400 children illegally born in Israel to be deported

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

Perhaps this is the story you were looking for Yiwah:

One Japanese born migrant deported after several court cases:

Quote:
On Wednesday the Tokyo High Court upheld a decision to deport Fida Khan, 15, who was born in Japan and can only speak Japanese, because his Pakistani father and Filipino mother entered the country illegally more than 20 years ago.

The family lawyer, Gen'ichi Yamaguchi, rejected claims by right-wing groups that making exceptions for illegal immigrants would turn Japan into a soft target.

Oh wait! This ones parents overstayed their tourism visa by 20 years... we were looking for "legal aliens", not illegal ones.

 

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

Yiwah wrote:

Germany and Japan have these restrictive policies right now.  What makes their approach any less problematic?  They aren't currently involved in mass deportations...but comb the news and you'll find some recent examples.  Or just read the link I provided...in particular this, happening in the UK:

 

Ok. You seem to have some specific examples in mind. Since you have the inside scoop here, why not save us the trouble and bring forward some examples of what you mean? The British example, doesn't suggest anywhere that these children were born in the UK, anywhere?

 

*sigh*

Sure.  I'll provide the examples.  But before I do, I'd like to note that the rising hostility in this thread is indicative of the way that people on this board get their backs up immediately, and make assumptions about the intentions of others, when particular subjects (ie, Israel) are involved in any way.  I'm sure it feels justified, but it's extremely frustrating on the receiving end.  So I direct the twice-asked question your way as well.  What is you want discussed here?  Anything?

 

I already provided a [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR201001... to an article about a 14-year old boy born in Japan who was to be deported.  Not long after, Japan [url=http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100328a2.html]enacted[/url] a policy which allows for the deportation of irregular migrant parents, but allows the children to stay in Japan.  As you can read, this is a problematic issue as it still separates families.  Before this policy, deportations included the children.

Australia ruled back in [url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/09/1094530766172.html]2004[/url] that the children of irregular migrants (born in Australia) could be deported.  In 2008 Germany deported 10,000 Roma, including [url=http://blog.rosalux-europa.info/2010/01/29/a-cold-welcome/]German-born Roma[/url]:

"The children and young people deported are in a particularly difficult situation. For the most part, they were born in Germany, have never been in Kosovo before, and speak neither Albanian nor Serbian"

 

All of this to say...once again...that the ways irregular migrants (and their children) are treated ebbs and flows, and even in 'progressive' countries, their position is precarious and very much impacted by the political whims of 'real citizens'.

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

Examples please of Germany and Japan, or England or anywhere deporting children of legal residents born in there respective countries? Something? Anything?

 

First of all, demanding that I respond to you immediately is quite aggressive. I'd like you to stop.

Second, please do not conflate the issue.  We are discussing children born to non-citizens.  "Legal residents" are still not citizens and cannot confer citizenship upon their offspring, if there is no jus solis.  That matters, because non-citizens are not given the same rights as citizens, and can indeed face deportation, where citizens cannot be deported.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I can convert to Judaism and apply for citizenship in Israel.  If I convert to Shintoism or Lutherism I don't seem to gain the same benefits in either Japan or Germany.  In Canada we call state preference by religion discrimination and it is not comparably to laws that apply to the citizenship of ones parents or grandparents.  In Japan they don't even allow adoptees let alone converts.  

Quote:

The bill, proposed by one of Netanyahu's coalition partners, aimed to provide easier conversion for immigrants from the former Soviet Union, many of whom are not Jewish under Jewish law. It would have liberalized the conversion process inside Israel to some extent while at the same time strengthening the control of Orthodox rabbis.

Conversions are a highly sensitive issue for the three main denominations among the world's 13 million Jews – Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. The more liberal Conservative and Reform denominations that make up the majority of American Jews, but which have little political clout inside Israel, feared the bill could undermine their legitimacy and connection to the Jewish state.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/israel-shelves-new-jewish_n_657...

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yiwah wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Examples please of Germany and Japan, or England or anywhere deporting children of legal residents born in there respective countries? Something? Anything?

 

First of all, demanding that I respond to you immediately is quite aggressive. I'd like you to stop.

Second, please do not conflate the issue.  We are discussing children born to non-citizens.  "Legal residents" are still not citizens and cannot confer citizenship upon their offspring, if there is no jus solis.  That matters, because non-citizens are not given the same rights as citizens, and can indeed face deportation, where citizens cannot be deported.

The 14 year old boy in Japan was the son of people who had overstayed their visa by 20 years. They had absolutely no legal status in Japan, at all.

The people we are discussing are the childrent of people who are legally residing in Israel, on work permits. Quite clearly, Japanese law would provide for Khan were his parents legal.

Got anything relevant, or even similar?

All of your examples relate to people who are illegally residing in these countries.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In Israel they would only have had to find a rabbi willing to convert them and their problems would be ended.  Got to keep that Jewish character.  

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
In anycase, do you care to retract your erroneous statement about Germany allowing any "ethnic" German into Germany, when it is clearly not the case. Such immigration is based not on ethnicity but on the citizenship of ones parents. You do understand the distinction between "citizenship" and "ethnicity" do you not?

 

I do, but it's not clear that what I stated was erroneous:

 

Quote:
Certain ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union may claim German citizenship under the Right of Return law.Certain ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union may claim German citizenship under the Right of Return law.

 

I'm reading that as "If you're currently a citizen in some Eastern European countries, and are of German ethnicity, you may be eligible for German citizenship".

 

Quote:
The 14 year old boy in Japan was the son of people who had overstayed their visa by 20 years. They had absolutely no legal status in Japan, at all.

 

From the original article:

 

Quote:
Some of the foreign workers - largely from south-east Asia, China and Africa - have overstayed their visas and settled to rear families. Some also entered illegally.

 

Are we not talking about the same thing here? What shall become of the children born of migrants who have no particular legal status, having overstayed their visas??

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

 

The 14 year old boy in Japan was the son of people who had overstayed their visa by 20 years. They had absolutely no legal status in Japan, at all.

