THOUSANDS SIGN PETITION ASKING TRUMP TO LET WHITE FARMERS IN SOUTH AFRICA MIGRATE TO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

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
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg fell for the Commie apartheid propaganda too!

*** 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.”
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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beezer

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!

---

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
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.”

“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.”

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/