Los Angeles is becoming a “Third World city” with immigrants making up half its workforce, says a new study. A third of immigrants have not graduated from high school and 60 per cent do not speak English fluently, the Migration Policy Institute [they mean the National Center on Immigrant Integration - Ed] found.
It said this left immigrants ill-equipped to fill California’s fastest-growing occupations, such as computer software engineering and nursing. The organisation added that as the so-called baby boomers reach retirement age, a similar pattern will spread across the US.
Ernesto Cortes Jr, of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a think-tank that specialises on social change, claimed Los Angeles was at a crossroads.
“The question is are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and most on near poverty wages?” he said.
Lynn and Vanhanen already have the answer to that. But, then, so have we. It seems that the only people who haven’t are sitting in government offices.
As one of these, the NCII cleaves unquestioningly to the official line. It’s LA report (pdf) is a typical government document, full of the presumption of men who are not paid to think. The word gang does not appear in it. Nor does the word crime. Nor does the word trust. There are only challenges. Lots of them. As in ..
… Los Angeles is not only on the leading edge due to demographic change, it is also on the leading edge of the many unresolved immigrant integration issues facing our nation and the cities and states where immigrants now reside. The future vitality of the Los Angeles economy and the body politic depends on immigrants and their children - and on the investments made in integrating them into the mainstream of civic life and the economy.
And there are opportunities, too. As in ...
As it engages and responds to the opportunities and challenges these trends present, Los Angeles is illuminating the path for other localities and policymakers at all levels of government who are beginning to grapple with the imperative of immigrant integration and the ad hoc nature of most responses so far.
and, my favourite ...
A strategy that builds on demography and catalyzes informed engagement of immigrants and other stakeholders could create the energy and focus needed to address the challenges and opportunities posed by integration issues, and, at the same time, build a vibrant and more cohesive Los Angeles community.
What this report really says in its 74 windy and repetitive pages can be reduced to one sentence ...
The government machine is institutionally incapable of absorbing evidence contrary to its foundational belief in the imminence of the multiracial paradise.
That’s it. There isn’t any more.
Ironically, the degree to which the collapse of trust and racial balkanisation can be countered is the degree to which LA eventually becomes a Mexican city. It might be pretty quick - the report states that in 2000, 36% of the LA population was foreign born, but 55% of the children were second generation.
During my first faculty meeting at the Middle Eastern university where I recently taught, one of the female teachers expressed her unhappiness that the faculty was not freely associating with her.
This female teacher was wearing a black abaya covering her body, a black shela covering her hair, and an impenetrable black veil covering her entire face. She was not wearing gloves so it was possible to see that she had a dark African complexion. Her English was clear and native to either Canada or the United States
Here are two video reports on immigrant Africans’ perfectly shameless demand for racial integration in Ireland, and the response from Ireland’s very modern politicians. All at once it’s tardy, piecemeal, submissive and just plain ethno-masochistic.
The first video documents an African immigrant demonstration outside the Dáil. Speakers from the political forces opposed to, one must suppose, the callous, head-in-the-sand policies of the Irish government included some nameless old lady who must be the light and life of Residents Against Racism, Ciaran Cuff of the Green Party, Seamus Healey (described as an Independent), Joe Costello of Labour, Arthur Morgan of Sinn Fein and his party president Gerry Adams.
The second video is an Al-Jezeera report on the Irish government’s tardy response to the integration and, specifically, education issues. It features an Emergency School in north Dublin set up by an uncharitable body of unCatholic, school-building Marxists named Educate Together. Ninety-five per cent of the children in the Emergency School are black, bro.
Actually, that should be brá. But there’ll be no lilting brogue for lil Obi unless the damned, racist Dubliners can understand how happy diversity will make them. Educate Together says that they will. Galloping secularism is the key. In a country where 98% of the schools are Catholic, the 48% of parents that are non-Catholic or non-practising Catholic have no condign educational choices open to them. As so often, it’s the clever traitors who spot the gap in the market. Educate Together has applied to open twenty new schools in the next year alone, and fully, naively expects its green, green la-la land to materialise and the rainbow peeps to skip happily over the peat bog and far away.
