantly we aren’t used to being raped by other cultures, tribes or ethnicities,” Hofmeyr added.
https://i.imgur.com/ajhLLtg.png
Red October: The Plight of Whites in the New South Africa - eNCA
South Africa Cracks Down on Skin Lightening Creams....
The Africans just wanna be white...but the south african authorities beez crackin’ down an shee-it....
An intrepid reporter accompanies a rotund sheboon in uniform as the “offisuh” goes around confiscating the illegal skin bleaching creams (I wonder if the African is secretly stashing them all her herself?)
http://youtu.be/bWHCwXZpH6E
Quote from Boomslang: "I will not get bogged down with anything dealing with perpetuating racial inequality. The land was commandeered by force and it needs to return to it's rightful owners."
Which “rightful owners?” You do realize that every square inch of land on earth has been fought over. The victor simply confiscated the land of the defeated. This is true of every culture and every country or tribe on Earth since before recorded history. with rare exceptions. every body, everywhere. You are using an unworkable standard to determine legitimacy of ownership.
I can accept any reasonable standard but it must apply equally to all. Everybody needs to agree to the same rules. But that is not what is happening. Only Whites tie themselves into knots about who originally inhabited the land where they now live. No other ethnic group gives a rip about it when it is applied to their determent. Not the Blacks, not the American Indians, not the Asians not the Arabs, just White who only selectively apply it against themselves. And all of the other groups see this and jump in on the guilt, shaming. Sorry but I will only follow rules if everybody else does too. Otherwise that just makes me a fool.
Where you concerned for poor people in Soweto during Apartheid? If you were, great. Now let's focus on getting the Dutch and English back home. They can't speak Ndebele, Xhosa or isiZulu. They are not interested in being part of South Africa.
Am I supposed to feel one way for one group of people and a different for the other? If the Dutch and English had stayed in their countries, the pain that they caused would have never happened.
The land belong to the South African People. Period. If the Dutch and English would like to keep their lives they should go home. As I stated before, at least they are given a choice between the land and their lives. Many African people were denied that privilege.
Off topic, in the Congo, but still a good video
https://youtu.be/nLaGnu20n78
The Afrikaners didn't do anything wrong when they settled in South Africa. The history is Portuguese in the 15th century (1400's), Dutch starting in 17th century (1600's), British in 19th century (1800's) until British formed Union of South Africa in 1909 and then I guess they left. Everything worked pretty well until .....1913 the beginnings of racist legislation .... got much worse by 1948 when full-blown Apartheid went into effect. So that's why 1913 impacts the lands being expropriated. Everyone's lands prior to that are not being expropriated. Apartheid was really based on a type of Nazism.
Anyway, like I said, I don't know that much about it, but some corrections need to be worked out so the country can be a country without racism from anyone, and as we know, that takes a lot of time, and it's something the people of the country have to work out themselves.
Don't you mean invaded. The Khoisan in the west were there before anyone. In the east, Shaka had United a large empire. Of course he made a lot of enemies in the process.
King Cetshwayo fought for as long as he could. Warning the surrounding nation's of the barbarians at the gates.
Out of mercy, the South African people should give the Dutch and English a 1 year amnesty. Prove that they can speak a major South African language and they pay a fine for their continued presence in a country where they caused so much pain.
It doesn't really matter who was there first. What matters is who ends up with it. What the Dutch, English and Germans did in South Africa is no different than what all humans have been doing everywhere since there were humans. That's what I mean by not doing anything wrong. It's the course of civilizations. And be assured, if you end up with it and can't protect it, you will lose it. Law of the Universe.
We all like to think we're evolved, modernized and enlightened. But, are we? Some, but not all. It's why we have wars. Hitler was a barbarian, so was Hirohito. They weren't evolved, modernized or enlightened. They were savages. That wasn't that long ago either, just 70 years ago when the barbarians were at our own gates.
The South Africans need to work it out among themselves. I for one have confidence in the black majority of South Africa to make it right and do so in a fair and decent way. I sure hope they can. But it is a huge task with 27% unemployment and a drought to boot.
