Features
Former Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes pens her version of what happened to her in 2008 when she was accused of being an antisemite
By BERNIE BELLAN How many times are we going to revisit a story that has already received more than ample coverage within the pages of this newspaper – especially a story which one might have thought had been put to rest long ago?
The answer, in the case of Lesley Hughes, who achieved a level of notoriety in 2008 when she was unceremoniously turfed as the Liberal candidate in the federal riding of Kildonan-St. Paul during that year’s election, is: at least one more time.
The reason is that Hughes has just recently published a short book, titled “The Dead Candidate’s Report”, in which she offers her version of the events surrounding her forced exit as the federal Liberal candidate for the riding of Kildonan-St. Paul during the 2008 election, and the ensuing damage, both to her career as a journalist and her personal life as a result of that forced exit.
Looking back over our past coverage of the Hughes story, I see that we’ve run three previous articles about what happened: In July 1, 2009, we ran a story by Myron Love which I titled “Hughes Sues Jews”, in which Myron reported that “Last fall, Federal Liberal hopeful Lesley Hughes generated national headlines when it was revealed that she wrote an article in the Winnipeg Sun on May 5, 2002, alleging that the Israeli, American, German and Russian intelligence agencies all had advance warning of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.”
(Ed. note: Hughes’ exact words, with reference to advance Israeli knowledge of the attacks, were: “Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3,000 Americans working there were not so lucky.”
In that article, Hughes indicated she was quoting internet journalist Mike Ruppert who, she notes in her recently published book, “The Dead Candidate’s Report”, “claimed to have two independent sources about the move” but whose “sources were sealed forever when he allegedly committed suicide in 2014.”
In her book, Hughes admits that “a later explanation for the move was that the existing firm had decided to leave months earlier, breaking their lease as a routine cost of business.”)
Myron’s 2009 article went on to note that Hughes “also posted the article on a United Church of Canada website.
“As a result of the revelation, the former CBC broadcaster (she co-hosted the CBC Winnipeg morning show for a number of years) was forced to step down as the Liberal candidate for Kildonan-St. Paul. (She ran as an independent in the October election and finished a distant third.)
“Now Hughes is back in the news with a lawsuit she has filed against federal cabinet minister Peter Kent, the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada, as well as Frank Dimant, BBC’s executive vice-president, CJC co-presidents Rabbi Reuven Bulka and Sylvain Abitbol, and Bernie Farber, the CJC’s former CEO.
“Hughes filed the suit in Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench on June 16. She alleges that the defendants ‘made untrue and defamatory accusations’ that she is anti-Semitic. She charges that senior members of B’nai Brith and the CJC went to see then Liberal leader Stephane Dion on September 25, with her 2002 article and persuaded Dion to drop her as a candidate on the grounds that she was anti-Semitic and ‘unfit to hold public office.
“In her lawsuit, she quotes a press release issued on September 27 by B’nai Brith’s Dimant in which he charges that Hughes has a ‘record of anti-Semitism’.”
In February 2013 Myron reported on a settlement reached between Hughes and the defendants to her lawsuit:
“This past week it was revealed that Hughes reached out-of-court settlements with the parties to her lawsuits.
“Following is an excerpt from a publication of joint statement issued by the parties concerned:
“ ‘Journalist Lesley Hughes, Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and Peter Kent MP (Thornhill) wish to clarify comments that each made during the 2008 Federal Election campaign regarding an article written by Lesley Hughes in 2002, in which she re-published statements that made presumptions of an anti-Semitic nature in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre.
‘Ms. Hughes was dismissed as a Liberal candidate in the election after the 2002 article was raised in the media.
‘During the election Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and Peter Kent each raised concerns about statements in the 2002 article which repeated false allegations that Israel or Israeli tenants were forewarned of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and did not warn others. Comments made by Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and Peter Kent were published in the media and Ms. Hughes filed a defamation claim in respect of the comments.
‘Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada, and Peter Kent accept that Ms. Hughes does not condone the use of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories by racist groups to support anti-Semitism of any nature. They therefore acknowledge and agree that Ms. Hughes is not an anti-Semite. In fact, Ms. Hughes has been an advocate of human rights through three decades as a journalist and teacher.
‘Ms. Hughes confirms that she has and will continue to be a strong supporter of the work of any individual or group who exposes false public statements that might do harm to the Jewish community, and more specifically that are anti-Semitic and racist.
