Liberals say immigration enforcement is racist, but the group most likely to benefit from it is black men

Not quite sure whether the studies cited represent a consensus view or not. Look forward to any comments by those more familiar with the various studies:

President Trump’s election victory over Hillary Clinton seemed to herald a new era for border security and immigration enforcement. But his polarizing and occasionally ignorant comments about immigrants have handed his adversaries a convenient pretext for stymying compromise on immigration reform: racism.

Left-leaning advocacy groups and a host of Democrats all too often shy away from the specifics of the debate and instead lean on cries of bigotry, resorting to claims like that of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has described Trump’s approach to immigration reform as an effort to “make America white again.”

Claims that immigration enforcement equals racism ignore the reality that the group most likely to benefit from a tougher approach to immigration enforcement is young black men, who often compete with recent immigrants for low-skilled jobs.

This dynamic played out recently at a large bakery in Chicago that supplies buns to McDonald’s. Some 800 immigrant laborers, most of them from Mexico, lost their jobs last year after an audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Cloverhill Bakery, owned by Aryzta, a big Swiss food conglomerate, had to hire new workers, 80% to 90% of whom are African American. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the new workers are paid $14 per hour, or $4 per hour more than the (illegal) immigrant workers.

In this case, and in many others, the beneficiaries of immigration enforcement were working-class blacks, who are often passed over for jobs by unscrupulous employers.

The labor force participation rate for adult black men has declined steadily since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which ushered in a new era of mass immigration. In 1973, the rate was 79%. It is now at 68%, and the Bureau of Labor projects that it will decline to 61% by 2026.
The beneficiaries of immigration enforcement [are] working-class blacks, who are often passed over for jobs by unscrupulous employers.

In 2016, the Obama White House produced a 48-page report acknowledging that immigration does not help the labor force participation rate of the native-born. It concluded, however, that “immigration reform would raise the overall participation rate by bringing in new workers of prime working age.”
Although the report used the term “new workers,” Democrats may also be tempted by the prospect of new voters. But they should be aware that in courting one group, they risk losing others.

African Americans tend to be a reliable voting bloc for the Democratic Party, but they have repeatedly indicated in public opinion surveys that they want significantly less immigration.

A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that African Americans favor reducing legal immigration more than any other demographic group: 85% want less than the million-plus we allow on an annual basis, and 54% opted for the most stringent choices offered — 250,000 immigrants per year or less, or none at all.

These attitudes are rational.

In a 2010 study on the social effects of immigration, the Cornell University professor Vernon Briggs concluded: “No racial or ethnic group has benefited less or been harmed more than the nation’s African American community.”

The Harvard economist George Borjas has found that, between 1980 and 2000, one-third of the decline in the employment among black male high school dropouts was attributable to immigration. He also reported “a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates.”

In a 2014 paper on neoliberal immigration policies and their effects on African Americans, the University of Notre Dame professor Stephen Steinberg argued that, thanks to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, “African Americans found themselves in the proverbial position of being ‘last hired.'” Steinberg also noted that “immigrants have been cited as proof that African Americans lack the pluck and determination that have allowed millions of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean to pursue the American dream.”

The struggles of black men obviously cannot all be linked to immigration, but it’s clear that the status quo does not benefit them.

As elected leaders consider changing our immigration laws, the interests of America’s most vulnerable citizens shouldn’t be overlooked. The first step toward honest reform is for the Democratic Party to admit that while liberal immigration enforcement might help them win new voters, it also harms and disenfranchises their most loyal constituency.

via Liberals say immigration enforcement is racist, but the group most likely to benefit from it is black men


Debate On Role Of Islam Divides German Government : The Two-Way : NPR

Merkel has rebuked his comments (Merkel contradicts interior minister, saying ‘Islam belongs to Germany’):

Germany’s new minister of interior, Horst Seehofer, has stirred up debate about the role of Islam in Germany.

In an interview with the German newspaper BILD Seehofer said: “Islam is not a part of Germany. Germany has been influenced by Christianity. This includes free Sundays, church holidays and rituals such as Easter, Pentecost and Christmas. However, the Muslims living in Germany obviously do belong to Germany.”

