Immigration: the Rights (right wing political) and wrongs thereof?

My Recent Posts


The Immigration Issue. Of course it is now emerging its right-wing head now in a big way since Brexit closely followed by Mr. Trump's inauguration speech.

You know most of the arguments, the truths or lies about Angela Merkel having "let too many immigrants in" or that Britain had to control its own borders as immigration was the big issue in Britain giving it some kind of reason to get out of the EU. That now the right wing leaders in France and Holland and German feel emboldened to publicly meet - no shame here anymore. So, I have no need to reiterate these here.

But what is important to understand is this: immigrants whose establishment in whichever country in Europe or America might well be just as discriminatory about modern immigrants. It has always been a surprise to me to find that well-established immigrant families in the UK, say from the East, the Middle East or even just Eastern Europe, Poland, whatever, can often be the harbingers of the "stop the immigrants" message permeating throughout the fabric of our societies in Europe now.

About ten years' ago, in Holland, a Dutch lady - of Polish origin having immigrated about twenty years before that (so around the eighties) stated to me that "...the Polish immigrants now entering Holland were different to herself ..." and that "...they should be stopped". I was astounded. But, hey, we are entitled to our opinions aren't we? I was immensely amused, or perhaps bemused, when a Pakistani origin young woman joined UKIP a few years' ago. It was both sad and hilarious to see her defend UKIP's stance on controlling immigration. Of course, I am fully aware that UKIP is not only about controlling immigration, it is really about allowing the unleashing of overt prejudice on our streets which includes being violent - by word or by physical gesture - to anyone who doesn't fit a narrow profile of who should be in Britain and it actively promoted the hate messages in the right wing media of the UK - which is utterly out of order, doesn't have to quote true facts and gets away with hate messages against foreigners as their reason for being. She, however, was out of her depth; she was allowed into the party but she didn't last long because, even to her own sense of pride, it became horribly clear that she couldn't defend the indefensible without making recourse to her own family's history. That, er, she wasn't the ideal profile for UKIP. Embarrassingly uncomfortable. But what does that matter? Nigel Farrage got away with outright lies in the presentation of the photographs, the messages and the full backing of the media and even the likes of the highest echelons of Conservative government (Gove and Boris). And he is a modern day hero in the UK.

Most recently, today, in fact, in an article from the Guardian, in a lovely village in the south of England, on being asked what he thought about the Remain and Leave positions on Brexit - a long time immigrant - an Iraqi in fact, stated that there were far too many immigrants in the UK, that it was too small a country and that Poland and Germany were much larger and they could take them instead.

I can laugh. I can cry. What I can recognise through personal experience, search for real facts and, hopefully, some wisdom in my increasing years is that the notion of discrimination and prejudice, national or racial, is not something limited to a narrow band of people. It affects all of us. The real issues in the US and in Europe today are not about whether the right wing parties have a point, but about the fact that the control of world power, which includes creating wars and protecting assets to hold or preserve or create difference balances of power, also create refugees and economic migrants. The by-products of the way of the world in its aggressive progression are ignored by the right wing parties. Not even the more balanced political parties seem to be prepared to face the public with the truth. When it is convenient for political parties to allow the overt display of immigrant blaming for the economic issues that are actually the fault of both bad government, bad and deregulated banking and finance regulations, as well as the residual carnage of war, then they do so. It is an old tactic of war, of control and of scapegoating and divide and rule - since time immemorial, I think. Facts are left unquoted, opinion and presentation of issues is spooned up as fact and so we go on.

But, the last laugh is on all of us. White, yellow, black, olive..... irrespective of our origins, irrespective of the fact that we have done well out of the time when we could be an immigrant and prosper, we will be capable of seeing the later immigrants as the problem, rather than the by product of war and control and/or the ongoing world momentum of migration which always builds economic wealth. The United States itself, never mind the UK and other countries in Europe has been built on the economic wealth-creating exercises of immigrants coming to work and prosper. They do not use up the wealth which makes the health services, public services etc. because they are young, strong and committed to build a good life; they create that very wealth.

But, hey, what do facts matter? Long live the myth eh? The more things change, the more they stay the same. And history repeats itself only when we have not learned our lessons. Have you ever read "The Diary of Ann Frank"?


