U.S. Should Ship Statue of Liberty Back to France

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org


Today’s America is a mockery of it. Lady Liberty weeps now. So, let’s ship her back from whence she came, and maybe Europeans will like the symbolism of it. After all: we got it from Europe, just like we got the immigrants from there.

Donald Trump might not be able to get Mexicans to pay for his wall that the U.S. is building to keep Mexicans out, but would Europeans pay to receive back this symbolic statue, which France gave to an America that deserved it, but that no longer does?

This monument for compassion, and against bigotry, is now merely a metaphorical sore thumb here, but maybe France would be happy to receive her back, and perhaps millions of Europeans will proudly pay to see her, touch her, and stand at her base, to welcome her back to Europe, which ironically consists of the same countries from which almost all of America’s immigrants used to come, before France had gifted the U.S. with Lady Liberty, back on 28 October 1886.

America’s Department of Homeland Security reports that, for the latest available data-year, 2015, the U.S. granted asylum to 69,920 people. By law since 2012, an annual limit had been established for refugees into the U.S.: 70,000.

During that same year in Europe, there were 1,322,825 applicants for asylum, and 69% of them were granted asylum.

Eurostat’s asylum statistics display vastly bigger figures than America’s, for the vast majority of the vastly smaller countries of Europe, as Eurostat described:

For first instance decisions, some 75% of all positive decisions in the EU-28 in 2015 resulted in grants of refugee status, while for final decisions the share was somewhat lower, at 69%. …

The highest share of positive first instance asylum decisions in 2015 was recorded in Bulgaria (91%), followed by Malta, Denmark and the Netherlands. Conversely, Latvia, Hungary and Poland recorded first instance rejection rates above 80%. …

The highest shares of final rejections were recorded in Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal where all final decisions were negative.

The number of first time asylum applicants in Germany increased from 173 thousand in 2014 to 442 thousand in 2015. … Hungary, Sweden and Austria also reported very large increases (all in excess of 50 thousand more first time asylum applicants) between 2014 and 2015. In relative terms, the largest increases in the number of first time applicants were recorded in Finland (over nine times as high), Hungary (over four times) and Austria (over three times), while Belgium, Spain, Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland and Sweden all reported that their number of first time asylum applicants more than doubled. By contrast, Romania, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Latvia reported fewer first time asylum applicants in 2015 than in 2014.

Germany’s share of the EU-28 total rose from 31% in 2014, to 35% in 2015, while other EU Member States that recorded a notable increase in their share of the EU-28 total included Hungary (up 6.6 percentage points to 13.9%), Austria (up 2.2 percentage points to 6.8%), and Finland (up 1.9 percentage points to 2.6%). Conversely, France and Italy’s shares of the EU-28 total each fell nearly 5 percentage points between 2014 and 2015, to 5.6% and 6.6% respectively. …

Syrians accounted for the largest number of applicants in 12 of the 28 EU Member States, including 159 thousand applicants in Germany (the highest number of applicants from a single country to one of the EU Member States in 2015), 64 thousand applicants in Hungary and 51 thousand in Sweden. Some 46 thousand Afghan applicants were recorded in Hungary, 41 thousand in Sweden and 31 thousand in Germany. A further 54 thousand Albanians, 33 thousand Kosovans and 30 thousand Iraqis also applied for asylum in Germany; no other EU Member State received 30 thousand or more asylum applicants in 2015 of a single citizenship. …

In 2015, there were 593 thousand first instance decisions in all EU Member States. By far the largest number of decisions was taken in Germany, … constituting more than 40% of the total first instance decisions in the EU-28 in 2015. In addition, there were 183 thousand final decisions, with again the far largest share (51%) in Germany.

The much larger country, United States, under its new President Donald Trump, is promising to cut sharply the number of annually admitted refugees, downward from its present meager 70,000.

On a per-capita basis, Europe is taking in seven times as many refugees as the U.S. does. Both America and Europe are widely expected to reduce, not to increase, the acceptance of refugees.

So: Does the Statue of Liberty still represent America — or does it instead represent only an America that once was, but no longer is?

When considering this question, one might also consider what precisely caused these refugees to become refugees. Syria was the largest source of 2015’s refugees into Europe. What have they been fleeing from? According to Western-sponsored polls of Syrians throughout that country, they have been fleeing mainly from U.S. bombs and bombers, which were supporting Al-Qaeda-backed jihadist groups that have been trying to take over their country. Of course, as was being reported in the Western press, they were fleeing mainly from Syrian government and its allied bombs and bombers that have been trying to kill ‘moderate rebels’ against that government.

