Tag Archives: Immigration

Timeline Of Progress Shows How And Why Trumpists Can’t Win

timeline of progress
Michelle Krupa’s article “America is changing. Bigoted slurs, immigration bans and racist rallies can’t change that” is a fascinating look at how far we’ve come in America from our first census in 1790 until the present day when it comes to immigration, sexual orientation, and minority business ownership, representation in government, and educational achievement.

The data provided in the article is comprehensive, full of background and context as to why things have developed as they have. Instead of separating it out by subject matter showing maturation from then until now as they have, I have decided to put it in a kind of chronological order of achievements and milestones. What emerges is a timeline of progress that shows the inevitability of what Trumpists fear the most being that by 2065, we will be a majority minority country.

Timeline of Progress

1790 – The first US Census counted 3.9 million people living in the brand-new United States: nearly 3.2 million white people and about 760,000 black people, of whom about 92% were slaves; no other races or ethnicities were tallied. Americans were sorted into just three categories when it came to race: free white males and females, all other free persons, and slaves.
1960 – The country had ballooned to 178 million people, approximately 89% of them white, 11% black, and a tiny fraction comprised of other races, including Native American and Asian and Pacific Islander. Hispanic ethnicity wasn’t counted yet.

9.7 million immigrants lived in the US, accounting for just 5.4% of the total population.

Americans were first allowed to identify their own race on the census instead of a census worker doing it for them.
Before passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 – 3.5% of African-Americans older than 25 held a bachelor’s degree. The number of Asians with a bachelor’s degree was 11%.
1967 – 3% of couples had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity.
1970 – 1% of babies born in the US were multiracial.
1980 – 8% of Hispanic people had a bachelor’s degree.
2000 – Americans can identify themselves with more than one race on the census.
2003 – Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage.
2007 – Black business people owned approximately 1.9 million firms across the U.S. There were approximately 1.5 million Asian owned firms nationally. There were 2.25 million Hispanic owned firms.
2008 – America elects it’s first black President, Barack Obama.
2010 – There are more than 60 race options, plus ethnicity on the census. About 3% of all Americans chose more than one racial category to describe themselves (9 million of about 309 million people).
2012 – Black business people owned approximately 2.6 million firms across the U.S. There were approximately 1.9 million Asian-owned firms nationally. There were 3.3 million hispanic owned U.S. firms.

From 2007 to 2012, black businesses increased 35%, Asian businesses increased 24%, Hispanic businesses increased 46%. over the same period, the overall number of U.S. firms only grew 2%.

3.5% of American adults (8.25 million people) identify as LGBT.
2013 – 10% of babies born in the U.S. were multiracial.
2015 – The number of blacks older than 25 that held a bachelor’s degree is 22.5%, Asians is 54%, and Hispanics is 16%.

The number of immigrants in the US is a record 43.2 million, comprising 13.4% of the population.

10% of married couples (11 million people) had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity. 18% of all unmarried couples who were living together had a partner of a different race or ethnicity.

The US Supreme Court legalizes same sex marriage in all 50 states.
2016 – Almost 20% of voting members of the House and Senate are a racial or ethnic minority, the most diverse in history. Minorities account for 34% of the new members in both houses.


All of this is bad news for Trump supporters who want to Make America Great Again. Seeing as how the majority of them oppose this timeline of progress, looking at the timeline, it seems they would believe America was truly at it’s greatest from 1790 until 1960. Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore told us this already.

It’s also clear, looking at this timeline of progress, that the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama were fundamentally transformational in our nation’s history. As we celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday, Trumpists should remmeber the quote he popularized that probably originated from the sermons of Theodore Parker in 1853 and realize there is no stopping what they want to stop:

Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

Debating White Nationalists and White Supremacists On Race in the 21st Century

debating white nationalists

I recently had an opportunity to participate in an Oxford style debate with some white nationalists and white supremacists. The resolution was in question form (no affirmative or negative, just an open question):

“How should Western societies deal with race and racial inequality in the 21st century?”