Billy Roper Added Jan 22, 2017 - 8:43am
Have you ever read the book "The Camp of the Saints"?
Eileen de Bruin Added Jan 22, 2017 - 8:51am
The Camp of the Saints is a 1973 French novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a setting wherein Third World mass immigration to France and the West leads to the destruction of Western civilization.
It is fiction.
Now, have you read "The Diary of Ann Frank"? It is a true record.
Bill Kamps Added Jan 22, 2017 - 9:13am
Eileen, as with everything it is a question of balance.
I think in the US most of the problem with immigration is that our laws are not enforced, and immigration is not controlled.  People come on tourist visas and just stay and get a job.  People come with no visa, and just stay and get a job.  It is too easy to get a job as an undocumented worker, because our laws are not enforced.  Once the laws start getting enforced, ONLY THEN can we start to debate policy.
There are two simple things that can be done in the US to reduce immigration, and both are supported by laws as they exist today.  There are only two ways to pay an illegal alien, one is to pay them in cash, and the second is to give them a fake Social Security Number. Both are easy to stop, if we have the will to do so.  If the IRS would stop allowing companies to deduct payroll done in cash, then this practice would largely go away.  If the Social Security Admin, would build greater safeguards into the SSN, so that they required people to match identities  to the number, then that practice would stop. These are not difficult things to do. 
It is beyond stupid to debate new immigration policy when we dont have the will to enforce our laws.  We allow people to overstay their visa, and then when they finally decide to go back and visit their home country, we do nothing to flag their passport so they cant return.   We effectively  are doing nothing to enforce the law except occasionally rounding up some illegals and sending them back. Building a wall is nonsense, people can always find a way to get in.  What they are coming for are jobs, dry up the jobs, and you dry up the flow of illegals.  It is presently illegal to hire these folks, and yet we do next to nothing to enforce the law.
Eileen de Bruin Added Jan 22, 2017 - 10:02am
Hello Bill, yes.  To everything you have written, yes. But if you ask yourself WHY nothing is done to enforce existing laws, it might lead you to another, hidden, truth.  Based on undercutting workers' pay it both keeps the locals (indigenous or American whatever) in control and subjugated and it ensures slave labour.  On slave labour, or underpaid labour or immigrant, or migrant labour (usually desperate people trying to build a life) an economy is made rich.  The reason that your existing laws are not enforced is because it is actual policy.  Not written down, no. But the policy of governments in the US and in the UK (where migrants tried to get to because of the burgeoning black market - that is why they waited in Calais) is to allow this to happen.  It makes rich industrialists richer, keeps the masses in check and, as a happily convenient by product, enables the despising "locals" to blame the immigrants.  It is about divide and rule, misinform, undereducate and have a handy scapegoat to hand when all else fails.
Shane Laing Added Jan 22, 2017 - 1:50pm
UKIP do not want to stop immigration, they want to stop uncontrolled immigration there is a distinct difference. UKIP have stated that visas are granted to those whose professions that are needed but not to those who are not needed.  The same model as if I wanted to work in the USA, Australia and New Zealand.  Is that really such a terrible thing? I would certainly not be allowed to go to the US with my family expect to be given accommodation, money, healthcare etc.  Ahh but that's not said. The UK benefits system is much more generous than other countries in the EU. Because of EU rules the British taxpayer is watching money go overseas. An example and its true he said so himself comes to the UK to work AND claim family allowance and child benefit for his family who are living in Romania.
Is that really fair? It would be different if they lived in this country but they don't. Its the British taxpayer who is footing the bill. This sort of thing was another reason. The worst in my opinion of the EU wasting money is that it moves to Strasburg every month for only 4 days because of the French at a cost of £30 million each time.
Shane Laing Added Jan 22, 2017 - 1:51pm
I should add that I did not vote for UKIP before you suggest it.
Dino Manalis Added Jan 22, 2017 - 2:11pm
Immigration has become a national security issue, because we can't distinguish terrorists from refugees.  That's why they have to be screened to screen out terrorists and Assad's intelligence could help us distinguish many of the terrorists.  Of course, terror suspects have to be monitored always online and off to prevent attacks, including violence-preaching mosques.  Peace-loving Muslims can help alert authorities about trouble.
Mircea Negres Added Jan 22, 2017 - 2:11pm
I get you Eileen, being a naturalized citizen of South Africa and having dealt with every kind of xenophobic behaviour (from "go back to where  you came from", all the way up to attempted murder) over the last 25 years. One of my favourite quotes on the matter comes from Edge of Battle by Dale Brown, where he wrote "Legal immigrants and naturalized citizens oppose illegal immigration just as much as native-born citizens do because illegals are breaking the law -which hurts everyone- paints them with the same bigoted, racist, xenophobic brush as the illegals, and diminishes all the efforts they've made to come into this country legally".
The first instance of xenophobia I encountered happened 3 days after arriving in South Africa and it was an immigrant of Scottish origin who did it. Much like the immigrants Dale Brown wrote about, I am against illegals and can understand why other immigrants like myself would feel unchecked immigration must be stopped, even if it seems contradictory.
On the other hand, there is a black man who is member of the Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging (an Afrikaner nationalist/white supremacist organisation) and a white guy who joined the Economic Freedom Fighters party (a black supremacist party whose leader incited violence [murder and more] against whites on numerous occasions- look up Julius Malema and find a translation of Dubula iBhulu), besides Pik Botha (former apartheid SA minister of foreign affairs) and others who joined ANC. Who knows, maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome, or some guys thinking they'll be safe from whatever they fear may be coming by joining the group they reckon will be the winner.
Billy Roper Added Jan 22, 2017 - 2:12pm
Eileen, actually, we could debate how much of Anne Frank's diary is fiction, written by her father and a hired Jewish author, who sued him for not paying him for his work, and won in court. Much of the "original manuscript" was written in ballpoint pen, which wouldn't have been available to her. Or, we could say, sure, seventy years ago, a lot of bad things happened that weren't very nice. I bet the 1400 English girls raped in Rotherham, or the hundreds sexually assaulted in Cologne, wish that someone cared about what NonWhite immigrants were doing to them, NOW.
'The Camp of the Saints' is coming true, and EVERY European nation is now scheduled to become majority nonWhite before the end of this century, now, due to NonWhite immigration. That's not tolerance, that's replacement genocide.
Billy Roper Added Jan 22, 2017 - 2:14pm
Locking your doors is nonsense, people will always find a way in. What you need to do is empty your refrigerators and cabinets of all the food, and get rid of any valuables you might have in your house, or chain them down, since that's what attracts them. Is that home homeowners think? No, they try to keep the criminals out.
George N Romey Added Jan 22, 2017 - 2:22pm
In the US of course its about money.  Undocumented workers will never demand overtime or decent worker conditions.  Look at all the day labors hanging out in front of a Home Depot around 6AM.  Do you think they are going to ask questions?  Bill is right, use existing laws and punish and shut down businesses that are abusers.
Billy Roper Added Jan 22, 2017 - 2:50pm
The map in this article was made two years ago, but it shows the percentage of immigrants currently, as of then, infesting European countries. It's quite shocking, and of course has gotten much worse since then:
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 22, 2017 - 4:05pm
Seem that all of you have forgotten what religion the immigrants that entered Germany are from and the recent ones brought over from the Middle East.  You have forgot that Islam said they will conquer the west by changing the demographics.  They have been trying since the 8th century.  You have forgotten Islam in not just a religion but a state government with the goal since the 8th century of making the World a single religions and state. 
"Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the
story is the same.
First  Establish a Beachhead Population density à 2%, (taqiyya, US, Australia, Canada)
Second Establish Outposts Population density 2% - 5% (kitman, UK, Germany, Denmark)
Third Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities Population density 5% - 10%, (Sword of Islam, France, Sweden, Netherlands)
Fourth Establish Regional Control Population density 20% - 50%  Europe 2020?).
Fifth Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude Population density > 50%.
We have a recent example of the last two stages that resulted in a decade long civil war.  "Lebanon started they say in 1850 with a civil war between the Maronites (Christians) and Druze (Muslims)  that put Europe and particularly France in an uproar.  Ottoman Empire gave some autonomy and punished the Ottoman management for not preventing the civil war.    WWI ended the French mandated the establishment of a state of Lebanon 1920 that was designed to favor Christians. 
And created the Greater Lebanon area that decreased a 58% majority Christian area to 54% by adding the Lebanon Mountains.  The 1943 Pact made the 1920 agreement stronger.  The major government posts were held by Christians.  Thus, "Muslims saw Israel as the main enemy to the Arab world and that any cooperation with it would be considered treason. Patriarch Antoine Arida was the first Christian leader to sign a Zionist-Maronite treaty of 1946."