The people we are discussing are the childrent of people who are legally residing in Israel, on work permits. Quite clearly, Japanese law would provide for Khan were his parents legal.

Got anything relevant, or even similar?

Japanese law does not provide for citizenship to be granted to children of migrants who are not naturalised, except in some circumstances.  The migrants in question in Israel are not naturalised.

I notice you have ignored my now thrice repeated question, and I'm quite weary of your tone.  Let me make my position quite clear.  I do not believe it is just, moral, or even remotely okay to deport children who are born in your country.  The immgration status of their parents is not their fault, and they should never, ever be punished for that. 

I am not certain why you need Israel to be so much worse than any other country who routinely violates the human rights of migrants, irregular or otherwise.  The differences are only in terms of specific time, rhetoric, and some very nitpicky legal questions about migrancy, none of which actually alter the fundamental violations.

The Roma deported from Germany?  They were [url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/koso-a26.shtml]refugees[/url].  That means they weren't illegal, they were asylum seekers.  Their German born children were still deported.  Is that less awful? 

20 years living, working, paying taxes in Japan.  Out.  Your child too.

[url=http://www.japanprobe.com/2009/04/20/arlan-calderon-speaks-to-the-press/]13 years[/url] living, working, paying taxes in Japan.  Out.  Your child can stay though.  For now.  Until the policy changes again.

10 years or more living, working, paying taxes in Germany.  Out.  Your children too.

Children of migrants in Israel.  Out.

 

These are all heinous acts, quibbling aside.

6079_Smith_W

@ Yiwah #48

Yes, to be clear I know the situation is as bad in the rest of Canada and I said so in the quote you pulled. The only reason why I used the quebec example is because there is a specific word for it, and it is more in the spotlight because the situation there WRT racial and cultural politics is a bit more under the microscope.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yiwah wrote:

Cueball wrote:

 

The 14 year old boy in Japan was the son of people who had overstayed their visa by 20 years. They had absolutely no legal status in Japan, at all.

The people we are discussing are the childrent of people who are legally residing in Israel, on work permits. Quite clearly, Japanese law would provide for Khan were his parents legal.

Got anything relevant, or even similar?

Japanese law does not provide for citizenship to be granted to children of migrants who are not naturalised, except in some circumstances.  The migrants in question in Israel are not naturalised.

I notice you have ignored my now thrice repeated question, and I'm quite weary of your tone.  Let me make my position quite clear.  I do not believe it is just, moral, or even remotely okay to deport children who are born in your country.  The immgration status of their parents is not their fault, and they should never, ever be punished for that. 

I am not certain why you need Israel to be so much worse than any other country who routinely violates the human rights of migrants, irregular or otherwise.  The differences are only in terms of specific time, rhetoric, and some very nitpicky legal questions about migrancy, none of which actually alter the fundamental violations.

By this you mean to say that you can not find any pertinent examples of any states deporting the children of people who are legally in the country, or not being awarded citizenship ju solis, only undocumented workers, and people without legal status.

6079_Smith_W

@ Snert #59

The right of return applying to ethnic Germans (most notably the Volga Germans) was restricted starting around 2000. I don't know if they have any special status nowadays.

 

 

Yiwah

Snert wrote:

Are we not talking about the same thing here? What shall become of the children born of migrants who have no particular legal status, having overstayed their visas??

It [url=http://www.ilps-web.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1369&I... happens[/url] in Canada.  This woman came here legally, but could not fulfill the live-in work requirement in the proper timeframe (likely because she became pregnant).  She was given a deportation order. There was no real choice, she had to take her child with her.

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

 

By this you mean to say that you can not find any pertinent examples of any states deporting the children of people who are legally in the country, or not being awarded citizenship ju solis, only undocumented workers, and people without legal status.

I am waiting for you to catch up to the post that highlights for you, how the situations of people staying past their legal time-limit or even entering illegally is exactly equivalent in the examples given.

At which point, I certainly hope you are able to back off your extremely unpleasant manner of attack posting, so that you can actually address the various issues I've raised.

Unless this is really just about 'scoring points'?

Yiwah

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Yiwah #48

Yes, to be clear I know the situation is as bad in the rest of Canada and I said so in the quote you pulled. The only reason why I used the quebec example is because there is a specific word for it, and it is more in the spotlight because the situation there WRT racial and cultural politics is a bit more under the microscope.

 

 

Ah, it's a particular peeve of mine, as I have come across many people who left Quebec and give me dire warnings about how the issue of 'pure laine' will prevent me from ever getting ahead and will doom my children to poverty.  It's a rather dated warning.

Unionist

The following is thread drift, in response to a series of posts by Yiwah whining about the tone of other people's posts:

Yiwah wrote:
I'd like to note that the rising hostility in this thread is indicative of the way that people on this board get their backs up immediately, and make assumptions about the intentions of others, when particular subjects (ie, Israel) are involved in any way.

Quite a hilarious comment. The first remotely hostile comment in this thread was made by YOU, in reply to a one-word comment - "yep" - by remind:

Yiwah wrote:
I absolutely disagree with this, regardless of who is doing it, but your comment was perplexingly flippant.

We are well aware of your meta-meta-meta-thesis that people are way too "extreme" when talking about Israel. You have lectured us at plentiful length on that topic. When you enter this thread, start attributing motives to people who are condemning Israel's filthy racist policies, and then lecturing on and on and on about how Israel is really acting no worse than lots of other countries - well, don't be surprised when people draw the appropriate conclusions. I did, long ago.

But when you accuse others of "rising hostility", when in fact the origin of same is your own diversionary and highly personal posts, you go beyond just defending Israel in the currently official method propounded by the Zionist lobby ("just ask why they're singling out Israel!").

Snert states his opinions and asks his questions. I've always appreciated that about him. WYSIWYG.

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

Perhaps you should just reflect on the thoughts of the offiical who has made this decision here, Eli Yashai:

Quote:
"On the one hand, this problem is a humanitarian problem. We all feel and understand the hearts of children. But on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel."

