Thursday, June 21, 2018
Minaret of Geneva mosque in the neighbourhood of Le Petit-Saconnex Geneva. © Fabrice Coffrini / AFP
Switzerland has just rejected a proposed law preventing mosques from accepting money from abroad, and compelling them to declare where their financial backing comes from and for what purpose the money will be used. According to the proposal, imams also would have been obliged to preach in one of the Swiss national languages.
While the proposal narrowly passed in the lower house of parliament already in September 2017, the upper house recently rejected it. The proposal was modeled on regulations in Austria, where already in 2015, a law banning foreign funding of religious groups was passed. The Austrian law aims to counter extremism by requiring imams to speak German, prohibiting foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria, and stressing the precedence of Austrian law over Islamic sharia law for Muslims living in the country.
The Federal Council, which constitutes the federal government of Switzerland, was also against the proposal, and claimed that it constituted 'discrimination': "We must not discriminate against Muslim communities and imams and put them under general suspicion," Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said. The Federal Council noted that in Austria, Islam is officially recognized, whereas it is not in Switzerland. According to the Swiss government, therefore, the model applied in Austria does not apply to Switzerland, as "One cannot demand obligations without rights". Instead, the Federal Council evidently believes that the risks posed by extremist Islamist preachers and communities can be combated within existing law.
There are approximately 250 mosques in Switzerland, but the authorities do not know who finances them. The authorities have no jurisdiction to collect data on the financing of Muslim associations and mosques apart from exceptional cases in which internal security is threatened. By rejecting the proposal compelling mosques to disclose who finances them, the Swiss authorities can now remain willfully blind.
Several experts have pointed out the foreign Muslim networks at work in Switzerland. In 2016, Reinhard Schulze, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Bern, pointed out that donations from the Muslim World League, based in Saudi Arabia, and other funds from Saudi Arabia were flowing to "those mosques and organizations that are open to the Wahhabi tradition". Another expert on Islam in Switzerland, Saïda Keller-Messahli, has spoken andwritten widely on how "Huge sums of money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey are flowing to Switzerland", and how the Saudi-based Muslim World League is behind "a whole network of radically-oriented mosques in Switzerland... with the clear intention of spreading Salafist thought here".
In addition to the Salafist influence, there are an estimated 35 Turkish mosques, financed by Turkey's official Religious Affairs Directorate, known as Diyanet. (Previous reports have mentioned 70 Turkish mosques in Switzerland).
According to a report published by Diyanet in 2017, Islam is "superior" to Christianity and Judaism and "Interfaith dialogue is unacceptable". Turkey supports the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist off-shoot Hamas.
In fact, the building of another Turkish mosque was just given the go-ahead in the Swiss town Schaffhausen. The people behind it reportedly claim that the 1.5 million Swiss francs (approx. $1.5 million) will be collected locally, and not from Turkey, but the imams for the mosque will nevertheless be sent from Turkey.
None of these facts, however, appears to bother the Swiss government, which seems to want to continue the flow of foreign funding of mosques and Islamic centers into the country.
Above all, the Swiss government seems not to have considered the rights of Swiss non-Muslim citizens, who are the ones left to live with the consequences of the government's ill-thought-out policies.
One such consequence was recently on display in Swiss courts, as three board members of the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland (ISSC) were on trial for charges of having produced illegal propaganda for al-Qaeda and related organizations. One of them, Naim Cherni, was given a suspended prison sentence of 20 months for publishing an interview he conducted with Saudi cleric Abdullah al-Muhaysini in Syria in 2015, in which al-Muhaysini called on young Muslims in Europe to join the jihad. The two other board members, chairman Nicolas Blancho and Qaasim Illi, were acquitted.
In contrast to Switzerland, Austria recently announced plans to shut down seven mosques and expelling up to 60 imams belonging to the Turkish-Islamic Union for Cultural and Social Cooperation in Austria (ATIB), a Muslim group close to the Turkish government, on the grounds of receiving foreign funding.
The response from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's spokesman was that the policy was part of an "Islamophobic, racist and discriminatory wave" in Austria.
The strong message that the Swiss government is sending to those Muslim states and organizations that are fueling radicalization in Switzerland by funding Salafist, Turkish and other radical mosques, is that they are welcome to continue doing so; the Swiss government has no intention of stopping them, let alone asking any unpleasant questions. It might as well put up a sign, saying, "Radicalization Welcome".
Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
By Ann Coulter
June 19, 2018
Journalists know absolutely nothing about immigration and refuse to learn, so when I cited the fraudulent "humanitarian" cases on TV Sunday night, I footnoted myself live on air, citing a New Yorker article as well as my book, "Adios, America," which has nearly 100 pages of footnotes. That should make it easy for even the stupidest reporters.
You haven't met The Hill's Jacqueline Thomsen! She was at a loss. The New Yorker? What's that? Jacqueline thought and thought and thought, until her head hurt! Finally, she decided, as she wrote in The Hill, "It's unclear what New Yorker article Coulter was referring to."