By 1968 Lebanese Muslims our numbered Christians due to birth rate and Christian emigration.  Muslims demanded several government changes including an end to the accord that reserved key positions for Maronites (1920 and 1943).  Shari'a's differentiation of people on the basis of their religious identity.  Lebanese Christians mindful of past atrocities inflected on Christians in the Middle East. (Armenian genocide and Coptic is Sudan and Egypt.)  [ the Caliphate was the issue behind Lebanese Civil War.  Dr. Farooq you asked me to look into]"

Firstly, Muslims rejected the maintenance of a Christian state. They objected to the way power was distributed so that it enabled Christians, particularly Maronites, to dominate a nation whose majority were Muslims. Moreover, Muslims believed that power should be based not upon sectarian distribution but upon the principle of one vote per person. [there is may comment that  Consent of the Governed  by reference to the Mangna Carte, is not determined by winning a majority]

Secondly, Muslims claimed that the Christian establishment has repeatedly sought to split Lebanon, politically and culturally, from the Arab world.   They argued that the Maronites supported the crusaders and that the Maronite Patriach Ignatius Mubarak had explicitly supported Israel. 

Thirdly, Muslims argued that the Christian establishment had favoured and promoted private and foreign education, in order to erode the position of the Arabic language. Typically, Muslims believed that many textbooks had belittled Arab accomplishments and promoted the image of Lebanon as once a Phoenician and now a Christian state.

Christians believed that integration of Lebanon politically or economically into the Arab world with its authoritarian and socialist tendencies, would only jeopardise the freedom and prosperity that both Muslims and Christians enjoyed in Lebanon. [the economic success of Israel and Lebanon both more democratic and secular clearly surpassed all the Islamic states in the region.]
Latif Abul-Husn believed that the 1975 war revolved around three main issues: Reform of the political system, the national identity of Lebanon and Lebanon's sovereignty. They wanted to translate their
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 22, 2017 - 4:08pm

Latif Abul-Husn believed that the 1975 war revolved around three main issues: Reform of the political system, the national identity of Lebanon and Lebanon's sovereignty1. They wanted to translate their numerical superiority into political power. They wanted a system, which they could control. Moreover, they saw Christians as an obstacle to the formation of an Islamic state similar to the rest of the Middle Eastern states. The Muslims chose war instead of dialogue, due to the fact that the Christians continued to ignore their grievances."
"Islam in Arabic means "SUBMISSION." Islam has never been a religion of peace from the prophet Mohammad conquered the Arabian Peninsula. In the century after Islam religious government,
Caliphate conquered the Northern Mediterranean coast into Spain and into India. Islam became the dominant religion in the area by applying the tactics that have been repeated by ISIS today. The Quran says, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way, God is forgiving and Merciful.” (Surah 9:5) First from 1894 to 1896 and then from 1915 to 1920 the Ottoman Empire the last to day Islamic empire Caliphate (God's Government) deported and murdered 1.5M Christian Armenians. A genocide topped by Hitler with the help of Islamic followers assistance in the Middle East."
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 22, 2017 - 4:26pm
The this did not convince you that ask any Muslim what is his duty?
"If the world Muslim community perceived America as attacking Islam in general then the duty of every Muslim to fight for his religion—the duty of jihad—would have been invoked on a broad scale. The war against terrorism, instead of simmering with occasional flare-ups, like the Cold War, would have boiled over into a global conflagration, with the Muslim countries of the world—1.2 billion strong— mobilizing against America and the West."