‘Ms. Hughes joins with Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada, and Peter Kent in strongly condemning anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They find anti-Semitism and all forms of racism, to be deeply contemptible behavior.’ “
Then, in December 2015, in that year’s Chanukah issue we reprinted an excerpt from a forthcoming book by Hughes, in which she offered further background to the story. Hughes had contacted us, asking whether we would run the story verbatim, including this headline: “An Enemy of the Jews”. We agreed to that and ran the story in its entirety (It ran over five different pages. You can still read the entire story on our website. Simply enter the names “Lesley Hughes” in our search engine and you will find the entire December 9, 2015 issue in which Hughes’ piece appears.)
Now, all this may seem like quite a long preamble to a book review, but I thought it necessary to put what follows into a certain context. Given that Lesley Hughes has been adamant in protesting her innocence over the charge that she was anti-Semitic – and I have no doubt of the unfairness of that charge, given the fact that we have bent over backwards to treat her fairly within this newspaper, I wonder if there really is any further need to comment on a story that has gone on for so long.
But, when we ran a story in our last issue about another defamation lawsuit that had also been settled and in which B’nai Brith had been named as a defendant, I thought the juxtaposition of the two cases reflects poorly on B’nai Brith Canada – and its occasional willingness to engage in over the top criticism.
The most recent case had to do with an article B’nai Brith had published about former Green Party candidate (and more recently, a contestant for the party’s leadership), Dimitri Lascaris.
(I should also note that in September 2018 I did an interview with Dimitri Lascaris which can still be accessed on Youtube, although I admit it’s not easy to find. As much as Lascaris is decidedly critical of Israeli policies toward Palestinians, by no means would I describe him as “an advocate on behalf of terrorists”, which is what B’nai Brith did.)
The reason I thought it important to note that B’nai Brith has now settled lawsuits with two different individuals who had filed libel lawsuits against the organization is that it illustrates the danger involved in labeling someone either “anti-Semitic”, as was B’nai Brith’s allegation about Hughes, or “an advocate on behalf of terrorists”, as was the case with B’nai Brith’s allegation about Lascaris.
Regardless what one may have thought about what Lesley Hughes had written in the particular article which ended up causing her so much grief, or what Dimitri Lascaris’s record is with regard to criticizing Israel, one should be very careful when it comes to accusing individuals either of being “anti-Semitic” or “advocates on behalf of terrorists”, especially when those individuals are Canadian citizens and have recourse to the courts here.
With all that in mind, is there anything new in Lesley Hughes’ recently published book,
“The Dead Candidate’s Report”, which is a very short read at only 107 pages (including appendices)?
On the website for her book, Hughes describes it as “a memoir of my 2008 run for parliament, my defamation as an anti-semite and conspiracy monger, and the lawsuit that cleared me of all accusations”. Unfortunately, due to the terms of the settlement agreement reached between Hughes and the defendants to her lawsuit, she is not allowed to discuss the terms of settlement.
What she does discuss, at great length, is the devastating consequences that her being forced to withdraw as the Liberal candidate for Kildonan-St. Paul had, both on her personal life and career – when she was shunned by many of her former colleagues in the media, along with many other individuals with whom she had developed relationships over her many years as a commentator and radio host, including many Jewish friends.
Leaving aside the mistake Hughes may have made in repeating a since debunked claim that Israelis had prior knowledge of the attack on the World Trade Centre, what followed was certainly devastating for Hughes.
Even when she was vindicated in a court of law and the defendants to her lawsuit apologized for having labeled her an antisemite, as she was about to discover, news of the defendants’ apologies and retractions of the charge was generally ignored within the mainstream media.
As Hughes writes, “When confronted by personal and professional devastation in 2008, at least I was able to turn to an overpriced, self-serving legal system. I have won back my reputation, by way of a lawsuit, but there is no remedy for the unyielding non-coverage of my vindication. No consequences. No accountability. No more action to be taken.”
For Lesley Hughes, at least, while the lessons she may have learned about the dangers inherent in taking any sort of a controversial position in public may have been salutary indeed, what does her experience have to say about anyone else who may be contemplating entering into politics – or who may already be involved in politics?