But to your mind its really just some kind of run-of-the-mill, business as usual, immigration policy dealing with illegal migrant workers, not some kind of racially motivated thing to do with the fact that these are non-Jews we are talking about?

 

Perhaps you should reflect on your behaviour in this thread:

 

You have ignored the evidence presented to you.  At first, you attempted to nitpick to do so, but when that was no longer possible, you simply tossed it away and refused to address it.  Despite asking for that evidence in the first place.  This appears to be bad faith on your part.

You continue to claim that I am minimising this incident, when that is patently false.  I asked you straight out what sort of discussion you expect in this thread if we cannot discuss migration issues, and you refused to answer.  I have repeatedly clarified my position in the context of human rights as it relates to migration, and how these policies are often unforgivably racist/xenophobic whether the rhetoric is up front about it or not.  Your persitent mischaracterisation of what I am saying also appears to be bad faith on your part.

I expect you are now done?

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

"Some" came illegally.

Perhaps you should just reflect on the thoughts of the offiical who has made this decision here, Eli Yashai:

Quote:
"On the one hand, this problem is a humanitarian problem. We all feel and understand the hearts of children. But on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel."

But to your mind its really just some kind of run-of-the-mill, business as usual, immigration policy dealing with illegal migrant workers, not some kind of racially motivated thing to do with the fact that these are non-Jews we are talking about?

But lets get down to the real meat of the issue, racism against Arabs, always a primary source of the little bumps and glitches that catch up the Zionist state on its glorious path to ethnic purity:

Quote:
Israel has encouraged thousands of foreign workers to take jobs in its construction, agricultural and service industries in the past 10 years, since it barred most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from employment inside Israel.

What we are really talking about is a system designed to withold the right of Palestinians to the fruit of the land upon which they were born. Who would have thought that the new "hewers of wood" would have the temerity to breed?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not at all!

Lets get down to the real meat of the issue, racism against Arabs, always a primary source of the little bumps and glitches that catch up the Zionist state on its glorious path to ethnic purity:

Quote:
Israel has encouraged thousands of foreign workers to take jobs in its construction, agricultural and service industries in the past 10 years, since it barred most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from employment inside Israel.

What we are really talking about is a system designed to withold the right of Palestinians to the fruit of the land upon which they were born. How obscene that those who regularly denounce a boycott of Israel, do not blanche at the 10 year lock out of Palestinian labour, from the lands of their ancestors.

A perfect plan! Who would have thought that the new "hewers of wood" would have the temerity to breed and endanger the "Jewish character of the state of Israel", as well. Sometimes, these poor bigots just can't win for losing.

Yiwah

Unionist wrote:

The following is thread drift, in response to a series of posts by Yiwah whining about the tone of other people's posts:

 

Unionist, I have [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/400-children... a question three times in this thread, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172215/Unionist-wrote-Why-would]once specifically directed at you[/url] and I would sincerely like you to actually respond to it.

Yiwah wrote:

Here's my question...what piqued my interest here was not that this was a thread about Isreal, but rather that this was a thread about some seriously fucked up migration/citizenship policies that have led to a humanitarian crisis.  Is that a thread drift?  I mean...what can you say about this if you don't discuss the migration angle?  Who is going to come in here and say 'oh well it's okay what they're doing'?  I certainly don't think Snert or anyone else has even come close to that, but there is certainly the perception that this is indeed going on.  So is the solution to just leave Israel threads on their own, and discuss the wider issues elsewhere?

Yiwah wrote:

If we cannot discuss the wider issue of migration policies, what are we supposed to talk about in this thread?  Just post a one liner saying 'what the fuck is wrong with Israel!?'

 

As well, I asked you a number of [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172176/Unionist-wrote-Snert]factual[/url] [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172208/Unionist-wrote-Israel-was]questions..., because the information I have seems to contradict your statements of fact in regards to citizenship acquisition in Israel.  You never addressed those.

 

So again, I ask...is there a debate allowed here, on anything at all?  What is is we are allowed to say in this thread?  Are you actually interested in engaging anyone who provides you with evidence that contradicts your own?  If not, it would be nice to know.

Unionist wrote:

Quite a hilarious comment. The first remotely hostile comment in this thread was made by YOU, in reply to a one-word comment - "yep" - by remind:

Yiwah wrote:
I absolutely disagree with this, regardless of who is doing it, but your comment was perplexingly flippant.

I'm sorry you see that as hostile.  I hope you understand that "I absolutely disagree with this, regardless of who is doing it" refers to the potential deportation of children.  And her comment was an ANSWER to a question, which was perplexingly flippant because it appeared to be, right off the bat, factually inaccurate.

Unionist wrote:

We are well aware of your meta-meta-meta-thesis that people are way too "extreme" when talking about Israel. You have lectured us at plentiful length on that topic. When you enter this thread, start attributing motives to people who are condemning Israel's filthy racist policies, and then lecturing on and on and on about how Israel is really acting no worse than lots of other countries - well, don't be surprised when people draw the appropriate conclusions. I did, long ago.

Yes, I realise you are blinded by a bias you contructed in your first few interactions with me.  I have seen this ever since.  I have no illusions about being able to change your mind on that.  *shrugs* Then again, that's really your problem.

However, when you avoid actually discussing a topic, when you ask questions and then receive answers which you never return to, and you have some strange guidelines about discussing Israel that you apparently don't like being up front about, don't be surprised when people call you on it.

Unionist wrote:

But when you accuse others of "rising hostility", when in fact the origin of same is your own diversionary and highly personal posts, you go beyond just defending Israel in the currently official method propounded by the Zionist lobby ("just ask why they're singling out Israel!").

Snert states his opinions and asks his questions. I've always appreciated that about him. WYSIWYG.

 

The fact that you, and a few others, flat out attack anyone who enters these discussions, and accuse them of 'defending Israel' at literally the drop of a hat is absolutely reactionary.  It's also offensive, and very much the approach of a bully.  I realise, however, that this behaviour is given the quiet nod in this particular online milieu. It doesn't change its character, however.