"The usual meaning of Islam in Arabic is not "peace" but "submission." And if the terrorists were so far outside the mainstream, why did Muslims all over the world burst into joyful, spontaneous
celebrations when the hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why are Islamic governments afraid to show "too much" public support for the war against terrorism? Further, why are all the governments that covertly support terrorism centered in the Muslim world?"
In a speech on New Year’s day  2015, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse.
“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims worldwide) should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live?” he asked. “Impossible.”

Speaking to an audience of religious scholars celebrating the birth of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, he called on the religious establishment to lead the fight for moderation in the Muslim world. “You imams (prayer leaders) are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma (a word that can refer either to the Egyptian nation or the entire Muslim world) is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

He was speaking in Al-Azhar University in Cairo, widely regarded as the leading world center for Islamic learning."  Ref: The Washington Free Beacon By Abraham Rabinovich January 4, 2015 12:10pm
Egyptian President Calls for 'Religious Revolution' in Islam
I have not hear one report that a single Muslim leader as said one thing against radical Islam.  (I am excluding the fringe Muslim groups that the majority of Islam does not accepted as Muslims)
Peter Corey Added Jan 22, 2017 - 5:21pm
> Much of the "original manuscript" was written in ballpoint pen, which wouldn't have been available to her.
Do some homework before sticking your size 12 jackboot in your mouth; it makes you sound stupider than we already know you to be.
"Q: It has been said that there are entries in the diary in ballpoint pen. Is that correct?
No, that is not correct. All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and (coloured) pencil, not in ballpoint. The document analysis by the Netherlands Forensic Institute showed that the main part of the diary and the loose sheets were written in grey-blue fountain pen ink. In addition, Anne also used thin red ink, green and red coloured pencils and black pencil for her annotations: not ballpoint. Nevertheless, the allegation can still regularly be seen on extreme right-wing websites and elsewhere that the diary of Anne Frank is written in ballpoint pen. Sneering remarks are made about "A. Frank the ballpoint girl," and it is pointed out that the ballpoint pen only came into common use in Europe after the Second World War. The conclusion forced by this allegation is that the texts in the diary could not have been written by Anne Frank herself.

Annotation sheets

The origin of the "ballpoint myth" is the four-page report that the Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden, which was published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war. However, the Dutch investigation by the Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the diary "to a far-reaching degree." Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170). In 1987, a Mr Ockelmann from Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question. Mrs Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960.

A life of its own

In short: the "ballpoint myth" is easy to disprove. The careless wording of the BKA report from 1980 – a report that for the rest in no way challenges the authenticity of the diary – or at any rate its openness to several interpretations, has taken on a life of its own in extreme right-wing circles. The "ballpoint myth" is based on the simple fact that, around 1960, two annotation sheets with ballpoint writing were inserted between the original pages. These texts were written by a graphological researcher, and are not included in any edition of the diary (apart from the Critical Edition, where photos of the annotation sheets are reproduced).

In July 2006, the BKA found it necessary to state in a press release that the 1980 investigation cannot be used to call the authenticity of the diary into doubt."
Peter Corey Added Jan 22, 2017 - 5:33pm

"Q: What did Otto Frank do to counter the attacks on the authenticity of the diary?
From the late 1950’s until his death in 1980, Otto Frank [Anne Frank's father] opposed attacks on the authenticity of the diary in his words and writings, but also by legal means. The first allegations against the diary came in 1957 and 1958 in obscure Swedish and Norwegian periodicals. In them, among other claims, it was alleged that the American journalist and novelist Meyer Levin was the author of the diary. Levin wanted to make a stage adaptation and a film of the diary in the USA, but was not supported in this by Otto Frank. The conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank reached the press, and was used by right-wing extremists as an argument to call the authenticity of the diary into question. It is unclear whether these first attacks on the diary were seen by Otto Frank, but the fact is that he did not lodge a complaint."
Peter Corey Added Jan 22, 2017 - 5:37pm