This statement conflicted with the position of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel said, even though Germany has been influenced mainly by Christianity and Judaism, there are more than four million Muslims in the country, they “belong to Germany and so does their religion.”

Konstantin von Notz, member of the opposition Green party, protests, “The statement of Interior Minister Seehoher is complete nonsense. Germany cannot afford such behavior in the important questions of integration.”

“Freedom of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone by our constitution,” said Andreas Nick, a member of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union. “Individuals should be judged by their behavior which of course needs to comply with the laws of the land — no more, no less.”

Apart from members of Seehofer’s Christian Social Union, only the far-right Alternative for Germany, or the AfD, agreed with his statement. The AfD’s spokesman Jörg Meuthen told NPR that he himself had made similar statements many times before. He maintained that Seehofer was simply not credible on the subject, and the interior minister’s remarks should be viewed as “a populist attempt” by the CSU to take votes from the AfD “ahead of the Bavarian elections in October this year.”

“Islam is definitely part of Germany: millions of Muslims live in Germany and have become citizens of this country,” Mouhanad Khorchide, head of the Center for Islamic Theology at the University of Muenster, told NPR. “We cannot differentiate between Islam and Muslims. According to the German constitution there is no religion without the individual.”

Khorchide expressed concern about the consequences of Seehofer’s interview. “Such statements polarize the German society,” he said. “Instead of talking of a ‘we,’ which would include Muslims, the conversation now distinguishes between Germans and Muslims. For many Muslims this creates a feeling of being unwanted and unwelcomed. Many of them are second or third generation residents, and Germany is their home.”

An expert on Islamic law, Mathias Rohe, believes the whole debate to be meaningless. “Of course Germany has been influenced by Christianity – but no one ever doubted that,” he said. “No Muslim has ever questioned the Christian history of Germany or demanded a change in that understanding.”

It would make more sense, he said, for people to “concentrate on the considerable number of concrete issues” that will need to be addressed in Germany in the coming years.

via Debate On Role Of Islam Divides German Government : The Two-Way : NPR

Anti-Semitism Is Rising. Why Aren’t American Jews Speaking Up? – The New York Times

Valid points:

Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise, up 57 percent in 2017 from 2016, the largest single-year jump on record, according to the Anti-Defamation League. That increase came on top of the rise in incidents in 2016 that coincided with a brutal presidential campaign.

I have personally seen the anti-Semitism, in online insults, threatening voice mail messages and the occasional email that makes it through my spam filter.

If not quite a crisis, it feels like a proto-crisis, something to head off, especially when the rise of anti-Semitism is combined with hate crimes against Muslims, blacks, Hispanics and immigrants. Yet American Jewish leaders — the heads of influential, established organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Federations of North America — have been remarkably quiet, focused instead, as they have been for decades, on Israel, not the brewing storm in our own country.

But American Jews need to assert a voice in the public arena, to reshape our quiescent institutions and mold them in our image. And Jewish leadership must reflect its congregants, who are not sheep.

When the Anti-Defamation League, a century-old institution founded to combat anti-Semitism, released its guide to the “Alt Right and Alt Lite” last year, Ohio’s Republican state treasurer, Josh Mandel, who is Jewish, actually expressed support for two of the people on the list: Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec, conservative provocateurs who have found notoriety in the Trump era. “Sad to see @ADL_National become a partisan witch hunt group targeting people for political beliefs. I stand with @Cernovich & @JackPosobiec,” Mr. Mandel proclaimed on Twitter above a link to Mr. Cernovich’s screed charging that the league was trying to have him killed.

Mr. Cernovich advocates I.Q. tests for immigrants and “no white guilt,” and is an unapologetic misogynist. Last summer, he circulated a cartoon depicting H. R. McMaster, the White House national security adviser, as a dancing marionette with George Soros pulling his strings and a disembodied, wrinkled hand labeled “Rothschilds” controlling strings attached to Mr. Soros.

