Israel’s Response to the Ceuta Invasion

Posted on July 31, 2026 by First.One.Through

For nearly three years, Spain positioned itself as one of Israel’s sharpest critics in Europe.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez repeatedly condemned Israel’s conduct in Gaza, recognized a Palestinian state, pressed for European measures against Israel, and framed the conflict primarily through the language of humanitarian obligation. Israeli officials responded that Spain had become increasingly detached from the security realities Israel faces and was rewarding Hamas diplomatically after October 7.

Then Spain found itself confronting a border crisis of its own.

An estimated 49,000 migrants surged into Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta in a single day, overwhelming local authorities and forcing Spain to deploy troops to restore order. Overnight, the country’s political conversation shifted from humanitarian ideals to border control, sovereignty, and national security.

Israel noticed immediately.

Israeli officials pointed to Ceuta as evidence of something they had argued for years: it is easy to lecture another democracy about borders until your own border collapses.

*Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon took aim at Spain for why it maintains a colony in Africa*

There was an unmistakable sense of schadenfreude in parts of the Israeli reaction. The same government that had spent months criticizing Israel for emphasizing security suddenly found itself insisting that no sovereign nation can simply allow tens of thousands of people to cross its frontier without control.

Every democracy must balance compassion with sovereignty. Every democracy must decide whether humanitarian obligations can coexist with meaningful border enforcement. Israel has argued for years that they must. Spain is now discovering how difficult that balance becomes when events unfold on its own frontier.

There is another irony.

Spain’s immediate security now depends heavily on Morocco’s cooperation. Rabat’s willingness to police its side of the border has become essential to Spain’s stability. Yet Morocco chose a dramatically different path from Spain in its relationship with Israel. It joined the Abraham Accords, expanded security, intelligence, and economic cooperation with Israel, and demonstrated that pragmatic regional partnerships can coexist with support for Palestinian aspirations.

Spain and Morocco have moved in opposite diplomatic directions with Israel. Yet today Spain needs Morocco more than ever.

*Israel’s ambassador to Spain declined to say whether its government supports Morroco taking over the Spanish enclaves in Africa.*

Israel, however, should resist celebrating too loudly.

If Ceuta marks the beginning of sustained migration pressure into Europe, the political consequences are unlikely to stop with Spain. Across the continent, immigration has already fueled the growth of nationalist parties and intensified debates over identity, sovereignty, and integration. Another large migration wave could accelerate those trends even further.

History offers a warning for Jews.

Periods of political instability and polarization have rarely benefited Jewish communities. When societies become more fractured, antisemitism often finds new expression—from parts of the far right, from extremist Islamist movements, and from other ideological currents. Europe has already experienced a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents since October 7, 2023. Additional social upheaval could place Jewish communities under even greater pressure.

Israel can fairly point out the irony of Spain’s predicament. It can argue that Ceuta demonstrates the complexity of governing borders that are easier to criticize than to defend.

If Europe enters another prolonged period of political instability, no one should assume European Jews will remain untouched by the consequences. Those victims will not be amused by Israel nor protected by smug Israeli diplomats saying I told you so.

Spexit And Andalusia, or Borders

Posted on July 31, 2026 by First.One.Through

Until this week, Europe’s migration crisis was largely a story about the Mediterranean Sea.

For more than a decade, desperate migrants boarded overcrowded boats in North Africa, hoping to survive the crossing into Europe. Thousands never made it. The sea itself was the barrier.

Then came Ceuta.

ceuta-and-melilla — *Ceuta and Melilla are tiny Spanish outposts in Africa*

In one of the largest mass border breaches Europe has seen in modern times, Spain’s tiny enclave on the North African coast was overwhelmed as an estimated 49,000 migrants crossed from Morocco by land and sea in just 24 hours. Spain deployed its military, Morocco reinforced the frontier, at least 18 people died during the rush, and the crossing was largely halted the following day.

The numbers are staggering. Ceuta is home to only about 85,000 residents. In a single day, arrivals equaled well over half the city’s population. This was a demonstration that, if the border gives way, hundreds of thousands of people can enter European territory almost immediately.

For migrants, the calculation is understandable. Europe offers safety, opportunity, and hope for a better life.

For governments, the calculation is entirely different. No country can meaningfully screen tens of thousands of arrivals in real time. Authorities cannot determine identities, criminal histories, security concerns, or asylum claims after a border has already been overwhelmed.

And this is not merely Spain’s problem.