"Lothar Stielau and Heinrich Buddeberg
Otto Frank took legal action in Germany on three occasions against people who had claimed that his daughter’s diary was a forgery. Early in 1959 he lodged a criminal complaint on the grounds of libel, slander, defamation, maligning the memory of a deceased person and anti-Semitic utterances against the German teacher Lothar Stielau (a teacher of English in Lübeck, and member of the extreme right-wing Deutsche Reichspartei). Stielau wrote in a school newspaper:
'The forged diaries of Eva Braun, of the Queen of England and the hardly more authentic one of Anne Frank may have earned several millions for the profiteers from Germany's defeat, but they have also raised our own hackles quite a bit.'
Otto Frank’s criminal complaint was also directed against Stielau’s fellow party member Heinrich Buddeberg, who defended Stielau in a letter sent to the Lübecker Nachrichten newspaper. Following a detailed and thorough investigation into the authenticity of Anne Frank’s handwriting, the District Court in Lübeck ruled that the diary was authentic, and Otto Frank’s complaint was upheld. A sentence was never passed because Stielau and Buddeberg withdrew their allegations on the basis of the preliminary investigation. This investigation and the cross-examination of the witnesses had convinced them that the diary was genuine. They expressed remorse over their statements, which they had made without any attempted corroboration. At this, Otto Frank agreed to a settlement, something that he later regretted: 'Had I but known that there would be people who would consider a settlement in this case as insufficient proof [of the authenticity of the diary], I should certainly not have dropped the case.' (The Diary of Anne Frank. The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, p. 90.)"
Mike Haluska Added Jan 22, 2017 - 6:42pm
Let's be perfectly clear - immigrants do not have the citizen rights granted to Americans in the US, just as I have no citizen rights in the UK.  For all the talk the President of Mexico makes, since Obama dropped the "wet foot/dry foot" policy, Mexico is now deporting all Cubans back to Cuba.  So much for "compassion"!!!
Billy Roper Added Jan 22, 2017 - 9:44pm
Peter, so your contention is that Anne Frank, who was detained after the home she was in was raided due to an ongoing Jewish ration-coupon counterfeiting operation, contracted Typhus, and after a long illness during which she was tended by German doctors and nurses and trucked from place to place while Germany was being bombed day and night and blockaded and its own people starving and going without medical care, died of natural causes. Okay. So, that makes it fine for 1,400 girls in Rotherham to be raped by Muslim immigrants while the authorities are too afraid to stop them, due to the threat of being accused of racism. And for every Euopean nation to be made majority nonWhite due to immigration.
Peter Corey Added Jan 23, 2017 - 12:22am
>so your contention is that Anne Frank, who was detained after the home she was in
She wasn't hiding in someone's home. She and her family were hiding in an annex — hidden behind a bookcase — in a warehouse. The warehouse was connected to the offices of Otto Frank's business. Frank gave controlling shares of his business to various non-Jewish partners (including Miep Gies and her husband).
>was raided due to an ongoing Jewish ration-coupon counterfeiting operation, contracted Typhus
Two non-Jewish salesmen in the Gies's business had earlier been arrested for counterfeiting food-ration coupons (Anne Frank herself refers to them in her diary as "B" and "D", and that after their arrest, food-ration coupons would not be forthcoming; their full surnames were easily discovered). That in no way disproves the earlier scenarios that the Franks had been betrayed to the Gestapo; no one has questioned the truth of the SD officer's statement in 1963 about the call he received from his superior, Dettman, claiming an "anonymous tip" (probably a woman) had informed him of Jews in hiding at the warehouse:
"According to his testimony in 1963 and 1964, SS-Oberscharführer (sergeant) Karl Joseph Silberbauer was notified of the fact by his superior Julius Dettmann. Even the number of Jews in hiding was specified. Dettmann was also alleged to have instructed Abraham Kaper*, to send eight of his men with Silberbauer."
["Who Betrayed Anne Frank?"
Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD)]
*Abraham Kaper was a professional bounty-hunter working for Department IV-B-4, and specializing in the hunting of Jews. He received financial consideration for each Jew caught.
Alas, recent charges of ration-coupon counterfeiting as being a possible reason for the raid on the Gies's warehouse don't disprove previously established facts regarding the raid; e.g., Dettman's anonymous tip from, apparently, a young woman (possibly the younger sister of one of the women working with Gies and helping the Franks survive in hiding; the younger sister was a Dutch National Socialist); Dettman then called Silberbauer at the SD, alerting him to the fact that there were precisely 8 Jews in hiding at the warehouse.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 23, 2017 - 5:22am
Fact is Europe is too SMALL for mass immigration, especially our little Switzerland. Of our 8 million people almost 30% are foreigners, and housing and rent prices have skyrocked. Refugees get free public transport, while poor Swiss can walk.....all that stuff causes resentments and tensions.
Immigration is ok when your country is big enough and can provide work for all. 
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 6:40am
Peter, you avoided the question, as usual. Okay. So, that makes it fine for 1,400 girls in Rotherham to be raped by Muslim immigrants while the authorities are too afraid to stop them, due to the threat of being accused of racism. And for every Euopean nation to be made majority nonWhite due to immigration?
Eileen de Bruin Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:00am
Shane Laing - I wouldn't suggest that you would vote for ukip. As for the benefits issue in the UK. The amount that is illegally taken by immigrants is a tiny drop in the entire oceans; fact is that the net worth to the nation of immigrants is huge. Economics knows this and that is why they are tolerated - by governments - in a country. That a government has not invested in its social infrastructure, not provided adequate housing or adequate public services - a singular failure of all governments in the past thirty-five years, is why the system is breaking down, not because of immigration. But the immigrants are the convenient scapegoats.
Peter Corey - I really do not mind whether you think that the Anne Frank diary is made up or not. I merely added that last sentence (am now regretting it) as an indication that the Nazi regime crept up on people here in Europe over a decade or so ... gradually. A young girl finding herself in hidden and cramped circumstances, because her family had left it too late to get out of Holland, having already moved from Germany to avoid the Nazi threat, grows up in the usual adolescent manner, but can only express all of the usual worries and wants in a diary, because she is locked away. That's it. I have been twice to the Prinsengracht house, my parents lived through the war in the UK and my husband's Mother lived in Amsterdam - close to the Prinsengracht - as a young woman, not much older than Anne. It all happened. But, again, no matter what you think about the book/diary's authenticity (it was written in Dutch of course and I have seen it). The menace crept into Holland, gradually, and people were taken almost unawares. The body of the essay I wrote, is more important than your fixation on the book.
Mike Haluska - right on. They do not.
Stone Eater - well then why do our governments not stop creating war and mayhem in the middle east and creating refugees? Economic migrants could be stopped by changing the trade agreements in African countries; at the moment they are all geared to keeping the "west" wealthy and those places dirt poor and controlled by the likes of Shell etc. People either get out and become migrants or they join radicals like Boko Haram. Because they are poor and exasperated in a continent that has more mineral wealth than anywhere else on earth. and they are kept dirt poor and uneducated. It is about trade and war and control.
Immigration in the Uk is relatively low - (There are around 1.2 million British born people living in another EU country, according to figures provided by the UN. Around 800,000 will be workers and their dependants. An estimated 3.3 million people born in another EU country who now live in the UK, of which 2.1 million are working- source UN).
And Muslims comprise 4.5% of the total population in Britain.
