- Donald Trump as the Emperor Caligula
- Decades of Bipartisan Elite Support for Open Borders
- Open Borders Under the Biden Administration
- The Backlash Against Open Borders by Hispanics and Asians
- Strong Hispanic and Asian Support for Trump in 2024
- Hispanics and Asians Return to Being Swing Voters
- Trump’s Militarized ICE and Its Reign of Terror
- ICE Raids Against Legal Residents Who Criticize Israel
- ICE Intended as an American NKVD?
- Trump’s Effort to Severely Restrict Birthright Citizenship
Donald Trump as the Emperor Caligula
Last week I’d published an article noting the considerable similarities between the reign of the notorious Roman Emperor Caligula and the second term of our own President Donald Trump.
According to the ancient sources, Caligula had best been known for proclaiming himself a living god and for declaring that he would appoint his horse to the consulship, the highest office of the Roman state. Many of these later historians declared that he was mad.
Given that America’s huge legion of bitter Trump-haters has spent years denouncing our president in every possible way, they would surely endorse this historical analogy. Trump may not have yet appointed a horse to his cabinet, but as one recent commenter suggested, he had certainly done so with a donkey, putting our entire armed forces under the authority of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, an incompetent, unqualified, heavily tattooed drunken rapist.
But the primary analogy I was actually making was a somewhat more subtle one. For centuries the Romans had always had a deep and abiding hatred of kings. So when Augustus became the first emperor in 27 B.C., he was careful to nominally retain all of Rome’s many republican institutions and treat them with great respect, thereby allowing his subjects to pretend to themselves that they were not living under a monarchy. His successor Tiberius continued that same policy.
But Caligula’s outrageous behavior and the total contempt he expressed for Rome’s traditional political institutions removed all such pretense. He revealed to even the most naive Roman citizens that their republican form of government had been transformed into the sort of absolute monarchy that their political culture had always detested.
In much the same way, Trump’s constant use of emergency executive orders has demonstrated that our American constitutional system no longer exists. On a weekly or even daily basis Trump has drastically changed the tariff tax rates on our three trillion dollars of annual imports, doing so based upon personal whim. Disregarding the civil service regulations enacted in the late nineteenth century, he has claimed the authority to fire government workers at will. He has also seized the right to remove the members of independent boards and commissions, defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that has prohibited such action for the last 90 years.
No past president has ever so rapidly arrogated near total governmental power to himself. By doing so without suffering any major political repercussions, Trump has demonstrated that our traditional constitutional system of checks and balances has largely disappeared.
In his numerous interviews throughout this year, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University has described how our Congress has completely abdicated all its traditional Constitutional responsibilities. He has also expressed great concerns that the Supreme Court may be on the verge of overturning a century or more of its own previous rulings and blessing much of Trump’s total usurpation of Congressional authority. Just a few days ago, he reiterated these points, describing Congress as “dead.”
Some elements of this ongoing transformation had already occurred under past presidents from Bill Clinton onwards. But these previous leaders sought to conceal what was happening and with the assistance of the mainstream media, they had generally succeeded in doing so. However, Trump has made no effort to hide the reality of the nearly all-powerful presidency he has established, revealing it to every American who has eyes to see.
Trump has also displayed elements of the megalomania long ascribed to Caligula. Our president swept clean the board of the Kennedy Center, replacing its members with his own loyalists, and the latter then voted to rename their institution “the Trump Kennedy Center.” Wags suggested that our capital might soon become known as the site of “the Trump-Washington Monument” and “the Trump-Lincoln Memorial.”
In that same article, I also noted that one sign of a political system veering towards total collapse is that it may often undergo rapid, dramatic swings from one set of extreme and legally dubious policies to those at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. I suggested that the best example of this has been our immigration policies of the last decade or two.
Although many of the most extreme such measures have recently been implemented by the Trump administration, previous Democratic administrations had sometimes taken similar steps. For example, after President Obama tried but failed to pass Congressional legislation shielding illegal immigrants who had arrived as children from deportation, he issued an executive order establishing the DACA policy that did exactly that. This bold but obviously illegal change in our immigration laws attracted the enthusiastic support of most of our mainstream media.
As a political issue, immigration had been crucial to Trump’s surprising political victories and it has become his signature domestic policy, but I’d only very briefly discussed it in that article. So I think it is now worth focusing upon Trump’s immigration policies in much greater detail as well as the reasons that issue provided such an important political opening for his populist outsider candidacy.
Decades of Bipartisan Elite Support for Open Borders
The starting point is to recognize that for decades all our national elites have embraced an “Open Borders” policy of allowing almost unlimited immigration. I explained this in a long 2011 article on that subject.
The political reality is that both major parties are enormously dependent upon the business interests that greatly benefit from the current system and are also dominated by disparate ideologies—libertarian open-borders and multicultural open-borders—whose positions tend to coincide on this issue.
As an extreme example of the bizarre ideological views of our current political elites, consider a less-publicized element of the immigration reform plan that President George W. Bush trumpeted during his 2004 reelection campaign. This provision would have allowed any foreigner anywhere in the world to legally immigrate to America if he accepted a minimum-wage job that no American were willing to fill, an utterly insane proposal which would have effectively transformed America’s minimum wage into its maximum wage. Naturally his opponent, Sen. John Kerry, saw absolutely nothing wrong with this idea, though he did criticize various other aspects of Bush’s immigration plan as being somewhat mean-spirited.
The bizarre immigration views of these elites were further brought home to me a couple of years later when I was invited to NYC to participate in a 2013 Intelligence Squared debate on exactly such a hypothetical “Open Borders” proposal regarding private employment. The event was carried on NPR and rebroadcast on various television outlets around the country, with the sponsoring organization also providing a convenient transcript.
As I explained at the time:
Under the regular operating rules, the organizers held before and after votes of the large New York City audience, regarding the winning side as being the team that shifted the margin in their direction. Given my two decades of past writing on immigration issues, I found it quite ironic and amusing that I had been selected for the “anti-immigration” side of the debate, together with Kathleen Newland, co-founder of the eminently pro-immigrant Migration Policy Center. This indicates how yesterday’s fringe ideas have now become the accepted mainstream perspective of American elites. The resolution under consideration was certainly as extreme and radical a formulation of the views of economic libertarians as might be imagined: “Let Anyone Take A Job Anywhere.”
Under the literal interpretation of such a proposal, one can easily imagine twenty or thirty million of the world’s desperate poor coming to America within the first few years of enactment, drawn from a global pool numbering in the billions. The resulting social and economic changes would be on a scale unprecedented in human history let alone America’s past, and the potential for an utterly destructive outcome leading to the collapse of our society seems completely obvious.
Nonetheless, at the pre-debate vote the supporters of this proposal outnumbered opponents by a landslide margin of some twenty-five points, 46% to 21%, while one-third of the audience remained undecided. Indeed, during the televised pre-debate discussion between the moderator and the Intelligence Squared chairman, some doubts were expressed that any intelligent person could oppose such a sensible free market policy in labor mobility.
Once the debate began, I focused on the obvious point that the law of supply and demand ensured that a huge increase in the number of willing workers would greatly reduce their economic bargaining power against their employers. Wages for ordinary Americans have been stagnant for forty years and it is probably more than pure coincidence that the last forty years have witnessed one of America’s greatest waves of foreign immigration. Adopt a proposal that immediately increases such immigration levels by a factor of five or ten, and America’s minimum wage would be transformed into its maximum wage, with the natural outcome being economic devastation for most working Americans.
Certainly America’s affluent and highly educated urban elite—the sort of New Yorkers attending the debate—would benefit in the short run from enacting a policy that drastically cut the share of the national income going to shopkeepers, nannies, construction workers, and probably 90% of all other Americans. But the eventual social consequences of the total impoverishment of the American middle and working classes might lead to the sort of extreme political reaction we sometimes read about in the history books.
Such points might seem totally obvious to me, but many of the audience members had seemingly never encountered them before, and the results were striking. After ninety minutes of hearing both sides of the issue, there was a swing of thirty-two points toward our opposed position, and we won handily. As a point of comparison, at the reception prior to the show we had been told that the largest previous swing at any Intelligence Squared debate had been the shift of eighteen points that occurred during a 2006 debate on the nature of Hamas in the Mid East conflict.
I have little doubt that those many hundreds of earnest New Yorkers who decided to spend their time and money to attend an evening policy debate rather than see a Broadway show or watch Gravity in 3-D, consider themselves well-informed people, who regularly read The New York Times and many of the leading liberal opinion magazines. But such purportedly “liberal” outlets studiously avoid mentioning that a massive influx of foreign workers would be an economic catastrophe for the bulk of the American population. Hence the apparent surprise of so much of the audience at the notion that a huge increase in the supply of workers might produce a sharp decline in the market value of their labor and the income they receive.
- Open Borders, American Elites, and the Minimum Wage
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 11, 2013 • 1,700 Words
Our bipartisan political elites stubbornly continued their support for this lunatic open borders policy, thereby eventually providing a huge political opportunity for a rank outsider such as Donald Trump who was willing to challenge it. Trump very effectively used that issue to seize the Republican nomination in 2016 and then against all odds won the White House in November of that same year. A few weeks before that shocking victory, I explained the demographic and ideological roots of his tremendous success:
In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America’s demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as “white.” As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10.
Demographic changes so enormous and rapid on a continental scale are probably unprecedented in all human history, and our political establishment was remarkably blind for having failed to anticipate the possible popular reaction. Over the last twelve months, Donald Trump, a socially liberal New Yorker, has utilized the immigration issue to seize the GOP presidential nomination against the vehement opposition of nearly the entire Republican establishment, conservative and moderate alike, and at times his campaign has enjoyed a lead in the national polls, placing him within possible reach of the White House. Instead of wondering how a candidate came to take advantage of that particular issue, perhaps we should instead ask ourselves why it hadn’t happened sooner.
The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere.
Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox‘s Ezra Klein, and explained that “of course” heavy foreign immigration—let alone “open borders”—represented the economic dream of extreme free market libertarians such as the Koch brothers, since that policy would obviously drive down the wages of workers and greatly advantage Capital at the expense of Labor. These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox colleague joined in the attack, harshly denouncing the candidate’s views as “ugly” and “wrongheaded,” while instead pointing to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as the proper font of progressive economic doctrine. Faced with such sharp attacks by young and influential Democratic pundits less than half his age, Sanders soon retreated from his simple statement of fact, and henceforth avoided raising the immigration issue during the remainder of his campaign.
Only a brash, self-funded billionaire contemptuous of establishment wisdom would challenge this bipartisan immigration consensus among our political elites, and only a prominent celebrity could launch his campaign with sufficient visibility to achieve a media breakthrough. This seemed an unlikely combination of traits to find in one individual, but the unlikely occurred, and our national politics has been upended.
There had already been strong previous indications of this smoldering political volcano among voters, though these signs were repeatedly ignored or discounted by the DC Republican apparatchiks who spent their time attending each others’ receptions and fundraisers. During the 2014 election cycle, immigration was a key issue behind the stunning defeat of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who lost to an unknown primary challenger whom he outspent 40-to-1, constituting one of the greatest upsets in Congressional history. Prior to that, anti-immigration Tea Party insurgents had ended the long careers of incumbent Republican senators Bob Bennett of Utah in 2010 and Richard Lugar of Indiana in 2012.
- A “Grand Bargain” on Immigration Reform?
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • October 3, 2016 • 4,700 Words
Open Borders Under the Biden Administration
Trump’s 2016 victory stunned the American political elites, and they were initially terrified of what he would do on immigration matters and everything else after his January 2017 inauguration.
But although Trump had loudly promised his legions of devoted followers that he would “Build a Wall!” and otherwise control our borders, in practice he didn’t do much of anything. This hugely emboldened his many enemies in the political establishment.
When Trump left office four years later after the disputed election of 2020, foreign immigration had indeed sharply fallen, but that decline was merely due to the Covid epidemic, which had locked down our entire country and its economy.
Believing that they had successfully seen off the political menace of Trump and Trumpism, our elites decided to redouble their push to implement an open borders policy under the incoming Biden Administration. Once the temporary Covid-induced decline in immigration abated, waves of immigrants in absolutely unprecedented numbers soon began arriving.
According to the official CBO/Census estimates, total net immigration during the years 2021-2024 exploded to more than 10 million and even sharply accelerated, with the influx in 2023 or 2024 being triple what it had been in 2021. Moreover, anti-immigration activists allege that the true figures were actually much higher:
Nothing like this had ever previously happened in American history, and the natural result was a huge political backlash that became a major factor behind Trump’s victorious 2024 presidential campaign. I discussed all of this soon after his November victory:
Although the immigration debate of the last couple of years has been framed as being fought over the issue of illegal immigrants, I actually think that this is rather misleading.
As I’ve explained, for decades the elite political establishments of both parties had advocated something much closer to an open borders policy, including the removal of many existing restrictions on immigration. But despite the overwhelming financial support they contributed to the project, they had repeatedly failed to pass any such legislation in Congress.
However, the powerful ideological backlash against Trump’s harsh immigration rhetoric and his efforts to strengthen border enforcement gave them an opening to circumvent existing policies. Using a series of judicial rulings and administrative decisions, they gradually managed to eliminate legal restrictions against immigration by reclassifying most migrants as protected asylum seekers, who must be allowed to remain in our country after crossing the border.
I explained these legal maneuvers in greater detail earlier this year:
Beginning in 1951, a special exception to American immigration restrictions had been carved out for the case of refugees seeking asylum, and media pressure during the first Trump Administration had led to a series of judicial rulings and administration decisions that had potentially swelled that category beyond all recognition, with these trends continuing under Biden.
Traditionally, when migrants lacking legal documents entered America, they had sought to evade our border control officers, and if caught, were immediately deported. However, they now discovered that they could instead declare themselves to be refugees seeking asylum on a variety of different grounds, and simply turn themselves in. Given our overburdened judicial system, they would be granted a court hearing date well in the future, and generally released into American society for years, immediately disappearing into the local immigrant communities. As paroled asylum-seekers, they were under various legal restrictions regarding employment, but given the huge numbers, these were seldom if ever enforced.
So in effect, a quasi-Open Borders policy had been established in American immigration law through non-legislative means. What had once been intended as a small and narrow exception had swallowed our entire immigration system. This transformed the influx of what would have previously been considered illegal immigrants into quasi-legal “migrants,” much like the waves of millions of “migrants” admitted into Germany and other European countries about a decade earlier.
The resulting size of the inflow was staggering:
With millions of foreigners casually entering the U.S. and only a small fraction of them ever being deported, the enforcement of laws against unauthorized entry largely disappeared as a matter of practical federal policy. And by effectively eliminating the notion of illegal immigration and allowing migrants to remain here, our country naturally began attracting more and more eager entrants from all across the world.
During the Immigration Wars of the 1990s, activists had warned that our country would soon be swamped by endless waves of immigrants from Mexico and the rest of Latin America, but I’d always regarded this as total nonsense. Mexican birth-rates were rapidly declining toward replacement levels during those years, with most other countries of the region following that same trajectory, and according to official estimates, the population of Latin America will peak and begin to decline within another generation. America’s wrong-headed efforts to sanction and destroy the Venezuelan economy has produced a heavy outflow from that country, but we are obviously the ones responsible for that particular problem.
However, one very surprising recent development has been the large influx of migrants from Africa, something we had never previously experienced in such numbers. For many years, blogger Steve Sailer has publicized what he calls “the Most Important Graph in the World,” showing that the population of Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to grow by 700% from 1990 to 2100, rapidly approaching half of the entire world’s population and thereby providing an almost unlimited source of future migrants.
So the combination of effectively eliminating our restrictions on immigration together with Africa’s exponential population growth might easily lead to unprecedented demographic changes in our society, with the sudden recent wave of African migrants being merely an early warning of what might eventually come.
Although it’s unclear how much of the voting public explicitly recognized this dystopian scenario, it may have quietly circulated in attenuated or euphemistic form, provoking the sort of uneasiness that shifted support towards Trump, who was promising a policy of large-scale deportations if elected.
Towards the end of the campaign, Republicans had focused on the recent inflow of African-ancestry Haitians, claiming these immigrants were eating family pets, and perhaps this was partly an indirect means of raising such concerns.
- Immigration, Hispanics, and the Political Triumph of Donald Trump
The Insane Bipartisan Consensus on Immigration
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 11, 2024 • 8,800 Words
The Backlash Against Open Borders by Hispanics and Asians
This massive wave of immigration under Biden impacted American politics in unexpected ways, and earlier this year I discussed these.
But this huge and almost unchecked new wave of unauthorized immigrants to America under the Biden Administration had a very ironic political consequence.
For decades, leading Republican figures such as President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain, and political strategist Karl Rove had mistakenly argued that the best means of attracting Hispanic voters to the GOP was a pro-immigration policy, and this led them to promote the repeated failed efforts to enact legislation loosening immigration restrictions.
But the reality was that Hispanics living in America actually had very mixed feelings about high levels of continued immigration, and this came to the fore as the numbers of new migrants crossing our Southern border spiked under the Biden Administration.
By the early months of 2022, the New York Times ran a major article bearing the striking headline “How Immigration Politics Drives Some Hispanic Voters to the G.O.P. in Texas,” with this dramatic trend soon confirmed by a Republican victory in a special Congressional election a few months later. The Times and other mainstream media outlets were stunned as the shift of Hispanics towards the Republican camp continued into November.
As I discussed in a November 2022 article, that remarkable story of the strong movement of Hispanics and Asians toward the Republican Party of Donald Trump was confirmed in the subsequent midterm elections:
The demographic results provided strong evidence that America’s rapidly growing populations of Hispanics and Asians were continuing their political convergence with the existing white majority.
Taken together those two groups already represent a quarter of our total population, roughly double what they had been thirty years earlier, and according to reasonable projections they may account for one-third of all Americans within another generation. In recent decades, they have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, and the likely impact of their increasing numbers had become a linchpin of the confidence of party leaders in their long-term prospects. But although those groups do still lean strongly in that direction, over the last half-dozen years, these margins have sharply declined, a trend that initially shocked much of the media given that it seemed so contrary to their narrative of a “white supremacist” takeover of the Republican Party by Trump and his right-wing, MAGA supporters.
Political analyst William Galston is a staunch Democrat based at the Brookings Institution, and writing in the Wall Street Journal on election night, he summarized some of those alarming trends:
Democrats have even more cause for worry about their standing among Hispanics, who gave Donald Trump 38% of their votes in 2020, up from 28% in 2016, while Joe Biden’s share was only 59%, down from Hillary Clinton’s 66% in 2016. Recent surveys suggest this slide is continuing. AEI reported that Hispanic support for Democratic congressional candidates averaged only 53% in October. A Wall Street Journal survey conducted in late October 2022 offered even worse news, with Hispanic support for Democratic congressional candidates averaging 46%, only 5 points ahead of their Republican counterparts.
The actual results were released the following day by two different consortia of major news and research organizations, and these were considerably better for the Democrats, but still confirmed the very substantial gains the Republicans had made since the previous midterms:
In House contests, 11 percent of voters indicated they were Hispanic. In both polls, they voted 60 percent for Democrats, 39 percent for GOP ones. In 2018, nearly seven in ten Hispanics voted for Democrats. Democrats also appear to have lost significant ground among Asian voters. In 2018, around 80 percent of them supported Democrats. In this election, it was around 60 percent.
Obviously, well over half of Hispanics and Asians still voted for the Democratic candidates in 2022, but changes in ethnic party loyalties are usually glacial, and so rapid a shift is really quite remarkable.
A few days prior to the election, the Atlantic had published a lengthy article discussing these same Hispanic trends.
- Why Democrats Are Losing Hispanic Voters
The left has alienated America’s fastest-growing group of voters just when they were supposed to give the party a foolproof majority
Tim Alberta • The Atlantic • November 3, 2022 • 8,100 WordsProminent political demographer Ruy Teixeira has long been associated with the Democratic Party and twenty years ago, he had co-authored The Emerging Democratic Majority with John Judis, a widely discussed book arguing that long-term population trends were likely to ensure the party’s political success. But in his latest Atlantic article, he now argued that the Democrats were continuing to lose working-class voters, greatly damaging their prospects. Given that Hispanics are heavily concentrated in that economic category, both these developments were obviously related.
- Democrats’ Long Goodbye to the Working Class
The party’s biggest challenge heading into the midterm elections is the erosion of its traditional base of support
Ruy Teixeira • The Atlantic • November 6, 2022 • 3,800 Words
Although a single election result can easily be dismissed as an outlier, several in a row have now revealed a new American political landscape that must be recognized. According to the exit polls, white voters favored Republican candidates by a 60-40 margin, while Hispanics and Asians leaned in the opposite 40-60 direction, certainly a clear difference but hardly an unbridgeable ideological chasm.
And even these figures may considerably exaggerate the influence of ethnicity in such voting patterns. Although Texas is solidly Republican and Florida is evenly divided, the bulk of Hispanics and Asians live in heavily Democratic states such as California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey. Moreover, both these groups are considerably younger than whites, and youthful voters skewed very heavily Democratic. So their overall voting patterns may not have differed so greatly from whites of the same age and region.
The increasing political amalgamation of these non-white populations with the existing white majority is a development of enormous consequence for our country’s future. If these trends continue, the voting behavior of members of these rapidly growing groups will become much less determined by their ethnic ancestry than by the same set of factors that influence the choices of their white counterparts, not only the aforementioned impact of age and geography, but also characteristics such as education, affluence, occupation, and religiosity. And if this occurs, then from a political perspective Hispanics and Asians would become little different than Americans of Irish or Italian heritage.
- Hispanics and Asians Join the White Political Mainstream
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 14, 2022 • 6,400 Words
Strong Hispanic and Asian Support for Trump in 2024
In November 2024 I explained that these shifts carried Trump to victory that year:
These trends have continued and they even accelerated in last week’s remarkable results, in which exit polls revealed that Trump won nearly half the Hispanic vote, the largest share of any Republican candidate in modern American history. Indeed, Trump actually did slightly better with Hispanic men than he did with white women.
Once again, I believe that even these dramatic results considerably understated the actual degree of political convergence between Hispanics and whites since the former are so heavily concentrated in overwhelmingly Democratic states, and probably voted much like their white neighbors. Someone also noted that on a national basis there was virtually no difference in voting between between Hispanics and whites who were under thirty.
Similarly, the much smaller Asian population is even more heavily concentrated in Democratic states and liberal cities, while disproportionately being well-educated and affluent. So their substantial skew against Trump was probably little different from that of whites of the same income, education, or geographical location…
Donald Trump was certainly the most divisive political candidate in modern American history, regularly vilified by our mainstream media as a white racist intensely hostile to non-whites. Yet these results suggest that if Hispanics and Asians—who together represent more than a quarter of our total population—had instead been white, their presidential voting patterns would have been almost unchanged, a result with tremendously important political implications for our country’s future. This momentous development was recognized not merely by mainstream conservative media organs such as the New York Post, but also by a prominent White Nationalist writing under the name of Gregory Hood.
- Immigration, Hispanics, and the Political Triumph of Donald Trump
The Political Amalgamation of Hispanics, Asians, and Whites
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 11, 2024 • 8,800 Words
One of Trump’s highest-profile campaign issues during the 2024 race was his promise to control our borders and deport the millions of illegals who had recently arrived, and this naturally galvanized his national base of conservative whites. But both Democratic and Republican political analysts were shocked when this exact same message resonated so strongly with Hispanics as well, giving him roughly half their votes, a larger share than that of any previous Republican presidential candidate.
Republican strategists had always assumed that support for greater rates of immigration was the best way to win Hispanic votes, but Trump proved that the exact opposite was the case. This merely demonstrated the ignorance of those political operatives, whose knowledge of Hispanic sentiments was probably restricted to their interaction with the self-important leaders of Hispanic advocacy organizations, who naturally always sought to increase the size of the population that they claimed to represent.
As far back as my 2011 article on immigration, I’d noted that the historical evidence was actually quite often on the other side:
Consider, for example, the case of self-educated union activist Cesar Chavez, a liberal icon of the 1960s who today ranks as the top Latino figure in America’s progressive pantheon. During nearly his entire career, Chavez stood as a vigorous opponent of immigration, especially of the undocumented variety, repeatedly denouncing the failure of the government to enforce its immigration laws due to the pervasive influence of the business lobby and even occasionally organizing vigilante patrols at the Mexican border. Indeed, the Minutemen border activists of a few years back were merely following in Chavez’s footsteps and would have had every historical right to have named their organization the “Cesar Chavez Brigade.” I think a good case can be made that during his own era Chavez ranked as America’s foremost anti-immigration activist.
A different but equally interesting political signpost had appeared in 2020, when a major effort by California Democrats to restore Affirmative Action in their state suffered a crushing defeat at the polls, with the votes of Asians and Hispanics being a major reason for that debacle. Both Democratic and Republican political operatives generally assumed that those ethnic minority groups strongly supported Affirmative Action but discovered that they had been seriously mistaken about this.
Hispanics and Asians Return to Being Swing Voters
The widespread confusion on issues of political demographics was actually far deeper than this. All these Democratic and Republican pundits were naturally shocked when Trump won half the Hispanic vote and that he did nearly as well among Asians, having long held the belief that both those groups almost always voted Democratic in overwhelming numbers. But once again, such underlying assumptions were entirely false, and based upon their ignorance of longer-term American political history.
During the mid-1990s California Republicans had unleashed a fierce attack against Hispanic immigrants largely for opportunist political reasons, and Congressional Republicans soon did the same on the national level, also extending their attacks to Asian immigrants.