Spain guards one of the European Union’s external frontiers. The Schengen system depends on every member securing that frontier because what enters one country can ultimately affect them all. Spain’s border policy is therefore not just Spain’s policy—it affects Paris, Rome, Berlin, Amsterdam, and every other country that has entrusted its own internal borders to the Schengen system.

That is why Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and other European leaders reacted so sharply. Their concern is larger than Ceuta itself. It is whether Europe can preserve free movement inside the Union if member states adopt fundamentally different approaches to controlling who enters from outside.

“We are in the process of bringing together the competent bodies and, once these meetings are over, we are ready to act, including through exceptional measures… such as suspending the Schengen agreement with Spain.” – Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni

Since the Arab Spring, Europe has absorbed millions of refugees and migrants fleeing civil wars in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Those movements reshaped European politics, accelerated the rise of nationalist parties, and transformed debates over sovereignty, identity, and integration.

Ceuta is different. It revealed a land route from Africa into the European Union capable of moving extraordinary numbers of people in an astonishingly short period. If this becomes an established migration corridor, Europe could face pressures unlike any it has experienced since the Arab Spring, and it will likely far surpass it in terms of numbers.

From here, several futures are possible.

Spain could conclude that maintaining Ceuta and Melilla is no longer worth the political and financial cost and eventually negotiate their return to Morocco.
Spain could dramatically strengthen its external border, making clear that humanitarian obligations do not require surrendering control over who enters the country.
Or Spain could continue on its current course, betting that Europe will absorb the consequences. If so, pressure from its European partners will intensify. Calls to suspend Spain from Schengen or restore permanent internal border controls will become louder. While a “Spexit” (Spain’s exit from the European Union) remains a remote possibility, the political strains that produce such conversations would only deepen.

*Nearly 50,000 migrants from Africa are estimated to have crossed into Ceuta, Spain on July 30, 2026*

There is another outcome that deserves more attention beyond the immediate decisions of the government of Spain.

If governments are seen as unable or unwilling to control migration, voters rarely abandon the issue. They abandon the governments. Nationalist and right-wing parties would likely continue to gain strength across Spain and Europe. The political backlash would not stop at the wave of immigration. It would spill over into wider suspicion of immigrant communities and minorities who had no role in creating the crisis, further polarizing European society.

History offers reminders.

More than thirteen centuries ago, Muslim armies crossed from North Africa into Iberia and established Al-Andalus, reshaping the peninsula for centuries. Eventually, Spain pushed out all of its Muslims in a forced expulsion which also included the Jews. The roughly 200,000 Jews of Spain were expelled on July 31, 1492, and Spain has been basically Jew-free since then.

More recently, in the 1930s and 1940s, the National Socialists of Germany marked for extermination millions of unwanted people, including Jews, Roma and those with disabilities. Fierce tribalism marked foreigners as enemies, regardless of the actions of the residents.

Today, the choice is not between compassion and security. A democratic society requires both.

The Strait of Gibraltar remains one of the shortest distances between Africa and Europe. Ceuta has reminded Europe that borders are not abstract lines on a map: they are political decisions. If Europe chooses not to control its external frontier, events like this will not remain exceptional. They will become the new normal. As will the ramifications.

Will Europe decide who enters its borders, or will it let events on the ground make that decision for it. Each is a deliberate political decision.

“Citizen Vigilante” Is Not About One Movie. It Is About What Happens When People Stop Trusting the State.

Posted on July 1, 2026 by First.One.Through

Why would a vigilante movie cause international controversy in 2026?

After all, Hollywood has been making vigilante films for more than half a century. Death Wish, Taxi Driver, The Equalizer, Taken, John Wick. Millions have watched ordinary people take justice into their own hands. Critics warned they would inspire copycats but by and large, they did not.

So why has Citizen Vigilante provoked such alarm?

Because this film is not simply about revenge. It is set against one of the most divisive political questions of our time: immigration.

The story follows a man who concludes that his government has abandoned its most basic duty: to protect its own citizens. He begins targeting migrants whom he sees as responsible for violent crime while officials either refuse or fail to act. Critics argue the film risks legitimizing violence against immigrants. Supporters respond that it dramatizes the consequences of government paralysis rather than endorsing vigilantism.

Whether one agrees with either side, the film did not emerge in a vacuum.

