Saudi Deportations Gain Momentum

Simeon Kerr et al., Financial Times, December 6, 2013

Teodros Adhanom, the Ethiopian foreign minister, has turned to Twitter almost every night for the last three weeks to tersely report the number of his countrymen expelled from Saudi Arabia.

“Last night arrivals from Saudi reached 100,620,” he wrote on Friday, describing a fraction of one of the largest deportations in recent Middle East history.

Riyadh has said it wants to forcibly expel as many as 2m of the foreign workers, including hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians, Somalis, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up around a third of the country’s 30m population.

At home, the exodus of illegal workers is being seen as the kingdom’s most radical labour market experiment yet. With one in four young Saudi males out of work, analysts applaud Riyadh’s determination to tackle the problem, but doubt the crackdown will achieve its objective, as Saudi nationals are unlikely to apply for menial jobs.

Overseas, the deportation is causing friction between Riyadh and the east African and southeast Asian countries that traditionally have provided Saudi Arabia with the bulk of low-wage workers that for decades have fuelled its economy.
Ethiopia, Yemen, Somalia and several other countries are struggling to absorb the thousands of unemployed young men now returning, with development officials worrying about the impact on remittances.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s second biggest source of remittances, only behind the US, with outflows of nearly $28bn last year, according to estimates by the World Bank. {snip}

Riyadh has defended the expulsions, saying illegal expatriates have had months to legalise their status. The kingdom, which shares 1,800km of porous, mountainous borders with Yemen, had for years complained that the Yemeni government was not doing enough to stop illegal immigrants, drug dealers, armed militants or members of al-Qaeda from crossing to the kingdom.

General Mansour al Turki, the interior ministry’s spokesman said that last month Saudi Arabia stopped 50,000 illegal immigrants, most of them Yemenis, Ethiopians and Somalis, trying to cross the Yemeni borders into the kingdom. Many more succeeded. {snip}

Since an amnesty ended in early November, hundreds of thousands of workers have been deported to their home countries, including as many as 150,000 Indians and 200,000 Yemenis. Thousands of Ethiopians remain in 64 detention camps set up in the kingdom, according to the foreign ministry. {snip}

The crackdown on African and Asian illegal migrants is meant to complement a government labour market reform known as nitaqat, Arabic for “ranges”. Replacing the failing fixed-quota “Saudisation” system of 1994, nitaqat places a sliding scale of financial penalties and incentives on employers who fail to hire enough Saudi nationals. By draining the pool of cheap expatriate labour, the Saudi government hopes to encourage private sector employers to hire more nationals.

{snip}

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • D.B. Cooper

    And guess where those people will be going to, and admitted with open arms.

    • Alexandra1973

      Their refuse becomes our refugees. Yep.

      Personally I’d like to deport at least 13% out of here. BTW, how much of our population is Hispanic?

      • Conrad

        Pew Research Center –
        “Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the United States. According to the 2010 Census, 50.5 million Hispanics now reside in the U.S. This means that Hispanics account for 16.3% of the total population in the U.S.”
        The number sounds low to me.

      • DonReynolds

        As you can see below……16% of the US population is Hispanic, less than half of which are illegal aliens….perhaps as much as 7% of the US population. Of course, we have heard the 12 million figure for many years, even though thousands more cross the border every night. But if the 12 million figure were accurate (or a good starting place), that would only be 3.6% of the US population…..roughly half the Saudi effort.

      • Sick of it

        We need to deport 25% at a minimum.

    • Who Me?

      It sounds like they are sending them back to their countries of origin. Sounds about right to me. When can we start on the Mexicans here? And to be honest about it, I am not cruel. I too, do not believe in “tearing families apart”–deport the whole damn bunch, Mama, Papa, Grannies, kids, everybody even remotely related. Oh yeah, and if there are Whites who have married into the family, take them, too. They are no longer White as far as I am concerned. If they want to live and breed with Mexicans, and have their children turn out Mexican, let them live in Mexico where they will be happy doing so.