 

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

Not at all!

Lets get down to the real meat of the issue, racism against Arabs, always a primary source of the little bumps and glitches that catch up the Zionist state on its glorious path to ethnic purity:

Quote:
Israel has encouraged thousands of foreign workers to take jobs in its construction, agricultural and service industries in the past 10 years, since it barred most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from employment inside Israel.

What we are really talking about is a system designed to withold the right of Palestinians to the fruit of the land upon which they were born. How obscene that those who regularly denounce a boycott of Israel, do not blanche at the 10 year lock out of Palestinian labour, from the lands of their ancestors.

A perfect plan! Who would have thought that the new "hewers of wood" would have the temerity to breed and endanger the "Jewish character of the state of Israel", as well. Sometimes, these poor bigots just can't win for losing.

 

Okay?

 

I'm not sure what else you can really add to this.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yiwah, I know you were just looking for information on Israeli immigration, but you linked in post #40 to a rabidly right-wing and islamophobic website. We don't encourage links to racist websites on babble, even if they publish information we're after. Please be more judicious in the future when plumbing for sources.

Unionist, Yiwah is simply stating her opinion. Whether or not you consider her post apologia for Israel, your hostility towards her needs to stop.

I can't control thread drift, but I can note that this discussion has shifted from the questions raised in the OP to whether or not Israel is a racist state. That's pretty much a given. I can't say if it is more or less racist than, say, Germany, Japan or Canada, but I know who I'd back at the bookie's. At any rate, aside from the statement Unionist bolded in the OP (and has repeated since then), the real point of rupture for me is the passage Cueball just cited: these "illegal" children are a direct product of Israel's occupation of Palestine, who are in turn declared arbitrarily "illegal" on their own land by its occupiers. The audacity is deafening.

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

 

Nope. There is no policy on immigration to Israel by non-Jews. Applications for non-Jews is entirely discretionary at the whim of the Ministry of the Interior..

 

That's only part of the answer, [url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/State/Acquisition%20of%... appears[/url].  Naturalisation is automatic if you are born to a parent who is naturalised (let's assume non-Jewish).  There is also a clause that allows you to become naturalised if you are born on Israeli soil, and manage not to get kicked out by the time you're 18.  At that point, you have up until you are 21 to apply for naturalisation.  You must have lived in Israel for 5 consecutive years before applying, and cannot have been convicted of any security regulation violations, or other legal violations with a sentence of more than 5 years.

 

Does this functionally make much of a difference?  It's still freaking hard to get naturalised as a non-Jew.  However, nearly the same restrictions apply in Japan, as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nationality_law#Naturalization] naturalisation requirements[/url] nearly mirror Israel's and are also at the discretion of the Minister of Immigration.

 

Edit: first source changed.

Yiwah

Catchfire wrote:

Yiwah, I know you were just looking for information on Israeli immigration, but you linked in post #40 to a rabidly right-wing and islamophobic website. We don't encourage links to racist websites on babble, even if they publish information we're after. Please be more judicious in the future when plumbing for sources.

Changed, though the source is Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Yiwah

Catchfire wrote:

I can't control thread drift, but I can note that this discussion has shifted from the questions raised in the OP to whether or not Israel is a racist state. That's pretty much a given.

Huh?

I'm sorry...but who has claimed it's not racist?

Bringing up examples of how migration policies are racist/xenophobic at heart, regardless of who is using them or how they are justifying them is far from engaging in a debate as to whether or not Israel is a racist state.

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

What questions were raised in the OP?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yiwah wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Not at all!

Lets get down to the real meat of the issue, racism against Arabs, always a primary source of the little bumps and glitches that catch up the Zionist state on its glorious path to ethnic purity:

Quote:
Israel has encouraged thousands of foreign workers to take jobs in its construction, agricultural and service industries in the past 10 years, since it barred most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from employment inside Israel.

What we are really talking about is a system designed to withold the right of Palestinians to the fruit of the land upon which they were born. How obscene that those who regularly denounce a boycott of Israel, do not blanche at the 10 year lock out of Palestinian labour, from the lands of their ancestors.

A perfect plan! Who would have thought that the new "hewers of wood" would have the temerity to breed and endanger the "Jewish character of the state of Israel", as well. Sometimes, these poor bigots just can't win for losing.

 

Okay?

 

I'm not sure what else you can really add to this.

Well you could add that these are not just the application of normal immigration processing laws that one might find anywhere in the world as you previously suggested, but actions designed to preserve the ethnic purity of the state, as expressly reasoned as justification by the state, due to issues directly relating to the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, who are not even allowed to go to Israel on day passes to clean toilets for the people who stole their land.

But my guess is that you won't. You would rather try and impugn my intentions by asking me why I am unfairly singling out Israel.

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

 

Well you could add that these are not just the application of normal immigration processing laws that one might find anywhere in the world as you previously suggested, but actions designed to preserve the ethnic purity of the state, as expressly reasoned as justification by the state, as a direct result of the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, who are not even allowed to go to Israel on day passes to clean toilets for the people who stole their land.

Give it a rest.  I did not say that this is 'just the application of normal immigration processing laws that one might find anywhere in the world'.  Certain countries are well known for their harsh, xenophobic migration laws and their particularly exploitatitve treatment of migrant workers in particular. This seems to be particularly the case where jus sanguinis rules are applied, and birth in a nation confers upon you no rights or protections.  So even while racist rhetoric in say, Arizona, ramps up to an all time high, babies born to irregular migrants at the VERY least can't be deported 'back to Mexico'.  That is not the case in other so called 'civilized' nations, some of which have been mentioned here.

Who gives a fuck if the justification for this kind of xenophobia is 'ethnic/racial/religious/cultural' purity or 'concern for the economic wellbeing of bla bla bla'.  Whether someone is openly xenophobic or not, it doesn't change the impact of the policy.