Mr. Posobiec has been one of the promulgators of fake news, including the “Pizzagate” story that claimed that Hillary Clinton helped run a child sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor and the claim that a young Democratic National Committee staff member, Seth Rich, was murdered by the Clinton campaign.

For drawing attention to these men, the Anti-Defamation League was tarred as a partisan organization by an elected Jewish Republican. I did not see any organized effort to rally around the institution, one of the few major Jewish groups in the United States that is still not predominantly engaged in debate over Israel.

Institutions matter, but they do not survive on their own. At the moment, the Anti-Defamation League is an institution under concerted attack — and it is not being defended. And so far, nothing else has arisen to forcefully take a stand in the Jewish fight against bigotry.

Truth must also be defended, which is what groups like the league and the Southern Poverty Law Center try to do as they expose hate. To most of us, at least for now, the notion that Mr. Rich, who was fatally shot on a Washington street in 2016, was murdered by Democrats because he was leaking emails to WikiLeaks is absurd. Mr. Rich’s family, on Tuesday, filed a lawsuit against Fox News for promoting the conspiracy story.

But in the alternative universe of the alt-right, that theory was taken as truth, not because the ranks of the alt-right have found logic in such stories but because those stories feed the larger narrative of a debauched world of liberalism that needs cleansing by fire. The lies are too valuable to the larger movement.

For Jews, this is personal. Had ordinary Germans and Poles and Ukrainians and Austrians and Frenchmen not played along, had they continued to shop in Jewish establishments and visit Jewish doctors, the Final Solution may, just may, not have been quite so final. To stand up to creeping totalitarianism, we needn’t throw ourselves under the tank treads. We just need to not play the game.

And refusal to play that game can be collective. If the vinyl banners proclaiming “Remember Darfur” that once graced the front of many American synagogues could give way in a wave to “We Stand With Israel,” why can’t they now give way en masse to “We Stand Against Hate”?

Why can’t the domestic apparatus of the American Jewish Committee reconstitute itself at the request of Jewish donors and members, and the Anti-Defamation League assert itself, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, in the arena of bigotry without fear of being charged with partisanship?

In the early 1930s, as Hitler came to power, consolidated control and blamed the Communists for the Reichstag fire, the Brown Shirts of the Nazi movement clashed furiously with German Communists. The German people largely stayed silent, shunning both factions. That anarchic moment always comes to mind when I watch the black-clad, masked antifa protesters preparing for their showdowns with the khaki-wearing alt-right. Antifa cannot be allowed to represent the most vibrant form of resistance, not if the great mass of the American electorate is to join in.

When I was in high school in Georgia, I went to a small leadership retreat sponsored by Rotary International. Around a campfire, the other kids passed around a Bible and took turns reading — from the New Testament, of course. My dread grew as the Good Book drew nearer. Would I hide my Judaism, read a passage on the teachings of Jesus and pretend, or do something, anything, else? When the book was passed to me, I acted impulsively, slammed it shut and said, “This is a service organization, not a religious organization” and fled — to an empty cabin where I slept apart and alone.

The next day, one of the Rotarians took me aside and told me what I had done was brave, but suggested that I should have turned to my own part of the Bible — Psalms, Proverbs, Exodus or Genesis — and read something of personal significance.

Looking back, I believe he was right. What he suggested would mean embracing Judaism as a vital part of America pluralism — and finding the spiritual meaning in the religion. It’s what I should have done then and what I hope American Jews do now.

via Anti-Semitism Is Rising. Why Aren’t American Jews Speaking Up? – The New York Times

Barbara Kay: Getting to the heart of what M-103 was always all about

Somewhat paranoid in that 29 out of the 30 recommendations were drafted to reflect horizontal concerns regarding racism, discrimination and prejudice.

One may or may not agree with the recommendations (I certainly find that it reads too much like a laundry list with insufficient focus and have my doubts about some of them) but the overall horizontal approach is to be welcomed.

Given Budget 2018’s increased funding for the Multiculturalism Program and new funding improved data collection and research and measures to address issues faced by Black communities, it is hardly, as Kay argues, merely “obfuscatory preamble”:

On Feb. 1, the National Heritage Committee submitted the report called for by the passage of M-103 last winter.