The unsurprising result was that both those groups strongly shifted their support away from the Republicans, who prior to that had usually received one-third to one-half of their votes. If Republicans had insulted and attacked Catholics in similar fashion during the 1990s, Catholic voters would surely have reacted by becoming staunch Democrats in exactly the same way.
I’d explained that important but forgotten history in the same 2011 article:
A perfect example of this danger may be found in the recent political history of California, whose huge size and heavily immigrant population render it a useful testbed for the nation as a whole. During the four decades from 1950 to 1990, California supported the Republican presidential ticket almost without fail, going Democratic only during Lyndon Johnson’s unprecedented 1964 landslide. The state was considered as solidly Republican as Wyoming or Idaho, and the huge number of electoral votes it carried combined with the enormous expense of contesting them established it as the anchor of the GOP presidential strategy, leading to the widespread notion of a Republican “lock” on the White House.
Although Hispanic and Asian numbers had been growing steadily for years, their support for Republicans had been growing as well, and by the early 1990s, a GOP candidate could regularly expect to receive around one-third or more of the Hispanic vote and half that of the Asian. For example, Pete Wilson’s narrow 1990 gubernatorial victory over Dianne Feinstein, which significantly relied upon his criticism of “racial quotas,” was achieved with 53 percent of the white vote, 47 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 58 percent of the Asian vote according to the prestigious California Field Poll used by the New York Times, though others placed his ethnic totals lower.
But all of this permanently changed following Wilson’s harsh 1994 reelection campaign, whose television ads relentlessly scapegoated Hispanic immigrants for the state’s terrible economic woes. Although his words were carefully chosen in lawyerly fashion to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, his message was perceived very differently, and his loudest grassroots activist supporters certainly made no such distinction. Moreover, the resounding California Republican landslide that resulted soon emboldened the newly established Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to focus on passing anti-immigration legislation, which thus placed legal Asian immigrants in the same political crosshairs.
As a direct consequence, Republican support sharply dropped among Hispanics and Asians and has never really recovered. Moreover, the immigration battle frightened and energized many traditionally apolitical Hispanics into finally naturalizing and registering, and during the 15 years that followed, their share of the state vote more than doubled to 22 percent, severely compounding the blow to Republican prospects.
The consequence was that gigantic California—almost as populous as Texas and New York combined—suddenly switched from being the strong anchor of every Republican national campaign to being the equally strong anchor of every Democratic one. In the years that followed, the large GOP congressional delegation was decimated and the powerful state Republican Party, which had once propelled Nixon and Reagan to national leadership, was reduced to near irrelevance.
Consider the interesting case of Howard Ahmanson, long one of California’s wealthiest politically active Evangelical Christians and during the early 1990s routinely described by the media as a central pillar of the Christian Right within the Republican Party. In a prescient 1993 letter to Commentary, he warned of the rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment in conservative circles and expressed a concern that Republicans would “doom themselves” if they drove away these socially conservative voters, perhaps losing them for generations, just as previous Republicans had done with Italian and Irish immigrants a century earlier. The California Republicans completely ignored his warning, with the political consequences already noted.
In Ahmanson’s opinion, today’s California GOP has shrunk to the point where it now represents only the most dogmatically taxophobic elements of the state. Meanwhile, the Democrats have expanded so much that they usually incorporate both sides of almost every political divide: business and labor, whites and non-whites, the rich and the poor, liberals and conservatives. This inclusiveness certainly extends to the staunchest socially conservative voters, since it was the overwhelming support of California non-whites that defeated gay marriage at the ballot box in 2008. And these days Howard Ahmanson is a registered Democrat.
- Immigration, Republicans, and the End of White America
An Anti-Immigration Backlash
Ron Unz • The American Conservative • September 19, 2011 • 12,200 Words
A dozen years earlier I’d covered the very important but largely forgotten history of those events of the 1990s in much greater detail in a 1999 Commentary cover story.
- California and the End of White America
Ron Unz • Commentary • October 1999 • 8,600 Words
Trump’s Militarized ICE and Its Reign of Terror
As I emphasized earlier this year, Trump’s 2024 victory led to an elite reappraisal of the outrageous asylum laws that had been the basis for the tidal wave of uncontrolled immigration under Biden:
The Economist surely ranks as the world’s most influential newsweekly, and the cover story of its latest issue must have greatly surprised many longtime readers of that staunchly neoliberal publication. The headline was “Scrap the Asylum System” and the inside pages fleshed out this emphatic statement in a leader backed by a long article.
For decades, the Economist has been known for its strong support of immigration and immigrants, asylum-seeking refugees certainly included, and an apparent ideological reversal of such magnitude naturally caught my eye.
Although many different elements may have gone into this surprising shift, I suspect that the strident anti-immigration policies and rhetoric of President Donald Trump were probably the decisive factor.
Given these developments, Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 holding some extremely strong ethnic political cards, but then proceeded to play them in disastrously poor fashion:
His support from our rapidly growing population of Hispanics and Asians was unprecedented for a Republican candidate, and he had attracted much of that support by promising a sharp crackdown on the completely uncontrolled immigration that our country had experienced under the Biden Administration.
He had merely to secure our borders as he had promised and drastically restrict our absurdly burgeoning asylum laws as the Economist now advocates, and he would both satisfy his right-wing base and also nail down much of his strong support from Hispanics and Asians. With Trump being perceived as having an election mandate and with vehemently anti-immigration Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate, this should not have been especially difficult. Yet instead he has adopted policies that will likely prove utterly disastrous for both himself and his Republican Party, not to mention American society.
Although the overwhelming majority of America’s 65 million Hispanics are U.S. citizens or otherwise legal residents, many or most of that population does probably have close family ties to undocumented immigrants, individuals who have peacefully lived here, often for decades. It’s not at all uncommon for such fully assimilated American-born citizens to have a mother or a grand-mother or an uncle who still lacks legal status and may have spent many years on the waiting list for a green card. For exactly that reason, immigrant advocates have endlessly lobbied Congress to allow such long-time residents to legalize their status.
There was strong support among many Hispanics for Trump to deport most of the millions of new immigrants who had arrived during the last couple of years and prevent any further influx. But this was very different than targeting those who had already lived here for ten or twenty or thirty years and long since integrated themselves into the community.
Yet exactly those latter sorts of round-ups have now become the very high-profile enforcement measures of Trump’s immigration policies. Teams of masked ICE agents wearing military-style gear have begun grabbing people off the streets without any probable cause, simply because they looked Hispanic and were found in a heavily immigrant area, and numerous videos of such horrifying scenes are widespread across social media.
This has almost amounted to inflicting a reign of terror upon the heavily immigrant parts of Los Angeles and other cities, naturally leading to public protests. Trump then responded to the latter with a massive show of force, deploying thousands of armed national guardsmen and U.S. Marines, and completely bypassing local elected officials to do so. Nothing like this has happened since the 1950s when the federal government deployed armed troops to enforce desegregation orders upon various Southern states and cities against the will of local governors.
Over the last couple of months, Trump’s immigration-control measures have been unprecedented in their harshness, sending masked federal officers to snatch suspected illegal immigrants off the streets of our major cities, then deploying thousands of national guardsmen and marines to Los Angeles to intimidate and suppress the resulting public protests. Judges, mayors and other elected officials from around the country have sometimes been arrested and dragged away for allegedly interfering with such immigration operations.
California is America’s largest state with a population of some 40 million, perhaps half of them from an immigrant background, and our senior U.S. Senator is Alex Padilla, a respected moderate Democrat from the Los Angeles area. Last month Sen. Padilla attempted to ask Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem a probing question about immigration policies at her LA press conference, only to be manhandled, handcuffed, and thrown to the ground by members of her security detail, an incident that absolutely astonished me. I’d never previously heard of any similar physical attack upon so high-ranking an elected official in modern American history. This seemed more like the sort of behavior we’d expect to see in a despotic Third World dictatorship.
Most recently, the Trump Administration publicly touted the creation of a new prison-camp in Florida swampland to hold those arrested for immigration violations, proclaiming it the “Alligator Alcatraz.” Trump had already made arrangements to send other such civil offenders off to brutal foreign prisons in El Salvador or Africa’s Sudan, sometimes even doing so in direct violation of orders issued by federal judges. Trump officials have apparently convinced themselves that the harshest possible measures taken against immigrants and their advocates are the recipe for political success.
- ICE Raids, Asylum Policies, and Other Immigration Controversies
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 21, 2025 • 10,100 Words
ICE Raids Against Legal Residents Who Criticize Israel
All these actions by the Trump Administration seem so wildly counter-productive on both political and policy grounds that suspicious minds have begun considering alternative explanations.
For example, deploying teams of militarized federal agents to snatch harmless but terrified taco vendors off the streets of our major cities hardly seems a cost-effective means of enforcing our immigration laws. I was absolutely astonished to discover that the legislation recently passed by Congress allocated an unprecedented $170 billion to immigration control measures, roughly half of it going to ICE, which suddenly became our highest-funded federal law enforcement agency.
It’s also quite intriguing that the earliest examples of such street abductions by militarized ICE agents began several months ago, with the victims being fully legal permanent residents who had criticized Israel. As I wrote at the time:
Late last week an astonishing event occurred in American society, and video clips of that incident quickly went viral across the Internet.
A 30-year-old Tufts doctoral student and Fulbright Scholar from Turkey was walking across her Boston-area neighborhood on the way to a holiday dinner at a friend’s house when she was suddenly seized and abducted in the early evening by six masked federal agents of the Department of Homeland Security. The terrified young woman was handcuffed and taken to a waiting car, secretly detained for the next 24 hours without access to friends, family, or lawyers, then shipped off to a holding cell in Louisiana and scheduled for immediate deportation, although a federal judge has now temporarily stayed the proceedings.
Just one of the Tweets showing a short clip of that incident has been viewed more than 4.5 million times, with a much longer YouTube video accumulating another couple of hundred thousand views.
That very disturbing scene seemed like something out of a Hollywood film chronicling the actions of a dystopian American police state, and that initial impression was only solidified once media reports explained why Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched off the streets of her home town. Her only reported transgression had been her co-authorship of an op-ed piece in the Tufts student newspaper a year earlier sharply criticizing Israel and its ongoing attacks on the civilian population of Gaza.
Apparently, one of the many powerful pro-Israel censorship organizations funded by Zionist billionaires became outraged over her sentiments and decided to make a public example of her, so its minions in the subservient Trump Administration immediately ordered her arrest.
CBS News covered a local protest demonstration demanding the young woman’s release, and quoted the remarks of one of the participants:
“The university campus should absolutely be a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and the fact that someone can just be disappeared into the abyss for voicing an idea is absolutely horrifying,” said rally attendee Sam Wachman.
Now suppose that such a scene—for such a reason—had taken place on the streets of Russia, China, Iran, or any other country viewed with great disfavor by our government. Surely that incident would have quickly become the centerpiece of a massive global propaganda offensive aimed at blackening the reputation of the regime responsible. Audiences worldwide would have been forcefully told that the arrest demonstrated the terrible dangers of living in a society lacking the freedoms guaranteed by our own Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I don’t recall seeing any recent propaganda campaigns along these lines, so this suggests that such incidents are extremely rare in those countries.
But unfortunately that is hardly the case in today’s America. A day or two before that Tufts graduate student was snatched off the streets of her city, a 21-year-old Columbia University junior went into hiding to avoid a similar fate after federal agents raided her campus dorm to arrest her. As the Times reported, high school valedictorian Yunseo Chung had moved to the U.S. with her family from South Korea when she was 7, but her permanent residency was suddenly revoked for her public criticism of Israeli policy. She was ordered immediately deported back to a country that she barely even remembered.
This followed the storm of controversy unleashed earlier this month by the very high profile arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student heavily involved in last year’s campus protests against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. Seized in an early morning raid on his campus student housing, which he shared with his wife, an American citizen eight months pregnant, he was taken off to detention, first in New Jersey and then transferred to a holding cell in Louisiana, once again with no initial access to his family, friends, or lawyers.
As a Green Card holder—a permanent legal resident of the U.S.—he was considered fully entitled to all the normal rights and privileges of an American citizen, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that his Green Card would be canceled and he would be deported based upon an obscure legal doctrine never previously employed for that purpose, eliciting a strong legal challenge in federal court. Moreover, his transfer from a New Jersey jurisdiction to a different one in the Deep South also seemed to violate normal legal procedures.
A week after that arrest, Ranjani Srinivasan, another Columbia doctoral candidate from India on a Fulbright Scholarship, hurriedly packed her bags and fled the country to Canada when she narrowly missed being arrested by federal authorities who raided her student housing. As the New York Times reported:
“The atmosphere seemed so volatile and dangerous,” Ms. Srinivasan, 37, said on Friday in an interview with The New York Times, her first public remarks since leaving. “So I just made a quick decision.”
A day earlier Rubio explained that he had already authorized the arrest and immediate deportation of more than 300 students around the country for their criticism of Israel, so these particular cases obviously represented merely the tip of a very large iceberg.
- The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 31, 2025 • 7,300 Words
Trump has also made remarks about stripping citizenship from large numbers of Americans, and given some of our president’s other public statements, this might include those individuals deemed insufficiently loyal to the State of Israel.
ICE Intended as an American NKVD?
Right-wing Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin is hardly a great supporter of immigrants, legal or otherwise, but the combination of all these factors raised huge concerns in his mind, concerns that he rather plausibly outlined in an important article he published in July:
A lot of people on the internet are celebrating and cheering on some pretty brutal videos of ICE grabbing Mexicans out of parking lots, out of Walmarts, wherever. It’s understandable. I understand, and my instinct is to celebrate it as well. And I would be celebrating it if I knew less about the situation than I do.
Please, allow me to explain why I’m not celebrating it.
Let’s start with just how uncomfortable I am with the cops. The Big Beautiful Bill is turning ICE into the biggest federal cop group in American history. Their budget is going to go from $10 billion to $100 billion, which surpasses the combined budgets of the FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, and the Marshals Service…
But there is no “once the mission is complete, ICE’s staffing and funding will be drastically downsized” clause in the BBB or anywhere else. This is a standing army, trained to run around the country throwing people into vans, without warrants…
If we want to get an idea of what they will do with these cops, perhaps we should recall Waco and Ruby Ridge, then imagine that sort of thing happening everywhere, all the time.
Another fact that is rather important in my view is that most of these people we see being arrested are not being deported at all. The BBB does nothing to address the laws that make it virtually impossible to deport 98% of illegal immigrants. Getting rid of the laws that prevent deportations should and would be the first move of anyone who was even remotely serious about deporting tens of millions of people. Among other things, you would expand expedited removals, end “credible fear” interviews for “asylum seekers,” and defund immigration courts. This could all be done by Congress…
Of course, the idea of tens of millions of people via mass roundups is completely nonsensical on its face…You are not going to pick them up one at a time in the Walmart parking lot…
Far from moving to arrest the employers and landlords of illegals, which I suspect many in the Trump administration would view as antisemitic, Trump has not even managed to cut off illegal immigrant access to all of the free social services…
…now these people are just being interned indefinitely as the courts prevent deportation…most of these people being detained by ICE are no longer being deported and are instead being sent to detainment facilities…
This “Alligator Alcatraz,” where MAGA patriots plan to eat delicious bread while watching Mexicans being eaten alive by large lizards, is a “black site.” That is, it is a prison camp where people are held indefinitely without access to due process. Just to be clear, no, it does not have to be secret to be a “black site.” Guantanamo Bay, where Trump is also sending immigrants instead of deporting them ..is the world’s most famous prison and is also, definitionally, a “black site.” … if you imagine that the federal government is not using this current circus atmosphere to build these sites across the country, you are as innocent as a babe or as stupid as an ox who’s suffered severe head trauma…
Along with a brand new army of fully militarized federal cops trained to drive around the country and disappear people into vans in broad daylight, these black sites are another thing that the Trump Administration will be gifting to the AOC administration…
The most important gift Trump will give to AOC will be an AI police state control grid run by Palantir, so that the government will be able to keep close tabs on racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and most importantly of all, antisemites.
Will the Democrats use this series of gifts to identify, arrest, and detain all the people viewed as a threat to democracy? Of course, I have no way of predicting such a thing, all I can do is say that it would be very easy to do..
Personally, I think these street scenes of ICE agents grabbing people are being created to desensitize people to seeing this sort of thing, and I think it is only a matter of time before these methods are used against those viewed as “dissidents” in America.
- Dear MAGA: If You Think Masked ICE Thugs Wouldn’t Do the Same to You, You’re Even Dumber Than You Look
Andrew Anglin • The Daily Stormer • July 11, 2025 • 3,100 Words
Trump’s Effort to Severely Restrict Birthright Citizenship
Finally, we should consider Trump’s current efforts to severely restrict America’s birthright citizenship laws. In my article last week, I’d briefly discussed and ridiculed this project:
Just days after his inauguration, Trump had delighted his right-wing followers by issuing an emergency executive order abolishing birthright citizenship for the American-born children of illegal immigrants. Naturally, this was immediately blocked by lower court injunctions, but earlier this month the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Six of the nine Justices are conservative, Republican appointees, half of them by Trump himself, so there is some speculation that Trump’s order might be affirmed.
Although in recent years many or most conservative organizations and activists have taken this position, it would seem to be an absolute violation of every purported conservative judicial principle, given that it would overturn the long-settled 127 year interpretation of the high court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim.
What makes this popular conservative legal argument so totally ridiculous is that it apparently first appeared during the immigration battles of the 1990s, roughly one hundred years after the Supreme Court decision it now seeks to reverse. Throughout the twentieth century, probably many millions of American-born children of illegal immigrants received their citizenship under such birthright provisions, and as far as I can tell, no one had ever challenged that legal assumption.
I am not arguing that this interpretation of the law was affirmed by judicial rulings. Instead, I am making the far stronger claim that for nearly one hundred years it was never once even publicly questioned by anyone in America, whether lawyer, elected official, journalist, pundit, or political activist. So if the high court ruled in favor of Trump, it would be declaring that for nearly a full century every American lawyer and every American non-lawyer had misinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, about as dramatic a violation of the supposed conservative principle of judicial restraint as could be imagined.
Indeed, such a Supreme Court ruling would be as utterly ridiculous as for the Justices to suddenly claim that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage although neither its drafters nor a single American for more than two hundred years had been aware of that fact. But given the 5-to-4 Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015, I think it is far from impossible that Trump’s executive order abolishing birthright citizenship might be affirmed.
The elimination of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is wildly popular among Trump’s right-wing supporters and indeed the entire conservative movement, so just as I expected I received quite a number of angry responses to my statements.
I replied to those critics by merely reiterating my argument in summary form:
(1) Throughout the twentieth century, many millions of the American-born children of illegal immigrants were automatically granted American citizenship.
(2) As far as I can tell, for nearly 100 years not a single person in America—lawyer, politician, journalist, or just random fringe-activist—ever publicly questioned or disputed that interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
If you disagree, please find me any such public statement. Just an op-ed or a public speech or even an angry mimeographed pamphlet written by an eccentric fringe-activist.
(3) It’s exactly analogous to the notion that our Constitution guarantees a right to Gay Marriage. For more than 200 years, I doubt that a single American anywhere had ever made that claim.
Over the years, I have issued that same challenge on numerous occasions, and no one has ever been able to find any American, even including the most disreputable right-wing fringe-activist, who ever questioned the assumed birthright citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants until the 1990s.
I have closely followed immigration issues for more than forty years, and I distinctly recall when that dispute over birthright citizenship first arose during the Immigration Wars of that decade. The Wikipedia page confirms this, explaining that in 1993 Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) first introduced legislation restricting such citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
Consulting ChatGPT similarly confirmed my recollection that conservative Political Science Prof. Edward J. Erler of Cal State San Bernardino and the Claremont Institute first raised the question of whether our longstanding interpretation of the 1898 Supreme Court decision was mistaken and birthright citizenship should not have been applied to the children of illegal immigrants. He apparently did so in Loyalty Misplaced, a 1997 collection of essays edited by Gerald Frost, and then subsequently repeated and extended that same argument in numerous other writings over the years.
Even so, all those many conservative critics agreed that the passage of Congressional legislation was required to eliminate such assumed birthright citizenship. Until the Trump Administration, I do not think that any credible individual had ever claimed that such a radical change in American citizenship laws could be enacted solely by a presidential executive order.
Consider that this fundamental interpretation of Constitutional law has impacted many, many millions of Americans and remained in place for almost one hundred years without ever once being questioned or challenged. Given such facts, suddenly abolishing it by emergency executive order seems a very doubtful legal procedure to endorse, just as doubtful as allowing a president to drastically change tariff tax rates on a daily basis by will or by whim.
Moreover, consider the consequences of such a Supreme Court ruling that affirms Trump’s order eliminating such assumed birthright citizenship provisions after 127 years. I expect that the political results of such an extreme example of judicial overreach would be disastrous, especially for those who had supported it.
If we exclude our relatively small populations of Puerto Ricans and Cubans, I think that a very large majority of other American Hispanics acquired their citizenship under those birthright provisions or had parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents who had done so. Therefore, they would hardly view with total equanimity a Supreme Court ruling that their American citizenship had been wrongly granted.
Furthermore, many of the critics of our current policy of birthright citizenship have strongly asserted over the years that the 1898 Supreme Court case was wrongly decided rather than merely misinterpreted. One of their main arguments has been that the 14th Amendment was originally enacted to grant citizenship to black slaves and therefore should not have been applied to the children of Asian immigrants.
For generations, nearly all Asian-Americans received their citizenship due to that late nineteenth century Supreme Court ruling. I think our Asian population would react with serious concern to public declarations that their citizenship or that of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had been improperly granted.
Finally, legal arguments have been advanced over the decades that the 14th Amendment itself along with the other two Reconstruction Amendments were improperly ratified and are therefore legally invalid. Among other issues, the Southern states of the former Confederacy were then still under military occupation and were coerced into ratifying those measures. So perhaps reasonable questions can be raised about the citizenship of blacks or even whether slavery is still legally valid in our country.
Many of the loudest Internet critics of our current birthright citizenship policy are self-proclaimed White Nationalists, who argue that only whites were ever intended to be full citizens of this country. In support of that position, they note that our Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly restricted granting such citizenship to “free white person(s)…of good character.” From their perspective, the current American citizenship of Hispanics, Asians, and blacks is legally rather dubious.
However, Hispanics, Asians, and blacks together now constitute more than 40% of the American population. So raising all these serious doubts about their American citizenship could surely be utilized by ruthless Democratic Party operatives and propagandists to inspire them to huge and extremely skewed turnouts in future elections. Given their numbers, the impact upon Republican candidates would be catastrophic.
As discussed above, Anglin has plausibly argued that one of Trump’s most important lasting legacies has been that he bequeathed to a future Democratic administration a lavishly funded and fully militarized national ICE police force. These ICE agents have become very experienced at snatching people off their city streets without any warrants or due process and then secretly confining them indefinitely to “black site” prison camps with no access to friends, family, or lawyers.
All of this seems eerily reminiscent of Stalin’s NKVD, and although the current targets of ICE are suspected illegal immigrants or fully legal residents who have criticized Israel, it would surely be quite easy for the government to broaden their mandate to include American citizens suspected of being terrorists, foreign agents, racists, homophobes, or antisemites.
Trump’s efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship by executive order seem ideally designed to ensure that his Republican heir is swamped by a tidal wave of angry non-white voters in the 2028 election. So we may fairly soon have an empirical test of whether an embittered future Democratic president would use that ICE national police force against conservative political enemies.
Related Reading:
- Donald Trump as Our President Caligula
- Immigration, Hispanics, and the Political Triumph of Donald Trump
- ICE Raids, Asylum Policies, and Other Immigration Controversies
- Hispanics and Asians Join the White Political Mainstream
- Immigration, Republicans, and the End of White America
- Open Borders, American Elites, and the Minimum Wage
- A “Grand Bargain” on Immigration Reform?
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
While I’ll agree that Trump has helped reveal the basically corrupt arbitrary nature of US governance, I disagree with:
If I were to describe Trump I would use words like “corrupt” and “incompetent” and not “powerful”. Trump seems completely powerless before his donors.
Is there any precedent for the Trump Gold and Platinum Cards?
https://trumpcard.gov
The Trump Gold
Card is Here.
Unlock life in America.
TRUMP GOLD CARD
For a $15,000 DHS processing fee* and, after background approval, a contribution of $1 million, receive U.S. residency in record time with the Trump Gold Card.
TRUMP PLATINUM CARD
Foreign nationals can sign up now and secure their places on the waiting list for the Trump Platinum Card. When launched, and upon receipt of a $15,000 DHS processing fee and $5 million contribution, they will have the ability to spend up to 270 days in the United States without being subject to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.
It remains the most salient political position the president has. One in which there is very little that is not accordance with enforcing the immigration policies since the founding.
save maybe he could be nicer about it — laugh. But his real challenge will be with business community both large and small and apparently no small number of faith and practice christans who tout law and order until it unless its about immigrants.
Apparently the good book, is fine with dumping your own. There is no barrier to being a good Samaritan and enforcing immigration policy.
As for Congress, this has got to be one of the most subdued congress’s in history.
There are a number of writers like David Cole Stein who challenge the idea that the GOP’s collapse in California was primarily due to Governor Pete Wilson’s anti illegal immigration campaign.
For example Mr. Unz notes that Wilson received a majority of the white vote in 1990. Why have whites in the Golden State moved so far leftward since then?
Before he was blackmailed.
Video Link
The middle and lower classes know they face further degradation of the social positions. Trump’s heavy handed immigration policies have support among the disaffected, coupled with the strong Zionist influence on American thought. No one knows where all this will lead.