The factual inaccuracies being bandied about to make Israel look even worse than it already does are not helpful, and are frankly unecessary.  The words of the minister in question, and the actions themselves, speak volumes.  Making factual errors actually draws attention away from that.

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

 

But my guess is that you won't. You would rather try and impugn my intentions by asking me why I am unfairly singling out Israel.

Actually I'm asking you, yet again, what is it you think can be discussed here?

This situation is so obviously wrong, and impossible to justify or support, that really, all you're going to get is a bunch of 'omg!' and 'wow that's bad' and 'for sure, jeez'.  If that's all you want because anything else is threatening, and makes you believe people are apologising for Israel, then it would be really awfully nice if you could just say that outright, and people who want to do more than just say 'omg!' can go start a thread on how these KINDS of policies dehumanise, exploit, and deny people basic human rights.

 

Maybe I'm missing a context here, where people are going to come rushing into this thread saying, "But it's okay that Israel is doing this!" and that explains your pre-emptive strike approach?  But it hasn't actually happened yet so...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yiwah wrote:

Cueball wrote:

 

Well you could add that these are not just the application of normal immigration processing laws that one might find anywhere in the world as you previously suggested, but actions designed to preserve the ethnic purity of the state, as expressly reasoned as justification by the state, as a direct result of the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, who are not even allowed to go to Israel on day passes to clean toilets for the people who stole their land.

Give it a rest.  I did not say that this is 'just the application of normal immigration processing laws that one might find anywhere in the world'.  Certain countries are well known for their harsh, xenophobic migration laws and their particularly exploitatitve treatment of migrant workers in particular. This seems to be particularly the case where jus sanguinis rules are applied, and birth in a nation confers upon you no rights or protections.  So even while racist rhetoric in say, Arizona, ramps up to an all time high, babies born to irregular migrants at the VERY least can't be deported 'back to Mexico'.  That is not the case in other so called 'civilized' nations, some of which have been mentioned here.

Who gives a fuck if the justification for this kind of xenophobia is 'ethnic/racial/religious/cultural' purity or 'concern for the economic wellbeing of bla bla bla'.  Whether someone is openly xenophobic or not, it doesn't change the impact of the policy.

The factual inaccuracies being bandied about to make Israel look even worse than it already does are not helpful, and are frankly unecessary.  The words of the minister in question, and the actions themselves, speak volumes.  Making factual errors actually draws attention away from that.

Uhh, no. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that immigration laws and their application are designed to preserve the ethnic purity of the German state, or even the Japanese state. That is just supposition on your part. As has been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly, in fact both states have clear policy guidelines for allowing persons of non-German and non-Japanese origin to become citizens.

In fact, Germany recently liberalized its laws specifically to accomodate non-German immigrants, while tightening laws that allow "ethnic" Germans to immigrate. As has been demonstrated.

You are just asserting that these laws are racially motivated. They can easily be accounted for as means of preventing "economic migration" that harms the existing workforce of the nations citizens, and other motivations that have nothing to do with ethnicity whatsoever.

The Israeli case is quite explicitly about the ethnicity of the immigrants. Eli Yashai was clear on this point.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Lets get serious here, if one of Merkel's cabinet said something like "there are German considerations and ensuring the German character of the state of Germany," in public there would be a resolution put forward in an emergency session of the UN the next day, denouncing the German government put forward by the USA, and penned by the Anti-Defamation League. Her government would not last a week, unless the cabinet member was forced to resign? Why? Well because it sounds like Joseph Goebbels.

But in Israel this passes for reasoned debate, and is completely acceptable. Why? Because the Israeli state is founded on such racism.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Blah, blah, apologies for racial supremacists, blah, blah

"there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel"

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

I can't control thread drift, but I can note that this discussion has shifted from the questions raised in the OP to whether or not Israel is a racist state.

Not really, CF. It has shifted to whether Israel is just another sovereign state exercising migration policies, like Canada, Japan, or Québec. This is the well-known frame adopted by the Zionist lobby in recent years to defame and discredit all critics of Israel. Sometimes they go so far as to call them "anti-semites". Sometimes, they are a little more subtle.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist #81

Just to clarify, since your own comment tended toward the subtle rather than the direct, If we comment on anything other than how horrible this policy is we are supporting the Zionist lobby?  That kind of begs the question of why a topic like this is brought up for discussion at all.

Personally, I agree that it is a horrible decision, without reservation. That said, I don't think comparing Israel's policy with policies and attitudes elsewhere is a de facto vote of confidence. How are we supposed to see how different Israeli policy is without making such a comparison? 

(edit)

For that matter, if there were another country with a policy as bad as Israel's that would in no way justify this action either.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Support the Zionist Lobby all you like. It is the racist state of Israel which imposes racist policies upon its citizens.

I think it is fair to establish that Israel's policy is based on ensuring an ethnic purity no different in nature than that demanded by white supremacist groups marching in the US, along with the Tea Baggers, this past week.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Unionist #81

Just to clarify, since your own comment tended toward the subtle rather than the direct, If we comment on anything other than how horrible this policy is we are supporting the Zionist lobby?

Yeah, that's what I said. If you don't repeat the "I hate Israel" mantra over and over again without elaboration, you are a Zionist cur. [That was sarcasm, for those who read to trap and not for meaning.]

I think you've been reading Yiwah's meta-meta-interpretations a bit too much. Try hard to read my posts when characterizing my opinions. It will bring you closer to the truth.

Quote:
That kind of begs the question of why a topic like this is brought up for discussion at all.

I didn't bring it up for discussion. I brought it up to show that Israeli Zionist racism is not purely a question of Jews vs. Others. It's good old exploitation of wage labour plus not wanting yellow and brown people around. Read up on the Cochin Jews, Chinese Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Mizrahi Jews in general for more confirmation that Zionists are White Western Racists in relatively unreconstructed form.

And no, the point wasn't "citizenship policy" of various countries.