  • Puggg

    I bet in Saudi Arabia, when they say deportation, they really mean deportation, kicking you out.

    • APaige

      Yes. No ‘dreamers’ there. With the extra room maybe they can take back the Saudis living here and in other Western nations.

    • Bossman

      Yeah, these brutal Medieval backward Arabs do mean what they say.

      • NoMosqueHere

        But they don’t always say what they mean.

  • IstvanIN

    And some people say old-style monarchies are old fashioned and out of touch with their subjects.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      That reminds me of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s libertarian argument in favor of monarchy. Hoppe believed that, unlike democracy, monarchy would preserve individual liberties and freedoms, rather than erode them in the long-run. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, a king would actually run his country as if it were his own private property. He would naturally be interested in maximizing its commercial value. He would also be concerned with the future of his kingdom, especially because his descendants would be the ones to inherit the land. As a result, he would reduce taxation and introduce policies designed to stimulate economic productivity. He wouldn’t wreck his kingdom by flooding it with non-white immigrants or foolishly subsidizing widespread dependency by introducing large-scale social programs. This is contrasted with democracies, whose rulers will not be in power forever and who have no reason to maximize the national wealth or care for the nation’s future.

      • David Ashton

        The case for Charles I rather than Cromwell’s paymasters?

        • IstvanIN

          Edward I threw then out and Cromwell, traitor extraordinaire, who let them back in.

          • Anglokraut

            In the interest of putting ALL the information on the table, you can’t omit the belief of the time that having Jews in all nations would bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ and the whole Kingdom of Heaven thing.

          • DonReynolds

            No……the traitor…..Charles I…..got his head chopped off for recruiting a Roman Catholic army to invade his own country to restore his absolute power.

          • David Ashton

            You may think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

      • Max

        They have an essential monarchy in N.K. And it isn’t working out so well for them. They have at least a titular monarchy in G.B. and it has become an anus of immigrants. I don’t think this hypothesis is that robust.

        • IstvanIN

          North Korea is a dictatorship, not a monarchy, there is no noblesse oblige, there is no swearing to serve the people. The British monarchy, like virtually all monarchies, is powerless, which is the problem with modern monarchies. A monarch may be ill-advised or ill-informed at times, but will never deliberately destroy his own realm and people. Most countries would do well to have a monarch, above politics, raised from birth to serve his people and God, able to moderate the greedy, short-term ambitions of politicians, than what passes for “democracy” in this day and age.

          • Isn’t a hereditary dictatorship close to being a monarchy?

          • DonReynolds

            I am sure, at times in history, it was difficult to see any difference.

          • IstvanIN

            Not really. Monarchs and Nobles have an obligation to the people who serve them, such as raising an army to protect the peasants from invaders, making sure justice is served and laws obeyed, settling disputes, and as time went on supporting the arts and so on. There is a compact between the monarch, the people and God. A dictator, such as the Kims, Castros, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, etc. tear down society, destroy culture, and turn away from religion as they attempt to control every aspect of their peoples lives, all for their own gain.

            I am not naive, you can have a bad King, but that is what an elected parliament is for, one counter balances the other so that power isn’t concentrated in one group’s hands. Why do revolutionaries murder and exile their monarchs? Why do republics have clauses banning citizens from advocating the return of a monarchy? Fear. Republicans (small “r”) fear monarchs because monarchy is so natural. Think of a monarch as the father of the nation, looking after his brood.

            I am well aware that I am a minority in my view, and certainly to do want an absolute monarchy, but a brake on the politicians is never a bad thing.

        • DonReynolds

          Perhaps not, but illegal aliens are not slipping over the DMZ into North Korea.
          The British monarchy is just to attract tourist cash, they do not run the government or determine public policy.
          The Emperor of Japan is a relic too, but the Japanese have done done a good job of keeping their island very Japanese.

          • Queen Elizabeth is a Head of State. If you see photographs of Western leaders, mere Prime Ministers are always in the back row.

          • DonReynolds

            As you well know, Michael……Queen Elizabeth is head of Church and State, but the monarchy does not run either one.