Among the talking heads in this second video is a gentleman named Jeanne-Pierre Eyanga Ekumeluko from Congo. Sorry, make that Integrating Ireland. He is sufficiently unsubtle in his pleading “to be one” with the good citizens of Dublin that he promises them another Clichy-sur-Bois experience if said oneness is delayed. But that would only be the fault of the damned, racist Dubliners, of course.
What are Ron Paul’s ideas to reduce the number of illegal immigrants? 1) Oppose amnesty; 2) cut welfare benefits; and, 3) reform the immigration laws and allow up to 60 million more immigrants legally into our country. Did you catch that? Yes, 60 million more Hispanics, Arabs, Eastern Europeans and Asians who can enter our country and live here legally without fear of police harassment or predatory business practices. Now that is a solution I can work with.
If this is indeed Ron Paul’s opinion, I would like to ask him a series of questions.
Firstly, would he say that the land which currently comprises the USA morally belongs to: a. the people of America; b. the US Federal government; c. the whole world; or d. the Mexicans?
Secondly, if the answer to the first question is anything other than a., in what sense is that consistent with libertarian beliefs about people having the unquestionable right to their justly acquired property?
If, on the other hand, the answer is a., I would like to know how forcing the American people to accommodate, on what is morally their property, 60 million strangers they have no wish to have anything to do with is consistent with libertarian beliefs about freedom of association? Does one no longer have the right even to decide with whom to associate on one’s own property?
I would furthermore like to know why Ron Paul believes that an unwanted minority, only in the US because of government indifference to who the moral holders of a property think should be let in to this property, would in any way support libertarian initiatives.
If, as I suspect, these are not Ron Paul’s genuine views, then I would like to ask the same questions of whatever anti-property, anti-freedom anarcho-communist came up with this Kulturkampf-esque plan.
Addendum: The offending passage has now been removed. The questions should still be answered by whoever thought it right to associate such a position with libertarianism. However, I would like to add the further question of why LRC felt the need to ascribe a wholly fictitious position to Ron Paul.
Tonight, as the Environment Agency warns of a three-metre storm surge hitting the east coast, another unwelcome ingress is to be debated on a simultaneous BBC TV and radio broadcast. The Big Immigration Debate, a Newsnight/Radio 5 Live production, is to begin at 22.30 hrs GMT.
Which is NOW, more or less!
Mainstream politicos and the inevitable panel of “experts”, including the steadfast Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch, will answer ... all the wrong questions.
The first question is: Is immigration threatening British identity? A non-issue, since British identity does not exist. But a Newsnight poll reported 62% saying yes.
The principal issues to be discussed in the Debate are: the government’s handling of immigration; the economic benefits; the impact on public services, and on social cohesion.
The incorrigible John Standing sent Newsnight an e-mail asking “What will be the condition of the English people at the start of the 22nd Century?”
… a handy quick-reference guide to migrant integration policies in Europe. Using over 100 policy indicators it scores countries on six key dimensions of integration policy.
Policies are given a 1-3 score. A score of 3 signifies that a policy sets the most favourable conditions for migrant integration. Here best practice is defined by European Directives, Council of Europe Conventions and NGO proposals.
This, then, is a measure of government-sanctioned national suicide.
The six “key dimensions of integration policy are: long-term residence, nationality laws, discrimination laws, family reunion, labour market access, political rights. Taken together, they provide this snapshot of the “success” of the member countries of the European Union in changing their own people. Literally.
For the BBC, of course, the “success” of the British government - 9th place in the table - is not really good enough:-
Overall, researchers said that migrants living in the UK could face long delays to getting a permanent right to stay. But they added that once that wait was over, migrants did not face language tests or integration courses.
People seeking to take the final step and become a British citizen must pass a language course and take a test on British life.
The UK’s internationally-recognised policies to combat discrimination scored highly - but were also said to be weak because of poor enforcement.
The UK lost marks because of a specific law to strip nationality from immigrants - a measure used only once so far in relation to jailed radical cleric Abu Hamza.
The study found that settled migrants experienced mixed levels of political rights in the UK.
While they had recognisable political liberties, they had fewer rights to vote in national or local elections compared with other nations, despite being tax payers.