The general format was as follows:

Section 1: 10 minutes for each person to answer the question without interruption. Additional time will be reserved for subsequent sections.

Section 2: 30 minutes for cross examination, where you can ask each other questions, raise objections and challenges. I will only contribute points of order here. Additional time will be reserved for subsequent sections.

Section 3: 30 minutes for question and answers, where I read from the live chat and ask my own questions.

Section 4: 5 minute summaries, to sum up your argument

Total : 1.5 hours
After the debate, the floor was open to discuss what was previously debated. Once again, thank you to the Modern Distributist for providing the forum.

What I Learned Debating White Nationalists and White Supremacists

In debating white nationalists and white supremacists in this format, I found many were advocates of racial realism or a belief that races are genetically inferior to other races and are predisposed to violence, certain levels of academic achievement etc. This belief has led to the irrational fears that result in electing the inexperienced into crafting policy, and justification of the resulting incompetence. Michael Harriot encapsulates everything I learned from this experience. Essentially, a lot of white people feel they must have as many guns as possible because they are under attack. How are they under attack?

Crime and Terrorism

The chances of an American dying by a terrorist act is 1 in 20 million, but we have to watch out for terrorists (read Muslims) because of what extremists in their religion believe. I was sure to point out in debating these white nationalists and white supremacists that 84% of white people are killed by other white people and there is no group that kills more children and elderly than white people. Still, society must beware the black man who will murder you and then have his way with your wife.


Immigration (read Mexicans) ties into this as well. While an estimated 5.8 million unauthorized Mexicans lived in the U.S. in 2014, 5.3 million illegal immigrants are from other places. Of those 11 million people, an estimated 8 million have jobs. Statistically, the Mexican unemployment rate is lower than the black unemployment rate. To be fair, many of these jobs are low-paying and require very little training or education, which makes it perplexing why people think Mexicans are taking all the jobs. Also, the same Bureau of Justice statistics that show poor whites and poor blacks commit crime at the same rate also point out that poor Latinos commit crime at lower rates.

Voter Fraud

The Washington Post examined 14 years of ballots and found 241 incidents of voter fraud out of 1 billion votes. During the same period of time, law-enforcement officers shot and killed more than 3,000 men of color. In-person voter fraud is rarer than a black man raping a white woman while a terrorist opens the door for Obama to confiscate their guns.
However, if you only want white people to vote, one of the biggest tools in accomplishing this goal is restricting voting rights. As if reducing the number of polling places, decreasing the number of days for early voting and making it harder to vote via mail isn’t enough, the biggest tool is the institution of voter-identification laws.

White Hate

This is the ultimate white fear. It is the seed from which all other Caucasian conspiracies germinate. According to them, white people are becoming the enemy. White men are being marginalized by women and people of color.
Any group of people that controls every branch of the federal government, 46 of the 50 state governorships, 99 percent of the banks, 495 of the Fortune 500 companies, every television network, movie company, six of the seven major music companies and every single lawmaking body in the country, but still fears and complains about the decline of the country they control, will never, ever have a rational, fact-based conversation.
I would not call the debate a waste of time, but it confirmed a lot of things I already knew. A large swath of white people are scared and they have no real reason to be.

Startup Tips for Foreign Building Contractors New to the US


In recent years there have been several countries buying up real estate in the United States, many as mere investment properties meant to be held and sold at a later date when the market picks up again. Other parcels were grabbed to develop. These foreign investors are often interested in working with contractors from “back home” who understand their way of doing business and who have experience working on the types of constructions the investor would like to have built. Whether you are affiliated with a real estate investor or are simply looking to work as a building contractor in the US, the following tips may help you.