Armed only with the information that there was an article in a tiny little publication known as "The New Yorker" about asylum applicants being coached on their fake asylum claims, how could an American reporter ever hope to locate "The Asylum Seeker" in the Aug. 1, 2011, New Yorker? Forget "Adios, America," where it is cited, along with many, many other sources. I can't read a BOOK, Thomsen thought to herself.
I Googled "New Yorker asylum," and the article I was referring to came up as the third item in the list. Add "coaching" or "coached," and it's the very first item Google gives you. It took 3 seconds.
Thomsen: HOW DOES GOOGLE WORK, ANYWAY?
The New Yorker article begins with "Caroline," an illegal alien from a middle-class family in Africa, who passed herself off to U.S. immigration authorities as a victim of rape and torture. As she admitted to The New Yorker, while giggling: "I have never been raped."
Fortunately, "Caroline had been tutored in how to act like a rape victim by her landlady in the Bronx, who hadn't been raped, either, but had successfully applied for asylum."
As she prepared to weep and lie through her interview with a very tough American immigration officer about her nonexistent torture and rape, Caroline said of the country she was lying her way into: "I don't know why I didn't just go back. They are racists and xenophobes here."
Glad to have you, too, Caroline! (At least you'd make a better reporter than Thomsen.)
Luckily, we have the very best government officials reviewing asylum applications. (Pasted on the window of one immigration official's office was a cover from the official Cuban Communist newspaper.) Caroline's completely apocryphal asylum application was, naturally, approved.
Our immigration officials are so thorough, so hard to fool, that they granted Beatrice Munyenyezi asylum and citizenship, allowing her and her kids to live off the U.S. taxpayers for 10 years before federal prosecutors noticed, Hey! Munyenyezi wasn't a victim of the Rwandan genocide; she was a perpetrator! Munyenyezi had personally sentenced thousands of Rwandan women and children to death.
And now the poor murderess has been SEPARATED FROM HER CHILDREN!
Crack reporter Thomsen must have missed that story, too. For her reading pleasure, assuming she can read: Chris McGreal, "Rwandan woman stripped of U.S. citizenship after lying about genocide," The Guardian, Feb. 22, 2013.
One asylum applicant written about in The New York Times claimed she was being persecuted in Russia because she was gay. She told her immigration lawyer, "I'm not gay at all. I don't even like gay people." (For ace Hill reporter Thomsen, who is hopelessly confused about "books" and "Google," the cite is: Sam Dolnick, "Asylum Ploys Play Off News to Open Door," The New York Times, July 12, 2011.)
Usually, frauds are only exposed when the asylum applicant makes the news. You'd think one of these times, an asylee would become famous and we'd find out: Hey, this person really was fleeing persecution!
Nope. The pattern is: They make the news; we find out their asylum applications were total frauds.
Here are a few:
Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Bojinka plot, as well as the nephew of 9/11 architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Poor Yousef almost didn't make it through customs. Not only was his own passport of dubious provenance, but his traveling companion was carrying bomb manuals, car bombing videos -- and instructions on how to lie to U.S. immigration inspectors. Yousef claimed asylum and was released into our country to execute the first WTC attack.
Sofitel hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo falsely accused the head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, of rape. She had been granted asylum after memorizing a tape given to her by an American immigration activist about being gang raped in Guinea. (For Jackie "How does Google work?" Thomsen: That's from the same Times article cited above.)
Amadou Diallo was all over the news after being killed by four New York City police officers in 1999. Only because of that, we found that, in his asylum application, he had claimed his parents had been murdered by the Mauritanian government. APPROVED!
In fact, Diallo was born into a prosperous Guinean family and his parents were alive and well -- and looking for a settlement from New York taxpayers. (For super reporter Thomsen, you'll find that story here: Alan Feuer, "$3 Million Deal in Police Killing of Diallo in '99," The New York Times, Jan. 7, 2004.)
America is the most generous country on Earth, but -- as The New York Times' John Tierney demonstrated 20 years ago -- even denizens of the "nicest" town lose patience when the third panhandler asks them for money. (For reporters who couldn't find their asses if you drew them a map: John Tierney, "Mean Streets," The New York Times, May 12, 1996.)
Our country is being victimized by a network of con-artist foreigners and America-hating left-wingers passing out fake papers, fake stories and fake scripts to Third-Worlders, who lie about seeking "asylum" to get in on the American gravy train and wreck our country.
And that's in normal times.
The crisis on the border today is no ordinary asylum fraud. It's a political stunt by a left-wing organization, "Pueblo Sin Fronteras" -- People Without Borders -- which believes, as its name suggests, that the U.S.A. has no right to have a border. This group has very publicly marched hordes of Latin Americans through thousands of miles of another country to demand entry into our country. Pueblo Sin Fronteras' monthlong trek has been so well publicized that everyone in the country knows about it -- except, apparently, our media.