M-103 surprised its backers when it turned out not to be the slam dunk they thought it would be, given that its founding predecessor document, Petition e-411, which called for a “whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religion, including Islamophobia,” quietly slid as if along greased wheels to acceptance.

Thus, the words “including Islamophobia” having passed under the public radar before M-103 was introduced, M-103 backers were caught off guard when the polemical sky lit up with full-throated debate around what the hell “Islamophobia” actually meant. If it was bigotry against Muslims, why wasn’t “anti-Muslim” good enough?

The Conservatives tried to have the motion amended with that substitution, but M-103’s supporters — notably among them the unelected Muslim advocacy group, National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly CAIR.Can, and MP Iqra Khalid — with the full support of the Liberals, dug in their heels on “Islamophobia,” without ever clearly denying that it could also mean “criticism of Islam.”

And so, although the motion passed in March 2017, it passed amidst controversy and alarm amongst a great number of Canadians who worried we were being hoodwinked into a plan to curtail freedom of speech where one specific religion was concerned.

From this organic constituency there arose a group called Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms, coalescing around the clear and coherent analysis of M-103 by Royal Canadian Air Force Major (ret’d) Russ Cooper, a decorated CF-18 combat pilot, who amongst other achievements, took on national responsibilities in the field of post-9/11 civil aviation security. The focused and task-oriented Cooper followed the M-103 hearings in meticulously documented detail, publishing regular reportage of witness testimony.

Now Cooper has written a detailed and compelling analysis of the Heritage Committee report. Most of the report’s 30 recommendations, Cooper concludes, should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by politicians, for many, if implemented, contain the seeds for further public dissension and potential freedom-of-speech curtailments warned against in the first go-around.

One of M-103’s objectives was, in its words, to counter a “climate of fear and hate.” But the report’s own statistics do not bear out the existence of any pervasive “climate” of broad-based hate and fear. In 2015, 1.9 million crimes were reported. Of them, 1,300 were deemed hate crimes, or one-tenth of one per cent of all crimes. A “dissenting report” by the Committee’s Conservative members noted that from 2009 to 2016 — with a Canadian population rise of three million people in that period — hate crimes actually decreased “nearly 13 per cent on a per capita basis.”

The report notes a 61-per-cent increase of hate crimes against Muslims from 2014 to 2015. The actual numbers went from 99 to 159. All hate crimes must be taken seriously, but statistically, given Canada’s Muslim population of over one million, these statistics are not culturally significant. Rebecca Kong, chief of the Policing Services Program at the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, stated the number of hate crimes was so small they did not support the assertion in Petition e-411 that there was a “notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada.” (By the numbers, anti-Semitism ranks as Canada’s most common form of hate crime, and it is rising in frequency, yet even it is not so statistically significant to warrant a “whole-of government” approach to combat).

In fact, no hard evidence was adduced in the report to prove that anti-Muslim bias is systemic in Canada. The Quebec mosque massacre was mentioned as evidence of “white supremacism and radicalism in Canada,” although the mosque killer has not yet been linked to any organized political movement nor charged with an act of terrorism.

Indeed, among those testifying at the hearings, the only witnesses who brought actual evidence to bear on the assertion that religious bias was “systemic” throughout Canadian institutions were Christians. Representatives from Trinity Western University, the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada all offered concrete examples of the state forcing, or attempting to force, counter-conscience beliefs and behaviours, most notably the practice of euthanasia. I am not being facetious when I suggest that Christians have a more evidence-based right than Muslims to feel they are victims of systemic institutional bias.

Which is why I view with extreme concern the still-undefined term Islamophobia popping up in the report’s 30th recommendation for a National Day of Action to combat it. Clearly that is the glittering prize for M-103’s backers; the rest is obfuscatory preamble. If an official Day of Action against Islamophobia is granted, even fair-minded and objectively warranted criticism of parts of the Islamic faith, and perhaps even Islamism itself, would be increasingly legally fraught. I believe that is the point of the exercise.