          • She can be a shot-caller, but chooses not to. “We are displeased”, would make them choke off the Pakistani invasion.

            I am a bit different, so I prefer an iron fist in an iron glove.

      • DonReynolds

        The Kings of England kicked out the Jews no less than nine times. The word Holocaust was originally used to describe the massacre of the Jews…..in England.

        • David Ashton

          Documentation of your last sentence, and the precise dates of the 9 royal expulsions, would be interesting.

          • I know Edward I did it right after his conquest of Wales. He had financed the war buy borrowing money from Jewish bankers, and then defaulted on his debts via the simple expedient of expelling them all.

          • David Ashton

            Kings financing wars with funds from Jewish bankers who required interest presumably? Has anyone seen anything strange in the various elements of this process?

            How many other expulsions, when and why?

          • DonReynolds

            David, my immediate source would be Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy (3 vols.) 1911……under the topic….”expulsion of the jews from england”. This is available as a reprint or good libraries have an original copy in quatro size. (Mine is a reprint.)

          • David Ashton

            Thank you for this reference which I have filed. I have hitherto read only Cecil Roth’s account, plus a few minor allusions in other histories of England, of Jewry or of money-lending.

        • saxonsun

          They were expelled once, in 1290 I believe.

        • NoMosqueHere

          They must have kissed and made up at least 8 times.

          • DonReynolds

            Money always seems to improve relationships, depending on how badly the Crown needed dough.

        • She can declare war.

          • David Ashton

            Theoretically – a power “copied” by Presidents in clear & present danger. In practice, the Queen has to “act on the advice of ministers”. The clear and present danger is that a Prime Minister can take us into war without the consent of Parliament and with the Monarch only able to “advise and warn” but not effectively vetoing the action, at any rate not without a constitutional crisis which would give republicans an opportunity to get rid of the monarchy altogether (as in Russia and elsewhere). Their big fear is that Charles III or George VII could prove be a “politically incorrect” Patriot King.

          • I doubt Charles will ever be King.

          • David Ashton

            Curiously, “royal astrologers” almost said as much when he was born, though they probably had the longevity of his maternal ancestors in mind. He has had an almost uniformly but quite unfairly bad press in Britain, with the so-called “right-wing” Daily Mail usually leading the pack, with a libelous suggestion in the letters today (March 20) that his MP friend Soames (a leading opponent of immigration and military cuts, incidentally) threatened Diana with murder in the royal interest.

      • BonV.Vant

        Many monarchies throughout history have ruined their lands through heavy taxation. HHH is completely wrong on so many of his assumptions one wonders if he studied history at all. It was the Vortigern, the Celtic king of Roman Britain that invited the Anglo Saxons in for one thing. It was also the Roman Emperors that allowed many of the German tribes to become part of the military and to settle their families in Roman territory. IT was the Tzars of Russia that encouraged large numbers of Germans to settle in parts of the Ukraine around the Volga River. This was because the Germans were known for their superior ability at farming and animal husbandry. The Spanish Monarchy devastated Spain with heavy taxation, turning once flourishing areas into wastelands. The Monarchy of Britain was being heavy handed in it’s taxation of the colonies and caused a civil war that became the American Revolution. Academics like HHH are totally worthless.

        • saxonsun

          Not heavy-handed at all until the French and Indian wars. That’s when American colonists wanted the French out and the British obliged. The British told the colonists they needed monetary help with this task. The colonists said “no.” That’s when heavy taxation took place. There’s something to be said for cooperation instead of arrogance and laziness.

          • DonReynolds

            Taxation was the small part of the American Revolution actually. (This complaint is terribly exaggerated in the popular history and ranks somewhere close to Washington chopping down the cherry tree.) They could easily avoid the tax on tea by switching to coffee or cocoa….and many did…..when they were not drinking rum or beer.
            .
            What motivated enough farmers and tradesmen and shop keeps to join the revolt as combatants was the promise that they would not be required to repay the British money they had borrowed (mostly bankers and financiers) if the revolution were successful.
            .
            Mere tax avoidance would not have motivated British wrath and oppression….which was real.

