Unfortunately Braverman is an example of how fanaticism can override rational thought and distorts even supposedly "rational" scientific discourse. Although I don't agree with you on everything, I believe in the sincerity of your efforts to be fair and rational in all your posts.
And there it is. These people don't just hate Israel, and Jews, and Judaism, and the West, and civilization. They hate humanity. And that is all connected.
Mohammed apparently really didn't like dogs, and really liked cats. No knock on him, we each have our tastes, but unfortunately his attitude became a religious imperative in Islam, to the detriment of dogs. (One can also say that domestication of dogs is a major aspect of the civilizing of man as well, for all that may imply about Islamic civilization.)
In any event: Well done.
For those who are in Jerusalem, there's a deer reserve right in the center of the city, on Herzog Street between Givat Mordechai and Katamonim.
"Mohammed apparently really didn't like dogs, and really liked cats. No knock on him, we each have our tastes, but unfortunately his attitude became a religious imperative in Islam, to the detriment of dogs."
Not that I have a dog in this fight but you sound like how the atheists talk about our version of God and how He has a personal vendetta against homosexuals and we turned into a religious thing. Point is, Mohammed's anti-dog stance most probably *was* a religious thing, something we find in our sources as well. But anyways...
And of course if you're correct, I have np with that, is just not the impression I got, that's all.
The are more than a few midrashim about it. Personally, I think dogs are adorable. And I'm not sure the chareidi distaste for dogs has anything to do with anything except the fact that they are raising so many kids and don't have room or need another mouth to feed and being to care for and love in their limited time.
The claim has been made that Jews, and especially charedim, carry bad memories of Cossacks and Nazis and their dogs. Obviously there are other factors, such as those you mentioned- lots of kids, midrashim that go both ways.
Granted you can find anything in Jewish tradition, including statements somewhat the opposite, but for starters there's the fact that the Torah says to throw non-kosher meat to the dogs, and the Midrash that says that that is a reward for them not giving the Jewish people trouble when they left Egypt. Of course Jewish tradition, like others, note the loyalty of dogs.
After I graduated college in 1987, I visited the Queens Zoo in NYC. I distinctly remember seeing Fallow Deer there. It was my first experience witnessing an animal chew its cud! If my memory serves me right, the deer would just be standing there, and I saw a mass of something ascend into its mouth, which it would start chewing.
As a cat lover and slave to three indoor cats plus numerous NYC street cats that make my block seem like Jerusalem and have extirpated the local Norway rat population (!) I cry when I read about the horrible damage that cats have done elsewhere.
Yeah, Israel suffers from a lack of small mammals thanks in part to the prevalence of cats.
(Contrary to popular myth, the cats have always been local; they were not introduced by the British. Ironically, cats are not mentioned even once in Tanach.)
Well, small breeds. The word "חתול" never appears in Tanach. We know they had them from archaeology, and of course Egyptians had them, but Tanach never mentions them. Of course Tanach talks about lions. At the time- it was colder then- there were Asiatic lions in Israel. The species only survives in the wild in one small preserve in India, but there are a few in the Jerusalem Zoo. Tanach also refers to some other species of large cats. That is of course R' Slifkin's department.
Tanach mentions dogs several times, and the context in several of those cases is clearly domestic. Plus, again, we know they had domesticated dogs from archaeology. Of course, "domestic" then meant working, not pets.
Cats are really native species to Israel? I have never heard that before. I was always under the impression that the British brought them in the '20s, '30s. I'm referring to the feral cats that we see all around us. Of course there have been "cats" in Israel, lions, leopards, etc., i.e., big cats.
How do we know that these feral cats are really African wildcats and not British imports? Has someone done the DNA research?
Yes, exactly, DNA research. The cats are local and apparently have always been here, and most have always been wild. At the very least the population is much older than the 1920's.
Well, I certainly learned something. I've always blamed the British (not that they are not easy to blame; they've caused enough trouble for Israel over the years).
I dunno, the cats that roam the streets of Israel don't seem very domesticated. Maybe they were at some point in their ancestry, but I can't tell. The municipalities round them up, spay them, and then release them again. (You can tell if they have a little notch in their ear.) There are of course real wildcats down in the Negev.