The UK was also criticised for not consulting specialist migrant bodies, unlike some other European nations.
Fjordman has upset some readers at the Gates of Vienna site with his admission that ethnicity, culture, religion and race matter. (The Age of White Masochism, October 10, 2007)
I praise him for describing the members of the European genetic clustering of the Caucasian genetic clustering as white people.
He has not yet reached the point of discussing the adherents of the National Socialist German Workers Party and the party’s ideology beyond the blinkers of the indoctrination imposed by his Norwegian education.
As we all know, the disempowerment and disappearance of the white population is the objective of the European Union and the United States government and the Canadian government and the Australian government.
There is a slight glint of hope.
Fjordman has written an article that shows concern for white Norwegians as white Norwegians. He did not mention the mythical Judeo-Christian Civilization shibboleth. He expressed no lapdog of the Zionist sentiments. Extraordinary!
The Times - and, from a cursory on-line inspection, only The Times among mainstream nationals - is running a court report of the end of the trial of Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32. Described as being from only as far east as “east Lancashire”, the men were:-
each jailed for five years and eight months after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them.
Both men pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to abduction, sexual activity with a child and the supply of a controlled drug.
... Naveed, from Burnley, gave one girl the first of five Ecstasy tablets at a motorway service station before having sex with her on the back seat of the car while the group drove back to Lancashire. The court was told that the two men later took the girls to an address in Blackburn where Hussain, from Blackburn, had sex with the second girl and gave her a total of ten Ecstasy tablets.
The trial is interesting because Asian grooming - it’s not “Asian”, of course, but “Moslem” - has not been investigated with due vigour by the police or publicised by the media for all too predictable reasons. The only other time I can recall seeing a mainstream newspaper refer to it at all was in relation to Nick Griffin’s Reservoir Tavern speech, for which he was twice put through the courts. In The Times report today the BNP, which has presented bundles of evidence on Asian grooming to West Yorkshire Police, is not mentioned. “Womens groups” and the doughty Labour MP Ann Cryer are given the credit.
Here’s Cryer’s very partial understanding of what makes these men pimp English girls:-
Israel’s interior minister faces accusations of racism after he suggested suspending the policy of allowing Ethiopians with Jewish ancestry to move to the country.
While rabbinical authorities judge the so-called Falash Mura to be sufficiently Jewish to qualify for Israeli citizenship, Meir Sheetrit said they were not really Jewish and had been let in only because of “political correctness”.
In remarks that incensed the large Falasha community already in Israel, he implied that Ethiopians were fleecing the state by leaving the economic hardship of their birthplace and enjoying comfortable new lives in Israel.
Since the Cubans in the US are often sited as an American immigration/migration success story I thought I would review a book I’ve read called City On The Edge: The Transformation of Miami by Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick (published in 1993). The book is about all of the ethnic changes in Miami but I’ll concentrate on the Cubans – a majority of whom are considered ethnically European.
In this book the authors look at previous models used to examine migration to urban areas of the US such as those that conclude that new ethnic groups join the cultural mainstream – defined as white Anglo-Protestant – as they become more successful, and those that say ethnic groups do not acculturate and instead form a social mosaic under the hegemony a white Anglo-Protestant elite. Portes & Stepick argue that neither of these models is appropriate for Miami – at least not in 1993 – and that the social structure of the city does not fit into any familiar theoretical pattern.
Although people from various parts of Latin America and the Caribbean have gone to Miami in recent decades, the Cubans have had, by far, the greatest impact, radically transforming the city politically, culturally, and economically.
The radicalization of the Cuban Revolution was the key event which led to the mass exodus from the island. During the first wave of mass migration , January 1959 to April 1961, some 135,000 Cubans arrived in the US. Even after it became almost impossible to get visas, a steady stream continued to escape from Cuba until December 1965 when 5000 flooded into Miami following Castro’s decision to allow relatives of exiles to leave. This led to an understanding between the US and Cuban governments to allow two daily flights of refugees to Miami resulting in 340,000 by April 1973, when Castro stopped the flights.