The New York Times describes the horror thus: "At some border crossings, migrants are being forced to wait for days or longer in Mexico."
Wait. Why don't they just stay in Mexico? Isn't Mexico a fantastic country with ZERO rapists? If not, maybe we should build something at the border -- I don't know, maybe a wall?
"Wall" is a one-syllable word, so even Jacqueline Thomsen can understand that.
Central American migrants aren’t seeking asylum, they’re activists challenging US sovereignty-
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
By John Kass
June 20, 2018
In this photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a U.S. Border Patrol agent watches as people who've been taken into custody related to cases of illegal entry into the United States stand in line at a facility in McAllen, Texas, on June 17, 2018. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Rio Grande Valley Sector / AP)
Raw emotion unleashed makes for potent politics.
And the wave of emotion in America over the plight of families separated and children held in detention along the southern border is as potent as anything we’ve seen in a while.
It has allowed political actors to say just about anything and get away with it. PresidentDonald Trump’s opponents gleefully drop the race card. They breathlessly accuse him of child abuse.
White House immigration policy has even been compared to the death camps of Nazi Germany, as Never Trumper and former CIA Director Michael Hayden did the other day on Twitter, to his shame.
Emotion is exactly what politicians want, especially if they have that media prod in their hands, the better to herd public opinion.
Republicans held that prod years ago, when the Bush administration pushed its disastrous war in Iraq. And Democrats have it now, with the specter of those children being separated from their parents along the border.
It makes for power politics.
But does it make for sound policy?
If you don’t feel powerful emotion at the sight and sound of children being taken from their parents who tried to cross illegally over the southern border, you have no heart.
The repeated images of frightened children, some shouting “Papa! Papa!” as they’re taken away by federal agents, are horrible and beyond words.
But what’s also apparently beyond words is this: The children in the detention centers have now been thoroughly politically weaponized by the left and their allies in the Democratic Media Complex.
The children are the arrows in the Democratic quiver. Republicans are panicking, trying to come up with compromise legislation. Polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump’s family separation policy.
And so Democrats have absolutely no political incentive to help solve the problem in Congress. They’d rather draw their bows and let fly at Trump.
“There’s no need for legislation,” said Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer of New York. “There’s no need for anything else. You can do it. Mr. President, you started it, you can stop it.”
Make no mistake, Trump is deserving of the arrows. He did this ham-handedly, with confused and contradictory messaging. The public relations disaster he created is written on the panicked faces of his fellow Republicans.
Yes, the Obama administration engaged in forced separation too, but not nearly to this extent.
Trump was first to weaponize these children. With his “zero tolerance” policy aimed at either deterring illegal immigration or helping negotiate changes in immigration law in Congress, the president took things to a grotesque, draconian level.
And now, Democrats and others who are part of the left’s no-borders alliance feel they’ve scored a significant political victory. They’re not wrong. They have scored a victory, at least in the short term.
In the past, people crossing the border illegally (a misdemeanor) with children were charged, then released into the United States with the promise they’d return to court. Naturally, few returned. And so, more came with children. They had been given incentive.
Border policy was already a complete mess when former President Barack Obama took office, and he was slammed by the left as a betrayer and as the “deporter in chief.”
In 2014, at a CNN town hall meeting, Democrat Hillary Clinton said deterrence was critically important.
“We have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” Clinton said. “We don’t want to send a message that’s contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
But talking about sending a message when children are involved is quite different from actually sending it.
Trump sent that message and now he’s paying for it.
He made securing the border the centerpiece of his presidential run. It propelled him past establishment Republican candidates who tried appeasing the desire of business for cheap labor, without angering those who were economically left behind.
But they were inconsolably angry. And Trump was not about compromise. But he seems ready to compromise now. And Republicans, facing the midterm elections, are worried.
Republicans and Trump are now focusing on a new plan for the families who don’t properly seek asylum at border crossings, but who are caught illegally crossing the border.
The law now limits the amount of time minors can be held to 20 days. One Republican plan would allow children to be kept with their parents in detention for longer than that. A revised bill would give the Department of Homeland Security powers to use $7 billion in “border technology funding” to build family detention centers.
Can you see the problem here? Refugee camps growing along the southern border, families and children held for extended periods, with the left increasing its call to let everybody in and put an end to something as cruel and exclusive as borders.
It could serve as an incentive for others to come, and our new refugee camps could grow even larger, as desperate people run from poverty, the cruelty of their corrupt Central American governments and the violence back home.
In the short term at least, Schumer and the Democrats won’t budge. Schumer’s got those weaponized children in his quiver and ample support in the media.
But what are the long-term consequences? We’re not really thinking about the long term, are we?
We don’t want to see those children crying. We just want an end to it. And the long-term consequence of policy isn’t on our minds.
Listen to "The Chicago Way" podcast with John Kass and Jeff Carlin — athttp://wgnradio.com/category/wgn-plus/thechicagoway.
MORE FROM JOHN KASS