Your cute and cuddly purring feline whom you have had in your home for 15 years will start hunting mice if you let it go outside for the first time -- even when it is well fed. There are two species of animals that hunt for sport rather than for food -- humans, and cats.
And if they bring you a dead animal and you scream and throw it out, they assume you're an idiot kitten (they are bringing it to you to train you to hunt, and what crazy person would throw out a perfectly good dead bird instead of eating it?) and just bring you more.
I used to hate cats due to the mess they made by the trash (yes I know it was really the fault of the humans that didn't put the trash away propberly). Once upon a time, many years ago, when I was living in Telz Stone, I had to do periodic shmira from midnight to 4am by the entrance. One night I saw movement out of the corner of my eye. Turned to look and saw a big rat (not a mouse) running by the gan ha'ir. A second or so later I saw a cat chasing after it. From that point on I appreciated their presence.
(Still not overly keen on cats; I'm a dog person.)
I have no doubt that this Braverman suffers no less “white guilt” and self-hatred towards her adopted settler-colonial country than she does towards her native one.
The far right in the US has a favorite complaint that American Jews who are less than keen on the US, national sovereignty, and closed borders would never favor that for Israel. They can never be convinced- because you can't reason with an anti-Semite- that those type of Jews feel the *same exact way* about Israel. I remember Brett Stephens- who is of course an open-borders-for-the-US type- once writing a whole piece defending Bibi in which he had to point out that the one area he disagrees with him on is that Bibi doesn't admit illegals wholesale. And of course there are such types in Israel as well.
Hm, I’ve never heard that complaint (maybe I don’t hang out with enough far-right folks…), but I think current events have revealed the true nature of the American Left and those (nominal) Jews who support it.
As the old saying goes, when someone shows you who they really are… believe them.
"when someone shows you who they really are… believe them."
Back when Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese military were murdering people by the millions, there were many apologists who insisted that things couldn't be that bad, or that the victims somehow deserved their fate.
Hamas really is as bad as it makes itself out to be!
The problem is that a lot of the people demonstrating in favor of Hamas- the Muslims themselves, of course, but even their useful idiots- *approve* of what Hamas did. Telling them of the atrocities just makes them happier.
The Nazis at least tried to cover up their crimes.
Much of the American Left is staunchly pro-Israel. Ritchie Torres is my Congress Member. John Fetterman is another.
Unfortunately it is the Squad and its fellow travelers who get the most publicity.
And there are a lot of horrible anti-Semites on the Right. Nick Fuentes actually says that Judaism should be banned in the US. Not even Ilhan Omar is that extreme. Candace Owens' latest delusion is that AIPAC had JFK assassinated. (Never mind that it was JFK that ended the US arms embargo against Israel. MAGA fools like Owens don't care about facts.) And the three members of Congress with the worst records on Israel aren't Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but rather Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene -- and that is quite a (negative) accomplishment. Rand Paul singlehandedly delayed Iron Dome funding for months! Nancy Pelosi twisted Ilhan Omar's arm into a pretzel to force her to vote for a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, but the Republican leadership won't do anything about its worst actors. :(
All true, but there is a distinction. There is real concern that the democrats are being pulled in the direction of the radicals. Some confirmation of that can be seen in Schumer's speech.
We can dismiss Owens and Fuentes because they're not politicians. They've also been condemned by many Republicans. The same goes with MTG. Neither Rand Paul, nor his father have had much success into pulling Republican's into the libertarian sphere. They are not particularly anti-Israel, but they are isolationists.
Bravo, Ephraim. You said exactly what I came here to say.
For pols like Torres and Fetterman to support Israel is no great moral victory (nor any great surprise) since their constituencies include large proportions of pro-Israel Jews.
As for the Right, hatemongers like Fuentes are universally by recognized as fringe crackpots who have no place in mainstream political discourse (like David Duke, in his day). Owens, too, is generally regarded as little more than a self-promoting conspiracy theorist. "MTG" is known even by her Republican confreres to be a lunatic. "America first" folks like Paul and Massie are not anti-Israel (and certainly not anti-Semitic), just anti-foreign aid in general (which is really not an unreasonable position, even if it doesn't benefit our "pet" cause).
The anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism of the Left, on the other hand, are far more insidious (than that of the discredited, ultra-fringe Right) in that they fit hand-in-glove with the Left's currently fashionable “progressive” ideologies of intersectionality, oppression, colonialism, etc, which have infiltrated not only politics but also academia and even big business, giving them a veneer of respectability and legitimacy that rightwing hate could never hope to enjoy.
I don't think it is a stretch to argue that, perhaps for the first time in history, leftist anti-Judaism has become more dangerous than that of the Right.
Another example: Ron Johnson got s lot of Jewish support in his last re election because his Democratic opponent was pro Hamas. Yet Johnson also voted in the interests of Hamas on the aid bill.
The Republicans have almost entirely sold out to their radicals. Note that when Donald Trump gave the order to stop the foreign aid bills, they genuflected. The legislation was held up for months and it eas pressure from Biden Schumer and McConnell thst finally forced things. McConnell giving up his leadership position. What is particularly scary is that numerous Republicans who had previously been considered strong supporters of Israel voted against the aid bill. We always knew Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley weren't trustworthy (at least those of us who were connected to reality), that Rick Scott was a fraud, and that JD Vance was an absolutely horrible person, but I as was shocked that Marco Rubio betrayed his Jewish supporters. Vance and Rubio are at the top of Trump's VP short list.
The US had open borders for more than its first century of existence and there were no problems. The open borders policy continued for the Western Hemisphere right up to 1965. Our migrant problem would not exist today had we not changed the law then.
I should add that I was on a train from Trenton to New York earlier today that had many dozens of families who were migrants from Venezuela who spoke no English at all. I was able to communicate well enough in Spanish to explain that the Newark train station was not the New York train station -- the conductor's pronunciation in English was unclear to them -- and to give them directions to their destination in NYC once they got off the train. They were some of the nicest people and they were obviously glad to be rid of the oppressive Maduro regime. (I doubt that any of these migrants were Jews, but Maduro is also a vile anti-Semite and Israelhater.) I don't know how many have valid asylum claims, but I hope that they don't ever have to go back to have to live under Maduro. Oh they aren't "illegals" they have valid visas as asylum applicants, something the nativists in the US don't understand.
Come on, you know better than that. The 1965 law *opened* the borders that had been closed twenty years earlier. And it's bizarre to claim that a law closing borders (which, again, it did not( *caused* the problem.
For that first century or two, the US did not have mass migration from the third world, and did not have a welfare state. The 1965 law took care of the first half, and the Great Society took care of the second. Milton Friedman famously said that a country can have any two of three things- mass immigration, a welfare state, or multiculturalism- but having all three is a disaster. The US has had all three for sixty years.
English speakers can have a hard time with "Newark" and "New York" of course.
By all means, the US should admit *everyone* living under a bad regime. Six billion? Seven billion? Why not?
Saying that someone is not "illegal" because the government has papered things over is a fantasy as well.
"The 1965 law *opened* the borders that had been closed twenty years earlier. "
Wrong. There were no numerical limits on immigration from any Western Hemisphere country until 1965. If you wanted to immigrate to the US you simply applied for a visa at a US consulate in your country of birth, and if you could convince the consular officer that you weren't a criminal, a revolutionary, or likely to become a public charge, you got the visa. It was as simple as that. After the 1921 and 1924 laws basically ended immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere, there was huge migration from Canada and Mexico to the US. In New England the migration from Canada was so great that in some areas most children attended French language schools.
"the US did not have mass migration from the third world"
Yeah it did. Look up the economic conditions in Ireland, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Russia in the 19th century. (Germany did got a lot better in the late 19th century thanks to Bismarck.) And I have already mentioned the mass migration from Canada and Mexico -- the Canadian migration was mostly from Quebec which had been poor since colonial times.
"did not have a welfare state. "
Also a false statement. Every English speaking colony implemented the 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law and local poor relief continued into the 20th century. Over time, the system changed, as individual relief was replaced by poorhouses, but there WAS a welfare state. There was such a critical labor shortage that there was no need to offer welfare to poor immigrants as even the most uneducated immigrants easily found jobs.
"Milton Friedman famously said "
Milton Friedman has been proven wrong on a number of things.