As to Mr. Unz’s ridicule of Trump’s move to abolish much birthright citizenship, I think Trump has a better chance of winning this fight than traditionalists like Mr. Unz believe. The federal 9th circuit court of appeals in 2025 in Moncada v. Rubio, 153 F. 4th 733, held that a man born in 1950 in the US of Nicaraguan parents, who for decades the US government had recognized as a citizen and to whom it had issued passports, did not in fact have US citizenship because at the time of his birth his father worked as an attache for the Nicaraguan embassy and had diplomatic immunity and therefore was not “‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States according to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.”
A link to the case:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5145120506050562407&q=moncada+v.+rubio&hl=en&as_sdt=4,72,73,78,79,80,86,88,93,114,129,134,135,141,142,143,149,151,156,258,259,260,261,310,311,321,322,323,324,373,374,383
And yet despite all the rhetoric, all the brutality, etc, the number of visitors to the US from Mexico is rapidly growing in 2025. According to ADIS data for 2025 till the end of September, nearly 10% increase YoY. That’s circa 1.2M additional visitors from Mexico in 9 months.
I don’t give any endorsement to Nick Griffin but his highlighting the self-sacrificing role of the British working class (who have by far the most to lose from mass Third World sponsored invasion and are the most socially conservative (culturally respectful) section of society and have been disgustingly betrayed by the organised Far Left/’Broad Left’) but this discussion is of great significance; Griffin was the leader of the British National Party (BNP) from 1999 to 2014.
Video Link
BTW, Ed Dutton, though informed and always entertaining, has an anally retentive Toryism that speaks for itself.
As I see it, politics is like that: it goes through stages, mediated by the imperfect.
This. 👆
Thing is, you can only understand what’s happening if you’re able to transcend the false dichotomy of American politics. Committing oneself to a side will ensnare you into defending it like a priest ordained in its ministry.
That said, the fall of the House of MAGA is nigh.
I think we’re gonna see a lot more ‘heretics’ burning their red caps in the coming months.
This may have been merely a threat, but Cassus Dio claims that the horse was actually made the high priest of Caligula’s cult.
Who’s the high priest of Trump’s cult?
Day Late and a Dollar Short:
Biden, Blinken, Garland, and Mayorkas pretty much hammered in the final coffin nails to WASP/Eur0-White Majority America.
Full and White-Mixed Hispanics will become the Numerical Majority of the Murican Demographics in about 30years or so.
Trump may have delayed the process; but the Demographics have shifted enough not only to have added Hispanic Legal Visa Holders and Immigrants, Illegal Migranvaders, and Births Legal and Anchor – to outnumber added Euro-Whites by a greater than a 5:1 Margin.
To top that off, more Hispanics Full and White-Mixed have been born – Legal and Anchor – than Euro-Whites for several years running now.
The BodyPolitic Dialogue may remain Euro-White and Jewish weighted for a few more decades; but they will be assimilated by the White-Mixed Hispanics led discourse on related matters on pure volume.
Tump is a symptom, not the cause.
You must do a series on Western democracy Ron, it’s roots, how it came to be in the form it is practiced today.
Parallels with the current political situation in the UK.
In 1997, Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ party won a parliamentary landslide in the General Election of that year. Unbeknownst to voters – the issue was *never* mentioned in his manifesto – Blair foisted on the UK a surreptitious and hidden ‘open door’ immigration regime, which meant, effectively, all immigration control into the UK was abolished. Apart from the political mendacity involved, this was a clear provocation since the memories of Enoch Powell’s speeches rocking the UK political establishment in the early 1970s was still fresh in voters minds.
Such was the power of The Economist magazine and Blair’s eagerness to show his neo liberal credentials.
Inevitably a backlash ensued. ‘New Labour’ lost the 2010 election to a ‘Conservative’ party which solemnly promised to cut immigration to the ‘tens of thousands’ per annum. Instead it increased it to over a million per annum. Such is the duplicity and mendacity of British politicians and the cobra like fascination The Economist holds over them. As an aside, the popular backlash forced an extremely reluctant, angry and sorrowful UK political class to exit from the EU, the first hint of what was to follow.
Currently, we find the explicitly anti immigration party – it stands for little else – Reform UK beating all opposition in UK polling by a country mile. Such are the vagaries of the UK voting system, that projections tells us that both Labour and the Conservatives will be utterly destroyed if an election would be held tomorrow. The irony here is that the Westminster first past the post voting system entrenched the ancient Labour/Conservative political duopoly, rendering any challenge to the stitch up impossible. Hence the imposition of mass immigration upon a nation which hated it.
The UK had the ‘right’ of ‘birthright citizenship’ for far longer than the USA ever existed.
Apparently, it dated from high mediaeval times, the notion being that any person born within the realm was, due facto, a subject of the King. This formed a contrast with other European states, which, in the modern era, at least, based membership of the nation on a blood quantum.
Nevertheless, Mrs Thatcher, who was anti immigration, by the way, abolished it at a stroke with a clause in the 1981 Immigration Act.
At around that time, as air travel got more affordable, an incipient wave of African/Indian pregnant women started to take advantage of the ancient right by flying over to the UK with the explicit intention of giving birth on UK soil in order to get UK citizenship for their child – and eventually themselves. Current Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, is one example. Unfortunately, the cut off arrived to late to bar her.
Classic meme on ICE that Andrew Anglin posted during Trump’s 1st presidential term
No federal law since the Confederate States legally left the union has been valid. We can point to facts like the 14th Amendment being illegally passed along with multiple other acts in the immediate post-conquest time period, but the issue is much deeper than those laws: the union was consensual and is invalid when imposed by voice. By conquering half of the country, the union ceased to exist. It is no longer a legally valid nation and the Constitution no longer holds: it is an occupied territory under the thumb of a political entity that has no borders.
That same borderless entity has since grown to encompass the majority of global commerce (through the USD, sanctions, banking systems, and military threats). It has committed untold atrocities against the world, wearing the skinned mask of its first victim to preserve its anonymity.
Perhaps the open borders status-quo can be seen as an admission of this fact. Everyone is a citizen of the United States, in a sense, because the United States rules the world on behalf of its true masters. In this context, what does “citizen” mean?
Given that Western politics is largely controlled by a select group of financial elites, one could explain the Democratic Party’s failure against the Republicans in the last U.S. elections. The elites were advancing their Agenda 2030 goals, using the Biden administration to promote a version of social relations centered on LGBTQ+ rights that many found extreme. These elites soon realized their plan had backfired, as few countries outside the Western hemisphere adopted it. Many Latin American voters in the U.S., for instance, rejected this focus and voted for Trump.
Similarly, the elites’ subsequent backing of Trump under the MAGA narrative is also doomed to fail, and signs of this failure are already surfacing. The globalist elites’ neoliberal order has reached its dead end, and a final blow may come by Trump’s mid-term.
If, by that time, the financial elites can engineer regime changes in Iran and Venezuela—thus gaining control over a dominant share of the world’s energy resources—they could use this leverage to control China’s rise and contain a resurgent Russia following its conflict in Ukraine. In that scenario, they might maintain the so-called “Rules-Based Order.” If not, the neoliberal financial order will be replaced by a new multipolar system.
And this, gentlemen, is how you go from “they are just a few, it would be inhuman to deport them” to “there are too many people to deport”…
However, Trump’s deportation policy is just theatrics.
I don’t really think there is a solution to this mess. I doubt mass deportations at the level needed will happen (and deportations won’t be enough, you would also need a reversal of the negative birth rate of the white population).
Probably at some point there will be a big war and a reorganization of borders along new ethnic lines, both in the US/Canada and in Europe.
Is it bad that i dont bother to read articles authored by unz? They just never have a point and roam all over the place. Ive trudged through several and at the end thinking ive come away less informed. Incoherent info dumps that meander from topic to topic and inconsistent analysis, either off in the weeds minutia hunting or surface level cnn takes.
I don’t have any disagreements with this article, except for some very minor historical remarks on the initial section, which were expressed as comments under Ron Unz’s previous article, of which that section is a summary. I’m not sure they should be categorized as disagreements.
That being said — and this is not criticism, more like some idle musings — it’s interesting to note that the U.S. had a long period of slavery, when most rural work and much menial urban work was performed by slaves. Those slaves were brought to America without *any* regard to how they could possibly affect the living conditions of poor whites. Whenever the rich needed extra help, they simply bought more slaves; not one thought was given about hiring paid workforce. Of course, that eventually changed, spontaneously in the North, and forced in the South. But the official reason for that change was a humanitarian concern for *blacks*, not for whites. Another reason which is frequently mentioned is that there were a lot of new jobs which required some skill and blacks allegedly couldn’t perform adequately. So, again it was not concern for poor whites, but this time for rich ones.
With the abolition of slavery, blacks in practice continued to do more or less what they did before, except they got paid. But complains that blacks were stealing jobs from whites were really not on top of white people’s concerns. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, was comprised of people who were, until a few years earlier, hiring those blacks instead of whites, so how could they complain that whites would become unemployed? And I think that was not really a topic of interest for them.
Shifting to present times, I’ve never heard any white person complain about being out of work because of either blacks or immigrants. They complain, justly or unjustly, about criminality, which is something completely different.
And it’s funny that Donald Trump’s tariffs policies caused such economic chaos that joblessness increased! But Kevin MacDonald, in a survey published on this site, commended Trump’s policies:
https://www.unz.com/article/rating-trump-14-viewpoints-on-the-right/#p_1_23:17-49
I suppose unemployment in America must be addressed, but it’s certainly not a pressing problem which needs urgent radical measures (which by the way may backfire as we’ve seen).
All Trump has to do is annul the Refugee Act of 1980–then start deporting the millions of worthless scum from Africa/Asia/Latin America here. But we know that will never happen as long as ZWOG is in power controlling both these R/D parties. No, you need a gang of anti-Christian white fascists to obtain power, dismantle democracy & establish a one party Fascist oligarchy. And then the Aryan Adepts (A.A.) will take over.
What is the cause of the collapse of white western civilization?
Humanitarianism/pan-racial altruism aka Christianity.
A.A.
I wouldn’t have imagined an UR article, other than by a very few writers still left, that is written with a pro-American bent, and this one had me going for a bit. I was disappointed again. At first I thought you actually cared about the PRP and the country getting overwhelmed, but this is mostly just anti-Trump. There’s plenty for people to be anti-Trump about personality wise (he’s El Caudillo Yanqui, per E.H. Hail), but as far as immigration, JOB #1, he’s been doing a better job than even I or the good VDare people could have hoped!
First off, regarding this:
No, right, neither a wall nor double-concertina-wired fence serious barrier was nearly completed. However, just because that fact that – same as with the 47 term, the UniParty is loath to help, Trump DID take much action under the radar. I can’t link to VDare now, but I’ll link to a Peak Stupidity post, in which a New York Times article inadvertently gave us a lot of hope in writing about the -45 administration’s many under-the-radar actions on immigration. I wrote President Donald Trump: the Bad, **the Good**, and the Ugly near then end of that term, Oct. ’20 based on a Washington Watcher II article – still up after all (!) NYT Delivers Unintentional Endorsement Of Trump’s Immigration Triumph.
Yes, of course, if these moves are administrative and not put into legislation, as soon as the next guy, with HIS E.O.s, gets in, it all gets reversed on Day One. It did. As you wrote, it wasn’t just reversed but the the invasion was amped up to 11.
Now, I guess I should have read your previous article on President Trump, but I see you included some of that here. About the Constitution and it’s long-term trashing:
Yeah, from about 30 years back when nobody fought against the DUI traffic roadblocks in my State, I was certain already that the Constitution would no longer be defended by your average American politician.
So Trump is appointing his own heads of independent boards and such, and more than that. Shoot, compared to the jailing of the J6ers, many without trial for months or years, for, what trespassing, and the evil ignoring of long-standing immigration laws by the evil Mayorkas and Brandon (nothing new, but just greatly amped up), Trump is a piker when it comes to trashing Constitutional principles.
I would love to see the anti-immigration Administrative actions that Trump-47 has been taking, and it’s been a multitude, be encoded into law. Do you think any of it would get anywhere in the Uni-Party-run Congress? They are mostly bought and paid for.
In case anyone is wondering by whom they are bought and paid for, or more like, for WHAT, it’s a combination. One wing wants the additional Socialist votes from people with no concept of Liberty and Constitutional rights, another wing wants that continuous flow of cheap labor, but there’s MORE. The Globalists behind all this – cause the Population Replacement Programme is obviously not just an anti-America program (look at all Western Europe) – want, above all else, to delete the White Middle Class.
Why? These are people that can compete with the Globalist overlords both in business and in politics with their disposable income and time. Globalists want us gone as a class. That’s the gist of it. Are you a Globalist, Mr. Unz? Just asking for the record. Whose side are you on?
Law, to be good law, needs to make sense, and not be fundamentally subversive and counter-productive to the basis of our law: the rights of citizens to “pursue happiness” in the United States without being “supplanted” by aliens who have nothing beyond an accidental connection to the United States. It also needs to be coherent and rational. Republicans on the Supreme Court, embarrassed at the harshness of Chinese exclusion, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily incorporates the prerogatives of Royal sovereignty in the old Common Law – to make all born in these dominions “citizens” of the United States. (with an exception for Indians!). This was the logic of the press-gang – when Americans were impressed by the British crown as the national allegiance demanded upon them was deemed in the “Common Law” to be perpetual! Even if it were to be accepted as a matter of fact (it most certainly is not a fact, as we can read in the dissent authored by Chief Justice Fuller – who wrote Plessy – and Harlan – the lone dissenter from Plessy – Fuller IIRC concurred with up to 97% of majority decisions) that this was the intention of the Congress when the US Army by means of military occupation “ratified” the 14th Amendment – only a fool or a subversive would defend it as a rational policy.
A policy which allows tourists and border jumpers to come to the United States to give birth to an “anchor baby”, thereby bypassing naturalization, in the age of cheap international air travel, is totally contrary to all reason and common sense. It is highly analogous to open borders – it is difficult to see how Ron Unz’s opposition to open borders is anything other than mere pragmatism – too risky to permit – if he supports something that more or less the same in principle – if you are smuggled across the border in your mother’s womb and come out in America you’re American – that is as open borders in principle as it gets.
The Chinese Communist Party and its regime, panegyrics for which we routinely read on this website, can send tens of thousands of pregnant women to give birth here. Within a couple of decades, they then have a ready-made agent who can claim the full rights of citizenship – their votes count as much as ours do, they will be readily hired and brought into the system to lord it over the rest of us with their oligarchic sponsors – no different than Trotsky’s Chinese mercenaries. Support for this is not just misguided, it is outrageous and frankly a sign of a pathological disrespect for the very notion of citizenship – total disrespect for Americans as a genuine ethnicity.
That supposedly nobody broached this issue is really matter of complete indifference but is also to be regarded as disingenuous and highly strained as an argument. Legal precedent is simply not infallible. Courts can do reckless, foolish things with unanticipated consequences, often with strained logic, for ideological reasons. I don’t think anybody really believes that the American people (to the extent they really supported the 14th Amendment) wanted to create a system whereby the children of temporary resident aliens would automatically be considered just as American as they were in the law, no matter what the Congress said on the matter!
Supposedly nobody of importance (as Ron Unz the Jew judges who is important and who isn’t) mentioned it? Who cares? This is a country of simple-minded people and simple-minded politicians and judges. 99% of Americans couldn’t really explain to you what the first part of the Declaration of Independence means in context, 99% don’t know that US Revolution depended as much on Spain as on France, 99% couldn’t tell you the Continental Congress attended a Catholic mass in Philadelphia.
That something like birthright citizenship was not permitted to become a controversy before it became apparent that it was being ruthlessly exploited by the Jews who are fundamentally hostile to the white Christian majority to transform the United States with “anchor babies” – has no bearing on ANYTHING.
This construct, as stated, appears somewhat dubious and would certainly have to be practically irrelevant. Any possible Supreme Court decision in the near future that would precisely clarify this matter in the manner advocated by Trump would not legally extend retroactively – especially not as far back as “great-grandparents” – because that would violate elementary legal principles, so it is not really clear why there ought to be any “serious concerns” from all those people who would not be directly affected by such proposed birthright restrictions anyway. Consequently, they ought to welcome a definitive explanation by the highest court, which should then diminish such unwanted declarations of historical impropriety pertaining to their ancestors.
Trying to make sense of this quoted statement, one could therefore conclude that the implicit premise in the author’s conjecture actually seems to be that the “Asian population” living in the US naturally harbors malicious intent to subvert traditional American society in the future by advocating the perpetuation of this kind of illegal migration into the country that such a desired legal elucidation on this topic would seek to curtail.
Sorry, as far as ICE turning into the Stasi or NKVD, sorry but we Constitutionalists and Libertarians (incl. my man Ron Paul*) have been all over this for decades. At this point, stopping the PRP/immigration invasion is JOB #1. The ctrl-left that works violently against ICE couldn’t give a rat’s ass about Constitutional rights. If (hopefully not when) if comes to their “turn” again, they will round people up, just as Starmer & co. are planning in the UK.
In fact, the publicity surrounding the ICE raids has its pros and cons. The pros for immigration patriots is that, because most people are not good with numbers and probabilities, the publicity will (and IS) induce more self-deportations. The cons are that a long-term slow-burn Deportation Nation program will be something the ctrl-left will not be able to handle.
Imagine. There are thousands of Home Depots, thousands of Chinese buffet restaurants (full of illegal Chinese), and the local TV people won’t get far with their sob stories among thousands. Additionally, how many anti-American judges could handle this long-term steady process with 10,000 being deported daily. (I know that’s just 3 1/2 million a year only a fraction of the 50 million, but self-deportation could be 6 to 9 x the forced, as seen in Operation Wetback 71 years ago.)
.
* I told him IN PERSON in ’12 during his GOP primary campaign that if he wanted to win [REDACTED], he ought to talk about illegal immigration.
Trump has always been a tool of the Jewish DEEP STATE – his donors:
• He gangster-talks like them,
• he’s disloyal like them,
• he’s arrogant like them,
• he’s racist like them,
• he lies like them,
• he steals like them,
• he converted to Pharisaism like them,
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/are-jews-the-israelites-of-the-bible/
https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/judaica/judaism-or-pharisaism/
• he’s Israel First like them,
• he’s destroying the US like them,
• he’s a war criminal like them, etc.
Meet the REAL deep state.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/how-the-ashkenazi-jews-conquered-the-west/
And I never heard anyone claim that it didn’t; because it wasn’t an issue until it became an issue. Same with the interpretation of the 14th amendment. It wasn’t brought up because it wasn’t an enormous problem. You didn’t have birth tourism in 1950 FFS.
I truly believe that the high-profile activities of ICE and the news media attacking ICE is all coordinated and staged to make it appear as if the Trump Administration is really cracking down on illegals and not just people on legal student and work visas who criticize Israel.
It’s being done in such a way to placate the average MAGAmerican, who’ll watch Fox News or NewsMax and pump his fist in the air while shouting, “Winning!”
Meanwhile the real activity of ICE/CBP has largely targeted high-IQ critics of Israel— particularly students at prestigious colleges and professors at Ivy League medical schools.
It’s like the Trump Administration immigration crackdown has been a Pol Pot MIGA policy to eliminate the bespectacled dissenters.
And Trump has because Teflon Don since he assumed the mantle of the ‘first Jewish president’.
Video Link
A Zerohedge piece this AM tells how Trump is bragging that selling the US by the pound (sorry, Genesis) will pay down the nat debt. I guess that’s as coherent as anything coming out of the Orange Head’s mouth. And he only has to sell 31 million of the cards in order to get it under control.
But the article didn’t say who is buying them? Evidently employers and ultra wealthy persons looking to move families– and questionable bank deposits? More Indians for Microsoft? Rich Asians and Mexicans?
My guess is that money laundering from nefarious sources will increase, once these new ‘permanent residents’ come aboard to enrich the place.
Oh well. Just another day in paradise.
“No past president has ever so rapidly arrogated near total governmental power to himself. ” Ron Unz has surrendered to his own version of Khasarian TDS with his very word diatribe. FDR of course was far more authoritarian than Donald Trump could everhope to be and FDR policies led to nearly two decades of the worst poverty and brutal violence in American history. With over 400000 dead and over 1 million maimed the FDR legacy was cemeteries filled with young men who died for Jewish supremacy. FDR was the Amerocan Caligula.
No past president has ever so rapidly arrogated near total governmental power to himself.
Wilson?
F.D.R.?
Lincoln…?
“Immigrants will continue to stream into this country, legally or illegally, so long as there’s a Welcome Wagon waiting at the border – offering free education, free health care, free welfare and a free lunch. We need to put the Welcome Wagon out of business, so only people looking for freedom will want to come here.
Until then, no law, no policy, no border patrol will stop the flood of illegals.”
From: “The Immigration Scam”:
https://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2017/11/?m=0
Regards, onebornfree
Using ICE to snatch citizens? That does sound like the idiotic ramblings of Anglin. Its this goddamn simple. We don’t want a nation flooded with millions of more poc s . They aren’t going to give a crap about our constitution. They will exercise power through numbers and will take care of their tribe. Some of the logic in this massive post is frankly non existent.
PS- referencing Anglin does nothing for your credibility but it is a free speech site.
Of course, Hispanics neither give a damn about black people or Israel:
That’s the Democrat Party’s two overriding priorities gone, right there.
The future should be full of interest.
At that time period in colonial America, there simply wasn’t a mass population white peasantry available – as there was back home in England – for the planters to employ for cash wages, to enable the mass scale plantation model of growing export cash crops to possibly function.
Doubtless the planters thought of African chattel slavery as a ‘necessary evil’ which was unavoidable.
You, muh muh, Anglin and Ron, are quite blind. Would ICE agents need their faces covered, if the Left wasn’t threatening them?????????????????????
It is as if the logic of “Cause and Effect” is non-existent! You guys are so full of hate that you can’t see reality. The Left has threatened violence and doxxing—yet ICE is to blame! When no politician in any party really secured the border!
See, I find Anglin and Unz quite duplicitous and disingenuous–they don’t call out Biden—But Trump; attack ICE when its the Left that is making their job dangerous. Instead of calling out the causes–they attack the effects! And notice that neither Anglin, Unz or muh muh put forward a better prescription for removing 40 million illegals! In the case of Unz, he probably wants to keep them here!
What I find more interesting is that NONE of them have any morality! Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is Ethnic Dilution which is the strategy of Jewish Messianism. Ethnic Dilution is not only Soft Genocide but also Communist doctrine!
George Irbe “Genocide when necessary”, where he talks of the race-mixing done in the early Bolshevik history of the Soviet Union.
http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/Engels.html
I then expanded on Irbe’s insight and work here:
The Many Forms of Genocide: Hard and Soft. 8th Rev.
https://www.academia.edu/34936383/
Almost all forms of Soft Genocide are being used here in America! All three are complaining about the METHOD–NONE of them talk about the MORAL cause of stopping Genocide! To them, Genocide is just fine! I’ve been talking for the past year throughout Unz about Jewish Messianism, on Soft Genocide—Notice how all three NEVER mention these phrases!
And why isn’t Deportations, aka Operation Wetback, being conducted BY the our own Military??? Where’s our Military?
There are nine ways of sinning: By counsel, By command, By consent, By provocation, By praise or flattery, By concealment, By silence, By defense of the sinful action. Ron, Anglin, muh muh, are guilty of the last two; (a) they are silent about Genocide; (b) by attacking the method that ICE is using today, they are undermining efforts to deport. Therefore, they are defending Genocide, hence Treason. They are defending Genocide by Allusion.
Real Treason has occurred here in America by every immigration enthusiast and planner, to wit, to destroy the social cohesion, numbers of a group is to attack their war-fighting (offense or defense) of the group, hence REAL Treason! To attack the ability of a group to defend itself in times of war from attack—IS REAL TREASON.
You all do not have any morality. This whole Unz piece is misdirection, propaganda, and subterfuge. If you can’t recognize the BIGGER crimes, that of Soft Genocide and Treason, there is something deadly wrong with you. You are calling out the Method of deportation policy but never the Root causes and punishing the evil-doers in this country. This whole article is asinine!
Example #6Million that Jews will say anything to advance their people’s interest. Ideology, theory, mean nothing. Just so much chin music to fool the goyim. [*]
Immigration, schmimmigration, the question is: is it good for the Jews.
[*] All ideology takes the form of:
BS
BS
BS
Therefore, Jews rule
[apologies to Academic Agent]
I don’t know exactly, but it must be some jackass.
The UK and the European issue are very different from the US. The US rarely set up shop in foreign countries and then proceeded to call them citizens.
Frankly, instead of aiding those population with education and skills, colonial powers called them French or English, or Dutch, or Portuguese and then failed to treat them as such. The colonies owned parts of Africa called on those populations to fight on behalf of said country — and then denied them the benefits of the same.
There is a bill due. How the colonial powers ended the relationships with native populations was generally one of animus as opposed to potential ally.
Caveats:
1 the low birth rates and of course cheap labor are certainly at issue.
2 both the US and Europe are far too permissive regarding demands on immigrant populations, ie. english as the national language, allowing immigrants to serve on juries, run for office, vote, etc.
Nobody is questioning the birthright citizenship of the descendants of legal immigrants.
Anchor babies weren’t an issue for most of the twentieth century because not many illegal immigrants stayed around long enough to have children in America.
In the days when most travel happened by ship, not airplane, it was easy to prevent illegal immigration from the Old World.
New World illegal immigrants were routinely deported, especially during the Hoover, Roosevelt and Eisenhower administrations.
Prior to 1965, it was actually easier for Hispanics to legally immigrate to the USA than it is now. The quota system only applied to Old World countries.