I cannot stress enough that the Dutch and English should trade their land for their lives. That's the starting point I would push for if I were South African.
If you remember the MLK video about farming, the SA government will be needing to get involved too! But I fear corruption and greed might rob the honest people.
Grants, machinery, agriculture colleges, and more is needed.
https://youtu.be/pLV5y4utPKI
South Africa Explores Constitutional Change to Allow Land Seizures
February 28, 2018 1:39 PM
Anita Powell
JOHANNESBURG —
South Africa's parliament voted Tuesday to examine how to amend the constitution to allow land seizures without compensation, a move that resonates deeply in a nation where the white minority still controls much of the farmland.
But the strongest proponent of the motion immediately sought to reassure the nation that nothing too drastic would come of it.
"No one is going to lose his or her house, no one is going to lose his or her flat, no one is going to lose his or her factory or industry," Julius Malema, who leads the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters party, said immediately following the vote. "All we are saying is they will not have the ownership of the land, they will have a lease, depending on what is the arrangement, particularly as it relates to the outcome of the Constitutional review process."
Another Zimbabwe?
There are fears the vote will put South Africa on the same path as neighboring Zimbabwe, where forceful, violent seizures of white-owned farms in the early 2000s were blamed for the nation's economic freefall and political instability.
The ruling African National Congress also supported Tuesday's motion, but with the provision that land seizures cannot hurt agricultural production, economic stability or political stability — a fairly large and vague loophole, analysts say.
The loudest group in support of land seizures, the Black First Land First Movement, has denounced the motion as nothing but an "electioneering gimmick" by the ANC.
"Black First Land First is concerned that the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African National Congress are not serious about land expropriation without compensation," the group said in a statement.
Painful history
But as Malema knows, South Africa's soil is stained by hundreds of years of colonial exploitation, by the blood and sweat shed by underpaid, mostly black laborers working for white bosses. Today, black South Africans, who are the majority of the population, remain on average significantly poorer than white South Africans.
With a critical national election looming, Malema used this emotional pull to full effect when arguing in favor of the motion in parliament:
"The time for reconciliation is over," he said. "Now is the time for justice. If the grandchildren of [early Dutch settler] Jan van Riebeeck have not understood that we need our land, that over and above it is about our humanity, then they have failed to receive the gift of humanity."
The opposition Democratic Alliance voted against the measure, and blames the slow pace of land redistribution on the ANC, which has ruled since the end of apartheid in 1994, but now faces a tough election next year as it has slowly lost ground to the opposition.
Democratic Alliance Shadow Deputy Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Ken Robertson, began his speech by exhorting in Zulu, "People are suffering."
"The ANC government does not have a land problem, we have a problem with the way the ANC are handling land," he said. "People were dispossessed of their land and their dignity by the discriminatory laws of the past, the painful past that can never be forgotten. The ANC's call for expropriation without compensation is a lazy attempt to divert attention away from the real reasons that lie at the heart of the slow pace of meaningful land reform and restitution."
Missing facts
While this debate has no shortage of fiery rhetoric, what it lacks, says analyst Ebrahim Fakir, is any concrete details.
Because of a general lack of facts and an abundance of rhetoric, Fakir was one of several analysts who told VOA that recent developments have left them confused.
"At present, all bets are off," he said. "No one knows how and what this could mean. Theoretically, it could even mean that it does actually end up denying a regime of protection of private property."
No reliable figures on land ownership in South Africa exist, although a recent government study found that only a third of the nation's land is privately owned.
Furthermore, it's unclear how the constitution would be changed, if at all. Tuesday's vote mobilized parliament's Constitutional Review Committee to deliver a report on the topic by August 30. Any changes to the constitution require a 75 percent vote.
https://www.voanews.com/a/south-afri...s/4274508.html
The important facts from this article are:
1. there has been no expropriation yet
2. none of the people in the photos lost their land because of the proposed amendment to the Constitution
3. the Amendment to expropriate land hasn't even passed, only a Review process to report back to the committee by August 30 of this year
4. the homeless Afrianers in the photos have more than likely lost their land to foreclose by the banks, because of the drought, and that's why someone is calling for them to be accepted into the US as "refugees". Sorry, no.