Across Britain, years of revelations about organized child sexual exploitation gangs – most involving men of Pakistani heritage in towns such as Rotherham, Rochdale, and other communities – left many citizens convinced that authorities failed to protect vulnerable girls and, in some instances, were reluctant to confront offenders for fear of inflaming racial tensions. The scandals produced multiple official inquiries and enduring public anger over institutional failures. For many viewers, Citizen Vigilante taps into that frustration: the fear that government sees, knows, and still does not act, while the mainstream media diverts attention away from it.

That fear is not unique to Britain. In the United States, the conflict is different but follows a similar pattern.

Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility. Yet the Biden administration allowed a constant flow of illegal immigrants to enter the US – multiple times as many who arrived legally. It was a contributing factor of Donald Trump being elected in 2024.

In response to Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, liberal municipalities declared themselves “sanctuaries,” limiting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Federal officials argue that dangerous offenders remain because local jurisdictions refuse to honor immigration detainers. Sanctuary jurisdictions answer that they are respecting constitutional limits on federal power and preserving trust between immigrant communities and local police.

The legal arguments belong in court but the psychological consequences live in society.

When one level of government says, “We must enforce the law,” and another responds, “We will not help you,” ordinary citizens no longer see a single sovereign speaking with one voice. They see governments arguing over who bears responsibility while serious problems remain unresolved.

That is ripe ground for the vigilante to enter, not because movies create him, but because confidence in public institutions has eroded.

Every stable democracy rests on one indispensable principle: the state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Citizens may vote, petition, protest, organize, criticize, litigate, and campaign for new laws. They may not decide for themselves who should be detained, punished, expelled, or attacked. The moment private groups begin enforcing their own version of justice, the rule of law gives way to competing factions.

South Africa illustrates how quickly that line can blur. Recent anti-migrant demonstrations included many people calling for stricter enforcement of immigration law. But alongside lawful protest came reports of intimidation, assaults, and migrants fleeing violence. The movement did not remain solely a political demand. In some instances, private citizens began acting as if enforcement belonged to them.

People will seek alternatives if they begin to doubt that the government will protect them.

Consider New York’s Jewish community. Antisemitic incidents have reached historic levels in recent years. At the same time, some prominent political figures have used language that many Jews regard as deeply dehumanizing or have expressed intense hostility toward Zionism, which many Jews see as an integral part of their collective identity. When Jewish New Yorkers hear rhetoric describing Zionists as “monsters,” some inevitably ask a question that no democratic society should want its citizens to ask: If violence comes, will the government protect us with the same determination that it protects everyone else?

“He [Tarek Bazrouk] targeted these New Yorkers based on their religion and national origin. And he was undeterred by multiple arrests following these assaults, instead quickly returning to violently targeting Jews. The prosecution of this case and the sentence imposed make clear that New Yorkers will not tolerate hate-based violence and that this Office will aggressively prosecute those who perpetrate senseless crimes of hate.” – Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Christopher G. Raia, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) October 31, 2025. Released early on June 23, 2026 under NYC DSA Mayor Zohran Mamdani

The appeal of the vigilante has never really been about revenge. It has always been about confidence. People cheer the vigilante only after they conclude that the institutions designed to provide justice have failed.

That is why the debate over Citizen Vigilante is larger than one controversial film.

It is about whether citizens still believe that governments – federal, state, and local – are willing and able to carry out their most fundamental obligation: to enforce the law fairly, protect the innocent, and maintain a single, legitimate monopoly on force.

If that confidence disappears, the next vigilante will not step out of a movie theater. He will step out of a society that has stopped believing the state will do its job.

Jews Ask for Protection. America Responds With Skepticism (May 2026)

October 7: The First Pogrom from the Global South In the Modern Era (June 2025)

CAIR Thinks Protecting Synagogues Is A Political Stunt And Waste Of Taxpayers Money (September 2024)

The DSA Is Systematically Coming For Zionist Jews (August 2023)

Politicians In Their Own Words: Why We Don’t Support Defending Jews (January 2022)

The UN Celebrates Migrants Except Jewish Ones

Posted on December 4, 2025 by First.One.Through

Every December, the United Nations devotes a day to praising migrants.
It insists no human is illegal, that borders shouldn’t limit dignity, that newcomers must be protected regardless of how they arrived. It speaks in sweeping universalism: every migrant deserves acceptance, integration, and respect.

Every migrant — except the Jewish ones.

Because when a Jew moves to Jerusalem’s eastern neighborhoods or the hills of Judea, the UN suddenly abandons its sermon. The same institution that blesses migration everywhere else snaps into punitive mode: label, restrict, sanction, boycott.