The relatively small numbers of Latin American immigrants who arrived in the first 2/3 of the 20th century were mostly legal immigrants. The illegals who were rounded up and deported by Eisenhower were people who didn’t pay the fee, fill out the paperwork, or pass the literacy test. They hadn’t been in the country long before being deported.
Birthright citizenship abuse was never really a significant issue until recent decades.
Ron Unz expects Americans to consent to national suicide in deference to an arcane Supreme Court ruling from a time when our current situation would have been utterly unimaginable.
Ron Unz has long been opposed to immigration restriction, and has long predicted disaster for the Republican Party if we opposed immigration, citing the example of California after Governor Wilson.
Ron Unz was wrong. Rather than causing the destruction of the Republican Party, immigration restriction is the one issue which saved the Republicans from oblivion. Without immigration restriction, the Republicans would never do better than McCain did in 2008.
But Unz is also wrong to think that there will ever be a time when the combined Hispanic / Asian vote will be conservative. Trump did better than any other Republican in history with these demographics, but if Asians and Hispanics had been the only people who voted in 2024 Kamala Harris would be president right now.
Hawaii, the only state with an Asian majority, is also the most left wing state in the union. California, with the second highest combined percentage of Asians and Hispanics, is the second most left wing state in the union. Without a radical change in demographic trends, including severe immigration restriction, America will eventually be ruled by the policies advocated by the most extreme left wing Democrats of California and Hawaii.
Trump is a frustrating leader with serious foibles and unconscionable allegiance to Jewish supremacists, but the America First platform is a an absolute necessity for the survival of the American nation.
Criticize Trump when necessary, but never compromise on the core principles of the America First platform.
We absolutely need immigration restriction, cultural conservatism, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and economic populism.
The expression, Life is not perfect, resonates very loud in this country. Granted, some of Trump’s immigration moves have been a bit overboard, but considering what these Democrats have been doing, Trump is a welcomed change. We were on our way to chaos and could be again down the road.
As an aside, I find it amusing to see “Bras Cubas” discoursing on slavery.
The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas by Machdo de Assis is notable as a ahead of its time postmodern novel (1881!) which, being written by a mulatto in 19th century Brazil, deals with slavery as a mundane part of life (Rio had the largest slave market in the world at that time, and received about twice as many as the US ever did).
For example, “From an early age, he showed signs of a perverse nature, beating the heads of his slaves when he was not attended to in some desire or playing horse riding on the back of a young male slave named Prudêncio.” (Wikipedia)
I discuss this and other aspects of the novel here;
https://counter-currents.com/2021/12/schopenhauer-as-novelist/
Xi had already made an offer to the financial elites in the City of London when he visited the UK in October 2015. China had been planning to make the UK the global hub for its CNY-based international finance. Then BREXIT happened.
https://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/attachement/jpg/site1/20151022/0013729e4abe179273ad0d.jpg
China tried again by reaching an agreement in principle with the EU on a comprehensive agreement on investment (CAI) on 30 December 2020. Then the USA pressured the EU against ratifying the CAI which would have allowed EU banking institutions access to China’s financial system. Following Russia’s lead, China had been planning to dump its USD assets by shifting to Euros. Then Ukraine happened.
China prefers the EU rather than the U$A to lead the West, and seeks to partner with the British rather than the Yanks. From the Chinese perspective, both the EU and the UK represents Western Civilization while the U$A is just the Banana Republic of Yankistan. Once the U$A loses its Petrodollar System, the Banana Republic of Yankistan would implode financially and suffer from the greatest economic depression in world history.
That seems extremely doubtful to me. According to the official statistics, Hispanics are currently about 20% of the American population, and projected to reach something like 25+% of the total in another 30 years. Even if you believe there’s a substantial undercount, a majority is impossible.
Even if you look at the Hispanic+Asian population, you wouldn’t get a majority.
Perhaps you’re thinking of Hispanics becoming a plurality, namely surpassing the Old Stock white British ethnicity, which is certainly plausible.
That’s what makes Trump’s actions so very odd. Changing our refugee/asylum laws would have an enormous impact upon net immigration and could presumably be enacted by Trump backed by the anti-immigration Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Even the Economist has now endorsed such changes, so lots of Democrats would probably go along. But Trump hasn’t done any such thing.
Instead, he’s created a gigantic militarized ICE force, experienced at grabbing legal permanent residents off the streets and throwing them into unmarked vans if they criticize Israel, a policy that Anglin finds very suspicious and sinister.
That’s exactly why the loud support for Trump by his MAGA worshippers is so idiotic.
One of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices provided some very tough but fair questioning of Trump’s lawyer about his emergency executive orders dramatically changing tariff tax rates. He asked whether a future Democratic president couldn’t use the same reasoning to impose a 100% tax on all gas automobiles and natural gas appliances due to “the climate emergency.” The Trump lawyer really had no response.
Similarly, if the MAGA idiots cheer Trump’s use of emergency EOs to dramatically change immigration laws, how could they object if the next Democratic president uses EOs to grant total amnesty to all illegals and maybe implement a total open borders policy?
Actually, this is very similar to how Obama’s failure to pass amnesty in Congress led him to enact the sweeping amnesty DACA law by executive order, giving Trump the basis for his own contrary EOs.
I probably should have explicitly mentioned DACA, but that’s the sort of thing I had in mind in this early paragraph:
I strongly disagree.
I’m not saying that any such ruling or Trump policy would actually be retroactive, but that such a possibility could be very effectively used in political election advertising by Democrats, along the following lines:
As you surely must be aware, I’ve published numerous articles extremely critical of FDR’s efforts to orchestrate World War II and then get America involved in that conflict. But that was a half-dozen years after he came into office.
https://www.unz.com/runz/the-true-history-of-world-war-ii/#john-t-flynn-on-franklin-roosevelt-s-plans-for-war
However, as far as I know, FDR never created a gigantic militarized federal police force that was used to snatch people off the streets without warrants, throw them into unmarked vans, and deposit them in “black site” prisons with no access to lawyers, friends, or family. Especially if their only “crimes” had been publishing op-eds in college student newspapers.
Similarly, I don’t recall FDR using emergency executive orders to drastically change all our tariff tax rates on a daily or weekly basis according to his personal whims.
If I’m mistaken and FDR actually did such things, please correct me.
FDR did try to remove Republican members of some independent government agencies, but the Supreme Court prohibited such actions by a unanimous decision, a decision most believe will now likely be overturned after 90 years by Trump’s heavily Republican court.
Right. Los of verbal fun with the idea that the US Civil War was fought to establish “birth citizenship” rather than freeing the slaves.
However: one of the more reliable indices of social unrest and instability is failure to integrate the younger generation into the society.
Which is happening right now. Here is a typical response to the current integration failure by young men:
Video Link
and this by young women:
Video Link
And here is a consequence of the incompetent centrally controlled economy.
Video Link
And that is on Youtube, heavily edited.
Time is up. The men who could continue Western civilization aren’t interested. The Somalians, Indians, Chinese, can’t. No background, if nothing else.
Reorganization occurs when the current system becomes a farce. Trump acts as he does because the current system is a farce.
The legality of Southern cessation is not as clear cut as you state. There was/is nothing in the Constitution about cessation, one way or the other. Inasmuch as the states can be said to have voluntarily entered into a binding contract, the question of dissolving the contract cannot be decided from a strictly ‘legal’ standpoint. This is because the Constitution is the highest law, and does not provide any guidance.
Thus one must look to general contract law in order to decide legality. When two parties enter into a binding contract, one party cannot unilaterally withdraw from its provisions. A joint decision is required. Historically the idea flowed from Thomas Hobbes’s argument in De cive, written before the English Civil War, but revised in 1647. Thus, Lincoln was following an established political/legal theory when he argued that the Union was perpetual.
Because the Constitution offered no guidance on secession, legally– that is, Constitutionally– the document would have had to have been amended in order to allow for secession, as outlined in Article 5 (written in 1787, ratified 1788). By going to war and losing, the Southern states set both themselves and future generations up to be governed under the principles of the Texas v. White ruling of 1869.
This of course is not meant to absolve Lincoln, whom I consider a war criminal. I only accuse the South of badly miscalculating their position. In any case, 1865 was the end of the ‘old regime’, and the beginning of what we now have on our hands.
Shove your TDS bullshit. The mass casualties could be the next phase of Trumpenstein’s reign – and he’ll (not that he needs it) get full support from CONgress to start the final march to national suicide. The criminal bastard and his cabal still have three years to go and will tag-team with whomever is selected to replace them. But just keep voting goofy. You deserve this fate!
We’re in agreement on the way things are going, with Presidential E.O.s being the normal way of “governing” at this point. Yes, it results in big swings in policy. No, it’s not as the Constitution clearly intended for the US Federal Gov’t to operate.
HOWEVER, Mr. Unz, we are simply BEYOND having a functional 2-party government, as if this were still the 1980s or even ’90s. When one side (whether their own idea or as pushed by Globalists actually in charge) is bent on complete destruction of the nation, as, I hope you would agree that Dark Brandon and his crowd were, what are Conservatives to do, play Whiffleball while the other side plays Hardball? It’s all going Banana Republican now.
I’m on the side of Trump and MAGA and just hoping it doesn’t go the way the ctrl-left is claiming, we being the (LatinAm) Junta in opposition to the Communism of the ctrl-left. There ain’t much middle ground, because the left has NEVER been interested in compromise of any sort.
BTW, even the left of the 1960, with all the new Miranda Rights and pro-Constitutional blather out of them, was only for all that so the technicalities would get or keep them out of jail. They NEVER really cared about Liberty. Sorry, somewhat O/T. Thanks for the reply.
I can imagine a Hispanic majority soon in several states such as Texas and New Mexico, possibly followed by California, Arizona and Florida. These states will be used to socialize destructive policy changes across the country unless very aggressive deportation programs are implemented now.
One can argue that the relatively harsh public image of ICE is intentionally being created to normalize this activity as it increases in 2026 and beyond. Also, the organization probably needed time to build up the capacity for a high rate of deportations.
In his essay, Ron Unz mentions being astonished on a couple of occasions by political developments. Here’s the one that astonished me.
Just last year, Senators Sinema (I-AZ), Lankford (R-OK), and Murphy (D-CT) offered a compromise immigration bill that would give the president emergency authority to shut down the border when overwhelmed (over 4,000 daily encounters). That is, massive daily migrant inflows were implicitly regarded to be as unstoppable as the tides.
Yet, within a week of Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, migrant flows fell almost to zero, where they have remained. Is it not astonishing — both the profound naivete of these deluded senators, and the literal overnight halt of four years of accelerating migration?
A chart in Ron Unz’s essay shows 10.4 million migrants during the ‘Biden’ regency. They were welcomed in under the direction of Cuban Jew ‘Alejandro Mayorkas’, secretary of Homeland Security. ‘Mayorkas’, a former Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society board member, was lauded by HIAS — in typically deceitful crypto-Jew fashion — as America’s first ‘Latino’ [sic, LOL] in that post.
https://hias.org/statements/hias-congratulates-board-member-alejandro-mayorkas-dhs-nomination/
Given Trump’s indictments of figures such as John Bolton, James Comey and Letitia James, it is not astonishing that ‘Mayorkas’ has not been charged with ten million counts of running a human trafficking ring directly from his DHS office? And if the evidence of Mayorkas’s criminal trafficking is too difficult to assemble, surely catch-all offenses such as defrauding the United States, mail fraud and wire fraud would easily succeed.
Why then does ‘Mayorkas’ — whose depredations on the United States rival those of the spy Jonathan Pollard — remain at large? Ask what these two individuals have in common, and the question answers itself.
Disappointingly true and thanks for the links.
On the question of retroactivity relating to a future Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship:
Trump’s executive order explicitly stated it was not retroactive, but applied only to births on or after February 19, 2025. It was a necessary step to trigger judicial review. Furthermore, US citizenship can only be revoked if was unlawfully procured but not if it was conferred through birth. Therefore, the premise of there even being a possibility of any retroactivity on this question is basically zero.
You have thus invoked a completely imaginary situation in order to shift the issue away from your initial conjecture, namely pertaining to “serious concerns” by Asian-Americans, and transferred it into a conceivable mechanism by sleazy Democratic party operatives and media consultants, who utilize targeted fear mongering tactics for intended political gain.
Since these folks can capitalize upon an endless number of lies that they may choose to fabricate, your example of such attempted mind manipulation would be a poor argument for not encouraging the Supreme Court to conclusively clarify the lingering issue of how to apply the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“, preferably before the elections next November. People want to know.
The episode about Prudêncio — the slave who was mistreated and, after becoming a free man, mistreats his own slaves even worse — which you explored at length in you article, is very insightful about human nature. It explains, for example, Gaza.
Sounds like something I’d expect to hear from antifa.
What if… and hear me out here…
What if figures like Biden and Trump are just front men used to advance the late stages of America’s destruction by the actual parties administrating our country?
Biden opens the floodgates to allow in a quantity of undocumented asylum seekers who will prove logistically burdensome to deport in large numbers, and Trump is then installed as an ostensible ‘solution’ to this, one who, under cover of the executive, institutes extralegal measures in such a way as to establish them as normative, gutting constitutional law in the process — a proverbial one-two punch.
Do you have the ability to see how this is entirely plausible?
Or are you so devoted to worshiping at the altar of Trump, the mere rumination of it induces you to self-flagellate?
Yes. Where’s the beef Donny? Trump’s a typical Repuli’tard when it comes to legal and illegal immigration.
There should be a total moratorium on legal immigration for twenty years! And I’m a son of immigrants.
Also, what happened to finishing the wall at the southern border? Haven’t heard much about that since Donny’s been back in office.
Should open immigration be applied to government jobs? I would suppose that foreign language instruction should be done by native foreign language speakers, which means Mexicans and Chinese to name just 2. My guess is people who want open borders do not want government jobs open to foreign nationals.
How about voting, should new immigrant workers be allowed to vote?
There are an estimated 14 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. ICE is currently holding 50 to 60 thousand. They have processed a total of 200,000 in 2025. These numbers are nowhere near sufficient to address illegal immigration. If you really think that’s what ICE is about then you are as stupid as one would expect from a Libertarian.
Actually, New Mexico has had a Hispanic majority off and on for something like 100 years.
However, Hispanic majorities in any of those others states in the near future is very doubtful.
Texas and California are both about 40% Hispanic, but given the very sharp drop in Hispanic birth rates, I doubt they’ll reach a majority except possibly decades down the road. However, given the high intermarriage rates, they might become majority part-Hispanic in another generation or so.
Meanwhile, Arizona and Florida are 1/4 to 1/3 Hispanic, and very unlikely to reach majorities.
‘One of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices provided some very tough but fair questioning of Trump’s lawyer about his emergency executive orders dramatically changing tariff tax rates.’ — Ron Unz
Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution could not be clearer — all taxes, including tariffs, are the sole responsibility of Congress.
Trump’s radical, erratic diktats on tariff rates, based on absurdly contrived ’emergencies,’ do not remotely meet the standard for Congressional delegation of emergency authority. IEEPA, the statute in question in the pending V.O.S. Selections v Trump decision, does not even contain the word ‘tariffs.’
Trump lost this case at both the district and appellate court levels. The reasoning applied by the large majority of the appellate court seems irrefutable to me. Recent predictions on Polymarket showed strong odds (around 72-76%) of the Supreme Court striking down the tariffs. I would place the probability even higher, around 90%.
Trump already said that he would use other statutes to keep playing his destructive tariff shell game, though they are more limiting. Perhaps more importantly, how will Trump’s unstable, grossly inflated ego deal with a crushing defeat? An unfavorable decision might well push the demented caudillo over the edge, requiring his institutionalization.
If it does, let’s all chip in to send flowers to the defeated doofus — ‘Flowers for Algernon,’ as it were. Then we can commission a one-word brass plaque to go under his portrait in the White House gallery: MALFUNCTIONED.
Well written and thoughtful comment on the topic.
Especially this sentence: Criticize Trump when necessary, but never compromise on the core principles of the America First platform.
I fully support the deportations. 100%.
Merry Christmas.
When Obama used his many executive orders to govern, I realized our constitution is dead.
The U.S. Constitution also explicitly states that taxes can only be changed by Congressional legislation. But that didn’t stop Trump from issuing emergency executive orders raising and lowering tariff taxes on a daily basis due to his personal whim.
I’m not saying that Trump would necessarily issue an order revoking American citizenships, though he has sometimes publicly mused about doing exactly that.
What I am saying that if the Democrats run huge numbers of very inflammatory election ads warning about that danger, lots of Asians and other non-white voters might get pretty nervous.
So far as I can tell, the philosophy of columnists on this platform is WRITE WRITE WRITE your way into incoherence. Just keep writing – not to make yourself understood but to intimidate readers with an avalanche of information and opinion, much of it dubious, that would take 6 months to facts-check. All this verbiage for the same Trump Derangement Syndrome argued from different angles. Stop projecting onto Trump, Little Boys – he isn’t your daddy, nor is he the caricature you would have flying from your effigy. Your derision at his efforts to restore some semblance of law and order to this republic speaks to your nihilism – and envy at an alpha male. It’s as if UNZ columnists are mostly stealth anarchists.
“Trump did better than any other Republican in history with these demographics, but if Asians and Hispanics had been the only people who voted in 2024 Kamala Harris would be president right now.”
Uh, no she wouldn’t. Trump is President because Adelson wanted his ass to be President including Yahoo. Why is it that people such as yourself STILL believe in this voting BS? Trump didn’t win because of Asians, Blacks, or even the cultist Whites who continue to suck him off desperately. He won because Yahoo wanted his war among other things. Harris isn’t a Warmonger, nor is she the type to bomb/attack Iran not even on behalf of “America’s greatest ally”. She also doesn’t strike me as the type to try to start a War with Venezuela either. Why do you think Miriam is talking about donating even more to make sure this clown gets to run a third time? If she donates over 200 billion or however much she plans to donate. Trump will win again, regardless if people vote or stay the hell home. At the end of the day your vote doesn’t mean the spit that comes out of your mouth. Only power and money matters.
He might get to be President a third time, just like Obama was through Biden. Only difference is, Trump won’t have to run a third term through somebody else like Obama was doing.
great debate but you sidestepped Caplan’s comeback: women entering the workforce in the 60s-70s
Video Link
Ron,
Thanks again for creating and nurturing this excellent and important site. Best of luck to all of us in 2026!
+++
Re: Hispanic majorities
I hope you are correct! Time will tell.
My limited travels in California and Texas suggest the number of illegal or unassimilated immigrants in these states is very high, significantly more than claimed. I am merely speculating that the situation its similar in Arizona and Florida.
I am familiar with New Mexico’s interesting demographic history but included it for completeness. The population of the state is small in any case.
“General Contract Law” – who is the authority over the sovereign states? When the states ratified the Constitution, they were acknowledged as sovereign bodies, and had it been indicated that the Constitution was the surrender of sovereignty, they never would have done so! The claim that the states tacitly accepted the surrender of sovereignty because the Constitution was a binding contract (with whom? the whole American people through their state legislatures? Why through the state legislatures, if it wasn’t the states making the decision?) is to assert that the Constitution was a confidence artist’s trick! The Constitution was supposed to be organized so that NO STATE WOULD EVER HAVE A REASON TO LEAVE, not so that states surrendered their sovereignty.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: interesting how the textbooks seem to leave out that James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, supported nullification.
The Federal government was never intended to run roughshod over the states, that’s why states were given equal representation in the Senate – and the Constitution stipulated that no state could ever be denied equal representation in the Senate without consenting to it – equal representation in the Senate was effectively a sovereign right of the state! There are implications to the idea that population differences were simply irrelevant to the Senate’s effective veto power over all legislation. It simply doesn’t matter what the majority thinks in America, the racially alien populations of the big cities simply don’t count. They can propose, but they cannot dispose. When the Senate was selected by state legislatures, it wasn’t strictly a club for those on the good side of the Jews.
What happened in 1860 is that the Republican Party, a revolutionary party, inspired in part by the revolutions in Europe, had created a situation where it was clear that the rights of the Southern states would not be respected. John Brown’s Raid, supported with impunity by a conspiracy of Yankees – the types (like Horace Mann) who had HOPED for “Southern Rebellion” that could then be crushed, had created a situation where Southern States strongly believed there was no indication that the Federal government would protect them from future incidents. If you look at an illustration from an old Harper’s Weekly, the revolutionary-Yankee agitators had organized large columns of torch-bearing men marching in uniform – they were itching for a fight!
So what is the point: the point is that the Federal Government could no longer be trusted to fulfill its Constitutional role by the Southern states. The Constitution, at that point, was becoming a dead letter – as Lincoln’s defiance of Justice Taney proved. The United States wasn’t constituted so that the US Army would invade, burn, pillage and occupy states, establishing therein governments of negroes in the place of white men! We can imagine the view of the Founders on Reconstruction, just as can imagine their view on the institutionalization of homosexual “unions” as marriages. “It’s a binding contract” – Ha! Because the Sodomite Hobbes discovered the principle! A binding legal principle – you have to submit to the white trash Leviathan with the funny beard!
The USA went from having a limited Federal government, to having a unitary National government that confiscated ALL THE GOLD SPECIE in the country, WITHHELD TAX FROM PAYCHECKS. “The Constitution” has become a poetic license.
We should recognize the law, but not in a strictly positive sense.
The authority to raise tariffs was partly delegated by Congress to the executive branch because the executive branch handles relations with other states. Whether Trump is violating the tariff laws or the Constitution is up to the Supreme Court to decide, his erratic decisions don’t change the fact that Congress passed a law delegating authority to raise tariffs under specific conditions.
Bill Clinton imposed tariffs in 1995 on foreign automobiles. Lyndon Johnson imposed the “chicken tax.”
If Congress doesn’t like the tariffs, they can change the laws.
After one of the best Football World Cups in history the world will be given one of the worst when the US hosts it.
Was FIFA pressurised into creating the FIFA Peace Prize that was given to T’Rump?
Trump Administration Asked About Travel Ban on 19 nations as World Cup Draw Confirmed
As it stands, fans from certain countries will be unable to watch their teams compete…
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news/fifa-world-cup/world-cup-donald-trump-america-mexico-canada-614892-20251206
At least there is some push back in Europe in Football terms.
A quick google search:
“the chicken tax” was not passed by congress but was an executive order”
Google’s answer:
You’re mostly correct: The “Chicken Tax” was imposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson via an Executive Proclamation (3564) in 1963 (effective 1964) as a retaliatory tariff on potato starch, brandy, and light trucks, stemming from European duties on U.S. chicken, not directly passed by Congress as legislation. However, this power to impose tariffs came from broad authority Congress had delegated to the President through laws like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, giving presidents power to respond to unfair trade practices, making it a mix of executive action under statutory backing, not purely an independent executive order.
You really have to wonder how many of these media people think we’re all fools. A large percentage of Americans know about the chicken tax: it’s the reason we the most popular pickup truck in the world, the Toyota Hilux, is not sold in America.
On the flip side, ICE could just as likely be the newest addition to all the other expensive, incompetent, and damn-near useless government agencies (affirmative action doesn’t help) we currently have running the USA into the ground.
Ron has a YouTube fan who, below this video, commented:
“Ron is adorable. His smile could bring about world peace.
The economist has the smarmy expression of someone who lives in an ideological bubble, and whose lack of experience in the real world precludes him from seeing the logistic and social implications and ramifications of his theories.”
Dec 2, 2025 192,000 Somalis *IN* *PANIC*as Trump’s SCORCHED EARTH DEPORTATIONS Begin NOW
An entire US community is on edge as the Trump Administration drops deportation protections in conjunction with a fraud investigation implicating Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.
Dec 16, 2025 90,000 Somalis *MARCH* *SOUTH*… as Trump’s “ICE Battalions” FLATTEN Minneapolis
As the trump administration moves to crack down on multiple types of fraud from financial fraud to immigration and welfare cheating schemes, locals say they’re under attack from an oppressive regime.
Could not Trump precipitate a peaceful orderly re migration of 10 millions simply by removing their federal welfare benefits ?
If you think there are only 14 million illegal aliens in the US, you are one gold-boxed retard… Sir. The best estimates were 11 million (based on financial operations of some sort) back a quarter century ago. Since the influx has been on the order of a half to full million a year BEFORE the Brandon invasion invitation (10-12 million), good estimates are from 40 million to 50 million.
The estimates are that 2 million have left – ~ 600,000 deported and the rest self-deportations – within less than a year of the start of this. Trump isn’t much of a numbers man, but Steven Miller sure is, and it seems Trump is listening to the right people this time. (That is, on both illegal and the just-as-big legal immigration.)
10,000 daily is not a hard rate to work up to, if you have just hired 10,000 ICE agents – even accounting for a good number being in offices and such, 10,000, even 25,000 a day is doable. You obviously don’t care about the problem but just want to rag on America like most of the UR commenters. We’re trying to attack a problem this time around, with a President, like him or get occasionally annoyed, who actually cares about helping America and Americans. That’s a FIRST for the 21st Century for sure!
with all due respect hasn’t this been going on since 9/11 and the PATRIOT ACT? not to cut trump any slack but every president since bush jr. has been doing this to people with or without US citizenship since then; i.e. he’s not setting any precedent just using a different gov’t agency to do the dirtywork.
I found this article unproductive. Neither Trump, nor Biden before him, are unilateral kings empowered to set the entire range of policies effecting immigration. No mention of Soros, or Great Britain and their parasitic Israel Lobby, and their hand in overwhelming the US with migrant peasants and highly educated technicians from former British colony of India. And no mention that if free emergency medical care and food subsidies were eliminated for non-citizens without green cards that there would be massive self migration back to where the migrants came from.