And yes - if someone condemns South African bantustans, and someone else (someone who never actually condemns South African bantustans) posts on and on and on about, "well, c'mon, there are ghettoes and ethnic enclaves in every country", you'll have to forgive me for wondering whether that person is more interested in protecting South African apartheid than in having what you call a "discussion".

Quote:
Personally, I agree that it is a horrible decision, without reservation. That said, I don't think comparing Israel's policy with policies and attitudes elsewhere is a de facto vote of confidence. How are we supposed to see how different Israeli policy is without making such a comparison?

No, it's not "de facto" a vote of confidence. But when it's combined with, "why does everyone take such extreme positions about Israel" - it becomes something much darker than that - darker, because it's hidden away from the bright light of honest scrutiny.

al-Qa'bong

Yiwah wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

I can't control thread drift, but I can note that this discussion has shifted from the questions raised in the OP to whether or not Israel is a racist state. That's pretty much a given.

Huh?

I'm sorry...but who has claimed it's not racist?

Bringing up examples of how migration policies are racist/xenophobic at heart, regardless of who is using them or how they are justifying them is far from engaging in a debate as to whether or not Israel is a racist state.

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

What questions were raised in the OP?

Geez, are you a lawyer or something?

Yiwah

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Unionist #81

Just to clarify, since your own comment tended toward the subtle rather than the direct, If we comment on anything other than how horrible this policy is we are supporting the Zionist lobby?  That kind of begs the question of why a topic like this is brought up for discussion at all.

 

And I've asked that question four times now.

Perhaps Unionist, and Cueball, and all the other 'true anti-Zionists' can write up a script for those of us who, despite repeatedly condemning this racist action, are actually supposedly supporters of Zionism?  Then we just toe the party line, not stray outside the bounds of the discussion (understanding there IS no discussion), and perhaps after a while we can get a pat on the head for 'seeing the error of our ways'?  That would be super swell!

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Personally, I agree that it is a horrible decision, without reservation. That said, I don't think comparing Israel's policy with policies and attitudes elsewhere is a de facto vote of confidence. How are we supposed to see how different Israeli policy is without making such a comparison? 

(edit)

For that matter, if there were another country with a policy as bad as Israel's that would in no way justify this action either.

Exactly.  Though I'm a little amused at the willingness to believe that Japan's notoriously racist immigration policies may be given a 'pass' because if discussed in relation to Israel, it apparently must be, else this serves the Zionists in some bizarre way. 

Oops, I mean "BAD ISRAEL, FULL STOP, NO MORE DISCUSSION NEEDED LEST YE BE AN APOLOGIST FOR ISRAEL!"

Yiwah

tp!

Yiwah

dp!

Yiwah

al-Qa'bong wrote:

 

Geez, are you a lawyer or something?

 

Oddly enough, your 'question' doesn't answer my question.  Perhaps you could explain what 'questions' were being asked in the OP?

Yiwah

Unionist wrote:

I think you've been reading Yiwah's meta-meta-interpretations a bit too much. Try hard to read my posts when characterizing my opinions. It will bring you closer to the truth.

 

You mean the posts where you ask questions, then never return to address the answers?   Or the ones where I repeatedly ask you direct questions which you refuse to answer? Or the posts where you constantly accuse me of being pro-Israel both directly and obliquely?  An accusation, I'd like to add, that you know quite well is extremely offensive.  Your 'truth' is based on your assumptions, and while I'm sure you pride yourself on being a perceptive person, you appear to have absolutely closed your mind to the issue since your very first interaction with me.

Your continued accusations border on harassment.  Is this acceptable on Babble?  Can I decide that a poster is a misogynist, and then constantly say so, ignoring what they actually say because I've made up my mind?  It smacks of McCarthyism, and quite clearly there is nothing I can say which can dissuade you (not my repeated condemnations of this action, not the fact that you have no idea what I have or haven't said about Israel anywhere but this very small corner of the world).

Unionist wrote:
Quote:
That kind of begs the question of why a topic like this is brought up for discussion at all.

I didn't bring it up for discussion.

Then next time, how about you be clear up front and say "This is not brought up for discussion."?  If you simply want to record the various atrocious actions of Israel, then do so...but don't come down on people for wanting to actually have a DISCUSSION on a DISCUSSION BOARD.

Unionist wrote:

I brought it up to show that Israeli Zionist racism is not purely a question of Jews vs. Others. It's good old exploitation of wage labour plus not wanting yellow and brown people around. Read up on the Cochin Jews, Chinese Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Mizrahi Jews in general for more confirmation that Zionists are White Western Racists in relatively unreconstructed form.

And no, the point wasn't "citizenship policy" of various countries.

Welcome to the way that threads can be turned into discussions, even when the OP had decided there is no discussion. 

The exploitation of labour in forms very similar to this are not new, and indeed happen in most 'developed' nations.  And this group of nations, which is very much aligned with Israel, stand around and defend one another because they too rely on cheap, marginalised labour.  You want to talk about the Zionist lobby?  And you don't see how racist migration policies relate to that, and in fact are a major reason you aren't going to hear massive 'developed' condemnation of this? 

Well pardon me for not being so single minded that I can't look beyond the surface, instead preferring to address the complex issues that allow this kind of exploitation to happen, even in situations that are so blatantly racist...and asking why that is (hint, it's a little rich to condemn for something like this when you just expelled 10,000 Roma, including those born on your soil).

If you think that an analysis of Israel's policies in relation to how those policies are supported by the migration policies of its allies is 'pro-Zionism', then you have some very odd notions about critical analysis.

Unionist wrote:
And yes - if someone condemns South African bantustans, and someone else (someone who never actually condemns South African bantustans)

posts on and on and on about, "well, c'mon, there are ghettoes and ethnic enclaves in every country", you'll have to forgive me for wondering whether that person is more interested in protecting South African apartheid than in having what you call a "discussion".

Quote:
Personally, I agree that it is a horrible decision, without reservation. That said, I don't think comparing Israel's policy with policies and attitudes elsewhere is a de facto vote of confidence. How are we supposed to see how different Israeli policy is without making such a comparison?