The world’s great defender of human mobility becomes the world’s loudest opponent of Jewish mobility.

Migrants crossing seas and borders are embraced. Their stories honored. Their identities protected. But Jewish migrants returning to the land that shaped their peoplehood are told they are criminals. The UN proclaims them a threat, inventing a special category — “illegal settlers” — that exists for no other people on earth.

This is not inconsistency. It is intentional. A universal rule with a single carve-out: Jews.

*United Nations says that migrants – even illegal one’s – deserve respect and safety*

The UN Doesn’t Just Oppose Policy — It Delegitimizes Jewish Presence Itself

Despite the UN protesting the importance of protecting migrants, it passes resolutions specifically delegitimizing Jewish ones. It routinely asserts that Jews must not live in the very heartland of Jewish history. It passes resolutions declaring Jewish homes illegitimate, Jewish neighborhoods unacceptable, Jewish movement intolerable.

Every other people is encouraged to preserve identity and build community. Only Jews are told their presence in their ancestral homeland is an international crime. That their businesses should be labeled in specific lists, targeted for boycott and sanction.

This Isn’t Hypocrisy. It’s Anti-Jewish Discrimination.

Hypocrisy would imply the UN is failing its principles. But the UN applies its principles perfectly — just not to Jews.

It welcomes migrants when they are African, Asian, Latin American, European. It defends them when they are persecuted or undocumented.

But when they are Jewish, the vocabulary changes instantly and the moral umbrella snaps shut.

The world’s most ancient migrant people — the “wandering Jew” expelled, dispersed, and wandering for centuries — is the only group the UN insists may not migrate back home.

That is not flawed idealism. That is targeted exclusion.

*Jews praying at the Western Wall, an act considered “illegal” by the United Nations, trespassing on lands it considers “occupied Palestine.” (photo: First One Through)*

Re-education: Israel is The Jewish Homeland, Not Just A Safe Haven

Posted on February 11, 2023 by First.One.Through

The New York Times wrote an article about the massive number of migrants from Latin America coming first into Texas, then New York, and ultimately bused to Canada. It relayed the scary journey in search of a better life.

The harrowing trip concluded with a quote from a woman who traversed the many miles upon arriving in Canada, “‘This is going to be our Israel,’ Mrs. Ramirez said.” I’m sure she meant it in a positive way: that she had finally arrived in a safe haven, away from the tumult that had been her life. She considered herself like the Jews who had escaped the war in Europe, and arrived in the land of Israel.

Her universalizing the Jews and making her trek to her own “Promised Land” was not sinister but her trivialization calls for her education, and a re-education of the world regarding three important differentiators between refugees and migrants generally, and the unique story of the Jews.

Jews Were a Targeted Minority

Tens of millions of people from Latin America are seeking a better life, away from gang violence, broken economies, poverty and political corruption. Almost every citizen from the region is seeking peace and security that their native countries do not provide.

That is in sharp contrast to Jews.

The Jews who came to Israel from Europe around the Holocaust were specifically targeted for annihilation. They were not simply war refugees like millions of others who fled battle grounds but a persecuted minority ear-marked for ethnic cleansing.

The Jews from Arab Muslim lands were persecuted from the 1950s through 1980s, with governmental decrees and street pogroms. The general public did not flee their home countries in search of something better; they sought something better by driving Jews from their midst.

So it was in Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere. Jews were singled out for persecution and had a particular need for salvation.

Israel is The Jewish Homeland

Venezuelans arriving in Canada have no roots in the land. They could have unpacked their bags as easily in Texas or Toronto.

But Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. They have thousands of years of well-known history, including kings and judges who ruled in the land.

Further, Judaism is a unique religion which is tied to a specific piece of land. It is a particular religion for a specific people with commandments which can only be kept in their holy land.

The Need for Sovereignty

The migrants from around Latin America will be happy to settle in Seattle or Saskatchewan. They have no aspirations to remake their new countries, and will be happy to become Americans or Canadians. They just want rights and self-determination, and have no vision of transforming their new governments.

Not so for Jews in Israel.

Because of the persistence of anti-Semitism around the globe for centuries, modern Zionism concluded that Jews need more than a safe haven. Jews must be able to determine their future under a Jewish flag. History has shown that self determination without sovereignty would only yield a temporary respite from anti-Semitism.

Zionism is not a rally of charged nationalism but the reality born from relentless persecution.