Thank. you, WJ. I kinda like Andrew Anglin and usually agree with him, but he’s a low-IQ juvenile.
The ctrl-left has this strange new respect for the Libertarians and the worries about the new Storm Troopers. As another commenter explained, the ICE people are there for a purpose, and the left has been attacking them to prevent these public removals from happening. They’ll bring up “muh storm troopers”, but they’ll be the first to employ and BE the storm troopers next time in power.
Now, to lighten the mood a bit, I will note that I was very very proud of my wife for calling in an ICE raid on the Church picnic. That’s only slightly embellished because you can’t get ANYONE on the phone anymore, so she filled in a web form. Unfortunately, the Afghans that the Church folks were going to attempt to bring to Jesus were not technically illegal aliens, as they were part of a different scam, the Refugee Resettlement Racket.
See, It’s a family tradition. (Yeah, we got the Hank, Jr. song too.)
This is beyond suspicious – it’s flagrant – no president has enforced EXISTING LAW on immigration or health care – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Denninger+existing+law&max-results=20&by-date=true&m=1 – as Karl Denninger has ranted for years!
ICE is just showtime!
Short version: the States were originally Sovereign entities, I’d go so far as to say “Persons” like in Citizens United. Before Supreme Court rulings (Marbury v. Madison having bootstrapped the Supreme Court into its role, which is not specified in the Constitution) the Bill of Rights did not [entirely?] apply to State laws, e.g. State religions and religious tests for public office were a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
For over a century Senators were Representatives of their respective States with most if not all selected by the Governor or State Legislature, and often, perhaps in all cases I dunno, subject to recall. With the disastrous and execrable 17th Amendment mandating direct popular election of Senators they became super-Congressmen, often elected in perpetuity giving us human garbage like the Nantucket Orca and Joe Biden. This was in my view a hyoooge erosion of States’ rights but apparently the States ratified it. I say “apparently” for obvious reasons: the Reconstruction era Amendments “ratified” under duress and the 16th which was never actually ratified except by fiat.
You have to bear in mind that Trump, with all his apparent immigration restrictions I’m, is merely an aberration in the general drift of American politics. The preceding Biden administration could be taken as more typical of the status quo, and there’s every possibility that the USA will revert to type in the not too distant future.
In that context, another full blown gearing up and acceleration of Hispanic immigration into the USA, with all its consequences, cannot be dismissed. And remember there’s a virtually unlimited pool to emigrate.
Mister Unz,
In 30 years was my projection; and I’ve emphasized the shift in Demographics supercharged by Illegal Migration.
Several decades ago, I read an article that listed Metropolitan Areas where Hispanics had the 50+% of births – IIRC it roughly “drew” a triangle from Central California, San Diego, to Texas. That and daily complaints and dialogue regarding Illegal Alien Migrants and Anchor Births on the local news and talk radio interested me, since I moved to SouthBay Los Angeles from NJ for more exposure to Asian Cultural Amenities as I was born and raised in Japan as my Father being stationed there after WW2 until the late 80s when I helped my parents move to the States to retire when my Navy Sea Tour on a Cruiser Homeported in Japan concluded.
We’ve actually had roughly 3.2million Illegal Migrants allegedly entered for Calendar Year (CY) 2023, 2.7 for 2022, etc. Whites (Self-Indentified, therefore Hispanic-mixed most likely included per my explanation below). IIRC (sorry on my phone and wanted to respond before I can dig up notes), were populating mostly by Birth at around 1.6(?)million. I SciWildArseGuesssed (SWAG’d¹) about about 1.2mil being (more than ¾) “White”.
Add Legal Visa Holders and recorded Hispanic Births (860K in 2021(?) being latest stat) – adding the ¼~⅓ White-mixed Hispanics from above, we have approximately 5.6million and 6.1million “Hispanic Pluralities(thank you, sir)” – including more Hispanic Plurality Births than Euro-Whites – adding to the US Population for CY 2022 and 2023.
More Births, more Legal Alien Residents, far more Illegal Alien Migrants. Latest estimate were at a 5:1 Ratio. I don’t have the stats to WHEN we had a 1:1 Ratio; but it’s safe to say it’s been years if not over two decades…
Those may be “Replacement Imminent” Ratios we’re seeing. That’s why I’ve recommended for those Non-Mason/Catholic/Jewish Whites and East Asians who don’t have heavy political interests in US Affairs and prefer to maintain their ethno-cultural identities for their Descendants – to emigrate or take a chance and try negotiating an amicable Secession through a Constitutional Convention (far better option than a civil war). I’ve also advocated that as the Hispanics transition from becoming the largest Ethnic Collective to the numerical Majority 50+%(Nation-wide overall, individual States starting with California, Southwest, Texas, Florida), that English and Spanish be established as the Official Languages of the Republic to encourage Literacy.
Better than Ballpark Figures based on stray older stats. I’d pat myself on my back a few more times and say they’re “Ballpark Infield Figures” as far as marking trends left by Biden and Mayorkas.
IIRC, there was a source posted on Wikipedia that caught my attention – claimed that the US Population was 41% White around 2017 – when counting the approximate headcounts of Illegal Migrants and Anchor Births – THAT’s worth looking into.
***Illegal Migration and Anchor Births(which will almost Always bring in Non-Citizen Family members in as the “Birthright Anchor-Child receives Social Security Benefits – Visa or No Visa) – not included in Census or Official Population Headcounts.
That’s been throwing us off – as OpenBorders Advocates of various interests wish it.***
We’ve hard estimates of 2.7 and 3.2 million Illegal Migrants over two one-year periods. Probably similar numbers going back to Obama, possibly Dubya Bush Years – most likely all outpacing White Births. And of those who entered back when Obama became POTUS in 2009, some most likely sired and birthed children here starting in 2009 – compared to a Euro-White child born in 2009 being 16yro now.
¹I’ve made “SWAGs” based on varied (some stats don’t match the big glossy generalizations) Immigration and Birth Stats and reports of recent years; and have been posting summaries these here for awhile.
What I’ve suspected is that there wasn’t a way to distinguish in official GOVT_US stats those who are ethically mixed – having one parent or one grandparent Hispanic in a White-Hispanic Mixed Person.
(Sidebar – I’m mixed of 2 Non-White parents – possible to have a white ancestor on my Father’s side; but only a DNA Test would reveal the percentage. End Sidebar.)
By observing life in the East Coast and SoCal – California thru Florida, New York Metro thru Washington DC – actually being a Census Taker once in the aftermath of the DotCom Bust, I’m giving a figure of ¼~⅓ of those who claim to be White – actually being White-Hispanic(⅛~¾ or so) mixed with a European Surname. European-Latino Intermarriage being “facts of life” for over a century instead of a taboo/slavery practice.
I hope these help clarify my statements. Typing on the phone w/o word processor editing and without my notes.
Most core/basic sources can be obtained from Web searches of Federal Govt, 3rd Party, and digging into Wikipedia references directly.
Not too many entities have included dedicated estimates which include Illegal Alien Migrants already residing & grown Anchor Birthed Children in this subject; but they really can’t be brushed aside – they come to live here, have children here – Birthright Citizenship, Visa, or not…at rates high enough for years that the Demographics Shift can’t be stopped.
Best regards,
How and when did that “mass population white peasantry” appeared? And where from?
Since I generally allow myself to emend my articles in the first 24 hours after their publication, I took the liberty of adding this paragraph near the beginning mentioning this DACA policy:
Commies turning the tables on Trump in 2028 ? And then using his own devotees and functionaries against him? Not gonna happen. You are underestimating the inventiveness of the Empire of Chaos. Nothing in 2028 will go predictably as usual, because “constitution and stuff”. The third term by an executive order, or by an emergency declaration, or WW3, or whatever, is not impossible. The genius of Trump is a gift that keeps on giving. Miriam knows it best.
Mazel Tov
Dumb takes in most of your paragraphs here, Ron.
Just a few I can remember after scrolling through them for the last 20 minutes.
1. You repeated the MSM lie that Alex Padilla was manhandled for no reason other than “asking questions” at a DHS presser. In realty he violated the security perimeter, wasn’t identified as a reporter or invited guest, and caused the security team to react per protocols for VIP protection…the same as the Capitol Police protection detail would have reacted to someone doing the same at a Padilla presser.
2. Birthright citizenship lie repeated – the contemporaneous debates on the citizenship clause by its author Sen. Jacob Howard made it clear it did not apply to foreigners. Duh. The Ark case was probably an early example of judicial activism and malfeasance, falsely equivocating a LPR to a natural born citizen via what is clearly not citizenship at all but merely a residency permit – and improperly applying the legal standard for a natural born citizen to a foreigner – merely being born to a permitted visitor in the US has got nothing to do with anything, whether its allegiance or sovereignty. That new person inherits their parent’s citizenship – that’s what a birthright IS, something you have because your parents possess it, and it is thus yours by right of inheritance and substitution. Unlike simple property ownership however, citizenship can not arise from nothing. It can either be acquired naturally – from another citizen, or invested via naturalization. But, the two processes have nothing to do with each other. Bottom line – only an American can produce another American, just like only a cat can make kittens.
3. Andrew Anglin’s comments on deportations, ICE powers, and this concept of a slippery slope leading us into a daily Waco massacre or Ruby Ridge massacre. This idiotic equivocation ignores that the victims of Waco and RR were American citizens. Not foreigners, not invaders, not trespassers. They were American citizens, assaulted and murdered on their own private property to which they held legal title. To compare them is daft. Why would you cite this retarded take?
Why would Europe go to war and with whom?
What lawyers and legal scholars miss about the Wong Kim Ark case was that Wong Kim’s parents were, at the time of his birth, “domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco…”
The case was not about birthright citizenship to illegal aliens or other non-permanent residents. What complicated the case was, after Wong Kim had traveled back to China for a visit and before his return to the United States, Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Court did not spend much time discussing the Chinese Exclusion Act except to state that a law passed by Congress was inferior to the Constitution, and concluded with the following:
“[the court is presented with making the following determination of] the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
In short, the Wong Kim Ark case does not support birthright citizenship to illegal aliens but to permanent residents.
Many decades ago, I used to work in Miami-Dade county, FL, and from what I understand, (because I wasn’t there at the time), is that Miami-Dade in the 50s, was probably like 80% or more, white. Then when they started keeping track, in the 80s, (after Jimmy Carter’s Marielito Cuban invasion), it dropped down to around 50% (46.4%) in the eighties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Dade_County,_Florida
Now it’s just over 13%, (and of that, a large percentage are Jewish and probably Middle Eastern, are counted as ‘white’).
Whitey was ethnically cleansed out.
But this is the thing. I remember listening to the radio back then, (once whitey was a very distinct and dwindling minority), and they were broadcasting a meeting of the Dade county school board. And every speaker, had a strong Hispanic accent, and at one point, they came to the school board budget, and I could not believe how every single speaker, were all trying to outdo the others, in how their awards of county school board contracts were all going specifically to ‘minority-owned’ (read: Hispanic owned) businesses.
They were positively gushing over how they were discriminating against white-owned businesses, even after whitey was driven to minority status, and had no power in the Jewish and Hispanic-run county at all.
The point being, that Hispanics, (La Raza) can be, and are, once they achieve political power, just as ethnocentric as anyone else. Even, it seemed to me, hyper-ethnocentric, and particularly as it shuts out whitey to benefit their own kind.
So the point being, that whitey always wants to be compassionate and ‘nice’. Until one day, he realizes he has doomed his children and grand-children, to second-class, (at best) status, because he was busy being so nice.
Telling a foreigner that their children can have citizenship, when it doesn’t threaten your own children’s well-being, is one thing.
But once the trickle becomes a tsunami, and you’re being ethnically cleansed out of your homes and communities, and the local government is fucking you over at every opportunity, then a stark reality hits you in the face.
Hence, the talk about ending that particular, (birthright citizenship) insanity.
I am shocked, shocked to hear that.
Whatever the “constitutionality” of birthright citizenship for children of illegals, the policy itself is a moral hazard that encourages lawbreaking. It must be abolished, along with the “birth tourism” of wealthy Chinese and Russians flying here specifically to give birth. The parents should be legal US residents, whether citizens or green card holders. I would exclude student visas as well.
Agreed! I also suspect that Padilla took this approach intentionally to cause trouble so he could later present himself as a victim.
Thanks for your rational, secular refutations.
There is something racially sick in those who see the authorized invasion, particularly at this late stage, mainly in terms of raw ‘economics’, logistics, or ‘humanitarianism’ or even simply involving ‘class’ questions. The West is way beyond all of these considerations.
BTW, what a despicable crowd and ‘debaters’ were present in the 12 year old NY based chat put up on YouTube. The worst was the creepy Jew Kaplan; the next worse was the self serving Hindoo, then came the bleeding heart female Irish ‘humanitarian’. Ron Unz did an excellent job within the limits of the debate in raising the very neglected class issues and won it unassisted.
JD Vance has the potential to be a saner, less erratic version of Trump. And frankly, I do not give a crap about his wife being Indian. Yes, we have too many of them but that’s another issue.
The key rule for understanding politics beyond the current election cycle is the concept of reciprocity. I.e., To ask “what happens when this principle, policy, institution, or rule is turned around on my group after the other wing of the Uniparty gets its next turn at power?”
It should also be noted that everything Trump does is by executive order or administrative interpretation. So it will all be undone (or weaponized in the opposite direction) the day he’s gone.
It’s a pretty good article. The transformation of ICE into an American NKVD is extremely interesting. The convergence of Republicans and Democrats on supporting high immigration is good. Voting is boring cause since when has it mattered? Sure, which side can trick the voters best determines who rules but since both favor high immigration, the voting has no influence in this regard. But Unz fails to add a section on the actual numbers during Trump’s first year. Have they been as high as Biden, as high as under Trump I, Obama, and Bush? Those are the facts on the ground. I give the article B+ as opposed to his previous which was a solid A.
Population decline will likely result in economic recession, particularly for LATAM because it is not at the cutting edge of technology. Unlike Japan, LATAM will be unable to compensate for pop loss with technology, particularly automation tech. State capacities will decrease as the states are deprived of revenue, the countries will become more lawless, *more* people will seek to emigrate.
America can get *both* Africans and Indians cause of pop overflow and desperate Latin American cause of recession and the collapse of its states. America can become the country of 1 billion dead souls that its elite craves.
Civil war. Internal wars among the different groups now living in many European countries. for instance, in France, Arabs vs French. Of course, it is possible that the ethnic French will be too old to fight or just not bother, so the war will be Arabs vs Kurds vs Africans. Honestly, I have no idea. I just know that multiculturalism doesn’t work, so it ends either with ethnic conflict or with people migrating en masse and new borders being drawn. At best, it becomes like Latin America, the borders remain and there’s not a civil war, just lots and lots of crime, and cartels or terrorists organizations creating violence all the time.
For writing an op-ed or participating in a street protest?
Not that Bush also didn’t abuse his authority, but there’s a noteworthy difference between an allegation of material support for terrorism and warrantless imprisonment pursuant to a specious deportation order issued for ‘anti-Semitic’ exercise of a first amendment right.
No doubt the colonial powers may have had bills due. They are long since paid. This destruction of their countries is much more than payback considering that the colonial powers IMPROVED every country they ran. (How could they not? It’s Africa. Please!)
Tell me, EC, what kind of bill do Sweden and Denmark owe, and to whom?
All very interesting. Here is a story about American immigration polices from a Canadian perspective. I live in Edmonton, Alberta. I used to know two fellows, very much ‘white boys’ of Germanic ancestry, who were born in Ontario, and then their Mom met a Texan, and married, and moved to Texas with her boys, way back in the 1960’s I think, when they were just little boys. That marriage didn’t last and the boys were rendered fatherless and ended up getting into some god ole Texan-style trouble, over women, drinking and drugs. Both committed crimes in Texas (the older of the two brothers had been in prison for bashing heads over the ‘you and him fight over me’ women he always seemed to choose, …. and poor fella chose those exact same type women, as girlfriends, upon arriving in Edmonton). The younger brother had done property crimes in Texas to support unhinged girlfriends and their drug habits. I don’t know the precise legal details, but something about Texan ‘3 strikes and your out’ rules had them both deported to Canada (Mom never bothered to arrange citizenship for the boys), separated by a few years, as something like 50 year 0ld guys.
I gotta say, …. I did like the younger one, a rather charming fellow, and he actually became sort of a ‘friend I don’t allow to get too close’ as he had some very big personal problems, around his continued problems with low quality women (the only kind he seemed capable of getting), that finally did him in, in good ole Edmonton, Alberta (he finally ended up addicted to fentanyl and died of overdose after his crew saved him with naloxone several times already). The older one (not a druggie I don’t think) just sort of flamed out, after that, and died of massive heart attack not so long ago.
Another interesting thing, …. though both these men were well aware of racial issues, and were proud Caucasians, …. no one could argue at all, that they were racist. They both liked to try to fuck all women.
These boys I guess were seen as riff faff in Texas, and I suppose they were probably just that.
To my mind, America made that problem, with these boys, and then America decides it is not their problem. ‘Typical arrogant America’, to my mind. These two men had issues and needed some help, and in Canada, they were able to access that, yet both still remained sort of ‘renegade’ in spirit. This misplaced American arrogance, ….. well it comes through, in almost every conceivable way, now, upon any topic or any American government policy discussion. The American’s lack of admitting the truth about the trillions of dollars of petrodollar scamming, over decades, foisted upon the rest of the world, is a prime example.
To my mind, after studying all this for a good long while (like the rest of us here), the prime problem in America is more basic than just demographics: It’s misplaced arrogance. In so many ways, America seeks unfair advantage but pretends they are ‘God’s appointed savoir upon the world’. That AmericaFest shit, I just recently sampled, is just rank with this precise type of idiocy. The prime problem is that the American people, as a collective, are far too arrogant, and this blinds them to what they have done ….. consistently choosing monsters for leadership, … with no end in sight for that dynamic.
This is how this electorate-arrogance works: Trump is a fiasco in pretty much every way. But that is nothing new re American leadership. Trump is Cluster-B. He is unreformable and can only partake of the Cluster-B escalation ladder (i.e. – payola, blackmail, smearing, assassination, burn-it-all-down-war), and nothing else, and any indication otherwise, always ends up being shallow and fake, each and every time.
Canadians like myself used to look up to America, many a decade ago now. That is long gone. America is a fucking disaster and the rest of the world is watching, as just mortified, actually. Why do Americans insist upon electing Cluster B’s? You American people need to figure out, precisely what that is all about. I have already given the very deep root philosophical analysis, as to me mind, how Americans could go about figuring that out for themselves – go get some Ontological Humility already.
And that’s what sucks, Europeans should just deal with the leadership. Get rid of them and then install someone who gives a shit about Europe. It’s not that easy to invade places like China, because the Chinese gov wouldn’t tolerate an invasion. Europeans put up with it because they’ve become weak, stupid, scared, and defeated. I don’t think any of these people bother to ask if they enjoy living under these shit conditions that have been created. Take Sweden for example, it use to be a clean, safe, and beautiful place even though the feminist trash there was bad enough. But then they imported all these people from everywhere else, and now they have all kinds of gang warfare, Grenade attacks, the type of shit you hear about in places like Mexico involving Cartels. And just a year or so ago over in Ecuador a gang of terrorist took over a news station and they also had explosives. They held the whole place hostage. I’m beginning to think people are just bored of safe and peaceful environments and can’t get aroused unless they are surrounded by violence and their lives being threaten 24/7.
His wife will convince him to bring more of her own people over, and he’ll do it for her too. You will care.
I appreciate your comments here, Mr. Forge, especially your comment with the numbers on Hispanic proportion of the population.
However, let me add that this isn’t all about Hispanics. That may have been basically the case back in the last century. During this century, and ramped way up during the Brandon/Mayorkas treason, there have been millions of illegal and legal Africans, Chinese, Indians, Haitians, you name it.
I’m not discussing political blocs here, just the problem that America will soon not be America, the way it’s going. I’m not as pessimistic as you, because I things CAN be done. I have no idea if Ron Unz cares about America ceasing to be America.
Humanity needs to take heed from the lessons of the past. History might just repeat again.
The powers be are running wild to bring the Anti-Christ to come for a fruition. Not realizing the real consequences.
In the earlier Unz article on Trump, I said the exact same thing–the Dems are going to reverse ALL of Trump’s stuff and reverse weaponize–and it will even get worse–give citizenship to illegals and open the border! THAT is exactly going to happen–but you and muh muh fail to realize that democracies do not work, they fail. Socrates and Plato pointed that out; it’s called the Kyklos, the turning. Democracies crash and burn and turn into Dictatorships! America is a FAILED state! It’s gone.
Amuse on his substack furthers this:
And Ron Unz thinks by complaining about Trump—and championing The Center–all will work out!
And here is the money quote:
As I pointed out in Unz’s earlier article, Mussolini and Hitler BOTH recognized this pattern that with Communists in their societies, the parliamentarianism freezes, stagnates. This is what is going on in America.
That is because you didn’t root out Communism and Marxists and suppress the Jews. You allowed the Frankfurt School to spread their filth here–and this is the result! CAUSE and EFFECT. America is unsavable. Amuse continues in his article thinking that this can be rescued. Nahh.
https://newsletter.amuseonx.com/p/speaker-johnsons-moment-call-the
With Marxists, Ron, there is NO Center! And we are DONE, D.O.N.E, working with Commies. There is none of this “working together”–when that happens, the Commies still get what they want.
The problem Wild Man is there is no Arete (virtue) in America. Boys have to be trained INTO manhood. That is nowhwere. Our schools are actually effeminizing the boys. There is a cultural war going on against the WASPs and the other Europeans in this country.
Arete is how a boy learns to be a man and a citizen. Arete has four main categories, Manliness, Righteousness, Sophrosyne and Phronesis. Here is an introductory handout on Arete:
Handout: II Peter 1:5 Supplement The Faith with Arete 2nd Rev
https://www.academia.edu/71887130/
“That is because you didn’t root out Communism and Marxists and suppress the Jews. You allowed the Frankfurt School to spread their filth here–and this is the result! CAUSE and EFFECT. America is unsavable. Amuse continues in his article thinking that this can be rescued. Nahh.”
The growth of socialization was not the result of the Frankfurt School, those ideas have floated around flor years. What mattered is what occurred in the last twenty years regarding the economy, and general social mistrust. The younger generations having been taught a ,make believe version of what capitalisms is and isn’t arfe open to anything that looks and sounds more fair — even at the expense of the freedoms one might hold dear. It’s not the ideology, it’s the real world events.
No President might as well not even deport anyone, because as you said. Once the Dems are in, they’ll just undo all of that and bring all those people right back. It’s stupid. But it’s not like the Reps weren’t in on the open border BS, because they support it just as much. So it really makes no different if a Dem is in there or a Rep is there. America is dead. It will end up like Germany, minus having their cities bombed to shit….But it already looks like that in black dominated/occupied parts of the U.S.
“I’ve never heard any white person complain about being out of work because of either blacks or immigrants. ” You are either too young (blacks replacing whites began in the late 60s) or you just don’t listen to white people who are looking for a job. Perhaps you are one of those elites who just don’t care about the problems of white people but I can assure you that black people were given preference over whites many times in jobs I applied for. Now you have heard it and it is the truth.
I would argue that any discussion of immigration should cease, and a moratorium placed on it, until the discrimination regime against White Gentiles in elite universities, medical schools (perhaps the worst of all), the corporate world, and certain government institutions is completely ended/fixed. This will likely require a series of lawsuits.
Until the near-appalling discrimination against White Gentiles outlined in The Myth of American Meritocracy is completely fixed and routed out, then any talk of bringing in more non-white immigrants is wrongheaded. We would essentially be inviting more people into the country to fully knowing they will take advantage of the white majority, thereby continuing to diminish the nation’s religious-cultural character while simultaneously destroying fairness and decency. I suppose the solution seems to be that as whites decline in numbers, then the discrimination can be slowly lifted, until whites are a negligible force in American society. That is a grotesque bargain.
White Gentiles, who established this country and were more than 80% of its population until 40 years ago, are underrepresented in elite colleges relative to their academic ability more than any other group, and underrepresented in other elite institutions.
The Harvard lawsuit may have taken care of Asian discrimination in elite schools, but Asians still count as “diversity” in the corporate world and other institutions. And the lawsuit totally ignored the most explosive data in Unz’s study regarding white Gentiles.
In just 40 years, White Gentiles have dropped from 85% of the population to 50%, and by the next census will be around 47-48% of the citizenry and possibly under 40% of the total people living here (citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant). To accept the continuation of such an immigration scheme system with the current society-wide anti-white Gentile discrimination system still in place would be, frankly, grossly unethical.
The worst part of this situation is that most people do not care, and outright majorities of every non-white racial group, as well as Jews, want it to continue.
https://www.unz.com/runz/affirmative-action-and-the-jewish-elephant-in-the-room/
Speaking of Donald Trump and his immigration policies…
The executive producer of CBS News’ 60 Minutes was forced to pull an investigative report on CECOT, the infamous El Salvadoran prison to which multitudes of individuals have been recently deported. The reason?
Bari Weiss, CBS’s newly installed news czar, decided — with less than three hours to air — that it ‘needed additional reporting’, suggesting it would benefit from an interview with fellow Jewish traveler, Stephen Miller.
Clearly, this was a decision that should have been made many days before the report was scheduled to air, and Weiss is now being raked over the coals, not only across the media spectrum, but by 60 Minutes‘ own staff, for her transparent fealty to Trump.
The large scale adverse reaction to Weiss serves as something of an informal referendum on Trump himself.