          • BonV.Vant

            The arrogance was on the part of the Monarch, even the British people in England were not happy with him.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    Unlike the worthless, corrupt administration of the US and other western governments, the Saudis get it. Good for them for protecting their citizens from the destructive impact of massive 3rd world immigration. Cheap 3rd world labor imposes tremendous social and economic costs. It is anything but “cheap”. Although it benefits corporations in the short-term, it impoverishes the mainstream population and undermines social and national cohesion. Get rid of the 3rd world foreigners, let wages and living standards rise! Now, the Saudis can maximize the potential of their own admittedly underutilized human capital, instead of using a senseless and destructive immigration policy to further marginalize the nation’s already disaffected youth.

    • I suspect that these out-of-work Saudis won’t want McJobs. The Saudi army is chronically undermanned, but these young, unemployed Saudi men aren’t enlisting. The welfare state there is so well-developed that they don’t feel enough pressure to do so.

      • Bossman

        Whenever I see pictures of Gulf Arabs, they are always walking about in long loose white robes. How can anybody work dressed like that?

        • It is a practical way to dress there because of the infernal heat.

          • Bossman

            It is not a practical way to dress if you’re required to do heavy physical work.

          • IstvanIN

            They seem to have plenty of elbow room. Plus I am sure they have more practical versions, I have seen the Egyptians who work excavating the pyramids and monuments. The guys we see on TV are no doubt wearing the dress version.

      • DonReynolds

        The last I heard, the Saudi military paid about $80k a year, for even the lowest ranks……which caused some resentment amoung US troops during the first Gulf War. They felt like they were doing the heavy lifting and the Saudi “allies” were getting the pay.

        • The Saudi troops did quite well at Khafji in 1991 using obsolete AMX-30 tanks, though with a lot of US air power helping them.

          • DonReynolds

            I noticed that too…..and they should have, since Khafji is 5-10 miles inside Saudi Arabia.

  • One thing I know about the Saudi princes. They are NOT deporting the blonde, white whores whom they so greatly prefer. The only reason this story interests me, since I don’t care about these dune riders, is that it shows that mass deportations can be done.

    • Martel

      Its uplifting news. if the Saudi’s can, Western civilization should be able to replicate such deportation numbers, or pass them, with ease.

      • Bossman

        The Saudis will also whip you with many lashes if you’re caught drinking. They also chop people’s hands off for stealing. This is definitely not the kind of society that can serve as a role model for anything.

        • They publicly beheaded a woman there last year for “witchcraft”. Their armed forces use M-1A2 Abrahms and M-60A3 tanks, F-15 Eagle and Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets, but these medieval lunatics believe in witches.

          • Bossman

            In Saudi Arabia, the Middle Ages has not yet ended.

          • Yes, but if the gal was a bit weird, perhaps they should have gotten her a psychiatrist.

          • IstvanIN

            We certainly do not want their religion, culture or laws imported here, that would be a giant step backward, but being overrun by Mexicans is also a giant step backward. We need expulsions so we can bring OUR culture and society back.

        • DonReynolds

          I am not convinced that our light touch is better at discouraging crime. Maybe we can find some middle approach.

    • shmo123

      They don’t keep them in Saudi Arabia or defile “the kingdom” with their presence. That’s what they have mansions in Europe for– someplace to drink and hide the Christian girls.

  • David Ashton

    Has anyone made a full list of deportations, repatriations and population exchanges by non-white governments 1945-2014? It would help neutralize “moral” objections to comparable actions by western governments in the interest of national survival?

  • IKE

    Learn well from the example America so we can help the leeches that suck this country dry . . . .OUT

  • Max

    Gee, I WONDER who will take in all of these poor refugees.

    • DonReynolds

      They are not refugees. They came there to make money and every single one of them have a country to go home to…..and their country will be better off when they get there…..and so will Saudi Arabia.

  • Bossman

    Those Arabs in the Gulf will then have to take off all those long white robes and put some real working clothes on.