Zionism is not a rally of charged nationalism but the reality born from relentless persecution.
First One Through

The story of the Jewish people and their Promised Land is captured in the most widely read book, replayed globally over the last two millennia. While migrants and refugees echoing those verses for personal reflection might therefore feel natural, remembering the uniqueness of the Jewish journey to the re-established Jewish State might curb the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism roaring around the world once more.

The Cultural Appropriation of the Jewish ‘Promised Land’

The Lies Conflating the Holocaust and The Promised Land

The Jewish Holy Land

A Core Tenet of Zionism Is Combatting Anti-Semitism

The Worst Title For An Editorial Slamming Biden’s Failed Immigration Policy

Posted on September 21, 2022 by First.One.Through

Brett Stephens is a right-of-center opinion writer for The New York Times. For the Times’ board and readership, he is probably viewed as a right-wing extremist from their far left vantage point. However, in the interest of appearing balanced, the paper gives him a platform to share his thoughts.

On September 21, 2022, Stephens lambasted the terrible failure of the Biden Administration’s handling of the border and immigration generally. He mocked the pathetic response of the dim-witted Vice President Kamala Harris to questions about the security of the border. He reviewed the statistics of the enormous spike of immigrant encounters at the United States’ southern border. He added a few pointed remarks:

“This was not an accident of policy. It was an intention.”
“This is political malpractice on multiple levels.”
“It undermines the case for the path to citizenship”
“a see-no-problem, admit-no-fault, disavow-the-consequences, and blame-the-last-guy border policy.”
“it makes a mockery of people like Vice President Kamala Harris and others making fools of themselves by trying to defend a visibly failed policy.”
“The crisis is a failure of liberalism, classic and contemporary. It calls into question the ability, or the willingness, of a Democratic president to solve a basic law-and-order issue”

Pretty scathing stuff. A full on assault of the Biden/Harris failure to secure the border and manage the influx of immigrants. Dereliction of duty, an abandonment of law-and-order.

One would imagine a headline for such a piece along the lines of “Biden And Harris Fail America – US Citizens And Immigrants”, or “Biden Administration Deliberately Refuses To Secure The Borders” or perhaps “Biden’s Political Malpractice Regarding The Border May Cost Him The Election”.

The Times would do no such thing.

Instead, the paper titled the hit piece with a rosy “The Border Crisis Could Still Be Biden’s Opportunity.” It was as if the left-wing outlet bemoaned that they had to run Stephen’s article, and hoped that readers would only read the headline, skip the actual article, and chant “Let’s Go Brandon,” but mean it as being supportive of Biden.

Is this the path to coexistence between right-and-left? Deliberately mislabeling opinions we don’t like rather than live with the dissonance?

The Grey Lady long ago moved away from its tagline “All The News That’s Fit To Print” to “All The Opinions Our Liberal Readers Want.” It now occasionally posts criticisms of Democrats, but paints it with lipstick hoping people won’t notice.

The DSA, Kamala Harris and 53 Dead Migrants

Those Welcoming Refugees and Immigrants

Crises at the Borders

The Explosion of Immigrants in the United States

The DSA, Kamala Harris and 53 Dead Migrants

Posted on July 11, 2022 by First.One.Through

A terrible tragedy unfolded on the US-Mexico border, as 53 migrants were found dead in the back of a truck, who were being smuggled into the United States. It is being marked as the deadliest human smuggling incident in US history.

The tragedy is a function of a number of problems, principally, the swelling number of people attempting to come into the United States from Mexico illegally.

From 2010 through 2020, the number of people coming over the US-Mexico border was a fraction of what has been happening under the Biden administration. Pew Research, summarized the statistics from the US Borders and Customs Protection (CBP), and tracked that 2021 saw the migrants from Mexico jump to over 608,000 and from countries other than Mexico to well over 1 million. Those countries with dramatic increases included Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Haiti and Cuba.

Texas has been particularly overwhelmed. Along the Rio Grande and Del Rio areas, migrant encounters are up over five times between 2020 and 2021.

And 2022 is seeing an even greater number of encounters – and fewer people being returned across the border.

According to the CBP, May 2022 had 239,416 migrant encounters, an all-time record, breaking the previous all-time record set in April. Only 42 percent of those were expelled, the lowest percentage since Title 42 was put in place. As a record number of people are coming across the border, a record number are also staying.

Amidst this onslaught, Present Biden requested eight percent LESS money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in his budget. The proposal also includes a request for fewer detention beds. This plan for fewer people to control the border and fewer detention beds is exactly the opposite of the needs for the situation on the ground.