5. 2/3 of the land in South Africa is already owned by the government, the British did this.
6. even if they decide to take more land, no one will lose their home or flat, industry or business.
See? I trust the black majority of South Africa to do the right things in the right way. No white person needs to be handing over their land, home, flat, industry or business in exchange for their life. They may be required to hand it over to a bank, though if they get foreclosed upon.
"4. the homeless Afrianers in the photos have more than likely lost their land to foreclose by the banks, because of the drought, and that's why someone is calling for them to be accepted into the US as "refugees". Sorry, no."
-------------------------------
I AGREE...SORRY...NO!
NO MORE REFUGEES FROM ANYWHERE!
GO PICK ANOTHER COUNTRY TO GO TO.
WE NEED TO START DEPORTING THE ONES WE HAVE BACK TO SAFE ZONE ON THEIR SOIL...
TRUMP YOU PROMISED...NOW GET THEM OUT OF HERE!
AND START DEPORTING A QUOTA OF 5,000 TPS PER WEEK
START GOING AFTER THE VISA OVERSTAYS...DEPORT THEM TOO!
What we want and what we get are two different matters is seems. The number for 2018 is 45,000.
Refugee admissions down for first part of fiscal 2018: report
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 01/08/18 08:28 AM EST
Numbers of refugees admitted to the U.S. dropped below that of recent years during the first three months of fiscal 2018, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper reported that the U.S. admitted about 5,000 refugees during that time. That number is less than that of similar periods in recent years — and more than 20,000 less than in the first three months of fiscal 2017.
If that pace of refugee admissions continues, the U.S. will admit fewer than the 45,000 cap that President Trump set earlier this year.
“Our job is to balance the need to protect legitimate refugees with the need to protect our security,” said Jennifer Higgins, associate director for refugee, asylum and international operations at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, according to the newspaper.
During the first three months of fiscal 2017, the U.S. admitted more than 25,000 refugees. In the first three months of fiscal 2016, the country admitted more than 13,000.
Eric Schwartz, president of Refugees International, who ran the refugee program at the State Department during the Obama administration, said the low refugee admission numbers are "enormously discouraging and dispiriting."
"It is another reflection of this administration's march away from the principle of humanity," he said.
Officials announced earlier this year that Trump would allow no more than 45,000 refugees into the U.S. during fiscal 2018.
The decreased number of refugees let into the U.S. during October, November and December came after policies set forth by the Trump administration, including various travel bans.
Late last year, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to fully reinstate the third version of his travel ban.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court in Maryland had said Trump could only block the entry of nationals from the six majority-Muslim countries in the ban — Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad — if they lacked a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The high court’s decision now puts those rulings on hold.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...o-recent-years
TRUMP PROMISED TO PUT THEM IN SAFE ZONE ON THEIR SOIL.
DROP THE NUMBER TO ZERO...WE DO NOT WANT ANY OF THEM!!!
START SENDING THEM BACK AND TAKE NO MORE!
From Anne Corcoran - refugee resettlement watch. 2017. It seems that the refugee admissions from South Africa are actually illegal immigrants to S.A. that they don't want - primarily Somalians.
436 ‘refugees’ came to US from S. Africa (so far) this fiscal year, zero are South Africans
Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 7, 2017
So who are they? They are 436 economic migrants, mostly from elsewhere in Africa (and some Asians and Middle Easterners), that the country of South Africa does not want in their country!
So presto! They are turned in to ‘refugees’ destined for Anytown, USA!
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.fil...pg?w=387&h=258
South Africa xenophobic riots. They can’t call them race riots because the violence is (local) black on (foreigner) black. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/south-afric...report-1496588
Communist-inspired*** country is crumbling!
There is no way (that I know of) to find the actual breakdown of nationalities, but check my South Africa archiveand you will see how the highly touted “rainbow nation” is having problems with other Africans, including Somalis, who bought the rainbow nation propaganda hook, line and sinker, and migrated there for a better life.
The black South Africans want none of it, thus from time to time riots flare up.