Portes & Stepick believe the US government agreed to this not only to prevent the problems that a sudden and massive flood of refugees would cause, but also for political reasons: the daily flights of people wanting out of Cuba were a public indictment of Caribbean communism. It is unlikely that economics figured greatly in the decision to allow in so many Cubans as thos arriving in the daily flights were not as well educated as previous refugees from the island. Before 1970 about 15% of the exiles in the US were professionals whearea a representative sample of those arriving in 1973 showed that only 4.8% were professionals.
The third wave of Cuban refugees arrived during the Mariel boatlift, and these were even less educated. Not only that but many were criminals and a much greater proportion were non-white. The authors argue that the US government reacted to Mariel out of fear of alienating Cuban voters rather than for economic reasons.
Andrew O’Hagan is upset at Margaret Hodge’s suggestion that council housing should be prioritised for the UK’s “indigenous” (direct quote) communities. What he has to say about why this is such an awful idea, however, is just the usual anarcho-communist tripe about how there’s no such thing as property and how we have to give up everything we own to every passing stranger.
I feel it is worth pondering the question as you go about trying to understand the latest statement by Margaret Hodge on the question of immigrants and public housing. Mrs Hodge is not only a serving Labour minister, but also used to be called Margaret Oppenheimer - German father, Austrian mother - and she once came from her birthplace of Egypt to a rather more welcoming Britain than the one she partly presides over now.
Yet no mere biography or guiding empathy was allowed to stand in the way of Mrs Hodge’s cringing polemic this week against those who would seek to make a life in Britain. It was nauseatingly worded, in an article for the Observer, so as to seem fair to all parties, but nobody is fooled: Mrs Hodge wants to stop foreigners from taking our houses.
Is O’Hagan suggesting that Hodge should automatically take the side of immigrants, against the interests of the nation as a whole, because she is an immigrant herself? This is the sort of reductionism that sees some WN groups label all immigrants “enemies within”. O’Hagan agrees, but instead chooses to celebrate such treachery as Mrs. Hodge’s liberal duty as an immigrant.
She hasn’t the courage to present the matter so frankly, but this is what she means, and her idea is completely divisive. If she wanted to create trouble among the poor house-seeking classes in this country, she could not have done better, for at a stroke, she has radicalised the issue of social housing as being a hierarchy of entitlement -working-class Britons versus opportunity-seeking outsiders - in a way that would have been beneath most politicians this side of Oswald Mosley. It might well be that Mrs Hodge is too attached to her own brand of opportunism to see how reactionary her statement was, but, if fires were lighted in the streets of Barking tonight, I’d say she had provided the spark.
No, what would have provided the spark wouldn’t have been her speech - unless we believe that nativist groups are likely to take her as some sort of a leader - but the inequity which Mrs. Hodge has highlighted.
Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham no less (actually Mizpur, Pakistan but no matter), has joined the big push for integration.
Labour’s leading Muslim peer reignited the row over the full-face veil on Tuesday by condemning its use as “defiance” of British values.
Lord Ahmed said that “the veil is now a mark of separation, segregation and defiance against mainstream British culture.
... They were supposed to be worn so that women would not be harassed. But my argument is that women, and communities as a whole, are now being harassed because they are wearing them. They are physical barriers to integration.
This is insulting. Alien people with a less than endearingreligious culture [video 48min] can’t just decide to “integrate”, and whether their women (and their terrorists) do or do not wear big black tents is completely immaterial. We possess the power of choice, in that we can choose who belongs with us and who doesn’t. The decision with Moslems appears to me to have been taken decades ago, and it isn’t goingto change.
I grant that if we were nothing more than the capacious cultural bag of Britishness, into which anything can be stuffed, Rotherham Sahib might have more of a point. But we are not. We are the English. That is, we are genetically of that Northern European sub-set identifiable as English. Britishness is only an elected, political thing, and it is dying fast.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that Rotherham Sahib is genetically Pakistani, with all that implies:-
"Guns plague Peckham despite investment” complains the headline from an article on the BBC website written in the aftermath of a mini-catalogue of black violence in SE London.
The dilapidated flats might be gone, but the criminals who lurked have not - they just got younger.
Seven years after the death of 10-year-old Damilola Taylor in a stairwell in the North Peckham estate in south-east London, violence still plagues the area.