These bad policies are voiced by members of the Democratic Socialists of America squad, including Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) who have all called to ‘Abolish ICE’. They have essentially cheered the lack of action by ‘Border Czar’ Kamala Harris‘s do-nothing approach.

*Vice President and “Border Czar” Kamala Harris (right) with Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) (middle) who has called to ‘Abolish ICE’*

The DSA is loudly calling to abolish ICE and lobbying government officials for ‘Open Borders‘ which helped fuel the surge at the border, as well as the Biden-Harris lack of action. It should be no surprise that such activities led to the enormous human tragedy witnessed in Texas. More tragedies are likely to continue.

#NeverSquad

A Logical Approach to Immigration from Personal History

Those Welcoming Refugees and Immigrants

The Real Offensive Question of the US Census: Dominican or Cuban?

Denying Entry and Citizenship

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

If you Only Loved Refugees as Much as you Hate Donald Trump

Africans in Minnesota

Posted on May 31, 2020 by First.One.Through

The United States has always been a country of immigrants since its founding days. During the Industrial Revolution of the 1880’s to 1910 the wave of immigrants from Europe made the country have a large white majority. The push back against immigrants during World War I and the Great Depression mostly sealed U.S. borders for decades which only began to change meaningfully in the 1960’s.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 removed the quota system that capped immigration from each country, greatly benefiting non-European countries. While U.S. immigration in the 1960’s was split 75%, 9% and 5% for Europe, Latin America and Asia, respectively, by the 1980’s the continents of origin were 23%, 44% and 26%, respectively.

Africa has not been a major source of immigrants over the past 100 years. In 2018, just over 2 million of the country’s 44.7 million immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa. While small, this figure has grown rapidly, from 691,000 in 2000 and 130,000 in 1980. The largest number of immigrants comes from Nigeria, the African country with the largest population, followed by Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya.

Many of these immigrants live in the large states, including New York, California, Texas, Florida, Ohio and New Jersey. Others have settled into smaller states including Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland and Virginia.

But nowhere has the African immigrant population been felt as dramatically as in Minnesota.

Exhibit 1: Black Population, by Place of Birth

State	Foreign-born	US-born	Multiple
Minnesota	27.4%	4.6%	5.96
Washington	6.5%	3.4%	1.91
Connecticut	16.5%	10.0%	1.65
Ohio	16.7%	12.2%	1.37
New York	19.4%	14.6%	1.33
Pennsylvania	14.3%	10.9%	1.31
Florida	15.9%	16.0%	0.99
Indiana	8.9%	9.6%	0.93
Maryland	26.8%	30.5%	0.88
New Jersey	11.7%	14.1%	0.83
Wisconsin	5.0%	6.4%	0.78
United States	9.5%	13.2%	0.72
Tennessee	10.6%	17.1%	0.62
Virginia	11.6%	20.2%	0.57
Georgia	18.6%	33.0%	0.56
North Carolina	9.2%	22.5%	0.41
Michigan	5.8%	14.4%	0.40
Alabama	8.1%	27.4%	0.30
Illinois	4.2%	15.7%	0.27
California	1.7%	7.3%	0.23
South Carolina	5.7%	27.7%	0.21
Louisiana	6.7%	33.5%	0.20
Mississippi	7.3%	38.8%	0.19

As seen on Exhibit 1, overall in the United States, Black people account for 13.2% of the U.S.-born population and 9.5% of the foreign-born population. In southern states like South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi, Blacks make up a significant percentage of the population, almost all being born in the United States. In several northern states like Ohio, Washington, Connecticut and New York, the Black population born in Africa is significant, surpassing the overall mix of U.S.-born Black people in the state.

In Minnesota, the immigrant population is driven by Blacks from Africa, accounting for six times the percentage of U.S.-born blacks in the state. While Africans account for under ten per cent of the overall US immigrant population, they account for 27.4% of the immigrant population in Minnesota, nearly three times the rate.

Exhibit 2: Foreign-born Population in Minnesota by Continent

Exhibit 2 shows how Africa’s share of the Minnesota immigrant community has grown from 4.3% in 1990 to 27.2% in 2018. Since 2000, it is the only region which has grown its share, reversing the trend even for immigrants from Latin America. It is the only state in the country with this phenomenon.