I certainly wouldn’t be the first to point out the dangers that exist for just about anyone who may have ever tweeted or posted to Facebook anything the least bit controversial. In 2016 this paper itself played an instrumental role in raising awareness of overtly anti-Semitic tweets that had been posted by a doctor by the name of Hussam Azzam, and which had been scrubbed from his Twitter feed – but not before someone who had been monitoring Azzam’s tweets had taken screenshots of them – and ended up giving me those screenshots.
Subsequently Assam was fired as the Chief Medical Officer at St. Boniface Hospital.
So, I’m well aware of the power even a small newspaper such as this can have in affecting the careers – and ultimately the lives, of individuals. In Lesley Hughes’ case, the likelihood is that her controversial columns about 9/11 conspiracies might well have gone ignored for the most part (although she does acknowledge that a column which she wrote for two Winnipeg weekly newspapers in 2002 about 9/11 in which she suggested that the United States brought about the attacks upon itself by its past behaviour did elicit some very angry responses from a great many readers of those papers), had she not inserted a suggestion that Israelis had foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Centre, she would probably have been allowed to remain a Liberal candidate in 2008.
It was only because a blogger (whom she doesn’t identify in her book, but whom we identified as “The Black Rod”, a very well known blogger here who has a record of important scoops over the years) decided, in 2008, to publicize an article Hughes had written in 2002, that Hughes’ was cast into political and personal purgatory.
And, as we have just seen in the most recent federal election, it doesn’t take all that much to have candidates forced to remove themselves as candidates for political office. I think in particular of an NDP candidate by the name of Dan Osborne who, as a teenager tweeted at Oprah Winfrey (of all people), “was Auschwitz a real place?”
Who knows what the context was for that seemingly silly question, but let’s be honest: Is asking that question, especially by a young person who may simply be ignorant, in and of itself anti-Semitic or is it perhaps simply an indication of ignorance on the questioner’s part? But, as I’m sure Lesley Hughes can explain to Mr. Osborne: You can’t be too careful these days in posting anything that might potentially be used some day to cause great embarrassment to you. And, once you’ve been shamed in public, there’s no getting back your reputation, no matter all the apologies and retractions you might end up receiving.
Features
American Graduation Speakers Deliver Antizionist Views
By HENRY SREBRNIK Colleges and universities in the United States have hosted and encouraged a surge of radical and pervasive antisemitism in recent years. Graduation commencement ceremonies (known as convocations in Canada) have been a source of tensions over Israel since Oct. 7, 2023. Multiple schools have disciplined students who made pro-Palestinian comments in their speeches.
But professors have also fanned the flames. Faculty members have played a significant role in legitimizing and amplifying antisemitism on college campuses. They have shown a propensity to whitewash Hamas and vilify Israel rather than examine the conflict dispassionately.
University of Michigan professor Derek Peterson praised campus pro-Palestinian student protesters during his commencement speech in Ann Arbor on May 2. The History and African-American studies academic and outgoing faculty senate chair told the graduates to “Sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists who have, over these past two years, opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza.” His remarks received loud applause.
“We regret the pain this has caused on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment. For this, the university apologizes,” Michigan’s interim president, Domenico Grasso, responded. Michigan’s campus Hillel also condemned Peterson’s speech. “Commencement is a celebration of every graduate. It is not a stage for political statements that alienate the Jewish community,” it asserted. On campus, however, an open letter rebuking Grasso and defending Peterson’s speech had been signed by more than 1,100 faculty members, staff and students in less than 24 hours.
Protesters at the university have also vandalized the home of Jordan Acker, a Jewish member of the university’s board of regents. He will no longer serve on the board, while the attorney who defended the university’s encampment participants from some state-level charges received the Michigan Democratic Party’s nomination for Acker’s seat.
Amir Makled won the backing despite social media posts that praised Hezbollah and included antisemitic memes. Makled posted retweets of far-right antisemitic conspiracy theorist Candace Owens and referred to Hassan Nasrallah as a martyr after he was killed by Israeli strikes in 2024.
Administrators at Rutgers University in New Jersey canceled a commencement speaker on May 15, citing an “inflammatory claim” he tweeted about Israel. Rami Elghandour, a Rutgers alumnus, had his invitation rescinded when his April 20 tweet, which accused Israel of genocide and claimed that Israelis were “running dungeons where they train dogs to sexually assault prisoners,” was uncovered.