Not looking good, MAGA.
Not good at all.
As I see it, the White House is trying to balance various variables to maximize the assistance to Israel and the Jewish People. This requires a lot of trial and error. One big goal is to deceive voters into thinking the White House is fighting for American interests instead of just Jewish interests. So, perhaps deporting law abiding illegal aliens who have been bere for more than seven years and working hard and honestly at a full time job is not the best idea, as this article suggests. But, the most important thing for voters is for life to be very affordable. That’s all they want – cheap stuff, like it used to be all through Obama’s eight years before Trump entered the White House the first time and allowed the Jewish People to raise prices by unleashing Covid in China and then placing tariffs on China, a double attack on the cost of living. When Trump came back into the White House, he allowed the Jewish People to make things even worse with further tariffs, tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, and transferring tax revenue from social services and infrastructure to military spending to fight all the Jewish wars.
If the White House took care of all these other things, including eliminating all crime by executing every single domestic criminal instead of imprisonment, then I don’t think Americans would even care if all the illegal aliens, all fifty million of them, were rounded up and deported. Personally though, I think this is mean. I would want a compromise, like maybe just sterilizing all the aliens if they are allowed to stay. I don’t know. Even though I am Brown, I’ve been a strong supporter European ethno-nationalism. But, I don’t like to be too mean. I prefer some type of compromise. Perhaps close the borders and execute all new arriving illegal aliens, but just sterilize those that have already been here for a year or longer. Thoughts?
Sir Ron – when will this happen – if ever? No one except Karl Denninger talks about this – the LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW – would you dare to address this?
ICE reminds me of Venezuela’s infamous Bolivarian Guard, the enforcement arm of their regime. No one is putting lead through heads stateside but… watch this space.
The Bolivarian Guard and ICE follow the same pattern, viz. a police force loyal to a strongman rather than to the state. Maybe Republicans are betting that they will no longer need Hispanic and Asian acquiescence (or any kind of popular acquiescence) in the future, maybe as soon as 2028 or even 2026.
If the state machinery is brought under direct control of a single party, as seems to be happening, America will reproduce the pattern in Warsaw Pact countries where laws and rights existed on paper but not in practice. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had lovely constitutions, but paid no attention to them. Dark times ahead.
So after misleading readers about the firing of a federal employee, Unz is back to opine about ‘Trump and his immigration policies’ — in no less than 10.7k words.
What does ‘unauthorized’ mean here Unz? — how many of ‘the almost unchecked new wave of unauthorized immigrants to America under the Biden Administration’ were actually ‘unauthorized’ (whatever that means), as opposed to asylum seekers who were legally paroled into the US to await a decision on their request for asylum? — according to this source, that number reached 3.6m under Biden.
Likely only a small fraction of this ‘almost unchecked new wave’ were ‘unauthorized’ in the sense their presence in the US was illegal, e.g. they snuck across the border, overstayed, etc — instead a large majority applied for asylum and were paroled into the US by the malicious Biden regime — this includes CHNV migrants, whose parole status Trump terminated in June 2025.
The nature of the migration problem changed fundamentally and legally when the asylum ‘caravans’ began in 2017 during the first Trump administration — by now even the dumbest third worlder knows that you don’t need to sneak across the border, just show up at a port of entry and say you want to apply for asylum.
Since you apparently didn’t understand the applicability of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States vis-a-vis a president’s authority to fire federal workers, I’m not surprised you don’t seem to understand this issue either.
“why have Whites in CA moved so far leftward since (Pete Wilson)”
I know it’s obvious but I’ll say it anyway: They haven’t. But the White population in Judeo-Mexifornia has since declined as precipitously as the non-White population has increased. Unfortunately, as Unz long ago predicted, “Hispanics (will be) the new Whites.” Along with, I might add, Blacks, Gooks, and Pajeets.
as to Trump/ICE etc., the numbers of illegals so far deported has been miniscule. And once this becomes clear (just as happened in Trump’s 1st term), the trans-border shitstain tsunami will resume.
now add in the Kosher Culture-of-Death engineered collapse in White birthrate, and it’s:
adios YT,
real soon.
The 2024 exit polls show that 71% of the election voters were white. How many of them were Middle Eastern is hard to know–but hispanic and black were a paltry 11% each.
If accurate then it means whatever their numbers, the non-white vote is token–it is still whites who come out to vote in big numbers.
This explains why the Deep State media was so angry with white voters in 2016.
Efforts to demoralize this population seems key–make them believe they are a minority and that the “global majority” will swamp them in elections.
Will be interesting to see if Democrats and Republicans seek to court the non-white vote by token diverse candidates or try to get the white voter on their side.
This Congress has been neutered, spayed, and clipped. It won’t bring any harm to a totalitarian.
The parallels between the U$A today and the British Empire prior to WWI is shown in the below:
https://youtu.be/ckDb3tgp2Ko?si=I_Ew5OATuvdbECJ8
The video didn’t mention the Nordstream pipelines nor the Petrodollar System, but the way the USA instigated the Ukraine Conflict in order to stop the EU from buying Russian oil and gas in Euros is exactly the same playbook that the USA used to stop Saddam Hussein from selling his Iraq oil in Euros.
Did you know that (in theory at least) many legal aliens are not supposed to be a burden on public services (e.g. welfare cases). These aliens are sponsored by an entity, an individual or “charity”, who agrees and is (again, in theory) legally obligated to pay their upkeep. Further, the sponsor could be billed for “his” alien’s consumption of government funds, be they local, state, or Federal. Apparently that law has been rarely used. Well guess what? HHS is attempting to bill sponsors of aliens for their Medicaid bills:
https://thenewamerican.com/us/immigration/hhs-to-immigrant-sponsors-pay-what-you-owe-for-immigrants-who-use-medicaid-or-face-collection/
I’ve written a somewhat speculative piece, wondering whether the government would take this idea to the limit:
https://satansdoorknob.substack.com/p/immigrant-sponsors-potentially-on
This is my understanding of the controversy over birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. The 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark was the Supreme Court decision which set the rules for birthright citizenship. Technically, this case did not address the issue of illegal immigrants at all. There was really no such category as “illegal immigrants” in 1898. The case only covered birthright citizenship for legal immigrants, although specifically for Chinese legal immigrants who were restricted by the Chinese Exclusion Act. But the same logic that the Supreme Court used in the Wong Kim Ark case would clearly justify birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants today.
Wong Kim Ark brought his case for US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states:
The entire argument for and against Wong Kim Ark’s claim to citizenship hinged on the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If the Citizenship Clause had only said
then there would be no controversy. This is what birthright citizenship advocates seem to think the 14th Amendment says. But it does not.
There are two competing interpretations of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, and the Supreme Court has been inconsistent, giving different definitions in different cases:
1. Supposed to obey US laws.
2. Not subject to the laws of another government.
If #1 is the correct meaning, then the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is really superfluous. Every person, citizen or legal or illegal, is supposed to obey US laws. The fact that illegal immigrants obviously don’t obey US laws doesn’t change the fact that they are supposed to. So, since this phrase excludes no one, it includes everyone. Thus, those “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would mean precisely the same people as those “born in the United States PERIOD.”
If #2 is the correct meaning, then the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes illegal immigrants because they are clearly subject to the laws of another government (being foreign citizens makes them subject to their own country’s jurisdiction) and have defied the laws of the US government (by being here without permission). It probably does not exclude legal immigrants since they are subject to both US jurisdiction (having applied for and received permission to be here) and their foreign government’s jurisdiction (the country they are citizens of).
That was the entirety of the question decided by the Wong Kim Ark case. The Supreme Court decided definition #1 was correct and #2 was not. Their decision was unambiguous. The case was not about the children of illegal immigrants per se, but the same logic that they applied to Chinese immigrants like Wong Kim Ark would certainly also apply to illegal immigrants. If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump now, that will be overturning precedent, something they are required to do if the previous decision was wrong.
To many people, the 1898 decision on the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seemed obviously wrong on its face, and many did object to it immediately, including the Chief Justice and one other member of the Supreme Court in their dissent.
This is not fair. Of course no one objected to the children of illegal immigrants when no one worried about illegal immigrants at all. There were so few illegal immigrants in the US before the 1990s that it was not a political issue. As soon as illegal immigration became a noticeable problem, people started objecting to birthright citizenship for them.
Well, you sure must not have looked very hard. I found Americans who “questioned the assumed birthright citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants [before] the 1990s” very easily. In fact, I found 6 such questioners in just the Wikipedia article on the court case at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Below are quotes from the Wikipedia article.
First, of course, were the two Supreme Court justices who dissented from the majority opinion:
Also:
The precedent was also challenged in 1982, specifically on the issue of illegal immigrant children, in a case that made it to the Supreme Court:
In all these cases, of course, the courts followed the Supreme Court precedent of 1898. But you can’t conceivably state that no one challenged the decision until the 1990s.
You are probably right about the political consequences of Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. But this does not make him wrong. You’re essentially saying that Republicans should decide this issue based on the political threat that Democrats will use it against them in future elections. If Trump fights birthright citizenship now, Hispanics and Asians (who are, say, 20% and 10% of the population) will get mad and vote against him. OK, agreed. But if Trump does not fight all aspects of legal and illegal immigration now, Hispanics and Asians (who will grow to, say, 30% and 20% of the population) will have an even stronger veto over US immigration policies then. The political threat from Democrats will grow even greater in the future. This is a terrible argument – submit to making immigrants citizens now, and then submit even harder in the future when there are more of them.
This situation is a lot like a case of criminal coercion. If a criminal puts a gun to your head and demands that you let him tie you up, should you obey? The argument for obedience is obvious – he could shoot you if you don’t obey. But this is incorrect. The argument for disobedience is stronger – while you have little power now when he has a gun to your head, you will have even less power later when you are tied up and he has a gun to your head. To obey means to trade a bad situation for a worse situation. The correct strategy is to fight him now when you can, not later when you can’t. This is the way you are describing the birthright citizenship situation today. So, the correct strategy is to fight it now when the foreign-born are a minority, not later when the foreign-born are a majority.
Based on Trump’s stupefyingly evil support of the butchery in Gaza juxtaposed with his work to curtail illegal immigration and drugs, I now see his real purpose is serving evil as a Faustian bargain. In other words, you can have America back, you hypocritical MAGA materialists, but only if you sell your soul to the Devil and support the evil your government enables.
Seutonius reported a quip by Caligula that his horse should be a Senator. Caligula was within the bounds of sanity in his attempts to ape the Egyptian royal dynasties through divine worship of himself and incest. But the first century Romans weren’t ready for it.
My assessment is that the increase in the Latino population is entirely due to the decades-long exploitation of South America and Latin America by the United States.
The United States has no right to blame anyone for this.
The way the United States handles its neighboring countries should serve as a warning to us.
By the way, I recommend you read a book. It was written by Wang Huning（王沪宁https://www.gov.cn/guoqing/2023-03/10/content_5745955.htm）, a member of our central political bureau. The drawback is that you might need to translate it into English.
https://pan.baidu.com/s/1ih2R1-IKLHy8QfLp_WJ8IQ?pwd=8888
When he visited the United States in the 1980s, he put forward the view that the US was opposing itself. Looking back now, his prediction has been proven correct.
The United States will become increasingly divided.
2. Democracy will be hijacked by capital.
3. The issue of race will sooner or later explode.
He believes that the stench of urine in the New York subway, the homeless sleeping in cardboard boxes, form a surreal contrast with the skyscrapers in Hollywood movies.
Racial discrimination is deeply rooted in the South, and a white old man drinks cola while saying “Blacks should stay on farms”.
Politicians shout about human rights on the stage, but on the ground they accept money from arms dealers to support wars.
Of course you are correct, and I’ve read about that problem numerous times. I should have added the caveat: “before affirmative action”. Affirmative action was the game changer here. I am very against affirmative action. Thanks for correcting me!
I’m not aware that, for unskilled jobs, immigrants have put any American citizen out of a job. I may be wrong on that too, but I doubt it.
Also, affirmative action is proof that there is (or was) something more at work here than just employers looking for cheap labor.
Let us not forget that the main driver of mass immigration to the US, Australia, EU, etc. is the economic and military warfare waged by the Empire on the peripheries of Empire. The US, UK, France, etc. (on behalf of military contractors, resource extraction industries and Wall Street/The City of London) have for a century intentionally wrecked the economies, governments and standard of living in order to prevent the people in those places from bettering their own lot by electing (often socialist) leaders who promise to nationalize major industries, fight back against IMF loans and resulting austerity/privatization, and in general engage in economic activities with whomsoever they chose, not just “western” financial/extractive interests.
That is not allowed. Never mind the constant wars of aggression, color revolutions, manufactured civil wars, coup and regime change attempts and genocides, all driven by the Jewish dominated “western” financial elites. Immigration and mass migrations are a not-so-secretly desired secondary or knock-on effect aimed at destroying the wages and bargaining power of workers in the core of the “western” imperium. It’s all part of the same cycle, and even Trump isn’t interested in changing the key underlying leading indicator: Jewish financial control of “western” economies and people and the continued enrichment of extractive, financial and military contractor elites.
I am unsure what is going in in Congress — but the just appear weak. It’s strange to see that many generally silent (my view).
You’ve never heard a White person complain about Blacks stealing jobs? Never? Really??
Then you’ve never known a White kid who took a city, State or Federal job test only to be passed over by a lesser qualified Black applicant? How about complaining about lost promotions, never heard a White complain about them???? Not in the private sector or public??? There have been numerous lawsuits over these very same issues. Unfortunately you’ve not heard of them.
On a personal note, I’ve lost out on both police and fire department hiring despite my high test scores. And that was 45 years ago. In both instances I was only contacted after they ran out of enough minorities to having even passed the tests. But even then, the invite only was offered if I spoke Spanish. I know, not ebonics, but had a friend who lied and said he was half Black. He got called in to get hired despite scoring 15 points lower than me (80 vs my 95). He crashed out of the Fire academy due to a bad back. Oh and they never ask him to substantiate his Blackness.
Poor Reconstruction Whites didn’t complain about Blacks taking jobs from them at lower wages?
You should get your ears checked.
White nationalists don’t just want the foreign-born gone.
They want all ‘undesirables’ eliminated from their midst. Even winning the fight over birthright citizenship isn’t going to move the chains enough for them.
It’s a Trumpeon kibble tossed to his dutiful hounds.
At the end of the day, whites will still be outbirthed by the remaining ‘undesirables’.
Odd you only mention the chicken tax but conveniently forgot to mention that the Hilux doesn’t pass American safety and emissions tests. Rather than spend the money to redisign to qualify, they’ve opted out of our market voluntarily, not because of a tariff. Nor do you mention that their other pickups THAT DO PASS, sell rather well here. Yknow like the Tacoma, that’s even manufactured here which they could do with the Hilux. Yeah that onerous Chicken Tax.
My assessment is that the increase in the Latino population is entirely due to the decades-long exploitation of South America and Latin America by the United States.
Let’s be clear. It’s not the American people that exploited South and Central America, but the same largely Jewish elite that’s also been exploiting Americans with even greater abandon and hatred than they have toward any South or Central American people.
We’ve 2 million less immigrants than just a year ago, between forced removals and self deportations. I’d say this voluntary leaving indicates it’s already begun. Maybe the SNAP 20 hour work requirement has jump started this. And of course getting out before your door gets kicked in might also be an incentive to vamoose.
The fraudulent ‘ice’ and immigration distraction last few months, and c. kirk fraud, psyops and others, is to distract from mass kidnap and forced carceration of homeless people, concentration camps, and distract people from stopping that and tbeir other attacks, including weather weapons on everyone.
There are between 700 mln and a billion here now, 90% by bogus ‘leeegul’ airport migration, and that maga-ts know it yet sit listening to liar media ‘ice’ bs is example why there’s no future.
It’s not immigrants fault, its ignorant whites and religioners fault. Should starve.
Will leave off with some tip to share, can research lysander spooner no treason 1876 paper.
Appreciate the article
A simple but astute observation by Ron Unz.
I’ve often asked people – what percentage of Hispanic citizens do you think have at least one illegal parent or grandparent?
Most people I ask say 80% +/-.
I think this is high, but I think its probably in the ballpark. In other words, most people acknowledge (or simply feel) that most of the Hispanic citizenry derives its population from unenforced borders and unpunished illegal immigration. As of 2008, I think Pew found that over 10% (possibly as high as 15%) of all newborns in the United States were “anchor babies” where both parents were undocumented (illegal). Hispanic births overall were about 25-30% of total births in that period, so about 1/2 (perhaps 1/3) of all Hispanic newborns are born to two fully illegal parents.
When this goes on for 50 years unabated, it becomes harder to defend.
The question is – how does this data compare to past eras, primarily 1880-1925 and 1925-1965?
Have you read any of the Daily Mail reports on the disgruntlement at the latest TPUSA meeting? Erika Kirk does not seem to be capable of leading that motley crew to anywhere except maybe over a cliff.
In reference to comments by Unz:
Your elaboration spells out what I was alluding to (“poor argument“) in the final paragraph in my comment #57 above. The zeal with which some people wish to exploit a perceived flaw in a Supreme Court decision from the late 19th century in a completely different era reveals much about their ultimate political agenda.
This case was essentially about a Texas law relating to the denial of state funds for the education of children not legally admitted to the United States. The decision was 5-4, which highlights how split the court was back then, even on the practical matter of public education, as opposed to birthright citizenship as such.
Just because a kid might not receive automatic US citizenship at birth, due to possible legal constraints in the future, does not preclude acquiring it later. For instance, the child of a woman who gave birth to it after having illegally extended her stay upon the expiration of her student visa, yet having verifiably extracted the seed from a US born citizen boyfriend while her visa was still valid, should not have a problem legally obtaining US citizenship upon the initiative of the biological father.
They manufacture those pickups in the US, not in Japan. Yes, that’s the point – the United States compelled the Japanese to manufacture pickup trucks for the American market in the United States. Partly because Lyndon Johnson made a proclamation: Congress didn’t legislate the chicken tax. The EPA is another way the US forces the hands of foreign auto manufacturers to deny us the standard models manufactured abroad.
If the Hilux was available in the US for something like the price it is sold abroad the Tacoma would likely never have been developed and if it were introduced today it would likely out-compete the Tacoma.
My father, a presbyterian preacher did as many in my family do and spent my meagre inheritance on self publishing books. His last was an analysis of Revelation which I’m wading through.
If there had been better sites like this back in his day he might not have bothered.
The book is naive on the jews, islam and sees science as the main danger to faith in Christianity.
He obviously thought the end times are soon but its not clear to me.
The only thing that pricked up my ears is that one of the signs is the population explosion in southern nations due to do gooders and their invasion of christian lands. Thats well under way everywhere and demographics look bad with the plethora of green haired and nose ringed women.
I have not read these reports, but I completely agree about Erika.
What a bloodbath over there.
secession
Thank you, Sir, for your response.
I concur in that the Globalist/OpenBorder Advocates – Left and Right – simply seem to not cooperate in securing our Borders and limit Migrant Worker Visas (Notably H-1b that destroyed domestic IT workers, now branching out to other white collar jobs of finance and medical/nursing/facilities and H-2 that are encroaching upon the blue collar laborers of farming and services).
Ironic that US Navy Veteran Cesar Chavez – a Farm Labor Rights Advocate – was adamantly opposed to Illegal Immigration.
Understandable that Trump&Vance are being light handed regarding these Visas – as Trump has employed several H-2 Visa Holders on his Business Properties.
There are many ethnic groups trying to make way into the United States. I highlighted the Hispanice Migration because they are the largest collective of Illegal Alien Migration Groups entering the US; and with the Illegal Migration and Birth Numbers – we’re encountering, they will become the largest ethnic collective here in the US. Blacks are at 12% and diminishing as Whites and Hispanics birth and enter (legally and illegally) at much larger numbers. Even more for Asians.
It’s that the Illegal Alien Migration is causing stresses upon the Societal Infrastructure and the Economy. Yes, this may have still been the outcome if there were no Illegal Migrations – in a hundred or so years; but this current situation would be rough upon any Country facing such stampedes.
There simple aren’t enough jobs for eligible workers.
I’ve family matters to tend to; and I’ll be an ExPat by choice – Ivy League Schools are owned/controlled by those with a bias against Whites and Asians (who score higher than them), I haven’t liked what the Govt have been doing abroad for years (no Service Academy for my Children – I’ll be the first and last of my Family), and any children I’ll have will speak English, my “Wife” and my Mother Tongues, and Beijing Mandarin for Commerce before having to learn Spanish.
Good Luck; and best regards,
2nd option means appealing to the LCD among Whites, they might as well hand out bags of Cheezels and 3L Diet Pepsi at the polling stations.
Trump is consistent and unaffected by allegations of immorality
since he is a devoted purist and believer. Regrettably, his religion
is opportunism and his gods are money, power, deceit and
sexual depravity.
The Zionists love him and Satan is his adoring fan, but Americans
are hopelessly hypercritical of their leaders. No one is perfect, and
we should thank him for servicing Bibi, Bubba, et al.
This fine young Englishman, patiently, carefully, piece by piece, deals with the heart of the issue in this ‘dia;logue’ with the High Jew, Danny Finkelstein. It comes off the Nick Fuentes-Piers Morgan ‘debate’:
He’s a real Catholic but stands before his people as a totally unifying force. Long may he run.
Yes. The whole thing was a cruel joke. They recreated Charlie Kirk’s assassination tent so people could take selfies. Ben Shapiro spoke first and then half the remaining speakers just dumped on Shapiro, like Tucker, Bannon (Epsteins best buddy) and Megyn Kelly.
And then the (likely Mossad-aligned) Fed Jack Posobiec is up there nodding, acting like he’s anything other than a Fed.
Tucker comes off fake. JD Vance is fake. Megyn Kelly talks out both sides of her mouth.
The MAGA movement is finished.
You are absolutely correct. I’ve acknowledged my error in comment #131.
I might as well note that the policy of affirmative action was strongly endorsed by the white elite. The same white elite who didn’t give a damn about poor whites *during* slavery now acted against middle class whites *after* slavery.
So, in a way, my main point is valid: whites have no cohesion, being social-darwinist individualists. They probably established affirmative action not out of legitimate concern for blacks, but simply out of fear that blacks would revolt and cause social disturbance (bad for profits, you know).
When I read comments like yours, I am struck by awe. I think to myself: these people simply don’t lose their fighting spirit, despite the fact that they have no clue about their chances of victory, and about the validity of the strategy they are endorsing.
I had the same sense of awe when I read the recent article surveying some rightwing bigwigs about Trump 2. They have no idea how bad they are losing. And yet they ponder solemnly about how Trump was good in this, not so good in that, and ‘I give him 7’. That was hilarious at first, but really made me think.
Today, the right image came to me: you are the present-day Comanches. They were reportedly the fiercest of the Native tribes. When I ask my search engine whether there are any Comanches left, it replies to me:
Not bad, seeing how:
So, fight on! It paid off for the Comanches, it will pay off for American whites. See you in the reservation!
Not exactly. The Constitution was always the supreme law of the land. Of course details had to be worked out over time. In any case the US of A was a contractual association bound together by the Constitution. And there was/is nothing in the document addressing cessation or dissolution.
All I’m saying is that to argue that the South was ‘legally’ justified in their cessation is to misstate the facts. The only law they could appeal to would have been the Constitution, and that document offered no guidance. A ‘legal’ separation or dissolution of the Union would have required an Amendment. Which in fact they attempted (the Corwin Amendment), but was never ratified and in any case interrupted by the fighting.
The argument from the 10th Amendment I think falls short. To think that a ‘power’ not enumerated by the Constitution as falling under the Federal government meant the ‘power’ of states to secede, would have essentially meant that the contract was unenforceable from the get-go.
Think of it this way– if you and I enter in to a legally binding contract, say to sell a house, and then later on I decide to walk away from the stipulations and try and reclaim the house, and if I am successful in kicking you out, then what status did our contract have, as a contract? Why would anyone even sign such a document if there was no overriding obligation to continue its provisions?
The contract was among the states. Thus each state was legally obligated to support and enforce the contract’s provisions.
Now you are making a moral argument and not, strictly speaking, a legal one. I am not saying the South was not morally justified in attempting to dissolve the Union. Just that their action was not ‘legal’ in any sense of the word as it pertains to the Constitution, which is what the OP wrote.
It was in fact sedition and armed rebellion, and an act that could only be decided by war. Or, if Lincoln had given a care about his fellow men, he certainly could have worked out a non-violent compromise, which was certainly doable if he and his followers had had that inclination. Which they didn’t.
However it was from a legal standpoint, the War of Southern Cessation (not a civil war over the control of a single government) spelled the doom of the ‘American experiment’. Whether the South could have done anything different had they succeeded in cessation? Who knows? All that is simply speculation. My guess is that things would have probably turned out the same, even to the point of reforming the Union. Or something like the current EU. But your guess is as good as mine.
Has it crossed your midwit mind that whether or not I’m correct is also important?
Did you notice Unz hasn’t bothered to answer the simple question of what ‘unauthorized’ means?
As I said recently, in order to solve a problem you have to correctly identify and understand it — and the way you solve the problem of mass asylum seeking is not by calling asylum parolees ‘unauthorized’ (they’re not, by any reasonable definition of ‘unauthorized’), but by designating countries as ‘safe’ for asylum purposes, and concluding ‘safe third country’ agreements with as many countries as possible, especially those you share a border with — the US has a ‘safe third country’ agreement with Canada, but not with Mexico, which has led directly to the massive asylum crisis on the southern border — forcing Mexico to sign one should be a top priority of US foreign policy.