Foreign Building Contractors

If you are a foreign building contractor negotiating and making a bid on the project, it just might be possible to get approval to open your corporation here in the United States. Since the early 1990s there has been legislation in effect that encourages foreign investors who are interested in starting companies in the United States. This is in an effort to grow the economy here, but there are guidelines that must be followed when bringing in workers through immigrations. Attorneys like Hirson Immigration specialize in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program and they are the ones who can help you understand and abide by very precise legal requirements. Once that is seen to, it’s time to get help running a company in unfamiliar territory.

All Licenses Must Be in Order

Many times professional licenses are just the beginning of what you will need before you can open your doors to clients. However, this may be a huge step because of what the prerequisites for licensure may be. Some, if not all, require a degree or certificate authenticating educational requirements are met before issuing a Business License. Some credits are transferable and some certificates are recognized. Here again, you may need legal representation if there is any question as to exactly what you are licensed to do in your homeland.

Become Acquainted with Local Customs

When advising US citizens looking to bring their business to a foreign country, the first thing suggested is that they familiarize themselves with local customs. This goes to everything from advertising to customer communications to staff recruitment and even business operations. The same holds true for those immigrants setting up shop in the US. If you want to integrate smoothly into the community in which you will operate your business, get acquainted with local customs. Days off, hours of operation and the intricacies of customer service are each important ‘customs’ to understand and abide by.

Use Experienced Marketers to Announce Your Company

One important ‘tip’ is to make sure people know who you are, what you do and what areas you serve. As a construction contractor you may not want to go too far afield so it is vital to work with a marketing agency that understands your market area and how to reach the locals to get the word out that there is a new kid in town. You may have been asked to open a business stateside to work with a real estate investor from your home country, but chances are you will want to bring in other business as well. Marketing is key to your survival.

These are just basic tips to help you understand that doing business in a new land is always going to present a few obstacles that you will need to overcome. They may be big when it comes to licensing but when it comes to bringing your staff over legally and understanding tax laws, good attorneys can pave the way quite quickly and have your doors open in no time flat. Really, the only thing left to say is welcome to America and good luck on your endeavor!

Two Sides Of The Same Coin In Both Primaries

two sides
Trump and Bernie are two sides of the same populist coin.

I have said for months now that Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin running in two different primaries, and have tailored their messages for those electorates. Apparently Ben Shapiro agrees with me, and highlights how they are so similar.

Two Sides Of The Same Coin

Trump is a billionaire businessman while Sanders is a career politician. Trump’s personal favorability is the lowest of all candidates while Sanders’ is the highest. How are they the same? Policy.
Both men represent the electorate’s desire for a powerful authority figure to fix everything using the power of government. They represent a reaction to the culture of the New York to Washington DC Acela corridor.
Trump and Sanders are both anti-establishment candidates who bash Wall Street, see trade as a zero sum game at which America is losing, want to do away with Obamacare in favor of a more universal system, and have pledged not to touch Medicare and Social Security. Trump has run on the basis of a uniquely strict anti-illegal immigration policy, Sanders has historically opposed immigration on the basis of driving down American wages. Both men opposed the Iraq War, and want to leave international threats to other players in the world.
The public’s reaction to these populists show a lack of understanding of our nation’s guiding principles. Neither candidate (nor their supporters) ever talks about the proper role of government; rather, how they’ll increase its power to use it for their own purposes. Trump and Sanders are not beholden to laws, the Constitution, checks and balances etc. and their supporters want it that way.
They are both overwhelmingly supported by the Participation Trophy Generation (of which I am a member) whom apparently are in want of a monarch. The lack of education on American principles is evident in the massive support for both candidates. A big slice of the electorate embraces vague promises and pronouncements as though they were real policy. And they do so without the least knowledge of what the impact of those promises and pronouncements would really mean if implemented. It actually isn’t about governing or legislating, but about feeling good.
Trump’s supporters know he won’t change the nature of corrupt government (his supporters’ label), but he will be the singular authoritarian solution to the problems of their lives. They believe it takes a power broker to stop the power brokers.
Sanders’ supporters also object to corrupt government (his supporters’ label), but their answer is more government. They think the government is bought and paid for by outside parties, and they want an “honest”, democratic socialist dictator type in charge to clean house.