“They decided that the feelings of a handful of students who said that my social media posts ‘opposed their beliefs,’ were more important than the experience of the entire graduating class, the reputation of the school, the dignity and belonging of Arab and Muslim students, and the First Amendment,” Elghandour wrote. Rutgers Alumnus Christopher Markus, an Emmy Award-winning screenwriter, delivered the address instead, on May 17.
At Georgetown University, a law professor who disparaged legal efforts to curb pro-Palestinian student activism replaced Morton Schapiro, a pro-Israel Jewish economist and former Northwestern University president, at the commencement, after students launched a petition calling for Schapiro’s removal. The replacement, David Cole, is the former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. In that role, Cole issued a statement soon after the Hamas attack in which he criticized Jewish groups for what he said were calls to “investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.” He compared Congressional investigations on campus antisemitism to McCarthyism.
Cornell University’s Student Assembly on March 12 voted to cut ties with Israel’s Technion University and condemned the university for hosting center-left Israeli politician Tzipi Livni, part of the school’s campus anti-Israel activism. She was accused of being “implicated in war crimes.”
The university’s Jewish president was involved in a recent campus altercation with pro-Palestinian protesters who had surrounded his car following a campus debate on Israel. The Ivy League school’s Board of Trustees issued a statement of support for Michael Kotlikoff following an investigation into the April 30 incident. “President Kotlikoff has shown a steadfast commitment to Cornell’s values and principles, and we are confident he will continue to lead with integrity.”
Following the talk, members of the protest group Students for a Democratic Cornell followed the president to his car and appeared to try to block its path. When he did edge his way out of his parking spot, they said he bumped some of the protesters with his vehicle. Despite all that, President Kotlikoff was himself the speaker at the university’s May 23 commencement.
A flag with swastikas surrounding the Star of David flew briefly atop a New York University building during a graduation event May 13, as hundreds gathered for an outdoor celebration called “Grad Alley” on West Fourth Street. “We are shocked and deeply troubled that this hateful symbol expressing antisemitism was raised on a flagpole overlooking Washington Square Park,” said NYU spokesperson Wiley Norvell.
Student government leaders at the university had objected to the selection of Jonathan Haidt as the graduation speaker at Yankee Stadium May 14, calling it “deeply unsettling.” An NYU social psychologist and author, he has been highly critical of the culture in which many young adults today are raised.
A network of anti-Israel activist groups coordinated “Nakba 78” protests across the United States the weekend of May 15, with organizers using the anniversary of Israel’s founding to challenge the Jewish state’s right to exist. University of California campuses have faced an antisemitism crisis, with dramatic increases in harassment, intimidation, and exclusionary conduct targeting Jewish students and others labeled “Zionist” or “pro-Israel.” Among many events, University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian spoke at a three-day “Islam, Memory and the Nakba” conference in Burlingame, Oakland and Los Gatos.
Even the UCLA campus Hillel was targeted. The Undergraduate Students Association Council condemned an April 14 Yom HaShoah event organized by Hillel featuring freed Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov. He was kidnapped from the Nova music festival on Oct. 7, 2023, and held hostage in Gaza until his release in a prisoner exchange in February 2025.
“While we affirm the humanity of all people impacted by violence, we reject the selective platforming of narratives that obscure the broader reality of ongoing state violence,” they stated. “Israel is currently continuing to carry out what has been widely identified by human rights advocates as a genocide in Gaza, while also expanding its illegal military campaign into Lebanon.”
This has become part of an effort to delegitimize Hillel chapters, long seen as the main address for Jewish life on most American campuses. Hillel International asks all its affiliate chapters to maintain an unwavering commitment and support for Israel, discouraging criticism of the Israeli state.
The New School, a university in New York City, on May 2 rejected a student government vote to defund and cut ties with the campus chapter of Hillel. The student senate a day earlier had voted to strip funding and stop collaboration with the campus chapter of the Jewish student organization, claiming violations of “international law” due to volunteer opportunities it has offered with the Israel Defence Forces. They also cited Hillel’s promotion of 10-day Birthright trips and other programs in Israel. Hillel International and other Jewish groups have said that efforts to shut down the Jewish student organization are antisemitic.