Source: Barbara Kay: Getting to the heart of what M-103 was always all about

Australia Needs to Sustain Immigration to Sustain Economic Growth – Bloomberg

The main fallacy in Daniel Moss’s arguments lies in not making any distinction between growth in GDP and GDP per capita. It is the latter that is a better measure of individual prosperity.

Both the Barton Commission and the Century Initiative make the same mistake in their arguments for large increases in immigration to Canada:

Australia just wrapped up its 26th consecutive year of economic growth. It’s always happy to trumpet that, but one major cause doesn’t get enough respect.

I’m not talking about the ascent of China, the country’s biggest trading partner, which certainly played a part. Nor do I mean Australia’s mineral wealth or the fiscal stimulus unleashed in 2008-2009 to fight the global slump.

The quiet force behind this growth streak is immigration. Or as squeamish politicians sometimes call it, “demographics” and “population growth.” Policy makers should be full-throated about the role immigration has had in sustaining Australia’s near-record run. There is a good story to tell, and the world ought to be listening. Who doesn’t want economic expansion?

Some, it would seem. Australia has its own right-wing nativist rabble. The urban-rural divide familiar to Northern Hemisphere readers is changing the contours of discourse Down Under — though less starkly, in part because compulsory voting maintains the sway of dense population centers and mainstream parties. There’s a risk that immigration becomes more of a whipping boy and the two major political parties, seeking to stem an erosion of support, go cold on population renewal as well.

The irony is that just as Australia cools to its points-based immigration system, that approach is getting buzz outside the country. Potential migrants are ranked according to the nation’s need for their skills. They also must pass health and character tests. There’s an English-language test on the country’s constitution, history and values.

Philip Lowe, governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, reminded an audience last year not to be drunk on international praise for the economic expansion. It hasn’t been 26 years of gangbusters growth for all: There were three periods of rising unemployment during that run, even if gross domestic product didn’t contract. He also worries that average growth in per-capita incomes over the next quarter century will be lower than in the previous quarter century.

Population growth, much of it through immigration, has swelled the national headcount by 50 percent over the past three decades, as noted by my Bloomberg News colleagues Jason Scott and Michael Heath. Lowe told the Crawford Australian Leadership Forum that “strong” population growth “flattered our headline growth figures.” GDP growth per capita certainly looks less awesome; it was almost zero at the end of last year. Other developed economies, take heed!

So what’s the problem? Let’s divide it into two buckets. The first is legitimate concern about strains on the environment. Australia is huge, but large tracts are barely populated. Most people live in a corner hugging the Eastern and Southern shores. So that sliver of the country is increasingly strained in terms of infrastructure. Housing prices are seen as out of reach for many, though that’s not a uniquely Australian phenomenon. You can make this argument and still be broadly supportive of a diverse and globally integrated national fabric.

The second bucket is thorny: a motley few radio shock jocks and single-issue politicians who gamble that trashing immigration will win them votes in outer suburbs or rural areas. Compulsory voting ensures that because everyone has to show up, the most extreme candidates tend to be offset or buried by the more traditional parties. They can still siphon votes, win the odd seat, rattle around and make trouble.

It’s the latter point that is the danger today, both fueled and compounded by the fact that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s conservative coalition has a mere one-seat majority in the parliament’s lower house. The opposition Labor Party smells blood, but its leadership is preoccupied with tactics rather than strategy.

Immigration is an easy, but risky, issue on which to make hay. Without immigration, Australia’s economic story would not have been such a happy one. For the sake of extending that 26-year run, politicians should resist the nativist temptation.

via Australia Needs to Sustain Immigration to Sustain Economic Growth – Bloomberg

Maxime Bernier et la couleur: Fabrice Vil

Fabrice Vil of Le Devoir on Maxime Bernier’s blindness to structural and systemic barriers:

Il y a quelques jours, j’ai lu de sages paroles sur Twitter : « Nous devrions certainement faire tout notre possible pour redresser les injustices et donner à tous des chances égales de s’épanouir. Et nous devrions reconnaître que le Canada est assez grand pour contenir plusieurs identités. Comme Québécois francophone, je peux comprendre ça. » Je suis en tous points d’accord avec ces propos éloquents. Écrits par qui ? Nul autre que Maxime Bernier, député conservateur.