None Of It Makes Any Sense

Both followers hate “the establishment” but yet both Trump and Sanders are members. Trumo is the quintessential establishment personality. He is a billionaire playboy who wines and dines with the establishment, is liked by the establishment, will do deals with the establishment, has given money to the establishment, can’t make any money without the establishment, and owes billions to the establishment.
Ed Krayewski notes how Sanders joined a political party he was critical of for decades for fundraising and data acquisition purposes. Sanders caucuses with Democrats and has not faced a Democratic opponent in a general election since Larry Drown in 2004. Sanders and Clinton voted the same way 93 percent of the time.
More importantly, despite Sanders’ rhetoric, he has had more money spent on him by Super PACs than any other Democratic candidate this cycle, with the super PAC for just one labor union spending nearly $1 million so far. These unions represent part of the Democratic establishment as much as any of the endorsers Clinton has collected. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling permitted labor unions as well as companies to spend on political campaigning.
Unfortunately, one accomplishes nothing when they best fools. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it, but those who do understand history are doomed to sit helplessly and watch as others repeat it. Not this liberal-progressive. The greatest irony is in liberals voting for redistributive principles of Sanders, but are outraged when delegates get redistributed. Is anyone paying attention to what’s happening, or is it just emotion and feelings?

Why The GOP Desperately Needs The Latino Vote To Win

latino vote
Drug dealers and rapists?

In both 2008 and 2012, President Barack Obama lost the white working-class vote to John McCain and Mitt Romney while still winning the election. Since 1980, the white vote has declined by 18 percentage points, from 88% of the vote in 1980 to 70% of the vote in 2012. On that basis alone, Reagan would have lost to Obama in 2012.
Many on the left are hypocritical when it comes to issues of race, and there is unfortunately a double-standard in both politics and the culture wars. If we are honest though there has always been hypocrisy and double-standards on both sides of the aisle. The problem for conservatives, the right, and the GOP in general is that socially, we have trended left over the past few decades which has translated into social conservatives feeling persecuted.

Latino Immigration

Since 1980, every Republican who won the White House attained between 30-40% of the Latino vote (Reagan, Bush I & Bush II). Every Republican who lost only received 21-31% (Bush I, McCain, & Romney). The Republicans who did best among Latinos were Reagan & Bush II, the former got 35% and later 37% and the latter got 35% and later 40%. The first passed amnesty & the second one tried.
The Latino demographic is the second largest in the nation and the fastest growing. Many of Latinos are born & raised in the US, and have grandparents or parents that used to be illegals and were made legal by Reagan’s Amnesty in 1986.
Many others have grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters and other family that is still illegal. Many of those that don’t have had friends or even lovers that were illegal or are married to such.
Waving the “Mexican hordes” flag or pushing laws against illegal immigrants like Pete Wilson did and later Mitt Romney only angers and causes Latinos to close ranks, register to vote, and then give said votes to Democrats.


There are certainly Latinos who received Reagan’s amnesty that don’t want another amnesty. This reminds me of those who benefitted from affirmative action or FAFSA who now want it ended. For a variety of reasons, their views changed. Obviously, Latinos are not a monolithic bloc, though the tone used about the subject of illegal immigration turns off many who would consider voting Republican.
The GOP has lost not just the Hispanic vote, the black vote, the women’s vote, and the youth vote, but also the Asian vote. A majority of Asians likewise support comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, there are over 1.3 million undocumented Asians in the U.S.
What seems to matter is tone and a willingness to accept at least those inside the country already being productive workers and students, and raising families. This is the path Reagan and Bush II took getting enough of the Latino votes to serve two terms. Demonizing, demeaning, or threatening to deport their grandparents, parents, siblings, children, spouses, or lovers and the GOP can forget about the White House.

Shocker! Wealthy Conservative Says Racist Things

Donald Trump’s racist comments against Mexican immigrants caused him to surge in the GOP polls.