But it seems to be working. Swarthmore College in 2015 became the first campus to break with Hillel International. They began to call themselves an “Open Hillel,” then rebranded entirely after the parent organization threatened legal action over a civil rights panel it deemed too critical of Israel. Now, the student leaders of the campus Hillel at Middlebury College have voted to rename its student group, moving to distance it from an international organization they say is too pro-Israel. It was renamed the Jewish Association at Middlebury. Might others follow?
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Tracking U.S. Immigration Statistics by Year: Shifts in Policy and Population Growth
Every number tells a story. Behind each datapoint on U.S. immigration lies a family that crossed a border, a student who arrived with a scholarship, or a worker chasing opportunity. Taken together, these stories form the demographic backbone of the country.
This article traces how immigration has shifted across time and into 2026. By focusing on statistics, we can see how policies, world events, and enforcement measures leave clear marks on US immigration. The aim is not just to report numbers, but to understand what they mean for America’s growth, its labor force, and its future.
Illegal Immigration Statistics USA 2026
Numbers on unauthorized immigration are never exact, but careful estimates reveal striking trends. This section draws from research led by Jennifer Lockman, a senior analyst affiliated with an essay writing service, EssayService, known for blending demographic data with policy context.
Lockman, who often collaborates with professional human essay writers online to translate complex data into accessible reports, describes her process as “writing an essay in numbers”: collecting surveys, interviewing migrants, and checking official counts against lived experience. Her 2026 research involved both government datasets and community-based surveys, making the results more credible.
She found that by 2023, the U.S. undocumented population had surged to 14 million, the largest in history. Roughly 27% of all immigrants in the U.S. lacked legal status at that point. But in early 2026, the trend reversed: deportations rose, border encounters fell, and the total unauthorized population declined for the first time in over a decade.
Lockman’s approach gave weight to personal accounts, such as Central American families waiting years for asylum rulings or Venezuelan migrants finding “twilight” legal status. These essay-style narratives backed the data: 6 million of the 14 million undocumented migrants in 2023 held temporary protections (asylum applicants, DACA, TPS holders), leaving them neither fully documented nor fully unauthorized.
Unauthorized Immigrant Population and Trends (2010–2026)
| Year | Estimated Unauthorized Population | Share of Total Immigrant Population | Notes |
| 2010 | 11.2 million | 24% | Plateau after 2007 surge |
| 2015 | 11.0 million | 23% | Stable, slight decline |
| 2020 | 10.3 million | 22% | Pandemic slowed inflows |
| 2022 | 12.8 million | 25% | Border arrivals surged |
| 2023 | 14.0 million | 27% | Record high |
| Jan 2026 | 13.9 million | 26% | Peak levels |
| Jun 2026 | 13.5 million | 26% | Decline after policy changes |
Key facts:
- Mexico remains the top origin, about 5.5 million people (40%).
- Central America accounts for ~20% (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador).
- Venezuela has grown rapidly, adding ~500,000 recent arrivals.
- Roughly 4% of the entire U.S. population is unauthorized.
Lockman concludes that immigration enforcement in 2026 created “the first visible dip in the shadow population,” but warned that long-term structural issues remain unresolved.
U.S. Immigration by Year: A Historical Perspective
The US immigration tendencies show clear peaks and valleys tied to events. In the 1990s, the U.S. legalized millions under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, pushing green card totals to a historic 1.8 million in 1991. After that, flows stabilized at about 1 million new permanent residents annually, until the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 cut arrivals by nearly half.
By FY 2023, recovery was in full swing, with 1.17 million new green cards issued. Adding temporary migrants, asylum seekers, and undocumented arrivals, the foreign-born population climbed to 53.3 million by January 2026, or 15.8% of the U.S. population. That was the highest share since records began.
Yet, for the first time in 50 years, the number dipped in the first half of 2026, down to 51.9 million (15.4%) by June. This decline underscores how quickly policy can reshape the chart, from expansion to contraction in just months.
The US immigration chart for the last three decades makes the shift visible:
| Year | Total Foreign-Born Population | Share of U.S. Population | Notable Context |
| 1990 | 19.8 million | 7.9% | Start of modern growth |
| 2000 | 31.1 million | 11% | Post-1990s inflows |
| 2010 | 40.0 million | 13% | Strong growth |
| 2020 | 45.0 million | 13.7% | Pandemic slows flows |
| 2023 | 47.8 million | 14.5% | Border surge |
| Jan 2026 | 53.3 million | 15.8% | All-time high |
| Jun 2026 | 51.9 million | 15.4% | First decline in 50+ years |
The picture is clear: immigration has been the sole driver of U.S. population growth in recent years, even as birth rates among the native-born decline.
