Germany still wants Christian Iraqi refugees; that’s still a “hitch”

Germany has been talking about taking thousands of Iraqi refugees since March — we posted on this here, here and here. But they want Christian refugees, and that presents a problem to the multiculturalists of Europe. Spiegel reports that 

the CDU [Christian Democratic Union, the ruling party] envisions bringing a large group (possibly as many as 10,000) of non-Muslim refugees to Germany with the understanding that they would not be treated as asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in Germany, and Steinbach said that it is unrealistic to think that Christian refugees from Iraq would ever be able to return. For this reason, their ultimate integration in Germany should be supported.

Members of Yazidis and Mandaean religious minorities would also be among those allowed in, according to the party’s proposal. The CDU argues that, in contrast to Muslim refugees from Iraq, religious persecution makes it unlikely that Christians, Yazidis and Mandaeans would ever by able to return.

Makes sense, right? The non-Muslims are in a different kind of situation from the Muslim refugees, so they should be treated differently. Not to the UN it doesn’t.

Whether the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR would agree to the CDU plan, however, is unclear. As a rule, the UNHCR is unwilling to divide up refugees for resettlement based on their religious beliefs. Deputy CDU floor leader Arnold Vaatz, though, said on Wednesday that he would like to see the UNHCR take the issue of possible return into consideration. Such a criterion could open the door for Germany to accept a group of refugees that was overwhelmingly non-Muslim.

I don’t really understand this last part — why taking return into consideration would allow Germany to accept Christians. What is clear, though, is that the German government will have to jump through hoops to take in Christian refugees. And it is also clear the UNHCR is insane. Sometimes I think just the word “Christian” makes European secularists lose their minds.

UPDATE: Here is a story from FrontPage Magazine that may show us why Germans prefer Christian Iraqi refugees. Even if they are culturally different from Germans, Iraqi Christians are not going to engage in honor killings!

US Congressmen demand reform of UNRWA

The Jerusalem Post reports on a move by a American congressmen to do something about the UN agency that oversees the Palestinian refugees.

A group of bipartisan US congressmen is urging reform in UNRWA, the UN body that deals exclusively with Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and calling for alternative solutions to the containment of refugees in squalid camps.

“The Palestinian refugees have been used as political pawns for the past 60 years by people who don’t want peace in the Middle East,” said Congressman Eliot Engel (D-New York) at a meeting of international parliamentarians hosted last week by the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, a bipartisan pro-Israel parliamentary group.

“The UN has been part and parcel of this conspiracy,” he said.

We agree, as we have said in several recent posts, including this one. The issue seems to be coming to some kind of head, with more written on it in recent weeks than I have ever seen before at one time, including this comprehensive report which we’ve referenced before.  The Jerusalem Post article goes on:

In contrast to the main UN refugee agency, UNHCR, which assists and resettles refugees from around the world and has an international team of around 6,300 employees, more than 99 percent of UNRWA’s 25,000-strong staff members are locally recruited Palestinians – almost all of them Palestinian refugees or their descendants, and some of them members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, groups both the US and the EU classify as terror organizations.

UNRWA, which operated on a cash budget of $487 million in 2007 – excluding special appeals for additional funding – receives most of its money from the US, European Commission, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom.

Four years ago, amid persistent reports that the group was turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism, then-UNRWA commissioner-general Peter Hansen publicly admitted for the first time that Hamas members were on the UNRWA payroll.

Hat tip to Jihad Watch, where Hugh Fitzgerald has a terrific comment providing the proper historical context (scroll down to May 28, 5:37 pm).

A Somali Muslim’s view of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

We’ve written before — here and here — about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brave Somali refugee who has broken with Islam and spoken out boldly about its treatment of women, putting her life in danger. Now I have come across a review of her book, Infidel, by a Mahamud M. Yahye, Ph.D., a Somali who thinks Hirsi Ali does Islam a grave disservice, and probably tells lies about her life.

The review is useful for the insight it provides into the mindset of an educated Somali. He does not like the Somalis’ brutality against women, like female genital mutilation, and points out that the practice is not Islamic (true, but it is mostly Muslims that practice it) but later in the article claims that Islam gave rights to women before the west did.