When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

– Donald Trump
To be clear, he didn’t say *all* Mexican immigrants are rapists. They’re drug dealers and criminals, too. Oh, and “some”, he assumes, “are good people”. Not exactly the kind of statement a candidate makes if he’s trying to win over Mexican-American voters, is it?


Defending these comments from Donald Trump doesn’t make it easier for the rest of us to separate them from bigoted racists. While some may not consider his comments to be racist, a lot of people do. That’s not necessarily a problem if prominent conservatives Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump and his comments. If, on the other hand, they’re going out of their way to defend Trump and his comments, like Ted Cruz has, it doesn’t make it easier to separate conservatism from racism.
Starting no later than the 1964 Republican national convention and Nixon’s “Southern strategy”, Republicans as a party and conservatives as a movement have been associated with racism in American politics. Defending the likes of Donald Trump is, in my view, no way to change that. This assumes, of course, that people want to both acknowledge and change it.
Again, this isn’t a problem if prominent conservative Republicans don’t mind being associated with bigoted and racist views. But if they’d prefer not to be associated with them, then it’s a problem. Note that I haven’t called Trump a racist nor a bigot; rather, that his remarks were racist and bigoted. I don’t have any way of knowing what’s in the man’s heart.

Racism and Immigration

There’s a good body of evidence amassed over many years now that immigrants, with or without papers, commit violent crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens. That seems like something Mr. Trump should both know, and take into account if he wants to be president.
The first African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic American and Native American US senators all were Republicans. A party with that history isn’t forever doomed to winning somewhere between 5% and 30% of the votes cast by those voters. But defending Trump’s comments doesn’t make it any easier for the only major conservative party in the country to win those votes.
What makes this all the more mind-boggling is that Trump is not going to be the Republican party’s presidential candidate in 2016 any more than Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann were in 2012. Why defend him?

Looks Like A Bush: Jeb! Is In

John Ellis Bush is running for president.

The Republican “autopsy” after the 2012 election suggested Mitt Romney’s line about self-deportation was his downfall. It was recommended that the GOP promote more Hispanic immigration as well as the standard pro-business agenda. Additionally, Romney’s background, demeanor and secretly taped comment about the 47% signaled to America’s working and middle class that a President Romney would do nothing to improve their condition.


Acknowledging the fervor and rancor of the conservative base on these contentious issues, Jeb Bush said at the outset of his run for President that he’d be willing to lose the primary to win the general. While conventional political wisdom says to secure the base and expand your coalition from there, I think he can win the primary without the base. Open primaries allow Democrats and Republicans to vote in primary elections, and per usual, many other candidates are diluting the conservative vote. That’s what Jeb’s counting on.
It’s clear Jeb has interpreted the results of 2012 to indicate that social conservatives are an obstacle in the nomination contest and a liability in the general election. Strong opposition to Jeb’s positions on immigration and education standards will have to be overcome. He starts his campaign on defense with the right, not offense. The question for Jeb is whether it’s a major conceptual problem within the GOP to see the base as a political burden.

Immigration and Common Core

Jeb’s positions on Common Core and immigration are not a reaction to the Obama presidency. In 2000, the conservative base was not nearly as hostile to Latinos as they were deranged by Clinton’s success. W ran as a “conservative” but had a similar immigration philosophy to Jeb’s, only less personal (Jeb’s wife is Latino). Both Bushes have promoted school standards and state leadership in education, but W nationalized education further by No Child Left Behind, and he tried to force the right into an immigration compromise.
Now 10 years later, although everyone hates the status quo, the conservative base distrusts any immigration reform. Worse, Jeb’s governor led educational standards movement has been nationalized by President Obama making it anathema to the conservative base. Both issues have left Jeb having to react to the base on issues that W did not have to deal with prior to his 2000 election. I still think he wins the nomination though as he is a fundraising dynamo.

The NRA and Iggy Azalea: Where Are You?