Those were figures from 2015, when the U.S. was bombing throughout the year in Syria (where it was, in fact, an invader), and when Russia (which was no invader, but instead was invited in by Syria’s government, to help it prevent an overthrow by that U.S.-Saudi alliance) started bombing there only late, on September 30th of 2015. Mainly, Syrians were fleeing both from jihadists who were trying to take over their country, and from American bombs that were supporting those Saudi-financed jihadists. (And, overwhelmingly, the residents there were fleeing from what Obama euphemistically called ‘rebel controlled areas’, to the areas that were still under the Syrian government’s control.)

The second and third largest sources of refugees into Europe during that year were Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that America started bombing in 2001 in retaliation for the Saudi royal family’s 9/11 attacks inside America. The new Trump Administration is retaliating against refugees from seven countries, on account of the 9/11, and also other, jihadist attacks, which likewise weren’t perpetrated by people from any of these seven: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. In fact, at the very moment of that U.S. announcement about those seven countries, the Saud family were not only supporting both Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, but were dropping American-made bombs onto Shiites in Yemen. And Trump was terminating refugees both from Syria and from Yemen, thus cutting off any escape to the U.S. for those victims of U.S. aggression against those two countries that the Saud family and the U.S. aristocracy want to conquer. Will Europe take these refugees in?

U.S. aggression combines now with a tightening closed-door policy, and neither reality fits the Western myth. So, might Lady Liberty be crying also because of Western lying? She has become alien to this country as a misfit here, as being both a refuge and a model for the world. She no longer belongs in this country, in spirit. She might as well be officially included on President Trump’s banned list, a resident alien that’s being returned to sender. Maybe if Trump sends her back to France, he’ll try to negotiate with France’s leaders, some sort of price that they will be billed — not, of course for creating the statue (since it was created by the French), but, like he plans to get Mexicans to pay for building his wall to keep them out. 

How far will Trump go in his ‘politically incorrect’ new form of ‘Americanism’?


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • diogenes

    Mr. Zuesse: I am sorry to see this fine article sullied by the unsupported, unproven, and unproveable assertion of “the Saudi royal family’s 9/11 attacks inside America.” It calls into question everything in this essay, everything you write, and your motives and agenda in writing. You are surely informed enough to understand this, and you ought to be able to understand that your readers are too.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Just click on the link. I don’t make any challengeable allegation without providing a link to top quality, the most reliable, documentation for it.

      • diogenes

        The facts speak against it, including — egregiously — the “failure” of NORAD et al, and the replacement of Popular Mechanics entire editorial staff when they wouldn’t print the official story, with a nephew of the head of HLS as new editor in chief, and the dancing Israelis are a third. And then there’s the executive director of the Project For A New American Century with its wish for a “new Pearl Harbor,” who shortly thereafter became the director of the official report on 9/11 — and in the interval “debunkt” (in a disgraceful and slipshod charade) the conclusive discussion of the inside job of the original Pearl Harbor in Stinnett’s Day of Deceit in a “review” for — wait for it — Foreign Affairs! Just how much does a fish have to stink before you smell it? If you are as conversant with the known established facts as you claim to be, you should be able to add to this list of items that are hard or impossible to account for on the basis of the thesis you endorse. It is of course quite easy to imagine that Saudis were players, just as easy to imagine that the Pakis were, too, not to mention Israel. But the facts point unmistakably to inside involvement — and make the attempt to blame it on the Saudis — to say no more — disreputable. And of course, your link to one article, your own (!), as an authoritative source and “proof” of your offhand assertion of this ludicrous canard is neither convincing nor reputable.

        • Eol Awki

          I’ve never really understood the part apparently played by Saudi Arabia in 9/11, except to think perhaps that they were simply used as ‘patsies’ to eventually take the blame. Seems the real actors were certain neocon players in government, a faction of the military, and of prime importance, Zionist planning and execution both out of Israel itself and those within the USA.

          This emphasis on Saudi Arabia simply does not make sense to me – the most we can prove is that 15 Saudi Arabians were involved in the hijacking – and there is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that these never even actually boarded the planes they were accused of hijacking and indeed several were found alive and living their own lives afterwards – a fact enormously played down by the media.