La plupart d’entre nous veulent une société où tous les humains jouissent des mêmes droits. C’est ce que suggère aussi M. Bernier. Pour y arriver, il est nécessaire de reconnaître les différences entre nous qui provoquent des désavantages pour certains, et de traiter les gens différemment afin de pallier ces désavantages. C’est là où M. Bernier se méprend et se contredit.

À la fin du mois dernier, Ahmed Hussen, ministre de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté, saluait sur Twitter certaines des mesures que prévoit le dernier budget fédéral afin de lutter contre le racisme. « Un #budget2018 historique pour les Canadiens racisés », a-t-il écrit.

Le 6 mars, M. Bernier a répondu : « Je pensais que le but ultime de la lutte contre la discrimination était de créer une société aveugle aux couleurs où tout le monde est traité de la même façon […]. » Erreur, M. Bernier.

Dans un monde idéal, la couleur de la peau serait en effet aussi anodine que, disons, la couleur des yeux. On juge la couleur des yeux sur une base esthétique, mais personne n’est vraiment lésé strictement sur la base du teint de son iris. Imaginez un monde où les gens aux yeux verts ont plus de chances d’êtres pauvres, moins de chances d’obtenir un emploi et plus de chances d’être emprisonnés. Bizarre, non ? En ce sens, il est vrai que la lutte contre la discrimination devrait mener à ce que la couleur de la peau ne soit plus utilisée pour brimer les droits d’un individu.

Toutefois, la lutte contre la discrimination elle-même n’implique pas qu’on traite tout le monde de la même façon. Pour garantir les mêmes droits fondamentaux à tous, il ne faut pas traiter tout le monde également. Agir de cette manière perpétue les inégalités. Il faut plutôt agir différemment pour rétablir les déséquilibres qui défavorisent certains individus. C’est ce qu’on appelle agir équitablement.

Connaissez-vous l’analogie des trois gamins qui regardent un match de baseball, debout derrière une clôture en bois ? Le premier est assez grand pour voir le match sans aucun soutien. Le second, de taille moyenne, a besoin de se tenir sur une caisse afin que sa tête dépasse la clôture. Le troisième, plus petit, a besoin de deux caisses pour pouvoir regarder le match.

En donnant une caisse à chaque gamin, on les traiterait tous également. On offrirait toutefois du soutien à un gamin qui n’en a pas besoin, et l’un d’entre eux ne serait pas en mesure de voir le match.

Dans cet exemple, afin que la taille ne soit plus une cause d’inégalité, il faut justement constater les différences de taille et en tenir compte dans la distribution des caisses. Dans cet ordre d’idées, contrairement à ce que suggère M. Bernier, la poursuite de l’égalité des chances implique de voir la couleur de peau et de reconnaître qu’elle constitue un motif de discrimination.

En 2018, un enfant de 10 ans disparu qui se trouve à être noir ne peut pleinement bénéficier du soutien élémentaire que mérite un enfant de 10 ans disparu. Il doit subir les foudres d’internautes qui formulent à son égard des remarques racistes beaucoup trop violentes pour que je les reproduise ici.

Quelques remarques isolées ? Soit. Mais la discrimination est bien réelle et plus répandue qu’on veut parfois le reconnaître. Je m’évertue à relater que la population carcérale d’origine autochtone a augmenté de 46 % de 2003 à 2013 au Canada. Et de 80 % chez les Noirs. Ces statistiques, qui illustrent une inégalité systémique majeure, demande que nos politiques publiques tiennent compte des déséquilibres qui portent préjudice aux personnes de couleur.