The author devotes only one chapter towards the end of her book, shamelessly titled “Leaving God” to the idea why she had to break with the noble Islamic religion and justifies it in a very superficial way. She does not give any valid points in this regard, except her repetition without solid evidence, that Islam everywhere subjugates women and violates their basic rights. She also says that, after 9/11, she discovered that Islam was a violent religion. As a man who lived in both the Arab/Muslim world and the West, Ayaan’s naïve and superficial argument did not convince me and I became more attached to my divine Islamic religion. As some female writers like Asra Nomani have shown, Islam has given some fundamental rights to women, such as participation in inheritance, keeping their identity/names (and not adopting their husbands’ family names after marriage, as Western/Christians do), initiation of divorce, engagement in business – as the Prophet’s first wife Khadija did [may Allah be pleased with her] – and participation in community leadership, before Western women could obtain such basic human rights. Besides, the heinous acts of a small clique of misguided Muslim extremists/deviants cannot wipe out the Islamic religion’s real nature of peace and tolerance.

 Because Hirsi Ali broke with Islam, the writer disparages everything about her and questions many of her autobiographical claims. He suggests she should have followed the lead of a Muslim woman reformer in a movement for “renewal of the soul of Islam.”

…with regard to the running of one of their mosques in West Virginia, USA, this movement had, for instance, struggled to allow women – contrary to the old practices of that community – to walk through the front door (and not the rear one only) of their mosque, to pray in the main hall, to fill positions of leadership, and to guide community activities in their area. In this regard, the mission of this enlightened Islamic movement could be summarized in the following few words: “to fight to liberate Muslim communities from cultural norms that contradict the Islamic principles of tolerance, inclusion and equality.” In her more objective, rational and well-argued book, Asra Nomani even draws up as appendixes for her book two interesting bills of rights, namely, (a) An Islamic bill of rights for women in mosques; and (b) An Islamic bill of rights for women in the bedroom.

What he ignores is the mental and emotional liberation Hirsi Ali found in leaving Islam and embracing western civilization. She loves, adores, the west, although I believe that in her rejection of all religion she does not understand the Judeo-Christian roots of our civilization.  But her conversion to what someone has called “enlightenment fundamentalist” is one of the most moving parts of her book. If this reviewer had read it more open-mindedly, he would have been forced to wrestle with the repressiveness to the human spirit that Islam represents, versus the freedom of thought and action found in the west.

Since we have accepted tens of thousands of Somalis here as refugees, others as immigrants, and continue to do so, it is useful to get a glimpse of the mentality they bring — though most are far more primitive than this educated man.

Immigration: Legal or Illegal it’s all the same to many

I guess things have not calmed down in Waterbury, CT, at least according to this letter to the editor to the Republican American.  The letter writer is director of something called CT Citzens for Immigration Control.  Notice that it doesn’t specify “illegal” immigration.   In my post on Maryland a few days ago, I tried, perhaps inarticulately, to make the point that increasingly citizens fed up with illegal immigration have begun to make no distinction between legal and illegal.

So, when refugee promoters continue to cozy up to groups and individuals promoting ‘open borders’ it will definitely be hurting the refugee cause.

Here is a portion of Paul Streitz’ letter:

Letter to Editor
Republican American, Waterbury, CT

The International Institute of Connecticut claims on its website, “we have assisted over 7000 people each year integrate into American life. We have paved the way for them to find a place to live, to find employment, to learn English and to generally improve their lives and be happy and adjusted in their new country.” These are for profit organizations engaged in trafficking human cargo, paid for by the U.S. State Department. They bring over hapless people to Waterbury, dump them in roach invested apartments, and then abandon them after ninety days to local welfare. What great humanitarians!!


Lewiston, Maine has 2,000 Somalis, with about 13,000 [82,230] in the United States. The problems of the world are dumped on unsuspecting towns and cities across the United States. Welfare, fights in schools, endless charges of racism, xenophobia, etc.


The best solution to this problem is to return the Burmese, Somalis and Hmong. Pay them off and set them up in their own countries. They would be better off and so would citizens of the United States.

Paul Streitz
CT Citizens for Immigration Control


We have covered the controversy in Waterbury, CT extensively here.