"the US should admit *everyone* living under a bad regime"
Most Jews in the US had ancestors admitted to the US while fleeing bad regimes, specifically, Czars Alexander III and Nicholas II. Maduro, Ortega, and Castro are arguably worse; Maduro is one of the worst anti-Semites in the world.
"Saying that someone is not "illegal" because the government has papered things over "
Another statement that shows your ignorance of immigration law. It is specifically the government that issues visas and gives you legal status. And the current wave of migrants all have visas.
Had your attitude been in effect in the late 19th century, the Jews of the Russian Empire would have been stuck there.
Just like the chick who resigned yesterday from her (low-level) post in the Biden administration in protest of Biden’s “disastrous” support for Israel made sure to play up her (likely nominal) Jewish heritage as her reason for doing so.
You can "like" what you will, to be sure, but I gather your implication is that you disagree with these comments.
Unfortunately, however, it is no secret that some of the most strident anti-Israel voices on the Left are those of "self-loathing" (or, perhaps, "white guilt"-ridden) Jews who nevertheless delight in flaunting their "Jewish" principles to justify their opposition to our Jewish State.
Unfortunately Braverman is an example of how fanaticism can override rational thought and distorts even supposedly "rational" scientific discourse. Although I don't agree with you on everything, I believe in the sincerity of your efforts to be fair and rational in all your posts.
Thank you for exposing such nonsense.
"more-than-humans"
And there it is. These people don't just hate Israel, and Jews, and Judaism, and the West, and civilization. They hate humanity. And that is all connected.
Mohammed apparently really didn't like dogs, and really liked cats. No knock on him, we each have our tastes, but unfortunately his attitude became a religious imperative in Islam, to the detriment of dogs. (One can also say that domestication of dogs is a major aspect of the civilizing of man as well, for all that may imply about Islamic civilization.)
In any event: Well done.
For those who are in Jerusalem, there's a deer reserve right in the center of the city, on Herzog Street between Givat Mordechai and Katamonim.
"Mohammed apparently really didn't like dogs, and really liked cats. No knock on him, we each have our tastes, but unfortunately his attitude became a religious imperative in Islam, to the detriment of dogs."
Not that I have a dog in this fight but you sound like how the atheists talk about our version of God and how He has a personal vendetta against homosexuals and we turned into a religious thing. Point is, Mohammed's anti-dog stance most probably *was* a religious thing, something we find in our sources as well. But anyways...
And of course if you're correct, I have np with that, is just not the impression I got, that's all.
Well, for starters, Mohammed isn't God, and I don't think he ever claimed that Allah had a problem with dogs.
Our tradition is rather pro-dog. That charedim have a problem with them is a whole other issue.
The are more than a few midrashim about it. Personally, I think dogs are adorable. And I'm not sure the chareidi distaste for dogs has anything to do with anything except the fact that they are raising so many kids and don't have room or need another mouth to feed and being to care for and love in their limited time.
The claim has been made that Jews, and especially charedim, carry bad memories of Cossacks and Nazis and their dogs. Obviously there are other factors, such as those you mentioned- lots of kids, midrashim that go both ways.
How is Jewish tradition pro-dog? (not being snarky, genuinely asking);
Granted you can find anything in Jewish tradition, including statements somewhat the opposite, but for starters there's the fact that the Torah says to throw non-kosher meat to the dogs, and the Midrash that says that that is a reward for them not giving the Jewish people trouble when they left Egypt. Of course Jewish tradition, like others, note the loyalty of dogs.
"They have often refused to leave the safe facility for the much riskier life outside...the appealing narrative of liberation”
Sound like a totalitarian narrative.
Also consider that people of her ilk would use similar formulas if Gazans were offered liberation to other places.
“more-than-humans” 😂
These are not serious people.
After I graduated college in 1987, I visited the Queens Zoo in NYC. I distinctly remember seeing Fallow Deer there. It was my first experience witnessing an animal chew its cud! If my memory serves me right, the deer would just be standing there, and I saw a mass of something ascend into its mouth, which it would start chewing.