Where is the NRA while with their usual message of the need of people to arm themselves against an overzealous government? We’re getting Cliven Bundied except it’s not cattle and acres. Our transgressions are cigars and cigarettes, ironically staples in communities they see very little benefit from other than smooth, mentholly goodness.
Now Bundy threatened violence against federal officials after they attempted to execute court orders to confiscate and sell cattle to pay off the more than $1 million he owes the public. He attracted armed civilians, militia extremists, 2nd amendment warrior types whom descended upon Bundy’s ranch, triggering an armed standoff with the government which they then stopped for fearing an outbreak of violence. People cheered for that.
Well we need you guys now. Where are you? Garner and Brown “broke the law” (allegedly) as did Bundy. They tried to take Bundy’s cattle. You were there to support him. They shot Garner and Brown dead. Where is your presence at the protests? A statement of support perhaps? Anything?

Iggy Azalea

I know not of the music of young Amethyst Amelia Kelly, but I respect the hell out of immigrants outside of the process who did what it took to make it over here, and can sell records in an era when you can’t sell records. However, if it’s not our musical guests from the show, I honestly don’t have the time to search for jewels amongst entire catalogues like I used to. I usually lean on the top 30 downloads on ohhla.com for relevancy, and she has been at the top. I’m good on it, but that is not unique to most of the top 30 nowadays.
From what I can gather, Amethyst’s style is very south all in the package of 5’10, blonde hair, blue eyed model package. T.I has cosigned, so legitimacy has been bestowed upon her act. I’m good with that. I’m also good with not commenting on issues for the purposes of not offending a base or potential base of customers. That’s capitalism. Cultural appropriation is another topic for another time; however, when called out by fellow rapper Azaelia Banks, Iggy’s response was tone def and oblivious as she claimed “all hell broke loose” and the need for “a new game plan”. She then pivoted to this.

Come on. If you casually dismiss these events that have obviously impacted both the demographic of those buying your albums and going to your concerts, not only does it show an incredible amount of ignorance, but also a lack of understanding of your audience. Furthermore, those with platforms should understand the impact or lack thereof they can have on events. Banks, to her credit has posted this as I write this piece that made me laugh out loud.

Why Executive Action on Immigration?

executive action
As American as apple pie.

On Thursday, the President took Executive Action on immigration that, according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), calls for:
1) Expanding the population eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to young people who came to this country before turning 16 years old and have been present since January 1, 2010, and extending the period of DACA and work authorization from two years to three years
2) Allowing parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have been present in the country since January 1, 2010, to request deferred action and employment authorization for three years, in a new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program, provided they pass required background checks.
3) Expanding the use of provisional waivers of unlawful presence to include the spouses and sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents and the sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.
4) Modernizing, improving and clarifying immigrant and nonimmigrant programs to grow our economy and create jobs.
5) Promoting citizenship education and public awareness for lawful permanent residents and providing an option for naturalization applicants to use credit cards to pay the application fee.

From what I can see, the President has three legitimate reasons for initiating this Executive Action.


Budgetary constraints preclude the enforcement of federal law. Public administrators have to make judgments about the most efficient use of resources in an environment where scarcity is the norm. All enforcement measures can’t be taken, and all cases can’t go to trial. Deportation deferrals are a reflection of reasonable and permissible enforcement priorities on immigration.


Part of the policy in the action is known technically as “deferred enforced departure” (DED). Those who are granted DED have a “quasi-legal” status. It covers some but not all of the 5 million whose status is in question, and carries work authorization. Previous presidents have granted DED on a class-wide basis on numerous occasions.

Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutorial discretion is one of the president’s affirmative authorities and is rooted in the text of the Constitution. While its primary sphere of operation is in criminal law, there is no precedent that says it can’t be applied in civil law.
In Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) the Supreme Court ruled that an executive’s choice of inaction, even if unconstitutional, is outside of the court’s reach. Additionally, the court stated they would only reserve judgment on the category of non-enforcement decisions that were so sweeping that they amounted to an abdication of the executive’s responsibilities. I don’t see how a prioritization of enforcement policy by the executive can amount to abdication of responsibility though I am sure a credible argument will be made eventually.