No, it's not "de facto" a vote of confidence. But when it's combined with, "why does everyone take such extreme positions about Israel" - it becomes something much darker than that - darker, because it's hidden away from the bright light of honest scrutiny.

 

I have, throughout this thread, repeatedly condemned this.  I do not have to hop around this forum, decrying every single bad thing in order to not be accused of actually SUPPORTING bad things. 

Your standard of 'proof' is a supposed absence of condemnation?  Oh, but let's ignore where I actually haven, repeatedly and not just in this thread, condemned.  Let's ignore that you have no idea what I support because the sum total of my political beliefs is not represented or spelled out in this forum.  I suppose I haven't condemned ENOUGH for you.  Well, I'm afraid that you are not my judge and jury. 

Let me state this unequivocally, I am not an apologist for Israel, and if you continue to insinuate such, or accuse me of such, I will report every single instance of your defamation.

This passive-aggressive bullying tactic is not okay, and I'm calling you out for it.  I am asking you now, for this to be the last instance of such.

 

Unionist

Al-Q, just some free legal advice:

1. Do not answer any questions without an authorized union representative in attendance.

2. Prefix or affix the words "Without Prejudice" in the regrettable event that you choose or are prevailed upon to put any replies in writing.

3. Engage in no meta-discussions whatsoever, as such are not covered by our collective agreement and therefore fall squarely within the realm of management rights.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yiwah wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I think you've been reading Yiwah's meta-meta-interpretations a bit too much. Try hard to read my posts when characterizing my opinions. It will bring you closer to the truth.

 

You mean the posts where you ask questions, then never return to address the answers?   Or the ones where I repeatedly ask you direct questions which you refuse to answer? Or the posts where you constantly accuse me of being pro-Israel both directly and obliquely?  An accusation, I'd like to add, that you know quite well is extremely offensive.  Your 'truth' is based on your assumptions, and while I'm sure you pride yourself on being a perceptive person, you appear to have absolutely closed your mind to the issue since your very first interaction with me.

Your continued accusations border on harassment.  Is this acceptable on Babble?  Can I decide that a poster is a misogynist, and then constantly say so, ignoring what they actually say because I've made up my mind?  It smacks of McCarthyism, and quite clearly there is nothing I can say which can dissuade you (not my repeated condemnations of this action, not the fact that you have no idea what I have or haven't said about Israel anywhere but this very small corner of the world).

Unionist wrote:
Quote:
That kind of begs the question of why a topic like this is brought up for discussion at all.

I didn't bring it up for discussion.

Then next time, how about you be clear up front and say "This is not brought up for discussion."?  If you simply want to record the various atrocious actions of Israel, then do so...but don't come down on people for wanting to actually have a DISCUSSION on a DISCUSSION BOARD.

Unionist wrote:

I brought it up to show that Israeli Zionist racism is not purely a question of Jews vs. Others. It's good old exploitation of wage labour plus not wanting yellow and brown people around. Read up on the Cochin Jews, Chinese Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Mizrahi Jews in general for more confirmation that Zionists are White Western Racists in relatively unreconstructed form.

And no, the point wasn't "citizenship policy" of various countries.

Welcome to the way that threads can be turned into discussions, even when the OP had decided there is no discussion. 

The exploitation of labour in forms very similar to this are not new, and indeed happen in most 'developed' nations.  And this group of nations, which is very much aligned with Israel, stand around and defend one another because they too rely on cheap, marginalised labour.  You want to talk about the Zionist lobby?  And you don't see how racist migration policies relate to that, and in fact are a major reason you aren't going to hear massive 'developed' condemnation of this? 

Well pardon me for not being so single minded that I can't look beyond the surface, instead preferring to address the complex issues that allow this kind of exploitation to happen, even in situations that are so blatantly racist...and asking why that is (hint, it's a little rich to condemn for something like this when you just expelled 10,000 Roma, including those born on your soil).

If you think that an analysis of Israel's policies in relation to how those policies are supported by the migration policies of its allies is 'pro-Zionism', then you have some very odd notions about critical analysis.

Unionist wrote:
And yes - if someone condemns South African bantustans, and someone else (someone who never actually condemns South African bantustans)

posts on and on and on about, "well, c'mon, there are ghettoes and ethnic enclaves in every country", you'll have to forgive me for wondering whether that person is more interested in protecting South African apartheid than in having what you call a "discussion".

Quote:
Personally, I agree that it is a horrible decision, without reservation. That said, I don't think comparing Israel's policy with policies and attitudes elsewhere is a de facto vote of confidence. How are we supposed to see how different Israeli policy is without making such a comparison?

No, it's not "de facto" a vote of confidence. But when it's combined with, "why does everyone take such extreme positions about Israel" - it becomes something much darker than that - darker, because it's hidden away from the bright light of honest scrutiny.

 

I have, throughout this thread, repeatedly condemned this.  I do not have to hop around this forum, decrying every single bad thing in order to not be accused of actually SUPPORTING bad things. 

Your standard of 'proof' is a supposed absence of condemnation?  Oh, but let's ignore where I actually haven, repeatedly and not just in this thread, condemned.  Let's ignore that you have no idea what I support because the sum total of my political beliefs is not represented or spelled out in this forum.  I suppose I haven't condemned ENOUGH for you.  Well, I'm afraid that you are not my judge and jury. 

Let me state this unequivocally, I am not an apologist for Israel, and if you continue to insinuate such, or accuse me of such, I will report every single instance of your defamation.

This passive-aggressive bullying tactic is not okay, and I'm calling you out for it.  I am asking you now, for this to be the last instance of such.

 

Damn. As part of the "discussion" on immigration law, I thought you were going to evidence how German immigration law was designed to favour almost exclusively one specific ethnic group in an effort to preserve the "German charachter of the German state".

Yiwah

Cute.  Only notice xenophobia when it suits you, hmm?

Oh, but I suppose if politicians say it's to protect 'economic interests', they must be sincere. 