Braverman lives in a settler colonial state where the resident people at the time of European contact were actually exterminated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenrohronon
And Braverman doesn't care that feral animals take a devastating toll on indigenous wildlife in much of the world. Here is one terrible example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/science/australia-wildlife-cats.html
As a cat lover and slave to three indoor cats plus numerous NYC street cats that make my block seem like Jerusalem and have extirpated the local Norway rat population (!) I cry when I read about the horrible damage that cats have done elsewhere.
Yeah, Israel suffers from a lack of small mammals thanks in part to the prevalence of cats.
(Contrary to popular myth, the cats have always been local; they were not introduced by the British. Ironically, cats are not mentioned even once in Tanach.)
When you say “cats” are not mentioned in Tanach, I assume you are referring to domestic/house cats specifically, not cat species in general, correct?
Are domestic dogs mentioned in Tanach, incidentally?
Well, small breeds. The word "חתול" never appears in Tanach. We know they had them from archaeology, and of course Egyptians had them, but Tanach never mentions them. Of course Tanach talks about lions. At the time- it was colder then- there were Asiatic lions in Israel. The species only survives in the wild in one small preserve in India, but there are a few in the Jerusalem Zoo. Tanach also refers to some other species of large cats. That is of course R' Slifkin's department.
Tanach mentions dogs several times, and the context in several of those cases is clearly domestic. Plus, again, we know they had domesticated dogs from archaeology. Of course, "domestic" then meant working, not pets.
Fascinating points.
Cats are really a native species to Israel. They are just African wildcats that domesticated themselves.
Cats are really native species to Israel? I have never heard that before. I was always under the impression that the British brought them in the '20s, '30s. I'm referring to the feral cats that we see all around us. Of course there have been "cats" in Israel, lions, leopards, etc., i.e., big cats.
How do we know that these feral cats are really African wildcats and not British imports? Has someone done the DNA research?
Yes, exactly, DNA research. The cats are local and apparently have always been here, and most have always been wild. At the very least the population is much older than the 1920's.
Well, I certainly learned something. I've always blamed the British (not that they are not easy to blame; they've caused enough trouble for Israel over the years).
I dunno, the cats that roam the streets of Israel don't seem very domesticated. Maybe they were at some point in their ancestry, but I can't tell. The municipalities round them up, spay them, and then release them again. (You can tell if they have a little notch in their ear.) There are of course real wildcats down in the Negev.
Your cute and cuddly purring feline whom you have had in your home for 15 years will start hunting mice if you let it go outside for the first time -- even when it is well fed. There are two species of animals that hunt for sport rather than for food -- humans, and cats.
And if they bring you a dead animal and you scream and throw it out, they assume you're an idiot kitten (they are bringing it to you to train you to hunt, and what crazy person would throw out a perfectly good dead bird instead of eating it?) and just bring you more.
Your cat is showing how it cares for you -- it is trying to teach you how to hunt!
This is precisely why I take care to lavish praise on our outdoor cats when they bring us their “trophies”.
My wife, of course, is horrified.
I used to hate cats due to the mess they made by the trash (yes I know it was really the fault of the humans that didn't put the trash away propberly). Once upon a time, many years ago, when I was living in Telz Stone, I had to do periodic shmira from midnight to 4am by the entrance. One night I saw movement out of the corner of my eye. Turned to look and saw a big rat (not a mouse) running by the gan ha'ir. A second or so later I saw a cat chasing after it. From that point on I appreciated their presence.
(Still not overly keen on cats; I'm a dog person.)
Norway rats are also a non-native species in the US. And the non-native cats are the only thing that seems to be able to have any effect on them.
I have no doubt that this Braverman suffers no less “white guilt” and self-hatred towards her adopted settler-colonial country than she does towards her native one.
Goes without saying.
The far right in the US has a favorite complaint that American Jews who are less than keen on the US, national sovereignty, and closed borders would never favor that for Israel. They can never be convinced- because you can't reason with an anti-Semite- that those type of Jews feel the *same exact way* about Israel. I remember Brett Stephens- who is of course an open-borders-for-the-US type- once writing a whole piece defending Bibi in which he had to point out that the one area he disagrees with him on is that Bibi doesn't admit illegals wholesale. And of course there are such types in Israel as well.
Hm, I’ve never heard that complaint (maybe I don’t hang out with enough far-right folks…), but I think current events have revealed the true nature of the American Left and those (nominal) Jews who support it.