African-born immigrants have moved to Minnesota at a scale not seen anywhere else in the United States. The percentage far surpasses US-born Blacks and eclipses Latin American and European immigrants. In 2018, they helped elect the first immigrant from Africa to Congress, Ilhan Omar from Somalia. Will their numbers impact future elections as well?

The Real Offensive Question of the US Census: Dominican or Cuban?

Posted on June 13, 2019 by First.One.Through

There is quite a bit of fuss about a particular question in the 2020 census.

Many Democrats are contending that a question asking about the citizenship status of people is an attempt to under-count Hispanics who are often not citizens and will be nervous to check off the “not a U.S. citizen” box in the form in fear of being deported. Many of these non-citizens live in urban areas which vote Democratic, and the Democratic politicians are looking to boost their weight in Congress and budgetary allocations so want to ensure as many people fill out the census forms in Democratic strongholds as possible. Anything which might hurt their personal politics is repulsive.

But the census forms are filled out anonymously. The forms specifically state that the information collected is private and confidential. Are the Democrats worried that the census results will show that the number of people in a census block is much lower than the number of voters, proving severe voting irregularities with many people voting in elections who are non-citizens? That there is a perfect correlation between high levels of non-citizens and newly minted “sanctuary cities”?

According to the US Census Bureau, the citizenship question has been asked for many years, “in 1820, 1830, 1870 and 1890 to present.” Why the sudden hullabaloo?

If people were really concerned about the Hispanic population and not their own politics, why not challenge the government asking about the origin of Hispanics? Why does it matter if someone came to the United States from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba or El Salvador? Will the government use a different dialect of Spanish in some forms? Will it change the meal plans at schools?

The census form has a distinct question about race, not related to the Hispanic question. The race question asks Asians to specify if they are Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese and other. That is understandable as each speaks different languages. Further, the government states that it asks questions about race to “evaluate government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all racial groups and to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination laws.” Seems fair enough.

But why does the form separate Hispanics into a different category outside of race? The Census Bureau clarifies:

“Though many respondents expect to see a Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish category on the race question, this question is asked separately because people of
Hispanic origin may be of any race(s) in accordance with the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards on race and ethnicity.”

Are only Hispanics of mixed race? In the race question, respondents are allowed to check off more than one box (say, White and Black), but not so in the Hispanic question. That seems bizarre. A person cannot be both Cuban and Puerto Rican?

When the FBI reports on hate crimes – a pretty good indicator of whether there is discrimination in society – it doesn’t break down the details of “anti-Hispanic or Latino” into Cuban or Dominican, so why is there a need for so much granular detail in the census? In 2017, the number of hate crimes against Jews was more than against Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Native Americans and Pacific-Islanders COMBINED. If the US government is really concerned about discrimination, why doesn’t the census ask questions about religion?

It is far more likely that the government is extracting details of the country of origin in the census as a matter of mapping international relations. More Mexicans in the US may mean reconsidering trade policy with Mexico, or changing the visa and immigration policy. If the US governments finds a spike in Hondurans in the United States, it might decide to either cap or relax immigration policy with Honduras, and similarly with each of the Latin American countries where the majority of US immigrants are coming from.

That’s a real concern for the Hispanic community which no one discusses.

If Democrats really cared about the Hispanic community and not about their own personal politics, it would attempt to abolish the census question which might limit immigration from Latin America, not the power of Democratic kingpins.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The U.S. is Stealing Real Choices from the Voters

Let’s Make America VOTE Again

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

The Explosion of Immigrants in the United States

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Where’s the March Against Anti-Semitism?

Don Lemon, Here are Some Uncomfortable Facts about Hate Crimes in America

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

25,000 Jews Remaining

Posted on March 8, 2019 by First.One.Through

The number 25,000 is both random and round. And it serves as a powerful marker of the Jewish population in cities and countries around the world; which are growing and which are disappearing.

17 Countries versus 34 (1948)

There are now 17 countries with over 25,000 Jews. That is half of the total that existed when Israel was founded in 1948.

Israel 6.6 million Jews
USA 5.7 million
France 453,000
Canada 391,000
UK 290,000
Argentina 180,000
Russia 172,000
Germany 116,000
Australia 113,000
Brazil 93,000
South Africa 69,000
Ukraine 50,000
Hungary 47,000
Mexico 40,000
Netherlands 30,000
Belgium 29,000
Italy 28,000

Most of the countries that dropped below the 25,000 level over the past 70 years were in Arab and Muslim countries including Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Iran, as those countries effectively expunged the Jewish populations due to anger over the founding of Israel. The total population from all of those Arab and Muslim countries now stands at 27,000, just north of the 25k mark (15k in Turkey, 5,800 in Iran, 2,000 in Morocco and Tunisia 1,000). The Jews who fled those lands in the 1950’s through 1970’s principally moved to Israel, France, the United States and Canada.