How do I know how many came in to the US from South Africa this fiscal year? I went to Wrapsnet and looked up processing country figures. By the 5th of each month, the Refugee Processing Center tells us how many refugees were processed in to the US from countries around the world so far that fiscal year. I told you about it here. (Imagine too the potential for fraud in some of these locations!)
So today I went here at Wrapsnet and see we admitted 436 ‘refugees’ from October 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017 (FY17) from South Africa.
They are really phony refugees and mostly economic migrants because S. Africa, as a civilized country with a functioning government, is a country that should have granted legitimate refugees asylum. Then I went to the Interactive Reports and searched for how many with South African nationality were admitted this fiscal year and found that the answer is zip, zero, nada!
In case you were wondering, as one of my readers was recently, the answer is: NO we do not admit South African persecuted white people through the US Refugee Admissions Program.
In fact, I don’t expect in my lifetime to see the UN High Commissioner for Refugees selecting white (European origin) refugees for resettlement to the US! LOL! I predict they will abandon the UNHCR when the day comes to move European Christian refugees (Germans, French, Dutch, Brits) out of Europe to America.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.fil...pg?w=300&h=163*** I’ve written a few times about the South African Constitution (here is one post) that, believe it or not, our Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said was a “really great piece of work.”
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg fell for the Commie apartheid propaganda too!
Since World War II several other models have emerged that offer more specific and contemporary guarantees of rights and liberties, she said, pointing to South Africa’s constitution, which she called a “really great piece of work” for its embrace of basic human rights and guarantee of an independent judiciary.
I think those African migrants who flooded to South Africa for a better life, only to be beaten and killed by their fellow blacks, believed it too! Now, they become our problem?
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...outh-africans/
Realistically, zero is not going to happen. It appears that the refugees that we are taking from S.A. now are really their illegal immigrants from surrounding countries, like Somalia, or what they consider to be undesirable.
Here is one from 2015. LGBT from the Democratic Republic of Congo admitted as SA.
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society can’t find enough housing in San Fran for gay ‘refugees’ (from South Africa)
Posted by Ann Corcoran on July 30, 2015
Ho hum! So we are bringing refugees from the highly touted welcoming-to-all “Rainbow Nation” of South Africa, dropping them off in San Francisco and now whining about how there isn’t enough housing for them. Maybe one of the well-paid staffers at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) might welcome this gay refugee to their home!
A long sob story at the Bay Area Reporter:
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.fil...if?w=270&h=300“Our biggest challenge in helping these people is to find housing for them,” said Amy Weiss, the director of refugee and immigrant services at Jewish Family and Children’s Services of the East Bay. “They come with no employment history and no housing history. San Francisco is hard enough to find housing if you have an income. It is a huge problem for us and for them and to anybody resettling refugees.”
Isn’t HIAS PAID to take care of the refugees it resettles? Why is San Francisco gay refugee saying this: “In the U.S. I am facing homelessness,” Mayema told the Bay Area Reporter in a recent interview. “I don’t want to end up on the streets.”
The agency is believed to be the only one in the country that has developed a specific program to work with LGBT refugees. It began four years ago when a number of Iranian LGBT refugees, who had fled to Turkey, needed help resettling in the U.S.
Since then the agency has worked with a number of LGBT refugees, mostly gay men from Africa and the Middle East. In November Junior Mayema arrived from Capetown, South Africa, where he had fled five years ago from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Then look at this, even the UN High Commissioner for Refugees refers to the attack (the star of this story claimed he suffered) as an “alleged attack.” So, he was resettled in America even though it was never proven he was attacked in S. Africa?
UNHCR staff, after learning about Mayema’s alleged attack, referred his case for resettlement last summer. Four months later, according to the account, he was granted refugee status and, in November, arrived in the Bay Area where he received assistance from the Jewish agency and a local church-sponsored group in acclimating to his new surroundings.
And, by the way, as we admit hundreds of refugees from the supposedly welcoming country of South Africa, you can bet there are few if any persecuted white people in the group. I wonder if a white person pretended to be gay or lesbian and said he or she was attacked, could they get in to the US from South Africa?
The sob story goes on and on, continue reading here. It is largely a play for more taxpayer money!
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...-south-africa/