How Many Immigrants Came to the U.S. in 2026?
By mid-2026, immigration flows had already shifted noticeably. According to US immigration statistics released by DHS and the Census Bureau, roughly 1.2 million immigrants entered the U.S. in the first half of 2026 through legal channels: green cards, work visas, student visas, and refugee admissions combined. That’s a slight drop compared to 2023 and 2024, when yearly admissions reached over 2 million.
When unauthorized migration is factored in, early 2026 arrivals added another estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people. This marked the smallest six-month increase in over a decade, reflecting tightened enforcement and economic slowdowns abroad.
Immigrant Admissions and Arrivals (2023–2026)
| Year | Legal Permanent Residents | Temporary/Work/Study | Refugees & Asylum Grants | Estimated Unauthorized Arrivals | Total |
| 2023 | 1.17 million | 1.1 million | 200,000 | 1.7 million | ~4.2 million |
| 2024 | 1.05 million | 950,000 | 180,000 | 1.5 million | ~3.7 million |
| 2026 (Jan–Jun) | 600,000 | 500,000 | 95,000 | 250,000 | ~1.45 million |
These figures reveal a paradox: even as the U.S. foreign-born population peaked in early 2026, inflows slowed soon after, signaling a turning point.
Facts About Immigrants: Beyond the Numbers
Every chart hides a set of lived experiences. Behind US immigration statistics are students, workers, and families reshaping communities. Here are some highlights:
- Top origins: Mexico (23%), India (6%), China (5%), Philippines (5%).
- Education levels: 47% of immigrants arriving since 2010 hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.
- Labor force impact: Immigrants represent 18% of the U.S. workforce as of 2026.
- Citizenship: Nearly 45% of the foreign-born are naturalized U.S. citizens.
- Households: Roughly 14% of U.S. households are headed by an immigrant, many of them multigenerational.
- Economic output: Immigrant-led businesses generate over $1.3 trillion in sales annually, fueling both local and national economies.
These numbers remind us that immigration is not just a border issue. It shapes schools, hospitals, and industries across every state.
Policy Shifts and Their Impact
Immigration ebbs and flows with the law. Every reform, executive order, or court ruling alters the trajectory of entries and the size of the foreign-born population.
Key policy-linked shifts:
- 1990s IRCA reforms legalized millions, creating the largest one-year spike in green cards.
- Post-9/11 tightened visa screening and slowed flows in the early 2000s.
- 2017–2020 restrictions cut refugee resettlement to historic lows (below 20,000 annually).
- 2021–2023 expansions raised ceilings again and offered protections to Venezuelans and Afghans.
- 2026 enforcement showed the first measurable decline in the total immigrant population in half a century.
Taken together, these shifts reveal a pendulum effect: expansion, contraction, and expansion again. Immigration policy has never been static, and each wave leaves long shadows in classrooms, in labor markets, and in family reunifications.
Conclusion: The Changing Shape of Immigration
Looking ahead, immigration will remain central to U.S. growth. With declining birth rates among native-born Americans, new arrivals sustain both population and workforce numbers. Whether immigration grows or contracts depends less on individual desire to migrate than on how U.S. policy balances enforcement and opportunity.
Immigration data is a mirror. It reflects national priorities, international crises, and the human drive to move. The question is not whether immigration shapes the U.S., but how the U.S. chooses to shape immigration.
Features
Brave American hero only US soldier to be included among Yad Vashem’s Righteous Among the Nations
By MYRON LOVE Courage is a rare quality. More than 80 years ago, Roddie Edmonds, a master sergeant in the American army, showed what courage looked like when the then-POW successfully stared down the barrel of a Nazi gun, thereby saving the lives of about 200 of his Jewish fellow POWS.
In 2013, Edmonds became the first American soldier to be inducted into Yad Vashem’s list of Righteous Among the Nations – a designation that recognizes non-Jews who risked their lives during World war II to shelter and save Jewish lives. Earlier this year, he was also awarded the Medal of Honour, America’s highest medal for bravery.