          If you really want answers, turn your face towards Tel Aviv.

          • diogenes

            The supposed participation of the supposedly identified 15 Saudi participants was debunked, publically, not long after the event. Several of the named parties turned out to be still alive! The “finding” of the intact (!) passport of one of them not far from one of the Towers ranks with the magic bullet of the Warren Report for preposterous transparent official fiction. What all this “proves” is that an official false story was underway from the start. Which is in itself a smoking gun.

          • diogenes

            Still waiting for Mr. Zuesse to address these well-known, basic, obvious, telling, damning facts — instead of ignoring them while blithering about “links” etc. As near as I can tell, Zuesse’s theory amounts to the official story dolled up for contemporary consumption. Maybe next he’ll tell us about the marvelous Warren Report and expect to be taken seriously. And dodge when its ludicrous contradictions are mentioned. This is not reputable, Eric. It is damning.

          • Eric Zuesse

            And you too didn’t click on the link? Where the article here says “the Saudi royal family’s 9/11 attacks inside America” just click on it. Then click onto any of the documents that the linked-to article links to that you want to see. Or have you no interest at all in documentation? You take things on faith? You reject things on (whatever contradicts your) faith?

        • Eric Zuesse

          You ignore that my criterion is “the most reliable documentation.” You’re not providing any link to any documentation at all. My mind is constantly open, but not to mere allegations. You are showing no indication that you’re even aware of the evidence that I linked to here. Although I have on several occasions indicated that Israel is an enemy of the U.S. people, and has suckered them (and see http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/u-s-govt-donate-38b-enemy-nation.html as one example of this), you’ll need to provide evidence, not mere assertions, in order to convince me that your claims deserve to be taken seriously.

          • diogenes

            Since your mind is open, explain how the NORAD et al. stand down fits in with your ‘Saudis did it’ theory, and how the replacement of the entire editorial staff of Popular Mechanics by a new one headed by the nephew of the head of Homeland Security fits in, and how the dancing Israelis fit in. All these matters are well known and well-documented. If you need documentation, turn it up for yourself — you’re an “investigative reporter” aren’t you? Why are you dodging basic questions? That’s the question.

  • David S

    Since you have opened up the discussion, let’s truly look at new form of “Americanism.” When we were given that statue, indeed millions of immigrants were coming to our shores. Many of them had sponsors. Most if not all of them had marketable skills. A good percentage spoke English. Nearly all of them came from the same countries whose philosophical and political history gave birth to the ideals of personal freedom and liberty that were ONCE the foundation of the United States. There was absolutely NO government/forced welfare. There were NO labor laws that restricted employment, NO minimum wage that kept unskilled labor from being employed, NO income taxation, NO overseas empire creating massive numbers of refugees (and massive debt), NO 50 page list of alphabet agencies that were robbing America blind while regulating away all of our freedoms and liberties, no government provided (taxpayer funded) medical care, NO Federal Reserve, NO war on drugs, NO crude oil (and the endless wars for its control in the middle east), and so much more (or less). In other words, the Americanism we used to have was the product of an AMERICA WE USED TO HAVE…but no longer do. Those who came to this country came to start a new life with their skills AND WE LET THEM. We did not simply hand them free housing, free food, free education, free income, free medicine, etc. What we have today are countless victims of the American empire’s pointless wars for oil, etc. who do not share our political values, do not share our respect for religious or personal freedom (but then most citizens don’t seem to anymore either), will NOT be allowed to run whatever business they wish without paying “tribute,” etc. to some government agency first, will be forced to try and find a job that pays more than their limited skills can justify, etc. All of the countries of Europe are being forced by EU legislation, propaganda and political pressure from criminals like George Soros and others, to take in countless refugees from nations they too have helped oppress and destroy over the past century, all into welfare states that cannot sustain their burden. These folks are being marginalized by lack of language skills, rights to work, and dependency on government handouts. They are lashing out with violence, are behaving as if they were back home in their own countries (or are simply raping women because they regard it as fun), and are otherwise destroying all the countries stupid enough to take them in. Sorry, the answer is to stop destroying the middle east, stop destroying America with rampant government abuse of money, freedom, and liberty, and to end the government welfare state that encourages so many that contribute so little. Freedom most certainly can sustain the world. When we get ours back, we can talk about sharing it with others.