As the old saying goes, when someone shows you who they really are… believe them.
"when someone shows you who they really are… believe them."
Back when Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese military were murdering people by the millions, there were many apologists who insisted that things couldn't be that bad, or that the victims somehow deserved their fate.
Hamas really is as bad as it makes itself out to be!
The problem is that a lot of the people demonstrating in favor of Hamas- the Muslims themselves, of course, but even their useful idiots- *approve* of what Hamas did. Telling them of the atrocities just makes them happier.
The Nazis at least tried to cover up their crimes.
Much of the American Left is staunchly pro-Israel. Ritchie Torres is my Congress Member. John Fetterman is another.
Unfortunately it is the Squad and its fellow travelers who get the most publicity.
And there are a lot of horrible anti-Semites on the Right. Nick Fuentes actually says that Judaism should be banned in the US. Not even Ilhan Omar is that extreme. Candace Owens' latest delusion is that AIPAC had JFK assassinated. (Never mind that it was JFK that ended the US arms embargo against Israel. MAGA fools like Owens don't care about facts.) And the three members of Congress with the worst records on Israel aren't Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but rather Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene -- and that is quite a (negative) accomplishment. Rand Paul singlehandedly delayed Iron Dome funding for months! Nancy Pelosi twisted Ilhan Omar's arm into a pretzel to force her to vote for a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, but the Republican leadership won't do anything about its worst actors. :(
All true, but there is a distinction. There is real concern that the democrats are being pulled in the direction of the radicals. Some confirmation of that can be seen in Schumer's speech.
We can dismiss Owens and Fuentes because they're not politicians. They've also been condemned by many Republicans. The same goes with MTG. Neither Rand Paul, nor his father have had much success into pulling Republican's into the libertarian sphere. They are not particularly anti-Israel, but they are isolationists.
Bravo, Ephraim. You said exactly what I came here to say.
For pols like Torres and Fetterman to support Israel is no great moral victory (nor any great surprise) since their constituencies include large proportions of pro-Israel Jews.
As for the Right, hatemongers like Fuentes are universally by recognized as fringe crackpots who have no place in mainstream political discourse (like David Duke, in his day). Owens, too, is generally regarded as little more than a self-promoting conspiracy theorist. "MTG" is known even by her Republican confreres to be a lunatic. "America first" folks like Paul and Massie are not anti-Israel (and certainly not anti-Semitic), just anti-foreign aid in general (which is really not an unreasonable position, even if it doesn't benefit our "pet" cause).
The anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism of the Left, on the other hand, are far more insidious (than that of the discredited, ultra-fringe Right) in that they fit hand-in-glove with the Left's currently fashionable “progressive” ideologies of intersectionality, oppression, colonialism, etc, which have infiltrated not only politics but also academia and even big business, giving them a veneer of respectability and legitimacy that rightwing hate could never hope to enjoy.
I don't think it is a stretch to argue that, perhaps for the first time in history, leftist anti-Judaism has become more dangerous than that of the Right.
Another example: Ron Johnson got s lot of Jewish support in his last re election because his Democratic opponent was pro Hamas. Yet Johnson also voted in the interests of Hamas on the aid bill.
The Republicans have almost entirely sold out to their radicals. Note that when Donald Trump gave the order to stop the foreign aid bills, they genuflected. The legislation was held up for months and it eas pressure from Biden Schumer and McConnell thst finally forced things. McConnell giving up his leadership position. What is particularly scary is that numerous Republicans who had previously been considered strong supporters of Israel voted against the aid bill. We always knew Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley weren't trustworthy (at least those of us who were connected to reality), that Rick Scott was a fraud, and that JD Vance was an absolutely horrible person, but I as was shocked that Marco Rubio betrayed his Jewish supporters. Vance and Rubio are at the top of Trump's VP short list.
The US had open borders for more than its first century of existence and there were no problems. The open borders policy continued for the Western Hemisphere right up to 1965. Our migrant problem would not exist today had we not changed the law then.