Billy Roper - whoever those criminals are, they should have been stopped, of course. Irrespective of culture, religion, colour - they are criminals. I do not think that we can "blame" Islam or Muslims, en masse, for the action of ignorant, controlling and vile manipulators who are criminals and I do not understand why it could ever be politically incorrect to route them out. The ongoing enquiry into child molestation in the UK - at the highest levels of society and triggered just after Jimmy Savile's death - is stalling because it is, apparently, politically incorrect to attack the ruling, white, establishment people. Which is the greater or lesser evil?
Stone-Eater Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:02am
lies about Angela Merkel having "let too many immigrants in"
Question is whether she manages this by herself (and with her cabinet) or it external orders are given....
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:22am
Sweden, also, has no-go areas and endemic rape threats now, due to the invaders. Even Scandinavia is on the road to becoming majority nonWhite due to the treasonous politicians.
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:22am
Resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees in Britain will cost nearly two billion pounds, a spending watchdog has revealed. The National Audit Office (NAO) have estimated that every Syrian refugee who comes to Britain will cost taxpayers up to £17,340 per year on average for their first five years in the UK.
Eileen de Bruin Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:34am
Tony Blair’s fortune now stands at three times the amount he has previously claimed, at some £60 million – which includes 10 homes.
And who was a war monger in the Middle East? And who created the refugee crisis in Syria?  And where should they go?
I cannot see any relation to the original article that I wrote, actually!
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:55am
They should go to Saudi Arabia, a much closer Muslim  country wealthy enough to take care of them and much more amenable to them culturally. Or to Israel, which could definitely benefit from the enrichment of their added diversity, and is also much closer.
Now, there's a loophole where they can hop on the Eurostar without even a passport and go to Britain for less than 3 pounds. A million of them may flood in through various means before Brexit is completed.
There are over 3 million Muslim invaders in the UK already, and parts of London are majority invader.
Unless you look forward to spending your last years under Sharia law and behind a burka, you should not welcome Europe becoming nonWhite.
Bill Kamps Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:59am
Eileen, yes I would agree that there are people, companies, and maybe those in government that benefit from the illegal aliens, and the low labor they provide.  At least they benefit in the short term.
However, I think this advantage is largely an illusion.  If all lettuce is picked by illegal aliens, then there no particular advantage one farm to the next.  Similarly if no lettuce is picked illegally, there is no particular advantage.  Yes owners may have more control over their workers, if they dont have the protection of worker's rights, I supposed that i some advantage. 
However, the complaint that no one would pick the  lettuce if citizens had to do it is nonsense, and the complaint that prices would be too high, if workers were paid a fair wage is also nonsense.  Even if lettuce prices rose 30-50% people would still buy it.  People are not spending $100s a month on lettuce, they spend maybe $5-10.   Similarly for other fruits that are hand picked. 
Perhaps just as important as the tourists that arrive by  plane, and never leave.  These are not people working for $1/hour, they are working as waitresses, and others making above minimum wage, they are working at jobs largely filled by citizens, they  just prefer living here.  They come on a legal visa, and just dont leave.  Who is benefiting from this practice ?  if  there is a benefit it is very minor. 
Of course there is an agenda for people who favor the current status quo.  Voters need to wake up, that new laws wont make a difference, if the same powers that  be refuse to enforce new laws, like they refuse to enforce existing laws.  The laws we have are sufficient, the will to enforce them does not exist
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 9:01am
Let's ask this young lady her opinion on the benefits and costs of immigration:
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 23, 2017 - 9:13am
So let us hear what the British news papers or TV have learned about the Muslims in Britannia OK!  I would expect this is true throughout Europe and less so in the USA since the communities are smaller.  There are exceptions.
"*  Muslims want to be part of Britain – but many do not accept the values and behaviours that make Britain what it is; they believe that Islam offers a better future.
*  A fifth have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year. This may not be their fault – I recall being shut out of white friends’ homes as a child – but the outcome is disastrous for integration.  Sadly, many British Muslims are keen to embrace this status.
*  One in six would prefer to live more separately; almost a quarter would like to see areas where sharia law took precedence over British law.
*  Most people in this nation-within-a-nation eschew violence in defence of religion. Not all, though.
*  We have recently seen the murder of a leading Scottish Muslim, the killer citing ‘disrespect’ of the faith.
*  Four per cent – the equivalent of more than 100,000 British Muslims – told the researchers that they had sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice.
*  Asked if they knew that someone was involved with supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three
would report it to the police.
*  One in three supports the right of a man to have more than one wife, even though it is illegal in the UK.
*  Twenty-three per cent support the introduction of sharia law.
*  Fifty-two per cent of the Muslims surveyed did not believe that homosexuality should be legal, and even more opposed gay marriage.
*  Almost half thought it was unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children.
*  And young Muslims were found to be nearly as far removed from the rest of British society as their elders.
*  There is one truly terrifying finding. Muslims who have separatist views about how they want to live in Britain are far more likely to support terrorism than those who do not."
Eileen de Bruin Added Jan 23, 2017 - 9:38am
Thomas, there is no point in my denying people's fears. Be aware that mercenaries in ISIS are also European, Aussie etc.  It is an illegal, criminal organisation which produces accounts - it is worse than the Mafia because they pretend this desire for an Islamic State. And politicians like Bush and Blair were instrumental in their rise.
But, ok, I understand the fear of Sharia law etc. No, I wouldn't want to wear a Burka and I find the dressing manner offensive to my sense of being free and a woman. The dressing manner was for the desert, to be protected from the sand and the storms - terrible they can be, so it was/isnecessary to wear such clothing, it has nothing to do with Islam as such, just the old ways of life and perhaps the tribal laws distinct from the Mohamed time. It really has nothing to do with being a modern woman in a modern society, Muslim included.
I know some Muslim origin women - one is from Iran, beautiful and intelligent and an atheist totally!  One is a highly trained petrochemical engineer, loves to have a drink of wine and dresses in bright and beautiful clothes without any kind of head gear.  So, I think that we should do well to remember that these rigid orthodox types do not represent the whole.
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 10:46am
That's just utterly untrue. Burkas aren't about protecting women from wind and sand, they're about protecting men from seeing women, and being thereby incited to impure thoughts, according to Islam.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 23, 2017 - 11:11am
Stone Eater - well then why do our governments not stop creating war and mayhem in the middle east and creating refugees?
Which governments ? When you mean the US as leader, and mainly the UK and France as followers, you're right.
It's geostrategy, directed at Russia in the end. Ever since. But nobody in the mainstream press accuses them to be responsible of that crisis. Same as Africa. The West exploits them and then complains when they come here since they have no work in their home countries. Why ? Because the installed dictators have no interest in developing their countries - and they again are protected by the West.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 23, 2017 - 11:17am
Eileen, Islam has been trying since 1736 to make the planet the promise land and has failed to displace Christianity.  They have tried.  Listen again to the words of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live?” “You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”  He is afraid for Islam.  History has shown that Islam is unique, different then the despots Christianity.  But these despots die, Islam is eternal in its effort to turn the world into the promise land.  