    • diogenes

      Much of the “history” referenced here is no such thing. From the beginning of industrialization during and immediately after the Civil War, discussions in Congress concerning immigration characteristically trumpeted, as the benefits of increasing immigration, a cheapening of the wages of labor and a rise in the price of land, both of benefit to the wealthy (who were mostly ‘represented’ in Congress) and harmful to the 99% (who weren’t). Characteristically immigrants became objects for rack-renting in slums, employees of industrial concerns under truly barbaric conditions (“dark satanic mills”), mines, lumber-camps, etc., at wage rates their imported presence, ignorance of American conditions, and helplessness served to drop still lower — and soon, strike-breakers. Not only were they victimized, their importation into the American workforce served to degrade the conditions of labor. And raise the rents of slums and the prices of speculative farm real estate. All this was spoken of opening in Congress. Most immigrants during this period, moreover, were conveyed to America by labor contractors who exacted a long-term toll on their wages, making them, in effect, something similar to the indentured servants of colonial times — something approaching slaves. The political-historical mythology that presents all this a a great benefit to its victims is cynical filth of the lowest sort.

      Today, the situation is identical. The primary function of immigrants, legal and illegal, is to permit the wealthy to hire them at cheaper rates than they would have to pay Americans. Thus they not only benefit the wealthy 1%, who already own over 50% of everything; they also displace American workers from employment. There is a very direct correlation between the number of immigrants, especially “undocumented” immigrants, and unemployment of Americans. And both categories are systematically lied about. Similarly, the methods of importation today hark back to the latter half of the 19th century. Today California is aswarm with a new tide of illegal immigrants from Asia, principally China, who are brought over the border by modern-day “labor contractors” (smugglers of illegal labor).

      None of this benefits Americans or America at large. All of it benefits the 1% of predatory absentee owners who are wrecking what is left of America. The well-advertised idea that saying so is “bigoted,” or “xenophobic,” or “illiberal,” or “unhumanitarian” is another instance of cynical filth when it is not merely puppet-headed delusion. The vileness of the pretense that these people are benefited by their victimization is beneath contempt. And the pervasive silence about the underlying fact that it is the predatory operations of the same Wall Street oligarchs oveseas that drives this tide of “refugees” is even more vile — whether the incitement is bombs in Syria and Yemen or the installation (with the close assistance of Sect. of State Hillary Clinton) of a world-class murderous police state in Honduras or the vast exportation of wealth from Mexico by Wall Street owners of Mexican resources and industries with the attendant draining of funds Mexicans need to build Mexico. It would be easy, and tedious, and heartbreaking, to go on piling up examples of this planet-wide predatory strip-mining of humanity and human values for the sake of the 16 thousand American familes whose hereditary wealth owns and operates our former constitutional democracy to feed their own insatiable and ecocidal greed.

      • Hollyesweet

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj452d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash452ShopInternationalGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj452d:….,…..

    • Jupiter34

      In full agreement with you. The first step is STOP BOMBING THEIR COUNTRIES!

      • diogenes

        Also stop pillaging on their countries economically.

        • Jupiter34

          I also agree with you on this statement.

          • I have profited 104000 bucks in 2016 by doing an online job and I manage to earn that much by w­orking part time f­o­r 3 or sometimes more h every day. I was following an earning model I came across online and I am happy that i made so much money on the side. It’s really user-friendly a­n­d I’m so grateful that i found it. Here is what i did… http://statictab.com/8cx4rgs

          • I have made $104,000 previous year by working from my house and I did it by work­ing part time f­­o­­r 3 or sometimes more hours /daily. I’m using an earning model I came across from company that i found online and I am so excited that i was able to make so much extra income. It’s really beginner friendly a­­n­­d I’m just so grateful that I found out about it. Here is what i do… http://statictab.com/dk8k8gt

  • NOS

    Unfortunately, France is no longer de Gaulle’s France either. It has become a vassal and police state where “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” has lost its meaning. No need spending money to send that statue to the new jungle!

    • Army of Addicts

      The Mexicans will pay for it.

  • diogenes

    Do obvious well-known facts contradict your theory? Ignore them! That’s called “investigative journalism” by people like Eric Zuesse (see my comments and questions below). I can think of other words for it, however.

  • awb22

    Or, we could just change the inscription to read, “yearning to enslave” to be inclusive of Muslims, since that is their goal in immigrating, or has the meaning of the word “free” changed?