Migrants, Anne Frank and Christianity
It is a long stretch to claim Anne Frank of Holocaust note was a refugee on the same level as those seeking a new life in America from Islamic countries.
That's the claim of Kate Abbey-Lambertz of the Huffington Post. Abbey-Lambertz sites real life stories of those turned away from other countries in the 1930's of Jewish people escaping Nazi Germany.
In 1938 the Evian conference in Paris bought dignitaries from around the world including Australia which set a policy to limit the number of Jews into their countries in spite of the political policies of Nazi Germany against the Jews.
It was a worldwide horrific ban on Jewish people. These people had money, had the resources, they could arrange passage on ocean-liners so as to escape the Nazi's, and this ban was inclusive of Australia.
The Evian conference outcomes gave chapter and verse to Nazi Germany to continue their policies against the Jews. No country wanted the Jews, and Nazi Germany in effect said, nor do we, which eventually led in 1942 at the Wannase conference which developed the official policies of the Holocaust.
The Evian conference provided 'game set and match' morality to Nazi Germany's Jewish policies. The historical figures reveal 6 million Jews were murdered for no other reason than being Jewish - men, women and children.
No country including Canada and Australia would accept more than a very limited quota. Historians now show a direct link between the Evian conference outcomes of worldwide guilt, to the United Nations approval of the State of Israel in 1947.
The other story
Today there are recognized persecuted refugees and the economic refugees. Australia has a long standing politically mutual agreed policies of persecuted refugees and there is an orderly system allowing into Australia each year around 22,000 (the Greens have wanted it increased to 30,000). Those trying to circumnavigate the system are turned away – whether in coming by boat, plane, glider, yacht, jet ski, ocean-liner ... whatever.
In addition Australia has increased this figure to a further 12,000 from Syria and that process of vetting has been happening for some time. Australia also encourages skilled migration but this is a different thing, whereas many on the refugee lists are not under persecution, rather for economic reasons, and rightly they might be, seeking a better life for themselves and their families.
Now we learn the plan is to have 6,000 of these Syrian refugees housed in Fairfield, Sydney. That's a great plan for integration. Why not 200 in Cairns, 200 in Townsville, 200 in Gladstone, 200 in Ipswich, 200 in Tenterfield, 200 in Tamworth, 200 in Albury ... get the drift!
Compare the figures to the USA
An informative article titled "Trump's Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria" by David French a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney – is worthy of our attention.
David French says President Trump set moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones. First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump's 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush's two terms and a typical year in Obama's two terms.
In 2002, the United States admitted only 27,131 refugees. It admitted fewer than 50,000 in 2003, 2006 and 2007. As for President Obama, he was slightly more generous than President Bush, but his refugee cap from 2013 to 2015 was a mere 70,000, and in 2011 and 2012 he admitted barely more than 50,000 refugees himself.
The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama's dramatic expansion in 2016. Obama's expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump's contraction.
Further still
Second, David French explains that the order imposes a temporary, 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. These are countries either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments. The ban, however, contains an important exception: "Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked."
Third, Trump's order also puts an indefinite hold on admission of Syrian refugees to the United States "until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest." This is perhaps the least consequential aspect of his order — and is largely a return to the Obama administration's practices from 2011 to 2014. For all the Democrats' wailing and gnashing of teeth, until 2016 the Obama administration had already largely slammed the door on Syrian-refugee admissions.
David French makes this point - When we know our enemy is seeking to strike America and its allies through the refugee population, when we know they've succeeded in Europe, and when the administration has doubts about our ability to adequately vet the refugees we admit into this nation, a pause is again not just prudent but arguably necessary. It is important that we provide sufficient aid and protection to keep refugees safe and healthy in place, but it is not necessary to bring Syrians to the United States to fulfill our vital moral obligations.
Baseless
Fourth, there is a puzzling amount of outrage over Trump's directive to "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." In other words, once refugee admissions resume, members of minority religions may well go to the front of the line. In some countries, this means Christians and Yazidis. In others, it can well mean Muslims.
David French concludes: Sadly, during the Obama administration it seems that Christians and other minorities may well have ended up in the back of the line. For example, when Obama dramatically expanded Syrian refugee admissions in 2016, few Christians made the cut: The Obama administration has resettled 13,210 Syrian refugees into the United States since the beginning of 2016 — an increase of 675 percent over the same 10-month period in 2015. Of those, 13,100 (99.1 percent) are Muslims — 12,966 Sunnis, 24 Shi'a and 110 other Muslims — and 77 (0.5 percent) are Christians. Another 24 (0.18 percent) are Yazidis.
As a point of reference, in 2015 Christians represented roughly 10 percent of Syria's population. Perhaps there's an innocent explanation for the disparity. Perhaps not. But one thing is clear — federal asylum and refugee law already require a religious test. As my colleague Andy McCarthy has repeatedly pointed out, an alien seeking asylum "must establish that . . . religion [among other things] . . . was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant."
Similarly, the term "refugee" means "(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to . . . that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . religion [among other things] . . . [.]"
Now a Judge in Washington State has put a hold on this restriction until a full set of judges review the decision to cancel President Trump's decision.
A long stretch
The Evian conference outcomes for the Jews of Germany was very different to claims that today's refugees – that's a long stretch but if facts get in the way, followed by a political spin, well ..... it hardly does justice to the Holocaust victims such as Anne Frank.
It disrespects the victims of the Holocaust and revisionism of the guilt associated of the nations over the Evian conference.
This article is courtesy of Press Service International and originally appeared on Christian Today Australia.