ISIS is today's spear point. Bush and Blair are not the instrument of ISIS.  Obama, Merkel, and the EU leaders are the instruments for letting Muslims infiltrate their population and taking the barrier that Christianity have had in place for 1290 years down.  The Arab Spring was not an accident.  The rise of Radical Islam in the countries involved in the Arab Spring is not an accident but a gift from Obama, Merkel, and other EU leaders.  Eileen, the history is very clear even to the blind, blood of Christians and Jews is a very clear sign that even the blind can smell and feel.

Fear of sharia law, NO.  Sharia is not a religions set of rules for Muslims if that was all it was then there would be not objections.  Many Christian and Jews religions have different rules for their members.  Sharia is the law of a government state, Caliphate.   I object to Obama, Merkel, and other EU leaders letting "the government of Islam" build enclaves without a vote of the citizens.  I object to them throwing democracy and representative government out the window, and the citizens are objecting in the voting booth.  
You talk about the history of a berka  Thanks Billy  I do not care about burka unless they are used for deception. 
Peter Corey Added Jan 23, 2017 - 3:32pm
>Peter, you avoided the question, as usual.
You must have an undiagnosed attention deficit disorder. You made an asinine comment about Anne Frank's diary and I replied to it.
Billy Roper Added Jan 23, 2017 - 5:33pm
I asked you if Anne Frank really did die in German custody from Typhus while being treated by German doctors and nurses, did that justify every European nation becoming majority nonWhite through invasive replacement immigration?
Peter Corey Added Jan 23, 2017 - 8:14pm
>I asked you if Anne Frank really did die in German custody
Yes. She died in February or March of 1945 in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.
>from Typhus while being treated by German doctors and nurses,
She and her sister, Margot, both died from typhus. Like the other 17,000 people in the camp who contracted it, they were simply confined to barracks and left to die. The idea of concerned, caring German doctors and nurses, valiantly struggling to save Jewish lives, is either a fantasy of yours or some a memory of a Nazi propaganda film in your personal video library.
"One of the children in my barracks toward the end of the war was Anne Frank, whose diary became famous after her death. I didn't know her family beforehand, and I don't recall much about her, but I do remember her as a quiet child. When I heard later that she was 15 when she was in the camps, I was surprised. She seemed younger to me. Pen and paper were hard to find, but I have a memory of her writing a bit. Typhus was a terrible problem, especially for the children. Of 500 in my barracks, maybe 100 got it, and most of them died. Many others starved to death. When Anne Frank got sick with typhus, I remember telling her she could stay in the barracks - she didn't have to go to roll call."
British Pathe News Reel
Liberation of Bergen-Belsen by British troops, April 1945
[In Bergen-Belsen, Anne] Frank was briefly reunited with two friends, Hanneli Goslar and Nanette Blitz, who were confined in another section of the camp. Goslar and Blitz survived the war, and later discussed the brief conversations they had conducted with Frank through a fence. Blitz described Anne as bald, emaciated, and shivering. Goslar noted Auguste van Pels was with Anne and Margot Frank, and was caring for Margot, who was severely ill. Neither of them saw Margot, as she was too weak to leave her bunk. Anne told Blitz and Goslar she believed her parents were dead, and for that reason she did not wish to live any longer. Goslar later estimated their meetings had taken place in late January or early February 1945.[55]