And fuck off with that ‘having no clue about the chances of victory’ shit — I understand the situation as well as anyone — but the issue of race is far too important, and the future of Whites as minorities in their own countries far too menacing, to relent or compromise.
The U.S. will never reach a STCA with Mexico. That country isn’t safe for refugees. It has gang violence. Most of Latin America is not safe. I suppose Chile and Uruguay are exceptions, but I can’t think of another one offhand (maybe Costa Rica? Not sure).
You should take a vacation from white nationalism. I see it affecting several people’s brains, and my duty — my mission even — is to alert everyone I can about it.
Privileged White kids are always ungrateful and always turn on their parents despite being overindugled-
https://nypost.com/2025/12/23/us-news/hunter-biden-rips-dad-joes-presidency-over-immigration-afghanistan-in-stunning-interview/
Really? Consider what I wrote about FDR. I similarly hated and despised “W” for the Iraq War and related things, but did he do anything like this? If so, please enlighten me:
The Covid epidemic, i.e. the virus, did NOT lock down the country. That is not just badly worded. That is totally wrong. Might as well say “the deer on the road steered the car into the tree.”
It was people who locked down the country. People who threw public health and practical pandemic preparedness out the window. People who flunked tens of millions of children. People who trapped hundreds of thousands of dying elders to wave goodbye behind a glass window. People who abused their power to the extreme. People who lied BIG, used mass censorship and betrayed the public trust even to the point of denying us the right to informed consent with their infernal “safe and effective” vaccine mandate.
And, plague or no plague, it did not inhibit Biden and “multiculturalists” Mayorkas and Garland from swinging the gate open in 2021 to indiscriminate mass immigration. Not for a second.
Thanks, that’s a lengthy but generally pretty fair summary of the issues.
However, you are mistaken about the 1982 Plyer v. Doe ruling. In that case, the children had been born abroad and came here with their illegal immigrant parents, so everyone agreed that they were illegal immigrants rather than citizens. Instead, the dispute was whether illegal immigrants were still entitled to attend American public schools.
Also, all of the various dissents or challenges you quote regarding the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case were arguing that the Supreme Court ruling itself was incorrect. None of them referred to the later extended interpretation that applied such birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
Since I’m not a constitutional law scholar and I’ve never tried to research the case, I tend not to focus upon those legal issues, but based upon what I’ve read, here’s my perspective:
(1) Just as you suggest, I think there’s a fairly plausible legal argument that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling should NOT have been applied to the children of illegal immigrants since the parents involved in the case were actually legal residents of America. Therefore, it was incorrectly interpreted in America for more than 100 years.
(2) Just as some of the dissenters you quote argued at the time, I think there’s a fairly plausible legal argument that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case itself was wrongly decided. The 14th Amendment was obviously intended to give citizenship to blacks and as someone upthread suggested it may have been an early example of “judicial activism” that the Supreme Court used it to give citizenship to the American-born children of Asian immigrants.
(3) Just as some others has argued over the years, I think there’s a fairly plausible legal argument that the 14th Amendment itself was never properly ratified and therefore has always been legally invalid.
So depending upon whether people agree with (1), (2), or (3), I think there’s a plausible legal case that nearly all of the Hispanics, Asians, and blacks in America were incorrectly granted citizenship over the last 150-odd years.
However, taken together these groups do represent more than 40% of the American population, so I’m not sure those legal arguments have much practical significance.
Also, what’s interesting is that the argument about (1) entirely dominates the current debate yet I think it’s probably the weakest of the three.
Both (2) and (3) were very strongly and publicly disputed legally from the moment they were made. The objections were ignored and the cases became settled law, but they were certainly challenged at the time.
Meanwhile, I do stand by my original claim that as far as I can tell, for about 100 years no one anywhere in America ever questioned (1). Throughout the 20th century, many millions of American-born children of illegal immigrants were assumed to have birthright citizenship, yet prior to the 1990s, no one ever disputed that legal interpretation of Wong Kim Ark. So if the interpretation was wrong, no one apparently ever noticed it.
Anyway, my own focus tends to be on the politics of the issue. Right now, probably very few people are paying much attention to these citizenship questions, but if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s executive order abolishing birthright citizenship, it would become a gigantic political topic.
As I’ve said, if you excluded Puerto Ricans and Cubans, I’d guess that something like 90% of all other Hispanic citizens have some parents or grandparents who got their citizenship under (1) and saying that shouldn’t have happened would certainly get their attention. People say the change wouldn’t be retroactive, but what’s the basis for that argument? Until Trump, nobody had ever claimed that an executive order could abolish birthright citizenship.
Moreover, if (1) can be overturned by executive order, people would probably start focusing upon (2) and (3) as well, quoting all those dissenting opinions saying Asians shouldn’t have been granted citizenship and that sort of thing.
Unless Democratic political consultants are totally incompetent, this would become an extraordinarily powerful political mobilizing issue to use against Republicans.
In my article I noted that one of the main reasons that Trump got such an unusually large share of the Hispanic and Asian vote in 2024 was his promise to drastically reduce immigration and deport most of the huge number of illegal immigrants/asylum seekers who had arrived during the previous couple of years.
But that’s very different than raising extremely serious doubts about the citizenship of existing Asian and Hispanic citizens, not to mention blacks.
Double boo.
At the time it was better known as Proposition 187 or the Save Our State initiative. Since it was in response to a veritible invasion or flood of illegal Hispanic immigrants, it would be more accurate to call it a “counter attack”. In any case it passed; despite the heavy media propaganda vilifying the obviously valid concern, almost 60% of voters agreed it was time to stem the tide. Alas, the voice of the people was not respected. Democracy was denied us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187
p.s. What is the long term carrying capacity of humans in California at ~one half your level of affluence? (Why does an appeal to a glimmer of ecological literacy appear so arcane?)
In response to the following question:
I explained this at the beginning of my comment #57, to which you even responded. Trump’s executive order, on which basis a Supreme Court decision could be expected, was prospective, as of February 19 this year. If that specific executive order gets converted to legal public policy based on the basis of the court’s clarification and confirmatory ruling, it would then be technically retroactive only back in time to February 19, 2025, after which it was not supposed to have been implemented anyway. I believe a common reaction by the Hispanics and Asians would more likely be retrospective gratitude, that the American government had been so good to them for over a century for having unnecessarily conferred citizenship to their ancestors and given them a chance to succeed. They could consider themselves lucky. I do not understand why you are imaging that doing away with birthright citizenship under very narrow circumstances, going forward – basically closing a loophole that has been abused – would be considered to be such a powerful mobilizer.
Perhaps some people desire that, but you’re really describing the attitude of the Neo-Nazi iteration of the Ku Klux Klan from 90s, which accounts for about 0.01% of conservatives.
We’ve had 60 years of exponentially increasing legal and illegal immigration. I think something like a National-origins law, similar to the 1925 law, is necessary now to “freeze” the demographic picture of America as it stands now.
I think that’s a very reasonable compromise that would satisfy both the White majority and the assimilable minorities like Asians, Hispanics, and Middle-Easterners. And it would also be acceptable to the Black community, who I really don’t think care one way or the other about increasing their share of the population of America.
I would be curious if you would agree with this proposal.
Bureaucratic government automotive safety and emissions requirements are ridiculous; quoting them is not a good way to defend policy or attack manufacturers. Many of these regulations appear to be part of a planned obsolescence fraud (public-private partnership) which has been going on for a long time.
Most likely that is Erika’s job. She is the Judas goat designed to lead the faithful to their doom.
IF it is a good idea, how is being late in coming a valid argument against it? Furthermore, why no mention of the fact that this EO is in response to the “anchor baby” strategy which has been hugely exploited by illegal immigrants as a loophole?
Finally, it is not just Trump’s Republican heir that might be “swamped by a tidal wave of angry non-white voters in the 2028 election”. Assuming the anger of the non-Whites is in this instance against Whites, then all White people are faced with — and victims of — such toxic identity politics.
https://www.chinasage.info/yi-jing/kui.php
I never disputed that Trump’s current EO wasn’t retrospective. But if it turned out to be legally valid, why couldn’t some future EO make the removal of birthright citizenship fully retrospective?
A detailed Supreme Court ruling would be expected to preclude such an unlikely possibility for those specific situations when the “jurisdiction thereof” condition did not obtain before February 2025. Retroactive legislation tends to violate basic principles
Incidentally, the phrase “removal of birthright citizenship” is misleading because birth would still remain the basis for obtaining automatic citizenship except in those relatively few instances when the law was being violated by the mother.
Here’s how the two “parties”, two wings of the same bird of prey work together:
Trump takes all the monarchical powers unto himself.
Then the Democrats take over, with a perfect Xmas gift for themselves, complete monarchical power. Notice how, when they do, they will not backtrack that power one iota.
My position has always been this:
Personally speaking, I *absolutely* could not give a damn about the ‘safety’ of a third world wannabe immigrant or of the ‘obligation’ to ‘protect’ him by offering him ‘asylum’. As the old saying goes ‘they’re born on their own, and will die on their own’.
Until this position becomes public policy, the west is fucked.
You didn’t read the article, dickhead. The article says that ICE is going to turn into a Gestapo. When the Democrats get in, they can use it to arrest chumps like YOU. And detain you in secret camps without charge or trial forever. Dickhead.
Lest anybody be fooled: Ron has long been a major promoter of brown mass immigration into California and the U.S. He greatly contributed to the current disaster. He completely misjudged the demographic dynamics. Or maybe he didn’t. No amount of kvetching will erase his responsibility. Russian Jews like him have ruined this once great country in just a few decades.
Even if I were to agree with it, it will not serve to ‘freeze’ the demography of America. That ship’s headed over the horizon now.
Enforce the laws already on the books, but don’t use the color of that enforcement to mask abuse of power.
If whites had continued to marry and have children then this wouldn’t be as bad of a problem. However, a double tap of feminism and elite skullduggery sent us into a tailspin. The elites were never going to allow 76 million baby boomers( I hate that term, we’re too spread out and different in many ways) to produce 150 million children. Imagine if the white population of the U.S. was double what it is. Feminism, drugs, “popular” culture, and a complicit media made sure that the boomers didn’t take after their parents and reproduce. When you are under invasion you don’t politely discuss how to limit the problem, you end the problem, period. A 100 hundred year moratorium on all immigration coupled with a million man army to kick out the undesirables. In less than 25 years we’ll have our nation back. Rescind every amendment after the original ten. Senators should be appointed by the state legislatures. End the fed charter. Have a jubilee and tell them to stick the debt up their mothers ass. Most importantly, bring the troops home, ALL of them, and set things right here at home.
No, that’s really not correct. Prior to 1965, America had open borders with Mexico and the rest of Latin America, but their population density was low, so there were relatively few immigrants.
The major factor behind heavy immigration was the huge growth in Latin American populations during the last three generations.
Sure, I’d read the English translation it about a dozen years ago I think. He obviously came away much less optimistic about America than he had initially been.
The states never agreed to abandon sovereignty. Again, if the Constitution had explicitly stated that states may not leave the Union, it would never have been ratified. It was barely ratified as it was. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions are sufficient to show the original intent of the Constitution. The alternative, that the states sold their birthrights to a Federal government, after recently fighting a war of Independence, is untenable.
The Declaration of Independence, as far as US Law is concerned, was legal. It was not a “moral argument” to dissolve allegiance to the Crown. It was a legal action with legal justifications.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/Organic_Laws_of_the_United_States/Declaration_of_Independence
The fact that the Confederate leaders were not brought to trial proves that there was no sound legal basis for a trial, the Chief Justice had indicated as much. He might have declared secession illegal, but if the US Constitution were “The Supreme Law of the Land” in an unlimited way, they were guilty of disobeying that law. A trial would have put the Constitution on trial, and the Yankee’s Constitution would be found wanting.
” If so, please enlighten me:”
No problem: During Bush the Dumber’s reign 4500 US troops were killed in Iraq, with another 32,000 wounded. 2,500 more were killed in Afghanistan during the same period. How many illegals have been killed by ICE (who did not violently resist apprehension? )
B the D also oversaw the creation of the TSA, which is a massive militarized police force that continues to this day to have the authority to literally molest US citizens by the thousands daily and jail anyone who protests.
B the D also oversaw the conception of the Guantanamo Bay detention and torture facility as we know it now.
Obama weaponized the IRS against Americans, killed US civilians with drones, escalated destabilization of Syria, destroyed Libya, poured fuel on the fire of nationwide negro rioting with comments defending dumb negro criminals literally caught on video/audio facilitating their own deaths.
But wait, whats the difference between the victims of the above treason and what Trump is doing? That’s right, Trump is getting rid of brown non civilians, who come to this country on the US tax payer’s dime and use that money to agitate and provoke and in general be unproductive, parasitic net loses on society. The other Presidents far more egregious crimes against the people they are sworn to protect? Eh.
“snatch people off the streets without warrants, throw them into unmarked vans, and deposit them in “black site” prisons with no access to lawyers, friends, or family. ”
This is so similar to the measures taken by the G with regard to Kovid. The difference again, is that American citizens spent 2 years under the boot of Federal and state level anarcho-tyranny which was applauded by you, (and which began under Trump’s first term; shouldn’t you be praising him?)but throwing out useless eaters and now all of a sudden sputtering on about muh constitution? Risible.
Every single signatory on the Declaration of Independence would be working to throw these non American, alien invaders out just as well.
There were plenty of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans (more than enough) in this country, Nixon grew up with Mexicans.
Prior to 1965, there wasn’t a “Great Society” or massive bureaucracy to facilitate mass migration into the United States.
Like many of the low-wage “jobs” on offer today (which are required to qualify for various forms of government assistance) that can’t begin to pay a living wage, mass immigration has occurred in large part because of state sponsorship. That is why the courts guaranteed aliens benefits intended for US citizens.
These aliens are being brought here with federal sponsorship, that is always how it has worked.
The Hindus didn’t get control of all the liquor stores because they of some sort of shyster “work ethic.” It’s because the state treats them as “honorary Jews.”
The vast stream of immigrants who depend on a social safety net intended for Americans are no different than the vast numbers of foreign students brought into the Universities in preference to white Americans – they are brought here with government funded financial sponsorship.
The Great Replacement is not a natural economic tendency. It is a policy planned and prepared by “global institutions” (that is to say, a centrally organized grand conspiracy), to destroy the sovereignty of European peoples – to make white European people minorities in their own countries. It has NOTHING to do with economics – it is totally criminal, totally inexcusable, like the forced vaccinations – it is a criminal plot.
Immigration can be stopped cold, the migrants can be sent back. There is nothing preventing any of this, other than the WILL TO REMOVE THE JEWS FROM POWER.
Racial immigration quotas based on current demography? I don’t care what the ensuing birth rates are once we establish that.
Asian-American women have fertility rate of 1.3 (lowest), Blacks have 1.7 (highest). Pretty similar.
What we need to do is stop this (ideally not by Constitutional reinterpretation), which can’t go on forever:
As of 2018 (pre-Biden), 5 million of 73 million US-born kids (below 18 population) had two (2) illegal immigrant parents. Another 975,000 had one illegal parent. My understanding is virtually all of those are Hispanic, about 1/2 Mexican nationals.
Roughly 24% of under-18 population was US-born Hispanic = 17.5 million.
So roughly 35% of all Hispanic citizen youth are born to at least one “undocumented” (criminal?) parent.
This is a major problem.
So is Trump’s “antisemite hunter” police force, which he on occasion deploys to round up illegals.
A Trump supporter dies and goes to Heaven.
God says to him, “For the most part you lived a good life so as a courtesy, you may ask me one question and I will give you an honest answer.”
The Trump supporter asks, “Who really won the 2020 election?” God replies, “Joe Biden won. It was a free and fair election
After a moment of silence the Trump supporter says, “Wow. This goes even higher than I thought.”
Exactly what a Betar operative would say.
Your litany provides not a single president preceding Trump that jailed and deported lawful residents for exercising their first amendment right.
Sit down, already.
we would be remiss if we left out the biden adminstration’s treatment of the fools who accepted offers of tours of the capitol from the capitol police on jan. 6th. good bye habeus corpus!
https://space.bilibili.com/23947287This bilibili er named 小约翰可汗 is the source from whom I learned about a series of exploitation incidents in South America, such as the Banana Republic incident. The video he made is really excellent.
The question is, it was true that the United States, especially the United Fruit Company, and some oil companies did cause a great deal of suffering in South America and Latin America.
American enterprises (such as United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, etc.) exploited Central American countries (such as Guatemala, Honduras) through the “banana republic” model (controlling land, politics and economy) from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century. This led to the homogenization of local agriculture, land concentration, and the erosion of workers’ rights, which indeed exacerbated poverty and social conflicts. This historical background provided an economic motivation for the Latin American immigration wave.
In 1965, the United States passed the “Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act”, and those who suffered naturally saw new opportunities. Previously, immigrants couldn’t see new opportunities because there was no immigration path available. However, with the changes in the legal system, the path has been opened up.
I believe the actual logic should be as follows:
The historical exploitation by American enterprises in Latin America (such as the monopoly of United Fruit Company and the control of resources by oil companies) exacerbated poverty and social inequality in the region, providing an economic motivation for the immigration wave. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendment abolished the nationality quota system and expanded the legal channels for Latin American immigrants (especially family reunification and skilled migration), and geographical proximity made countries like Mexico the main beneficiaries. Although the original intention of the act was to attract Asian technical talents, Latin American immigrants quickly became the mainstream due to their family networks and the rapid opening of borders.
So, when we get to the essence, the actual problem was caused by the Rockefeller family and their proxy alliance (the shareholders of Standard Oil and United Fruit).
Their shortsightedness made all other Americans bear the consequences while they themselves enjoyed the benefits.
The logic of us Chinese has always been that eliminating the rich can solve the problem. Look, if the Rockefeller family were wiped out, and their CEO didn’t let South America fall into poverty for the sake of the shareholders, then would there be no immigration to South America?
In reality, it’s the American rich who keep causing problems, and then pass them on to everyone. It’s truly amazing that no one has stopped this.
I really appreciated and enjoyed your thoughts of how to handle this future of ours. I agree totally about the Chinese over Spanish – told my kid the same thing. He’s good with languages.
I disagree with the following:
Birthrates of American blacks are one thing. It’s very dysgenic from what I’ve seen, but the numbers are indeed lower than in the past. However, there is and has been a large amount of immigration of Africans.
Before I paste in the graphs from my 2 posts Coming to America – Part 1 and Coming to America – Part 2, let me say that, in a Saileresque fashion, well somewhat, it’s not like I just like to pore over immigration stats of various strange foreigners. However, I see what I see in front of me with my own eyes. At home and at work, the number of AFRICAN blacks is HIGH. I understand why Corporate America wants them – they can get D.I.E. hires who don’t have nearly the surly attitudes and terrible work ethic as lots of American black people… for a while, until they go that way. Then, as Steve Sailer would, I went and looked up this data after having noted how many Africans are here, and they’ve come both legally and illegally.
It hasn’t been just across the southern border such as during the Brandon/Mayorkas treason. Visa overstaying is a big thing. People coming here on all manner of non-immigrant visas just stay, and it’s not like the US has the serious exit tracking that I noted in China.
Anyway, I am not sure that current 12-13% won’t get HIGHER, Mr. Forge – they find new ways to screw White America every day. Here:
Very nice comment, #517. About the only thing I don’t agree with in your litany of solutions is the Debt Jubilee. (It worked OK in Biblical times when people knew it was coming. I’m no debtor, and I don’t like being screwed by the irresponsible.)
That aside, Feminism has been a big scourge. I find it hard to believe that the introduction of Feminism is not part of a Frankfurt-School-style plan by Communist who won the internal Cold War to destroy America. Regarding housing, family formation, etc., I do see a bit of a chicken/egg thing. Much of the Feminist destruction of the nuclear family occurred a few decades befire the immigration invasion really hit its stride. (I.e., they both started in the mid-1960s, in about a 4 year period of destructive policy implementation, but the immigration invasion wasn’t felt – my experience – until the 1990s really, maybe the mid-’90s.)
So, is it the huge influx of cheap labor replacement workers who caused White people to find it hard to form families too, along with the effects of Feminism? The more the competition for decent jobs and decent houses in decent neighborhoods, the lower the White birthrate, and then, of course, the people behind it all tell us we need MOAR immigration to shore up SS and keep up sales of toilet paper at Wal-Mart…
Also, thanks to you and the other commenter above for bringing up the evil of Amendment XVII. It wasn’t just some little bit of “housekeeping”, it was yet another power grab by the Feds of former State power.
Agreed, #847. Eah has a valid point but we are far beyond discussing these rules of asylum. It’d be fine to point them out, but I too don’t give a damn besides that these people must GO, and no more should be let in!
The Globalists and ctrl-left are often well aware of the International rules for Asylum and whatever else. They don’t care about no steeeenking rules. It’s time we quit playing Whiffleball while they play hardball.
The problem is not that they are rich, it is they are evil criminals. These two traits can go together, but being an evil criminal is the fundamental problem. Those people need to be dealt with decisively for being dangerous criminals.
No, from our perspective, most of the wealthy people are considered to have committed a sin.
If one wants to become rich, they must first become a bad person.
Can you understand?
This is why in our ancient times, the hierarchy of occupations was ranked as follows: officials, farmers, workers, and businessmen.
Businessmen have always been despised by the Chinese people.It is simply because in modern society, the need for business talents leads to the rise of businesspeople to high positions.
Look, if we view Batman from the perspective of Chinese people, we would think that there are flaws in the logic of Batman’s story.
In Gotham, there is such a huge gap between the rich and the poor.
Since Batman is a rich person, shouldn’t he give his wealth to the common people so that they can live a better life? Isn’t that the way to solve crimes?
Why does he have to act like a self-congratulating Joker and beat up the criminals?
These people commit crimes because they have no other choice but to do so. From my perspective, it is Batman who is the Joker.
Even if Batman is not guilty, the fact that his parents possess a huge amount of wealth is inherently sinful.
Shouldn’t his parents have been killed?
After you kill all the rich people, you will then have the ability to properly distribute the assets.
Finally, you will be able to establish rules that enable good people to become wealthy as much as possible.
The only way there will be an “End Times” is if the Death Cult known as Evangelicalism manages to pull it off. And if you’re paying attention – they are trying their utmost.
Most of the semi- or fully retarded Evangelical goyim are completely tone-deaf as they quite literally perform in a revelation of the method grotesquerie like getting photographed in a simulacrum tent where Chuck was allegedly killed.
They participate in rituals where they are the subject of dark mockery and are literally too stupid to have any concept or concerns about how fundamentally wrong it is; while they are amusing, the fact that they have the numbers and political power to start WW3 and burn this world into the bedrock isn’t funny, at all.
He is very cowerful. He powerfully cowers to his donors.
I know whats manufactured where, that’s what I meant by “even manufactured here”. I never said it was Legislation, but I’m aware of the Legislation THAT WAS PASSED enabling LBJ to levy the Chicken Tax. Did you actually read what I wrote?
I wasn’t defending anything you illiterate. Quote me where I did!!
I just brought up a conveniently omitted factor explaining why the Hilux isn’t available here, it isn’t just about the Chicken Tax. They could’ve brought it up to regulation and manufactured it here like they do with their other pickups but chose not to. Ultimately that Tax isn’t the only reason that pickup isn’t available here as I clearly proved. Then you chime in without refuting a single thing I said.
Care to actually refute what I wrote?
Heirs to dispensationalism, the offshoot of Christianity without which the Zionist project would not have attained the success it has.
Indeed, they are dangerous.
Ron writes this:
WRONG.
迪路 writes:
WRONG.
The Anglo-Saxon there, 迪路, passed the 1924 Nationalities Act, restricting immigration to keep the racial character of America–this was during the Banana Wars and such–when Rockefeller was around! The REAL Fucking reason is this:
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy 1881-1965: A Historical Review
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf
迪路, HERE: It’s Called Jewish Messianism: The Chief Rabbi of the London Synagogue, Rabbi Ari Kahn (2012), teaches that World Unity (i.e. rebuilding the Tower of Babel) and a Utopia have to be established before the Jewish Messiah can come. The Utopia includes World Peace. Those teachings are incorporated in the Kabbala and Lullism. Ref: Talk: The Messiah. http://www.ou.org/torah/article/the_messiah Min 00.22 Judaism is a messianic religion; Min 10:40 Unity of man; peace on earth. Attention, — All of his talks have been removed from the internet, the url does not work. But I have recorded it for posterity!
In his book, The Jewish Ethic and the Spirit of Socialism, Weisberger elaborates further on the Jewish idea:
ref: Weisberger, 116. Questia Online Library (Questia is also defunct, removed because I used it {my supposition}.)
~ Nahum Goldman, founder of World Jewish Congress, The Spirit of Militarism (1915)
https://henrymakow.com/000984.html
Adolphe Crémieux, one of the most westernized and successful Jews of the time, and at one time the minister of justice in the French government, wrote:
Crémieux, Archives Israelites (Israelite Archives), 1861, N 25. Moss, Vladimir (2014) The Mystery of Jewish History. academia.edu PDF. pg 212.
https://www.academia.edu/35230202/
In her first chapter, the Jewess Rosa Luxemburg, one of the leaders of the Communist Spartacist League in Weimar Germany, in her pamphlet “The Nationalities Question” (c. 1918), references a 1909 article by the Jewish-Austrian writer, the democratic socialist Karl Kautsky (1854 – 1938), who wrote on the same subject:
迪路, there — RACE-MIXING. The immigration in America is SOLELY due to Jewish Influence and their European cucks!