I should add that I was on a train from Trenton to New York earlier today that had many dozens of families who were migrants from Venezuela who spoke no English at all. I was able to communicate well enough in Spanish to explain that the Newark train station was not the New York train station -- the conductor's pronunciation in English was unclear to them -- and to give them directions to their destination in NYC once they got off the train. They were some of the nicest people and they were obviously glad to be rid of the oppressive Maduro regime. (I doubt that any of these migrants were Jews, but Maduro is also a vile anti-Semite and Israelhater.) I don't know how many have valid asylum claims, but I hope that they don't ever have to go back to have to live under Maduro. Oh they aren't "illegals" they have valid visas as asylum applicants, something the nativists in the US don't understand.
Come on, you know better than that. The 1965 law *opened* the borders that had been closed twenty years earlier. And it's bizarre to claim that a law closing borders (which, again, it did not( *caused* the problem.
For that first century or two, the US did not have mass migration from the third world, and did not have a welfare state. The 1965 law took care of the first half, and the Great Society took care of the second. Milton Friedman famously said that a country can have any two of three things- mass immigration, a welfare state, or multiculturalism- but having all three is a disaster. The US has had all three for sixty years.
English speakers can have a hard time with "Newark" and "New York" of course.
By all means, the US should admit *everyone* living under a bad regime. Six billion? Seven billion? Why not?
Saying that someone is not "illegal" because the government has papered things over is a fantasy as well.
"The 1965 law *opened* the borders that had been closed twenty years earlier. "
Wrong. There were no numerical limits on immigration from any Western Hemisphere country until 1965. If you wanted to immigrate to the US you simply applied for a visa at a US consulate in your country of birth, and if you could convince the consular officer that you weren't a criminal, a revolutionary, or likely to become a public charge, you got the visa. It was as simple as that. After the 1921 and 1924 laws basically ended immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere, there was huge migration from Canada and Mexico to the US. In New England the migration from Canada was so great that in some areas most children attended French language schools.
"the US did not have mass migration from the third world"
Yeah it did. Look up the economic conditions in Ireland, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Russia in the 19th century. (Germany did got a lot better in the late 19th century thanks to Bismarck.) And I have already mentioned the mass migration from Canada and Mexico -- the Canadian migration was mostly from Quebec which had been poor since colonial times.
"did not have a welfare state. "
Also a false statement. Every English speaking colony implemented the 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law and local poor relief continued into the 20th century. Over time, the system changed, as individual relief was replaced by poorhouses, but there WAS a welfare state. There was such a critical labor shortage that there was no need to offer welfare to poor immigrants as even the most uneducated immigrants easily found jobs.
"Milton Friedman famously said "
Milton Friedman has been proven wrong on a number of things.
"the US should admit *everyone* living under a bad regime"
Most Jews in the US had ancestors admitted to the US while fleeing bad regimes, specifically, Czars Alexander III and Nicholas II. Maduro, Ortega, and Castro are arguably worse; Maduro is one of the worst anti-Semites in the world.
"Saying that someone is not "illegal" because the government has papered things over "
Another statement that shows your ignorance of immigration law. It is specifically the government that issues visas and gives you legal status. And the current wave of migrants all have visas.
Had your attitude been in effect in the late 19th century, the Jews of the Russian Empire would have been stuck there.
Braverman is just another mentally ill self-hating Jew. Academia is full of them . . .
Of course she's Israeli and Jewish.
Can't click the "like" button for this one.
Charles, what do you mean?
substack needs to work on their reply diversity
Just like the chick who resigned yesterday from her (low-level) post in the Biden administration in protest of Biden’s “disastrous” support for Israel made sure to play up her (likely nominal) Jewish heritage as her reason for doing so.
Can't "like" this either.
You can "like" what you will, to be sure, but I gather your implication is that you disagree with these comments.
Unfortunately, however, it is no secret that some of the most strident anti-Israel voices on the Left are those of "self-loathing" (or, perhaps, "white guilt"-ridden) Jews who nevertheless delight in flaunting their "Jewish" principles to justify their opposition to our Jewish State.
To wit: https://truah.org/press/an-open-letter-from-750-north-american-rabbis-and-cantors-responding-to-the-crisis-in-israel-and-gaza/
No I agree with your statements and don't like the fact that they are true.
Ahhh, I see. It is indeed a shanda.
Well, "Israeli".
I wonder why she hasn't renounced her Israeli citizenship.
I'll be discussing that.