In early 1945, a typhus epidemic spread through the camp, killing 17,000 prisoners.[56] Other diseases, including typhoid fever, were rampant.[57] Due to these chaotic conditions, it is not possible to say what ultimately caused Anne's death. Witnesses later testified Margot fell from her bunk in her weakened state and was killed by the shock. Anne died a few days after Margot. The exact dates of Margot and Anne's deaths were not recorded. It was long thought that their deaths occurred only a few weeks before British soldiers liberated the camp on 15 April 1945,[58] but new research in 2015 indicated that they may have died as early as February of that year.[59] Among other evidence, witnesses recalled that the Franks displayed typhus symptoms by 7 February,[4][60] and Dutch health authorities reported that most untreated typhus victims died within 12 days of their first symptoms.[59] After liberation, the camp was burned in an effort to prevent further spread of disease; the sisters were buried in a mass grave at an unknown location.
Eileen de Bruin Added Jan 24, 2017 - 3:37am
Mircia Negres,  yes, absolutely, what you write about is exactly what I am aiming at. That we are all capable of directing blame at the new immigrants, even if we came from earlier ones, now being well established. And, always, finding the other, the foreigner, the stranger to blame. It is a tactic of government.
Thanks for reading and understanding.
Billy Roper Added Jan 24, 2017 - 8:26am
When it happened in the other direction, it was called colonization. We were all lectured about how colonization was wrong. So, how is replacement genocide okay? Explain that logic to me, from a race traitor's perspective, please.
Billy Roper Added Jan 24, 2017 - 8:26am
Again, Peter, for the third time, did that justify every European nation becoming majority nonWhite through invasive replacement immigration?
Peter Corey Added Jan 24, 2017 - 5:35pm
>Again, Peter, for the third time, did that justify every European nation becoming majority nonWhite through invasive replacement immigration?
"Invasive replacement immigration" does not justify your lying about Anne Frank or her diary.
Billy Roper Added Jan 24, 2017 - 9:23pm
Really? Whether or not she wrote the book is more important than an entire continent being invaded and its indigenous people being replaced? Wow. You really are anti-White.
Peter Corey Added Jan 24, 2017 - 11:01pm
>You really are anti-White.
Nah, I'm just anti-fuckwit, irrespective of color. If the fuckwit happens to be a white guy like you, than I'm anti-you.
Tikno Added Sep 23, 2017 - 10:17am
Accommodating immigrants is considered a burden for a country, time, cost, and responsibility. Perhaps that was the main reason.
Eileen de Bruin Added Sep 24, 2017 - 3:49am
Hello Tikano, this is a long dormant thread, so thankyou.
Immigrants impacts on economies are always profiting the countries, in the medium to long run. Most immigrants do the work that others will not. Most are young and do not cost much in medical services. Universities around the world, including in Chicago and any Economics’ faculties will let you have independent economic figures to make up your own mind.
Since time immemorial, we have migrated along trade routes. I was in Jorvik museum in York, England, a month or so ago. You get into a time capsule and go back a thousand years...and, yes, there were peoples from all over the world in York, then...! 
Tikno Added Sep 24, 2017 - 4:13am
Hello Eileen,
That does not apply in most developing countries where "blue-collar worker" are abundant.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 24, 2017 - 9:32am
Eileen, you talking about a rational immigration policy.  America does not have one.  We have open borders, chain migration, and birth citizenship even for women that fly here to deliver their baby and returns home with the  baby.  The baby has a "made in America stamp".  We have laws that do not give welfare to legal immigrants, but our country give welfare to illegal immigrants.  Yes they Take jobs others will not.  This has resulted in the pay for those jobs being so low that the person live is poverty or supplements with welfare.   They and their children us other public services as well adding to the cost.  So the actual cost of the job they take is the sum of the pay, welfare, and public services less the taxes.