Is America The World's Kleenex? Etc.
Print Friendly and PDF

The Fulford File, By James Fulford

Last year, we noted that North Korea, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, was starting to produce refugees, who could easily move to …South Korea!!! Where everyone already speaks Korean, where they have relatives, where there's a booming capitalist economy.

But no-o-o! South Korea doesn't want them. So guess who is going to receive at least 9,000 of them - thanks to Senators Sam Brownback (last featured here because of his hypocritical efforts to bring the Somali Bantu to everywhere in the U.S. except his own Kansas) and Ted Kennedy (ageing author of the epochal 1965 Immigration Act disaster)?

The answer, according to the Sydney Morning Herald - the U.S!

US prepares to open door to flood of North Korean refugees

By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in Washington - July 30, 2003

But accepting North Korean refugees received strong support across the political spectrum in the US Senate. It was sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback, a Republican, and Ted Kennedy, a Democrat.

"There is an exodus of massive proportions taking place out of North Korea," said Senator Brownback, who put the figure at about 300,000 people.

"South Korea really cannot be expected to take all of these refugees fleeing [via] China."

Why can't South Korea be expected to take all the refugees? (Or China either, for that matter.)

The US government would be much better off financially, to say nothing of the social costs involved in importing refugees, if it just sent money to South Korea to build housing, etc.

South Koreans include some of the most successful of recent immigrants. But North Koreans are an unknown quantity as far as their adaptation to American conditions is concerned.

Of course, South Koreans are rightly concerned that refugees may include spies for Kim Jong-Il.

But shouldn't United States Senators be concerned about the same thing?

Reference the above piece using this permanent URL:

Reconstructing Dixie

The controversy over the nomination of Bill Pryor, a white Southern Roman Catholic, formerly Attorney General of Alabama, to be a Federal judge, has led to complaints of anti-Catholicism in the Democratic Party.

Pryor is considered to be insufficiently loyal to Roe v. Wade, that pillar of modern constitutional law. Some have pointed out that since no Catholic could be expected to give "internal assent" to the principles of Roe v. Wade, this means that "No Catholics Need Apply" for a federal judgeship.

This has degenerated into a brawl over who is a good Catholic, and who is a bad Catholic, a debate that's irrelevant here. (As is the abortion issue.)

However, the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, has written a powerful letter pointing out that the very existence of a Catholic Attorney General in Alabama represents a major social change.

Indeed, Chaput may exaggerate the oppression of Catholics in the old South:

"Catholics were few and scattered. In the Deep South, like Alabama, being Catholic often meant being locked out of political and social leadership.

"Today, much of the old South is gone. Cities like Atlanta and Raleigh-Durham are major cosmopolitan centers. Time, social reform and migration have transformed the economy along with the political system." [Emphases added].

A notably high proportion of VDARE.COM readers are Catholics. They believe that Church doctrine does not oppose, and may well legitimize, the existence of the American nation-state.

But it's worth asking: how did this change in the South come about? Why is Atlanta a major cosmopolitan center? Why are there a lot more Catholics in America than there were in the bad old days?

The answer, Chaput implies: the mass immigration resulting from the 1965 Immigration Act, which, in turn, was a result of the election of Roman Catholic immigration enthusiast John F. Kennedy, the author of the book A Nation Of Immigrants.

Kennedy made a famous speech to the Southern Baptist Leaders in which he promised that his religion would make no difference to his Presidency, that his decisions would be made "in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate."

I assume he meant it, and I'm sure he would have been surprised at how many Catholics have immigrated in the last forty years - and certainly at how few of them were Irish.

But, like we always say, immigration has consequences. And Immigration Acts have unintended consequences.

Reference the above piece using this permanent URL:

Print Friendly and PDF