Thank goodness Arizona is looking out for the 'economic interests' of 'Merkins then.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Damn. As part of the "discussion" on immigration law, I thought you were going to evidence how German immigration law was designed to favour almost exclusively one specific ethnic group in an effort to preserve the "German charachter of the German state".

 

I would have thought the term Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood) would pretty much say it all.

 

"Oh, well, when we went with Right of Blood, we had to choose someone's blood to give rights to, so we put it to a vote, and it was unanimous: our own!"

Cueball Cueball's picture

So, you have nothing in fact. Just some theories.

In reality, Germany routinely accepts persons as immigrants from all over the world of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Whereas Israel does not, whatever you sumise to be the purpose. The proof is in the pudding.

For example, despite you efforts to minimize the racial prejudice of the Israeli immigration system, including overtly prejudiced statements by high officials, you can find no such statements from German cabinet ministers, and likewise note, that as of 2008 there were nearly a million Turkish citizens of Germany.

That is citizens, not "guest workers".

Please explain how they got there, if the German immigration system is overtly an immigration system designed to make Germany a state that is purely ethnically German?

 

Yiwah

Cueball wrote:

Please explain how they got there, if the German immigration system is overtly an immigration system designed to make Germany a state that is purely ethnically German?

 

Why would anyone engage your strawman argument?

Go back and read what was actually said, instead of making things up.

You might want to review the expulsion of Roma, including German-born children.  Which I'm sure had nothing to do with racism/xenophobia, because no one came out and said it did.

Snert Snert's picture

Looks like, in a similar fashion, they needed the labour.

 

Quote:
The large-scale of immigration of Turkish workers from the beginning of the 1960s was on the one hand, due to the high population growth and mass unemployment within Turkey, and on the other, due to the demand for labour in north-west Europe.[17] West Germany, like other Western European nations, began to experience a labour shortage by the mid-1950s.[18] Recruitment of workers from Mediterranean countries was one easy solution to this problem.[19] In 1961, the construction of the Berlin Wall exacerbated West Germany's labour crisis by restricting the flow of immigrants from East Germany, and that same year Turkey's first recruitment agreement was signed.[20] Pressure from German employers in 1962 and 1963 played a key role in ending the two-year limit on the period for which Turkish workers were permitted to stay in West Germany

 

But can you explain why Germany and Japan would choose to base their citizenship on ethnicity, if preserving German or Japanese ethnicity isn't of any interest to them? Does it make sense to favour your own ethnic blood, if you don't favour your own ethnic blood?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Gee, the pot is inslting the kettle. That's new ...

Yiwah wrote:

Exactly.  Though I'm a little amused at the willingness to believe that Japan's notoriously racist immigration policies may be given a 'pass' because if discussed in relation to Israel, it apparently must be, else this serves the Zionists in some bizarre way.

So, if Rosa Parks, were to refuse, today, tp sit at the the back of the bus, you would immediately suggest that, well, Tibetans are treated poorly by the Chinese. And if Martin Luther King was shot dead, today, you would interject that the Taliban have reportedly stoned a couple accused of adultery to death.

It is a funny thing. Zionists spit out the term "moral equivalence" in the most snide way possible when it is suggested that Palestinian violence must be viewed through the lens of the occupation. But when racist Zionist policy is addressed specifically, moral equivalency becomes the resort of choice for Zionists. Not that I'm suggesting anyone here is a supporter of Zionism.

But it is entertaining to observe that once we acknowledge, at long last, that the Zionist policy is designed to protect the ethnic "purity" of the "Jewish State", then the policies of other nations is, of course, equally racist if not explicity, as is the Israeli policy, then implicitly. And so what? What is the reason for seeking to develop a moral equivalence between an explicity racist Israeli immigration policy, and a German immigration policy? To blunt the criticism, of course.

I'll bet as the occupation continues and as Israeli racism, festering, promotes even greater extremism, it won't be the last time supporters of Zionism will point to Germany and exclaim, "but they did it too!"

 

 

Yiwah

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Gee, the pot is inslting the kettle. That's new ...

So, if Rosa Parks, were to refuse, today, tp sit at the the back of the bus, you would immediately suggest that, well, Tibetans are treated poorly by the Chinese. And if Martin Luther King was shot dead, today, you would interject that the Taliban have reportedly stoned a couple accused of adultery to death.

It is a funny thing. Zionists spit out the term "moral equivalence" in the most snide way possible when it is suggested that Palestinian violence must be viewed through the lens of the occupation. But when racist Zionist policy is addressed specifically, moral equivalency becomes the resort of choice for Zionists. Not that I'm suggesting anyone here is a supporter of Zionism.

But it is entertaining to observe that once we acknowledge, at long last, that the Zionist policy is designed to protect the ethnic "purity" of the "Jewish State", then the policies of other nations is, of course, equally racist if not explicity, as is the Israeli policy, then implicitly. And so what? What is the reason for seeking to develop a moral equivalence between an explicity racist Israeli immigration policy, and a German immigration policy? To blunt the criticism, of course.

I'll bet as the occupation continues and as Israeli racism, festering, promotes even greater extremism, it won't be the last time supporters of Zionism will point to Germany and exclaim, "but they did it too!"

 

 

Yeah yeah, whatever.

Heaven forbid I 'interrupt' this scintillating thread that was never intended to be a discussion, as the OP readily admitted.  How dare I not simply let it die after a round or two of high-fives and 'Israel sux0rz!'.  Don't worry, next time I won't confuse topics related to Israel as calls for anything more nuanced than one sentence condemnations...anything else might be construed as infiltration, or whatever other conspiracy-like notions you choose to subscribe to. 

Because people really do coast around attempting to make you love Israel by talking about how Israeli racist immigration policies are given moral support by their 'developed' allies who are also using racist migration policies to access cheap labour.  It's a very subtle and sneaky way of turning you into a pro-Zionist...careful!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

You seem to be taking this personally, Yiwah. I'm surprised.

Pages

Topic locked