C’est pourquoi nos politiciens ont la responsabilité de voir la couleur. Mais pas seulement la couleur. Tout attribut qui représente un motif de discrimination. Il ne s’agit pas d’accorder des droits et privilèges différents à certains groupes, mais d’aménager des traitements différents pour que tous bénéficient des mêmes droits. Si M. Bernier veut faire, comme il le dit, « tout [son] possible pour redresser les injustices », comment peut-il agir avec clairvoyance tout en étant aveugle ? Croit-il sérieusement que traiter tout le monde également va redresser les injustices ?

via Maxime Bernier et la couleur | Le Devoir

Islam doesn’t belong to Germany, new interior minister says

The remarks are slightly more nuanced than the header but still unfortunate. The same remark, “live with us, not next to us or against us” applies to all groups:

New Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said Islam did not belong to Germany, in an interview published on Friday, setting him on a collision course with Chancellor Angela Merkel who has stressed the need to integrate Muslims.

Seehofer also set out a range of hardline policies on immigration, as the new coalition prepares to see off the rising challenge of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which entered the national parliament in last year’s elections.

“Islam does not belong to Germany,” Seehofer told mass-selling Bild newspaper, contradicting former German president Christian Wulff who fuelled 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.

The German government estimates between 4.4 and 4.7 million Muslims are living in Germany. Many of them 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.

Seehofer – a member of Merkel’s CSU Bavarian allies who are further to the right than her own Christian Democrats (CDU) – said he would implement a “master plan for quicker deportations”.

He also promised to do more to tackle the reasons people flee and classify more states as ‘safe’ countries of origin, which would make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers.

“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,” said Seehofer, who was sworn in as interior minister on Wednesday.

Seehofer is 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.

In a coalition agreement, Merkel’s CDU/CSU conservative bloc and the Social Democrats (SPD) agreed they would manage and limit migration to Germany and Europe to avoid a re-run of the 2015 refugee crisis.

They also said they did not expect migration (excluding labour migration) to rise above the range of 180,000 to 220,000 per year.

via Islam doesn’t belong to Germany, new interior minister says

Les libéraux évitent le terme «nationalisme ethnique»

Hard to deny Leitao’s point given ongoing identity politics. Meets the definition of a gaffe being speaking the truth too frankly:

Les libéraux n’ont pas voulu répéter les mots « nationalisme ethnique » utilisés par le ministre des Finances Carlos Leitão pour dénoncer la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), jeudi.

À leur arrivée à l’Assemblée nationale, des ministres du gouvernement Couillard se sont portés à la défense de leur collègue. Mais ils se sont gardés de reprendre l’expression qu’il a utilisée pour critiquer le parti de François Legault dans une entrevue à The Gazette.

Dans un article paru mercredi, M. Leitão a déclaré au quotidien que la CAQ propose un « nationalisme ethnique ».

« Ce à quoi nous nous opposons fondamentalement, ce à quoi le Parti libéral du Québec s’opposera toujours, c’est de la division, a affirmé le ministre de l’Immigration, David Heurtel. C’est de tenter d’antagoniser les Québécois. »

Pressé de répéter les propos son collègue, M. Heurtel a tourné les talons et fait dos aux journalistes pour ensuite répondre à des questions en anglais.

Son collègue à l’Éducation, Sébastien Proulx, a affirmé : « Je n’ai pas à répéter une affirmation dans un contexte où je ne l’ai pas entendue. »

« Je connais M. Leitão, a ajouté M. Proulx. Je sais pour quelles raisons il fait de la politique, je sais pourquoi il est motivé à faire de la politique, je sais qu’il accorde beaucoup d’importance à la place de gens comme lui dans notre société, qui se sont bâtis et qui sont aujourd’hui ministre des Finances. »

La déclaration de M. Leitão a fait bondir le chef caquiste François Legault, mercredi. Il a exigé des excuses et demandé au premier ministre Philippe Couillard de le rappeler à l’ordre.

La CAQ est revenue à la charge jeudi matin. Elle a présenté une motion pour que les parlementaires reconnaissent « qu’aucune formation politique représentée à l’Assemblée nationale du Québec ne prône le nationalisme ethnique ». Une initiative que le Parti libéral a refusé d’appuyer.

Au Salon bleu, le leader parlementaire caquiste, François Bonnardel, a souligné à gros traits le refus des ministres libéraux de répéter les propos de M. Leitão.