  • JohnEngelman

    Now let’s start deporting Arabs before they commit more acts of terrorism.

  • Malgus

    The House of Saud has every right to do what they need to do to keep their sovereign nation intact, including expelling every illegal they find.

    I only wish we showed the same backbone…

  • Bobbala

    Returning black people to live among black people is a human rights abuse.
    Forcing white people to live among black people is diversity …

    • DonReynolds

      Government exists to do what we could not individually do for ourselves. And when government refuses to do that, we are left to our own devices to accomplish what we cannot do for ourselves.
      Resisting invasion is one of the basic responsibilities of government. It is called National Defense. So what to do when the government will not defend the country from invasion? We end up doing it ourselves…..street by street, town by town.

      • Sick of it

        Ultimately, we will have to defend ourselves from the government itself. Those in power do not divest themselves of it readily. A perfect example is Carthage when you really think about it. They destroyed their own people, their entire nation, rather than let a competing family POTENTIALLY take power.

        • DonReynolds

          The present government will fail as soon as it runs out of money and I can see that happening if we continue with Zimbabwe monetary policy. In any event, they will run full-throttle until the wheels come off the gravy train. Then they will stop.

  • DonReynolds

    If the Saudis can deport their foreign population of 7%, it should be very practical for the USA to do the same thing for 7% of the foreign population here.

    • Anglokraut

      I want to say yes, but the math tutor in me is screaming “that’s not how it works!”

      • DonReynolds

        We shall see.

    • DiversityIsDeath

      The undesirable 7% the Saudis want to get rid of will be dumped off in America, Europe, Canada.

  • rightrightright

    Saudi is worried about the impact of fracking on its revenues, but the policy of expulsions will all end in tears (I rather do hope). When I was a kid, the expression “lazy Arab” was commonplace. Banned now of course, but truth will out.

    • BonV.Vant

      It is rather telling that the saudis have been sending their young here to study in universities for a couple of decades, yet nothing ever became of that. No home grown industries at all. All of the work done there is by foreign contractors, mostly European construction companies and engineers with third world laborers.

  • SirMe

    Who is going to work?? the Arabs have never worked in their history, even their “golden age” was run and developed by Jews, Persians, Greeks and Indians….

    • BonV.Vant

      During the Mongol conquest of the middle east they destroyed the irrigation systems of the area that is now Iraq. The arabs never rebuilt it. It was the British that rebuilt it, it was only after the British rebuilt the Irrigation system that a populous country could exist there.

      • M.

        It was indeed a golden age for the peoples of that region: science and arts were thriving, and so was the economy. But as you said, most of the well-known scientists from that era were non-Arab. Many of them came from today’s Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, etc; a large portion from Persia and the Levant, some Indians, Jews, as well as Berbers. All of those were only Arab in the Arabic-speakers sense. Those who were indigenous to Iraq or Arabia were a minority.

        The Mongol invasion was devastating. Many of the scientists of the time were accused of heresy, some executed. The religious scholars that came after the invasion were more radical, some of them preached for the ban chemistry, mathematics, and logics altogether, because they have led most of those who practiced them away from the faith.

        That’s why I smile when I hear them say ‘Islamic’ civilization. There was a caliphate, but those who made things what they were (scientists, philosophers, artists) were mostly heretics whose books were burnt (Ibn Rushd, etc) or were outright executed (Ibn al-Muqaffa’, etc) following fatwas against them.

        The whole region never recovered again. There was a civilization which was (loosely) Arab, or Semitic, to be more accurate, but definitely not Islamic.

        • The Mongols killed about 90% of the population of what is now Iran. This is about what a nuclear war would do, but they did it with swords.

  • Chris Granzow XI

    “Teodros Adhanom, the Ethiopian foreign minister, has turned to Twitter almost every night for the last three weeks to tersely report the number of his countrymen expelled from Saudi Arabia.”

    What a leech. He’s the foreign minister of a country, yet that’s all you do? Focus on your own problems, like why you have all these people leaving your country, instead of trying to demonize another country for not taking them.