The various entities that made up the Former Soviet Union also account for a drop in the number of countries with over 25,000 Jews. Some of those regions experienced mass migration due to the pogroms of the early 20th century, and other Jews left after World War I and when Russia allowed Jews to leave in the 1990’s. In 1900, 70% of world Jewry lived in the FSU, while only 3% live there today.

And of course, the Holocaust decimated the Jewish population in Europe from 1938 to 1945, including in Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Greece. Before 1948, there were dozens of countries with more than 25,000 Jews.

The next countries which will likely fall below the 25,000 level will be Belgium and then Italy. Belgium has seen a rise in antisemitism including the shooting at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in 2014, and the mocking of Jews as moneylenders at a Carnival parade in March 2019, as well as from a decline in the diamond industry which employed many Jews in Antwerp. Italy has seen a migration of its Jews due to the influx of Muslims who have brought new levels of antisemitism at two to five times the level of Christians, as demonstrated in ADL polls. New laws banning ritual slaughter and possibly prohibiting circumcision in European countries will also weigh on where Jews decide to live. The aging population is also encouraging young Jews to migrate to find spouses elsewhere.

The net effect is that over the course of the last 100 years, Jews went from mostly speaking Russian, German and Arabic to speaking English and Hebrew.

It is unlikely that there will be any new countries joining the 25k list as most migration is going to the more established countries.

27 Cities in the United States

The 17 countries with over 25,000 Jews can be put in context when one considers that there are 27 metropolitan areas in the United States with over 25,000 Jews.

New York 1.5 million Jews
Los Angeles 519,000
San Francisco 391,000
Chicago 292,000
Boston 248,000
Washington D.C. 215,000
Philadelphia 215,000
Atlanta 120,000
Miami 119,000
San Diego 100,000
Cleveland 86,000
Denver 84,000
Phoenix 83,000
Las Vegas 80,000
Detroit 78,000
Seattle 63,000
Dallas 58,000
St. Louis 54,000
Tampa 51,000
Houston 48,000
Portland, OR 47,000
Pittsburgh 42,000
Minneapolis 40,000
Hartford 34,000
New Haven 30,000
Cincinnati 27,000
Milwaukee 26,000

The total number of US cities with over 25,000 Jews will likely grow, as Jews consider leaving the expensive markets in New York and California and go to cities with quality schools and good job opportunities, including Austin, Nashville and Raleigh.

Anti-Semitism

The Jews of the 20th century mostly left their home countries due to antisemitism, as opposed to job opportunities and quality of life which is why they move within cities inside the United States.

To give a sense of scale of the impact of antisemitism, the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust over roughly six years, equates to 25,000 Jews being killed every 5.5 days. That is equivalent to wiping out all of the Jews of Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Belgium and Italy in a single month. Repeatedly. For six years.

Antisemitism has no equivalent to any other hatred – not to “Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry,” – as listed in the March 2019 House resolution drafted because of the anti-Semitic comments made by Ilhan Omar, the new Democratic US Representative in Congress who is also the first black Muslim woman in Congress. Antisemitism has pushed over 80% of world Jewry into just two countries, the United States and Israel. Vile comments made by elected officials (including in the US, UK and Iran) attacking Jews and basic Jewish human rights in those two remaining outposts – and defended by senior politicians – rises to the level of attempted genocide of the Jewish people.

Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Bernie Sanders conduct a news conference in
Washington, D.C. on Jan. 10, 2019. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP)

Will the 40,000 Jews in Minneapolis begin to fear for their safety because of the sentiments of the Somali community in Minnesota? If the migration begins – Jews abandoning a US city because of antisemitism – God help us all.

Related First.One.Through videos:

Jewish Migration Since 1900 (music from Diana Ross)

Aliyah to Israel (music by the Maccabeats)

Ethiopian Jews Come Home to Israel (music by Phillip Phillips)

1001 Years of Expulsions (music from Schindler’s List)

Related First.One.Through article:

The New York Times Thinks that the Jews from Arab Countries Simply “Immigrated”

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

Racist Calls of Apes and Pigs? Forget Rosanne. Let’s Talk Islam

Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough