Another of the whines (Kvetches) from the eternal ingrates is that nations would not let them immigrate to their countries. If they were to leave it there they would have a hard time of making their case. But they always have to go one step further and say it was because of antisemitism. Why is it these people always have to push things too far?

     To make this case they ignore many of the well known facts from "column C." One fact is that most countries did not permit immigration or only very limited immigration. Another fact they ignore is that where there was an immigration policy it was by nationality not by ethnicity or religion. And they further ignore there were procedures to follow for entry and that there were quotas.

     Particularly they like to single out the US while ignoring the fact that US immigration law was based upon national origin and that there were also procedures and quotas. And they ignore they were not following those procedures nor were there quotas for them just for them. And in the pre-war years they were trying to get in, the US had enough problems helping its own people through the Depression.

     And you can challenge them to find even one immigration law against Jews entering the US. When they find they can not you think you have made some progress. But alas, the next day they have repented their loss of faith and come back claiming US immigration policy was antisemitic. There is something very abnormal about these people.

     One of the first things to realize about immigration policy in those days in the entire world, in fact not changed until the US started taking in political refugees from communist countries, was that there was no such thing as refugee status. Nothing like it, period.

     Even a cursory knowledge of the above and a quick review of immigration laws will confirm my points shows that immigration policies could not possibly have been antisemitic. And the absense of any policy to accept refugees in those days confirms immigration policies were not antisemitic.

     But if you listen we have people who are obviously ignorant of immigration policies in those days are telling us it was antisemitic. If they are not ignorant, then they are either knowingly lying or they are exhibiting that horrible brain disease that afflicts holohuggers.

     Now if one is ignorant it behooves that person to educate himself before speaking or to remain silent. It is the height of chutzpah (yiddish for rudeness, incivility, obnoxiousness) to make a claim about immigration when they themselves know they know nothing about immigration. It is part of their religion to eschew knowledge and recite from emotion.

     There is hardly a country in the world that does not suffer this abusive, ignorant claim. It may have been true in a very few countries. But in all my listening to all the countries named, not once has a law specifically prohibiting Jews from entering has been named.

     Do they have to name a law? From their clearly malicious assertions where I do know that law, yes, they have to establish their credibility. Just being a member of the world's most practiced sufferers does not save them from being mendicants. Nor does is it antisemitic to name them such as it is the truth and the truth can not be antisemitic.