Palestine: Part 4 – Post WWI

Palestine: Part 3 – World War 1

Post WWI

After the defeat and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by European colonial powers in 1918, the League of Nations (first intergovernmental organization founded as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War whose principal mission was to maintain world peace) endorsed the full text of the Balfour Declaration and established the British Mandate for Palestine. At this time, Zionist priorities were encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestine, building the institutional foundations of a Jewish state and raising funds for these purposes. The 1920s saw a steady growth in the Jewish population and the construction of state-like Jewish institutions, but also saw the emergence of Palestinian Arab nationalism and growing resistance to Jewish immigration.
Arab nationalists predominantly perceived Zionism as a threat to their own aspirations. This sense was heightened, by the growth of the Zionist labor movement and its “Hebrew labor” program. The latter was an effort to increase Jewish immigrant employment, secure the creation of a Jewish proletariat, and to prevent Zionist settlement from turning into a standard colonial enterprise. Initially, it sought to develop separate settlements and economies and campaigned for the exclusive employment of Jews; it later campaigned against the employment of Arabs. Its adverse effects on the Arab majority were increasingly noted by the mandatory administration.
After the signing of the Faisel-Weizmann agreement in 1919 (a short-lived agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East), Palestinian Arabs who originally looked to Arab-nationalist leaders to create a single Arab state, developed their own brand of nationalism and call for Palestine to become a state governed by the Arab majority, in particular they demanded an elected assembly.

1920 Jerusalem Riots

Speeches by Arab religious leaders during the Nebi Musa festival (in which large numbers of Muslims traditionally gathered for a religious procession) led to violent assaults on the city’s Jews. Five Jews and four Arabs were killed, and several hundreds were injured.
The British military administration of Palestine was criticized for withdrawing troops from inside Jerusalem and because it was slow to regain control. As a result of the riots, trust between the British, Jews, and Arabs eroded. The Jewish community increased moves towards an autonomous infrastructure and security apparatus parallel to that of the British administration. At the same time, Zionist supporters were by now aware of Arab opposition which led to the movement in 1921 to pass a motion calling on Zionist leadership to “forge a true understanding with the Arab nation”.


During the 1920s concerns about antisemitism increased across Europe. By 1928, nations were increasingly legislating immigration, which at times prevented Jews from entering, and some of the new European states, established after the First World War, perceived Jewish immigrants as a threat to their political stability. Many countries feared that immigrating Jews from the east would bring revolutionary political ideas with them; Jews were also perceived as being a negative moral influence on society.

Hitler and the Nazi Party In Germany

The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933 produced a powerful new impetus for increased Zionist support and immigration to Palestine. The long-held assimilationist and non-Zionist view that Jews could live securely as minorities in European societies had been undermined, since Germany was previously regarded as the country in which Jews had been most successfully integrated. With nearly all other countries closed to Jewish immigration, a new wave of migrants headed for Palestine. Those unable to pay the fees required for immediate entry by the British had to join the waiting lists.
Nazi efforts to induce Jews to leave Germany were made, but were undermined by their refusal to allow them to take their property also. In response, the Jewish Agency negotiated the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis, whereby German Jews could buy and then export German manufactured goods to Palestine. In Palestine the goods were later sold and the income returned to the migrants. As a result of this agreement, the influx of capital gave a much-needed economic boost in the midst of the Great Depression.

Illegal Migration

Starting in 1934, the Revisionists (faction within the Zionist movement providing the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel) also began organizing illegal immigration, resulting in a rapid increase in population of Jews in Palestine. While conditions also led to increased Arab immigration, the rapid rise in Jewish immigrants would eventually lead to conflict. By 1938, increasing pressure on European Jews also led mainstream Zionists to organize illegal immigration.
Palestine: Part 5 – Religious Conflict