Replacing rows of rundown high-rise flats and maisonettes are 2,000 new homes, a new sports centre, a new leisure centre and award-winning library, thanks to a £290m regeneration investment.
Peckham, which has tried much to shake off its mean streets image in the last decade, has once again hit the headlines because of acts of violence.
The acts of violence have involved two fatalshootings and a stabbing, all performed with the tell-tale heedlessness of the black gang-killer. The familiar press references to the Met’s Operation Trident complete the picture.
That BBC headline has about it the melancholy of inevitability. For the Establishment hand-wringers, the investment-mongers, the blank-slate idealists this is bad, bad news. An awful suspicion hangs in the air. Can nothing break the black attachment to mayhem? I mean, if building them an award-winning new library and even filling the Bellendon area with posh street art by Zandra Rhodes and Anthony Gormley doesn’t transform them all into model citizens, what more will it take?
Last week watching CNN, there was a story about a small town in Texas where historically the minority was Black, but now Mexicans are moving in, outnumbering the Blacks, and forcing Blacks out of jobs. The usual response is that Mexicans (and Hispanics in general) are hard working. The assumption must then be that Blacks are lazy, but that is never mentioned. For years, those of us on the Right knew that eventually there would be conflict over jobs between Blacks and Hispanics, but the minority leadership was staunch in trying to keep “people of color” united against Whites.
I suppose, according to the logic I’ve often had used against me by antis, Europeans (Anglo-Saxons in particular) are superior to the Japanese, and Japan would be better off filled with non-Japanese (particularly Anglo-Saxons and other Europeans).
Noshir Gowadia has been charged with selling our stealth aircraft technology and God knows what else to the Chinese, the Israelis, the Germans, and the Swiss:
The Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, has told African and European government ministers that they must accept high levels of cross-border migration.
Mr Gaddafi told ministers gathered for a conference on migration from Africa to the EU that resisting migration “is like rowing against the stream”.
“The current populations of the world are originally migrants.”
... “Political borders, official papers and identities set for every group of people are new, artificial things not recognised by nature.
“Land is the property of everyone, and God commands all human beings to migrate on Earth to seek a living, which is their right,” he said.
From an amazing BBC News report on the EU-Africa Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development Issues, which wound up today in nice Muammar’s capital. Do you think nice Muammar means that the land of his Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya belongs to me?
Probably not.
Muammar doesn’t see things that way. Indeed, this Conference was devoted wholly to expressing the “African position” on migration and development. And the issues that interest African leaders are:-
1) The unimpeded flow of successful migrants’ remittances,
2) A European focus from a human rights perspective,
3) European investment in Africa to counter the effects of the “brain drain”!
In a nutshell: take our people, send us your cash.
The Conference blurb announced that the pre-Conference experts’ meeting would:-
… bring together migration experts from African countries and the EU, the Permanent Representatives’ Council (PRC) of the AU, the RECs, the AU Commission, the European Commission, and a restricted number of institutions of the United Nations system, international organizations and NGOs specialized in migration and development issues.
No surprise, then, that these shindigs crop up pretty regularly ... like just last July. And absolutely no surprise that the rights and interests of the native peoples (and tax-payers) of Europe go unvoiced by any of these soulless transnationals.
One of the toughest nuts for WN in America to crack is the pervasive and powerful idea of cultural assimilation. The tenacity with which Euro-Americans cling to the myth was demostrated conclusively today in Quinnipiac University’s nationwide poll of US voter attitudes on illegal immigration.
By a 69 - 27 percent margin, American voters say illegal immigrants should be allowed into a guest worker program with the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Republicans support the guest worker to citizenship path 66 - 31 percent, while Democrats back it 73 - 23 percent and independent voters back it 71 - 24 percent
It’s not that voters don’t understand the invasive nature of Mexican immigration:-
Building a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border is “enough for now,” 24 percent of voters say, but 71 percent say, “additional measures are needed from Congress to deal with illegal immigrants entering the country.”
... but once in the country the illegal has it all his own way. It’s interesting that sentiment against his employers, as expressed to the pollsters, runs strong. But the illegal himself is surrounded by some golden haze of mythic Americana. He is placed beyond punishment.
Looking at the subsidiary matters resolved in Arizona last week it is clear that actual experience of illegal Mexican immigrants produces a concrete change in attitude. But further afield, none of that counts for anything and the myth of assimilated America conquers all.
One in eight pupils at primary schools in England speaks English as a second language, official statistics show.
Government figures show 12.5% of primary pupils need extra assistance - up one percentage point on 2005.
In England’s secondary schools, 9.5% of pupils do not have English as their first language, up half a percentage point on the previous year.
There are now 419,600 pupils in primary schools who speak English as a second language and 314,950 in secondaries.
The figures also show the number of primary pupils classified as coming from minority ethnic groups increased from 19.3% in 2005 to 20.6% in 2006.
A similar trend was noted in secondary schools - 15.9% of pupils in 2005 were from minority ethnic groups, increasing to 16.8% in 2006.
For me, comment is superfluous. For da educashun brothas it is, I suspect, quite impossible.
One of the more extraordinary documents relating to immigration is an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies by the unusual figure Fredo Arias-King, a Harvard MBA, a Sovietologist, and an advisor to Vicente Fox during his 2000 Presidential campaign. He was the first to point out to me that Fox’s first Foreign Secretary, Jorge G. Castanea’s mother, a Soviet woman working a the UN, might have been a Soviet spy.
Working for Fox, Arias-King met with 80 members of the U.S. Congress , and discussed immigration in detail with 50. Of those, 90% were enthusiastic about boosting immigration from Mexico.
Liam Byrne is not precisely a household name. If asked, the typical man on the street would probably have the vague idea that the man is either a rock singer or a perma-tanned TV-presenter. He is neither, but the Byrne family shouldn’t breath a sigh of relief just yet, for he is infact Britain’s immigration minister and he has an idea of his own: a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I cannot imagine that he will get much opposition in Parliament. Dave Cameron has already informed us that he intends to commit his party to support for open borders. The Lib Dems… when did you last hear about the Lib Dems opposing any pro-immigrant measure (when did you last hear about the Lib Dems, for that matter)? The press will probably be similarly supportive, throwing out cliches about our duty to be “compassionate”, “tolerant” and so on.
No, the cry of dissent will come not from our democratic institutions, but from a rather more venerable source, ole’ reality itself. The Daily Mail reports:
It would take 30 years to build enough council houses for all the illegal immigrants in the country if the Government allowed them to stay, a report claims today.
...
The independent Migrationwatch think-tank warns that such an amnesty would cause chaos, as all successful asylum seekers are eligible for social housing.
Two asylum seeker families are now settling in Britain for every new council house built, the report adds.
Karlmagnus mentioned the Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn in a comment on John’s Polish Problem thread. Here is the Telegraph article that Rowthorn wrote:-
Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can’t cope
‘We recognise the positive contributions immigration makes to the country and the economy,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said last week. “If we don’t have migration, we don’t have the growth from the economy that we all benefit from.”
He was responding to some concerns about the rate of immigration raised by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead - but Downing Street’s claim that “if we don’t have immigration, we won’t have economic growth” has been stated over and over again since Labour took office in 1997.
If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government’s claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.
There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.
All is not at all well in the Netherlands. It’s centre-right government has just resigned
after growing tensions over its notoriously tough immigration minister, “Iron Rita” Verdonk.
Jan Peter Balkenende, the Prime Minister, visited Queen Beatrix this morning to tell her of his government’s decision to resign.
So, what momentous error or misdeed has brought this about? After all, the government won’t have resigned under its own steam- a significant number of parliamentarians, Uncivil Societarians and various other pontificatarians must have demanded it. They must have been agitated by something.
Well, that something was applying the law impartially, to the meek and to the mighty alike:
The resignation comes after he failed to heal rifts in his coalition over Ms Verdonk’s decision to strip Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born MP and world-renowned critic of Islam, of her passport.
...
They wanted to force her out of government for precipitously stripping Ms Hirsi Ali of her Dutch citizenship last month after a television documentary detailed how the Somali-born feminist lied about her family name when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands.
...
On Tuesday Ms Verdonk reversed her decision, restoring Ms Hirsi Ali’s citizenship but leaving her own political credibility in tatters.