On Wednesday, May 6, Roddie’s son, Chris, was in Winnipeg to tell his father’s story. Speaking at the Truth and Life Worship Centre in St. Vital to an audience of Jewish community members and non-Jewish supporters, the younger Edmonds, a Christian pastor from Tennessee, related how his father – at the age of 14 – in Chris’s words, committed himself to Jesus.
In the brutal winter of 1944, Master Sargent Roddie Edmonds and his 106th infantry division were thrust into action for the first time, in the Ardennes Forest. They were unprepared for what was to come.
Five days after their posting, they were hit hard by an unexpected Nazi onslaught in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge, the last great battle of the war on the Western front. Edmonds’ unit was quickly overrun and he was one of as many as 9,000 GIs who were taken prisoner.
Chris Edmonds described the POWs’ dire situation in detail. They were forced to walk for four days in freezing cold, deep snow, and constant rain. They were then put into the Nazis’ notorious sealed box cars – standing room only – and subsequently divided among several POW camps.
Master Sgt. Edmonds found himself the ranking officer responsible for almost 1,300 POWS – among them about 200 Jewish American GIs. It was Nazi practice to separate the Jewish GIs from the others and ship them to concentration camps.
On January 7, the POWs’ first day in camp, the Nazi commandant ordered Edmonds to tell only the Jewish GIs to turn up for roll call the next morning. The night before, Edmonds spoke to all of his charges and they all agreed on a plan. The next morning, all of the GIs presented themselves – including the weak and the sick – all claiming to be Jewish.
The Nazi commandant – red in the face with anger – put a gun to the 22-year-old Edmond’s head and demanded that he identify the Jewish GIs. He refused. Instead, according to his son, Chris, Roddie calmly pointed out to the commandant that the war would soon be over, the Allies were going to win, and if the commandant were to harm any of the POWs, he might be prosecuted for war crimes after the war.
As Chris noted, the colour drained from the commandant’s face, he put the gun down, and returned to his office.
Liberation for the POWS came on May 5, 1945, with the arrival of a couple of American tank columns.
Chris attributed his father’s bravery to his deep faith and love of God.
“Dad used to say that fear of people makes you scared, but fear of God makes you brave.”
Now, as was the norm, returning soldiers, POWs and Holocaust survivors rarely spoke about their war time experiences – not even to their families. All Chris knew about his father’s war was that he was a POW.
Roddie Edmonds came home, married, had a family, was an outstanding dad – according to his son – and enjoyed a successful career in sales. He died in 1985 at the age of 66.
Chris Edmonds first learned about his father’s heroism in 2008 while reading an interview in the New York Times with Lester Tanner, a prominent New York-based attorney. During the course of the interview, Tanner – whose original name was Tannenbaum – mentioned the American master sergeant who had saved his life.
Chris Edmonds reached out to Tanner, who subsequently invited the Edmonds family to come to New York where the former GI arranged for the family to be lodged at the prestigious Harbor Club and generally gave them the royal treatment. Tanner also described what had happened in that POW camp.
Chris was inspired to learn all he could about his father’s war time experiences. Fortunately, his mother had kept all of his father’s effects. Among his father’s possessions, Chris found a detailed diary of his father’s time as a POW.
As a result of Chris Edmonds’ research, he wrote a book titled “No Surrender; A father, a Son and an extraordinary Act of Heroism That Continues to Live on Today” (with co-author Douglas Century). He also produced a documentary, “Footsteps of My Father,” which includes commentary by Tanner and some of the other Jewish POWs who were spared as a result of Roddie Edmonds’ bravery.
The documentary was part of Chris’s presentation at the Truth and Life Worship Centre.
Chris Edmonds has also founded an organization: “Roddie’s Code,” which is dedicated to “extending the leadership and legacy of his father to future generations.”
Edmonds was brought to Winnipeg by community leader Larry Vickar and Christian Zionist Pastor Rudy Fidel, both of whom heard Edmonds speak in Florida earlier this year. The presentation here was sponsored by B’nai Brith Canada’s Manitoba Jewish-Christian Roundtable.
While in Winnipeg, Edmonds was also able to present his inspiring story to close to 700 students at Gray Academy, St. Paul’s High School, and Vincent Massey Collegiate.
In closing, Chris Edmonds noted that his father’s actions in that POW cap didn’t just save the 200 Jewish POWs who were there, but also their future generations – numbering around 20,000, who would not have been alive today.
“My dad used to say that there are two main purposes in life,” Chris said. “