« Ce qui alimente le cynisme, ce sont les double-discours, a dénoncé M. Bonnardel. Pourquoi refuse-t-il de dire en français ce qu’il a dit en anglais ? Pourquoi ce double-discours ? Qu’il assume ou qu’il s’excuse. »

M. Leitão avait refusé de s’excuser mercredi.

« J’ai dit ce que j’avais à dire », a-t-il simplement déclaré jeudi matin.

via Les libéraux évitent le terme «nationalisme ethnique» | Martin Croteau | Politique québécoise

Father of British-Canadian accused of joining ISIS hopes to plead son’s case in Canada next week

An example of how inheriting Canadian citizenship (first generation) leads to consular demands even in cases where a person has never lived in Canada:

John Letts, the father of a young British-Canadian man accused of belonging to ISIS and being held in a Kurdish jail in Syria, is hoping to lobby the Canadian government in person next week for help securing his son’s transfer to Canada.

Letts and his wife, Sally Lane, insist the allegations against their son Jack are false but say he has the right to answer any charges against him in a British or Canadian court.

Letts say he would have travelled to Canada long before now had he been allowed.

He and Lane have been subject to a travel ban since being charged in 2016 under British terrorism legislation for trying to send money to their son, who they say was desperate to leave ISIS-held territory in the Middle East.

On Thursday, a British judge eased the restrictions on Letts, giving him permission to travel abroad with the court’s prior approval.

“We were just given the ruling this morning, so we haven’t had really much of a chance to digest it,” Letts said in an interview after the hearing.

“But I’m hoping that next week, I’d like to think I could be in Canada having meetings with appropriate people.”

Family holds dual citizenship

Jack Letts was 18 when he left his family’s home in Oxford to travel to Jordan and then Syria in 2014.

Last spring, Kurdish militias controlling parts of northern Syria stopped him as he was trying to leave ISIS-held territory and jailed him in the town of Qamishli.

Canadian consular officials spoke with him by telephone in January. In audio recordings of the call obtained by CBC News, Jack Letts said he had tried to commit suicide and asked to be sent to Canada.

The British media have dubbed him Jihadi Jack, a label his parents say has made their ordeal all the more difficult. Public opinion in the U.K. tends not to favour allowing people suspected of fighting for ISIS to return.

The parents turned to Ottawa for help, they say, in the face of an indifferent response from the British Foreign Office. Letts, Lane and their two children, including Jack, hold dual citizenship. When asked about the Letts case in the past, U.K. authorities have said they cannot help British citizens in places where the U.K. has no consular support.

Letts, seen in Facebook photo at age 20, went to Syria and Iraq in 2014, and is now in a Kurdish jail in northern Syria. He was dubbed Jihadi Jack in British media, a label his parents feel has hurt his case. (Facebook)

Lane is optimistic that Canada will help see her son extricated from the Kurdish prison.

“I think we’re in a different time frame now,” she said. “Jack’s in detention. There’s an opportunity to get him out of detention, and those questions about what he was doing can now be answered in a trial.”

Parents could face 14 years in prison

Lane says she has been focused on how to help her son rather than on the charges laid against her in Britain, with a trial set to begin in September.

But if found guilty, she and her husband could face up to 14 years in prison, an outcome supporters say would be ludicrous for parents trying to help a child.

John Letts says living under bail conditions and being blackballed by some in the community has been an ordeal, harming the couple’s ability to make a living.

“We’ve been living like this for three and a half years, waiting under this sword of Damocles and under this view that we’re somehow terrorists and aiding and abetting ISIS, and it just makes you very angry and upset. And here’s a breakthrough.”

In his decision Thursday at the Central Criminal Court in London, known as the Old Bailey, Judge Nicholas Hilliard did not lift the travel ban on Lane.

Source: Father of British-Canadian accused of joining ISIS hopes to plead son’s case in Canada next week

Multiculturalism in Canada What Census 2016 and Other Data Tell Us

My presentation at next week’s Metropolis Conference, looking at what the data tells us with respect to visible minority economic, social and political outcomes.