Handout: Roman Catholic Politicians Biden, Kennedys—The Faces of The Great Replacement.
https://www.academia.edu/111066922/
Jewish Messianism, America = Helter Skelter
https://www.academia.edu/144740984/
The Jews are conducting a race war against us thru demography called immigration; after race-mixing comes miscegenation; thus SOFT Genocide. The 1965 Immigration Act was a law of Genocide and War against us—Cellar, the one half of the sponsors of the bill, was Jewish. Immigration is solely a Jewish affair.
The measures I outlined are what’s necessary within the legal framework of existing asylum law and practice — obviously I agree it would be much better if white countries abrogated the treaties requiring them to consider applications for asylum — in fact this should be seen as necessary for demographic survival, as racial differences (look up a global map of countries labeled with their human development index) will continue to drive asylum seeking — I’ve written many comments about asylum because I think it’s an extremely important subject.
Thanks for these details.
You really should look into the facts. Mexico and the rest of Latin America had always been under-populated, so until the last three or four generations there had been relatively little population-pressure for immigration to the US.
For example, checking with ChatGPT, one hundred years ago in 1925 the populations of the US and Mexico were around 115M and 15M respectively, so the US population was almost 8x larger.
However, today the respective figures are 343M and 133M. Moreover, our population now includes 38M Mexican-Americans, so if we shift that group to the Mexican total, we get around 300M Americans who aren’t Mex-Am and a total Mexican population of 150M. So the ratio is now just 2x, and actually much, much less than 2x if we exclude other, post-1925 immigrants to America.
Thus, during the last 100 years, the population of Mexicans has grown by 900% while the population of the white Americans who were living here in 1925 has probably grown by something like 70%. Here’s what I wrote in my article above:
So the gigantic population explosive in Mexico and the rest of Latin America during the last 100 years has been the main driving factor behind the very heavy legal and illegal Hispanic immigration to the US during that period.
You’ve got a correlation but I don’t agree with your reasoning here. The reason that many Mexican/LatinAm and now other strange foreigners from all over have come over the last 60 years was the creation of the huge US Welfare State. That’s been the big draw.
When did that Welfare State start up in earnest? It just so happens it was around the same time, the mid-1960s, with the Scumbag LBJ’s “Great Society” programs. (A WHOLE LOT of destructive policy, in fact, was passed within a 3-4 year period, the mid-1960s.)
Now, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison with many other countries, say, India, that have expanded greatly in population over these years because of the question of easy access. If you will note though, as for mostly legal, but plenty of illegal (corruption and overstayers) too of Indians, this has only cranked up in recent years because it was ALLOWED TO. They weren’t coming in in droves until this century. Is it due to the population increase, when the place has been crowded for centuries already, or due to the Welfare State benefits? It’s probably some of both.
Because it has an even bigger land border, we can compare Mexico to Canada. Canada has had a big increase in population (still low as divided by land area, but MOST Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border – only so much of it is seriously inhabitable – ever been to Fargo, NC, Mr. Unz? Freaking cold.) Much of Canada’s increase has been due to an even stupider policy than America’s, but my point is that White Canadians didn’t go pouring across the northern border when it was wide open (it really was, sometimes just a traffic cone on the yellow line). They have had a large Welfare State over all this time.
BTW, the people that do emigrate from Canada to the US are often those same Indians – the Kamala family, the Haley (Nikki’s) family and others who have found it easier to get into Canada first and then make the next step. Many such cases…
Squiggles, I can’t tell if you’re stupid because you’re a Communist, or you’re a Communist because you’re stupid… chicken and egg thing, I guess…
That was one of THE dumbest comments I’ve seen even from YOU.
.. and that explains why the Chinese are always trying to get rid of corrupt government officials but just don’t ever get that simple thought into their heads that maybe, hey [light bulb] we shouldn’t have these officials to begin with.
Talking about your rich Chinamen, almost all of the rich ones who buy houses on the nice hills in Seattle, or in Hongcouver, San Fran, and LA are government officials, most still living in China. Speaking of the Birthright Citizenship – I call it “Bug-out Baby” – scam, they want to both get their bribe money out of China and have a residence with a son that gets some BS degree at North Dakota State so that he can bring them over later. Oh, I forgot, these people make in the neighborhood of $1,200/month or something. It’s amazing. The Chinese people are such good savers!
It’s called free markets and limited government. “Never been tried successfully”, Squiggles says? Yeah it has, for a couple of centuries in America. I don’t guess you know a bit of American history, if you are even a real person. But then, even Artificial Stupidity is not this bad. Only a human can be this stupid.
And, BTW, have you never heard of Robin Hood? I believe that would be a better mythical example of your point than freaking Batman, who WASN’T rich, dumbass!.
I’m sorry, but I was out of clickable responses earlier, Mr. JPS. This is a very good comment too. I also did appreciate the nice civil legal discussion between Mr. Unz and Eugene Kusmiak that appears well below this one of yours.
However, there is such a thing as common-sense. Most people with common sense know very well that Amendment XIV, with its Section 1 in question here, was one of the 3 post War of Northern Aggression amendments, and it had to do with how to handle freed black slaves within the Federal system of government. NOBODY, but NOBODY!, at the time had any thoughts about there being anchor babies from Mexico, China, wherever, that could magically become citizens per this Amendment.
Since Mr. Unz brought up unConstitutional and oppressive government, supposedly as represented by Trump and ICE, let me paste in the following from that Peak Stupidity post linked to here about the long Northern occupation of the South that was called the sick euphemism “Reconstruction”:
This Amendment was ratified by the Southern States under duress. On that basis alone, it ought to be repealed, but that notwithstanding, the interpretations of Section 1 have been missing some easily determined common sense of the situation in 1868.
“This Amendment was ratified by the Southern States under duress. On that basis alone, it ought to be repealed, but that notwithstanding, the interpretations of Section 1 have been missing some easily determined common sense of the situation in 1868.”
Ok I’ll play.
The states were not states as you refer to them — they were republics — when they started a war against the US they lost. The so called republics are then US territory. And such have no constitutional guarantees. They were territories won by a war the south started.
And now having lost — you claim southern republics were under duress, of course it was duress — they were. There choice.
Not quite Republics all, but I generally agree – they were not provinces as most Americans think of them and as they have been treated since that war. “States” is actually the correct term, but due to its CURRENT connotations, I see your point.
No, see, this is the part you got wrong. The Southern States did NOT start the war. After secession, or “cessation”, as some would have it, the Federal Army remained on Fort Sumter in Charlestown harbor. They were not welcome to be stationed there at that point, so as occupiers of a foreign country, they were fired upon by the cannon batteries downtown.
Then, the Yankees got all butt-sore, and President Lincoln started the war to force these eleven (eventually) States back into the Union. As a percentage of American boys and men, it was by far the most killing of Americans ever in war. That 3/4 million was 2.4% of ALL the US population so about 5% of the entire male population. That doesn’t count men with limbs amputated, etc, at the end of it.
History – it’s not just a TV channel that shows the Pawn Stars.
I can tell you quite seriously that whether one is a communist or not has nothing to do with my opinion. The Chinese people simply like to kill the rich and seize their land. I am indeed a wealthy Chinese. My parents always told me that I needed to step on others’ heads to grow stronger. So I surely have a deep understanding of whether being rich is good or not.
Only extreme selfishness can make one become a rich person.
As for the overseas investment and tax avoidance phenomena you mentioned, my family did invest in American real estate before…
What do you want to say?
Then my elders thought the environment in the US was too bad and sold the real estate there… And my cousin who lived in the US also came back… That’s it.
In terms of actual value, living in China with 2,000 RMB per month is more comfortable than living in the US with 3,000 US dollars per month. To be honest, you’re living in a dream. I suggest you commit suicide as soon as possible to be sure if you’re truly awake.
OK?
Do you have paranoid delusions of persecution?
Adapting to the development of the times, they merely thought it would be better for them to make more money. Of course, it was you who were being exploited. So you regarded their actions as a racial war.
In fact, it wasn’t like that. When women’s rights began to emerge, they exploited women’s rights to make money for themselves.
When the Chinese people prevent them from making money, they then introduce anti-Chinese laws. I suggest you stop daydreaming and go to the hospital to see a doctor about mental health issues.
Allow me to clarify my “irony”.
The states were states. However, they called themselves republics to justify the rebellion – treason. I am only using republics as a hedge against a complaint they were duress as states and should therefore be granted relief.
There was no mechanism for cessation in the Constitution. Nor did the south seek one.
If they were republics and they made war against thee US and lost those republics now US territory are bound by the will of the winner. So duress would be expected. The truth is
The south was provided more grace than one should have expected. They made war against their fellows. Fort Sumter was federal property, there was no legal requirement or an ethical expectation that the Federal government should relinquish said property.
President Lincoln responded to an attack against the US. The Supremacy clause bound the states to the Union. They joined that union voluntarily. Now granted they had complaints, the mechanism for dealing with complaints is by congressional action or of need be the Supreme Court. The Southern states had no qualms calling for federal action against Mexico. They had no complaints when the federal courts ruled in their favor repeatedly, especially on the issue of slaves, but not only that.
The southern states started a needless war. Furthermore the states did not consult their voters 3/4(?) or so opted not to fight which speaks volumes about the wars popularity among southerners. Those non participating citizens had every right to reject treason and have their rights respected — which the states (all but one) dismissed.
——————-
I have no issues with 1 million dead, needless and treason. The Constitution created a nation not a gaggle of republics..
I fail to see the connection. So, let me get this straight—because of the exploding Mexican population, Mayorkas and Biden let in over 10 million Hispanics in 4 years, not this:
President Joe Biden, Roman Catholic, Irishman surrounded himself with Jews, said:
Do you see “exploding populations in other countries” so we need to bring them here???
You think that this is just my opinion that immigration is a race-war? Vox Day:
Vox Day, Mensa member, who is somewhat of a military historian and a thinker into military matters, is repeating and seconding the opinion of another military historian and professional, Martin van Crfeveld.
Immigration is reverse colonization. Immigration is a race-war thru demography.
Unz’s stemwinder is chock-full of worthy information, but he’s completely wrong on birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment. The absurdity of a pregnant illegal stumbling across the border and then giving birth to what will therefore be an “American citizen” shatters reason. American Indians born on American soil weren’t citizens until 1924, which evaporates the birthright citizenship myth. As well, blacks born on America’s soil weren’t citizens until 1866.
I wholly accept Andrew Anglin’s argument that we should not create precedents for a future leftist dictatorship.
But everything else Unz promotes is doubtful. Firstly, the long-standing tendency to replace congressional laws by president’s decrees may be regrettable, but this tendency can only be changed by a general change of mind, above all in congress. Secondly, the sitting president must of course have the right to change former presidents’ decrees. Thirdly, the question if (or how far) decrees or laws can be used “retroactive” is a general question and cannot be treated in the narrow context of an anti-Trump invective.
But lastly, as a German I very much resent this general and spiteful attack on Trump at a time when Trump is the only one to prevent Germany from falling under a neo-Bolshevist dictatorship. It is simply a stab in the back of us Germans.
Regarding the ‘legal and illegal Hispanic immigration to the US’, in addition to the cowardice and stupidity of white people in allowing it, you left out a key factor Unz: racial differences — even accounting for outside interference that may have affected development, particularly interference by the US (there has been some of that), there is just not enough high quality human capital in ‘Mexico and the rest of Latin America’ to create prosperous economies that produce adequate wealth, which would greatly help to create politically stable societies — the ‘smart fraction’ is not big enough.
Human Development Index
And ‘Hispanic’ is not a racial category; how many times do I have to tell you that? — whereas mestizo is — it’s race that’s important when considering the quality of human capital, including the size of the ‘smart fraction’ of a population.
Recently someone suggested I ‘dislike’ you and your articles — obviously we’ve never met, so I have no opinion about you personally (although to be honest we probably wouldn’t get along) — however, I do think you are often dishonest (as you are here) — under the last couple of articles, I’ve criticized certain very specific aspects of what you wrote — in the past, I’ve criticized a general characteristic of your writing: your articles are often way too long, with a lot of verbiage designed (it seems to me) to hide the paucity of hard evidence supporting your argument.
“For example, after President Obama tried but failed to pass Congressional legislation shielding illegal immigrants who had arrived as children from deportation, he issued an executive order establishing the DACA policy that did exactly that. ”
*********************************************************************
And for that obama can be legally executed. Section 1324 title 8 makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and the penalties for doing so go up to the death penalty!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
(A)Any person who—
(iv)encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I)engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II)aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(iv)in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
“But this was very different than targeting those who had already lived here for ten or twenty or thirty years and long since integrated themselves into the community.” *************************************************
But how do we verify they have been here 20 years.? They have all learned to lie about that. We would have to create another huge govt agency costing $50B a year to check out the applicants. Better to just deport all illegals.
As explained many times, there is no need to deport illegals. Simply enforce section 1324 title 8 which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here. Prosecute those who hire illegals or rent them housing or let them use our schools or collect welfare. Without jobs and housing and freebies they will leave overnight.
No, you misunderstood me. Only a small fraction of the gigantic wave of immigrants under Biden were Mexicans, partly because Mexico’s rapid population growth had ended decades earlier.
Instead, many of them came from Venezuela, because we’d deliberately destroyed the economy of that country, and as I explained, a surprising percentage were Africans. Africa’s exponentially growing population was responsible for that, but since Africa was thousands of miles away, nobody had ever expected to see significant numbers of illegal immigrants from that continent.
Instead, I had been explaining the reasons for the earlier huge wave of Mexican immigration throughout the twentieth century, which is a completely different issue.
Agree 100% hangman. If you cannot show proof of lawful residency, or violate any laws while here going thru the process, you are immediately deported to your country of origin. Particular attention should be paid to any kind of fraud involving social welfare programs like medicare/medicaid or snap benefits. End birthright citzenship BS and asylum claims as well. These people just see us as nothing but marks. Fuck them, LEAVE.
BTW, how the hell is someone like Mayokas not in jail? Apparently he’s another made man jew saboteur doing his best to make our country collapse. We’re fucked.
Anyone who thinks the 14A means straight birthright citizenship is an idiot. It clearly says the kid must be born on american soil AND “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If the mother is mexican, the kid inherits her nationality and is subject to the jurisdiction of mexico.
Still, they have NO business here. We need mass deportations.
I want to live, work and play with my OWN kinsmen. That is where Community is formed. God created us as Herd animals. We are not just pure reason, but half animals that operate on hormones and instinct as well. We know by instinct who is the Other and that breeds discord, not harmony.
Furthermore, you can’t legalize, legitimize soft genocide. And when a government engages in genociding its Ethnic majority–then it has NO right to obedience; it needs to fall. The American government has been engaged in Genociding its own people since the Mason George Washington forbade the creation of a Black Corps and ordered the mixing of races in the army to when the US Army was used to de-segregate that school in Arkansas in the 1950s. The US Government has NO legitimacy whatsoever.
That may be what you think “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. And that’s what I think it means. But as I explain in my comment #127 and as Wikipedia explains in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark that’s not what the Supreme Court decided those words meant in 1898. If the Court is to abolish birthright citizenship for anchor babies – which I hope it does – it is going to have to overturn its previous ruling about what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.
Wow, and I didn’t think you could top that last snippet of stupidity, but here we got:
You wrote this just after you got done telling us that YOU are one of the rich people, and that the rich people should be killed. Knock yourself out, chief.
No, it doesn’t.
That is the M.O. of your average Communist indeed. Oh, but they call it “land reform” and there’s that “Liberation Theology” for the Commies of a religious bent. I don’t actually think that’s what the Chinese are about nowadays. The CCP simply wants CONTROL.
Nah, I know the prices of apartments in China. You’ll get nowhere earning $300/month nowadays – you could barely eat on that. Anyway, my point was that these government officials making 2,000 RMB monthly somehow can save up and get $2 million (that’s DOLLARS) houses in Seattle on Capitol or Queen Anne Hill. The problem is that Americans are not the kind of people up for just killing the rich and seizing their houses on Capitol or Queen Anne Hill.
It does not have to “overturn” the ruling from more than a century ago but merely needs to implicitly add an additional exemption that was not even contemplated at that time but now requires due consideration in light of contemporary circumstances. As I said previously, it would merely close a loophole that has been widely exploited during the past few decades.
However, some activists have unnecessarily stoked fear about a pending judicial clarification by insinuating that there was a possibility that a re-interpretation of the conditional clause might entail something like this:
…subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof…
That strict constraint could be construed to mean that both parents of the child would have to have been US citizens at the time of birth, while having no simultaneous allegiance to another country.
The Supreme Court could specify the meaning of the pivotal phrase, so as to take into account parents who are registered aliens – who might likely also be under foreign jurisdiction – which would entail at least the mother having undergone a vetting process and subsequent formal registration with the US government, such as the issuance of a visa or green card, which then confers the necessary jurisdictional oversight to fall under the provision. The application of the law on birthright citizenship would therefore be under the following interpretation, understood to pertain to the mother:
…subject to the formally acknowledged jurisdiction thereof…
As I suggested in comment #142, this formal acknowledgement would end, say, after a valid visa expires without being extended. (Of course retroactive extensions are not allowed for the purpose of covering the time of birth.)
This seems like a case of correlation mistaken for causation. This is not really a simple diffusion problem between two regions separated by a porous barrier. The US decided to ALLOW these people into the country and to not deport them after they arrived. This was a political decision which seems independent of the increased populations in other countries (since the overall population of the world was always much larger than that of the USA). So the cause of the mass influx of illegal immigrants was intentionally lax border control. The mass influx of legal immigrants was caused by other destructive policies.
I suspect at some point in the past the US border patrol was able to use deadly force to maintain the border. Mostly likely they did not need to use it, because people knew they could use it. As rules of engagement changed and border patrol police were longer authorized to shoot invaders, then the invaders simply ignored them.
It’s quite simple. I think it’s basically impossible to convince others online.
So I can only suggest that you just die.
Anyway, I think you are probably a useless trash that society doesn’t need. Trash should be buried in a landfill, right?
But you can also provide me with some emotional value because I know you are a livestock.
As for the fact that you think I’m a wealthy person and my words contradict that… Wake up! This is not contradictory.
I long for the day when the rich who are richer than me and the poor who are poorer than me will all die together. All this is for the purpose of strengthening myself.
Everything is purely selfish. My mother used to tell me this from a young age: “You should stand on top of everyone else.”
Throughout every historical period, the Chinese have been very skilled at killing the wealthy. This is based on historical experience.
So don’t tell me any stupid nonsense about CPC wanting to control everything. In my eyes, you are just an animal and you don’t have the right to talk to me.
As for your concern that our rent is too high… Perhaps you don’t quite understand, so I have to state it again…
I, a native of Shanghai, own many houses and don’t need to rent one. I collect rent.
We don’t have to pay property tax every year either.
In China, property tax only applies when you purchase a house for the first time.
Do you understand now?
As for those who come from other places here… They can certainly choose a cheaper house around 1,000 yuan.
Of course, sometimes I also encounter a few idiots who are willing to rent for 3,000 – 10,000 yuan.
You are trash. Would you rather die earlier? I don’t want you to reply to my words because I think you are an inferior species. Your existence has no meaning and your life has no value.
While I can’t be entirely sure, it sounds like you’re seriously confused about the history of American immigration law. If you aren’t, then I’m sure that many other commenters on this thread are.
I suspect that such confusion is mostly due to the legions of anti-immigration activists on Twitter and numerous websites, who tend to be totally incompetent.
The best proof of that incompetence is the endless denunciations of the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Reform Act that you can find all across the Internet.
As I’ve endlessly—but rather futilely—pointed out for decades, the 1965 didn’t OPEN America’s borders, instead it largely CLOSED America’s borders. Unfortunately, since the 1980s or 1990s, enormous numbers of activists have gotten all their facts upside-down and backwards.
I suppose that I might as well quote one of my extended discussions of this very important issue from a half-dozen years ago:
https://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-building-a-wall-and-hispanic-crime/
People can be pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant if they want. However, they really should try to get their facts correct.
Regarding the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act:
In your remarks you have focused on immigration from Latin America. Yet the reason so many people have criticized the legislation was because it severely restricted immigration from Europe by abolishing prior quotas. Before 1965 a substantial portion of slots were reserved for immigrants from the UK, Ireland, and Germany. The emphasis on family unification in the bill also wound up benefiting non-European immigration in light of European economic recovery, compared to continued impoverishment in many other regions due to faster population growth. Finally, the impact of increased illegal migration is also a relevant factor.
Adding exemptions to existing rules in order to fix current problems that were not anticipated when the rules were written is a legislative function. Unfortunately, the courts do that now.
Ron, you are just a genocider. All your fancy words don’t change a thing. Fancy words don’t affect the evil that you and the Jews are and pushing. The 1965 Immigration Act would have never come about if it wasn’t for the Jews and the deceived Europeans that follow the Jewish Agenda. There are no rationalizations for Genocide of Ethnic Dilution. And when you advocate for Ethnic Dilution, you are guilty of Treason.
Not this again.
Yes, it’s about the destruction of White-majority America, as you admit. However Americans understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, though I’m sure there are some that don’t understand how high the legal portion has been over the years. You may be mistaking the American people for the GOPe, who are always mouthing off about “we just want them to come in LEEEGULLY!” Nobody falls for that crap anymore.
Anyway, Ann Coulter knows her stuff. It would be a lie to say that she thinks or ever thought the Hart-Cellar Act was about illegal immigration. She knows a whole hell of a lot more about the whole subject than you do, Mr. Unz, at this point. (I’m guessing she learned much of that by reading VDare over the many years, along with Mr. Peter Brimelow’s book Alien Nation in the mid-1990s.)
We KNOW that the Hart-Cellar act was about legal immigration! The reason people hate Ted Kennedy for this, is that he advertised that the demographics of America wouldn’t be changed by this bill. That was a big lie. Then, believing politicians has never been the way to go…
We also know that illegal immigration across the southern border (generally the main route, but not nearly all of it) has been going on for most of a century, albeit in much smaller numbers in the past. President Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback went on in 1954. I’m sure it stemmed the flow for a while, but Big Ag wanted their Mexicans nonetheless.
President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in ’86 out of naivety. The deal, reneged on by the D’s, was that the 1 million illegals let to stay (eventually turning out by hook and crook to be 3 million) were in return for serious control of the border. No, that didn’t happen.
Things got worse into the 1990s, as the flow over the border was simply put up with. Nothing, however, has been seen before (and hopefully ever will be) like the invasion that went on during Dark Brandon’s time. BTW, contrary to opinion seen here, Trump-45 did a pretty good under-the-radar job of bringing both illegal (at the border) and legal (just the refugee racket, granted only a small portion) down. I gave a link to a NY Time article (via VDare) bemoaning all that above.
Americans have concentrated on the Mexicans and other LatinAmericans because, “ILLEGAL!”, as they kept their eye off the ball which was the huge influx from China. India, and various places directly and by lottery, family-reunification, you-name-it, over the last 6 decades. Their eyes have been opened. Part of that is due to just living in this mess, but part is due to Trump-47, better late than never…
The higher Mexican population is NOT the reason we’ve had half a million to a million annually come across for the last 4 decades. It may be called a “contributing factor”. The border was not seriously controlled, because people in power did not WANT it to be – that cheap labor, later more D votes, but overriding all that, the destruction of the White Middle Class was what they wanted. Trump is the only President to not just do something about it but even WANT to do something about it since Ike, I’d guess.
Were there no Welfare State here, they wouldn’t come in droves anyway. Why not stay home? There’s PLENTY of land in Mexico.
Even the Young Turks is covering this, despite years of generally pro-Affirmative Action arguments.
Yeah, but you can’t stop me from writing back, see? This is not CCP-run China… yet.
Sorry to break this to you here and during the Christmas season at that, but that wasn’t your mother, Mr. Squiggles. Your mother was #4 CCP community whore… sorry, Concubine. That bad advice came from your CCP Certified Nanny. She was purged by Chairman Deng and hasn’t been seen since…
I do not claim to be expert in this topic, though I claim border control and deportation are the major and probably the fundamental issues in the current US situation. I appreciate the large amount of effort you have invested in articles on the topic here at your Unz Review. This discussion seems to link to your long interest in the broader area of study which includes your challenging expositions of differential crime rates and the tradeoffs for bilingual education. I have read through some of the earlier discussions here on Hart-Cellar and concluded it is part of a complex issue I so far have not invested the energy to unravel. Nonetheless, I think border control and deportation have been falsely built up in the mainstream narrative to seem like difficult enforcement challenges.
In this case, your comment appears to put a very strong emphasis on population growth which I think is not justified as the fundamental explanation of illegal immigration into the USA in the mid-20th century to the present. In many other situations population growth patterns similar to those you mentioned are the essential issue behind migrations.
In the words of Elon Musk – you have spoken the actual truth.
https://twitter.com/derwulf/status/2002429400961462637?s=46
Reagan saved Harley-Davidson with 45% tariffs on heavy motocycles in 1983.
Thanks. You are absolutely correct, of course, and it’s a mystery why people insist on this error. The 1965 Immigration Act not only imposed an upper limit to Western Hemisphere immigration, but also a *per-country* upper limit. There was a loophole in the family reunification clause, but, since before the act there was no limit at all for Latin American immigration, there is no way the act could have *promoted* it. At the very worst, one could say that it enacted a milder limitation than was initially expected.
One thing which surprised me in your text was your pointing out that Ted Kennedy was reviled because of it. I always thought that the one who was most reviled was Emanuel Celler, because he was Jewish. In fact, Celler’s role in it is one piece of “evidence” frequently alleged for blaming Jews for promoting immigration in the U.S.. (Perhaps that solves the “mystery” I referred to in the beginning.)
An excellent source of information on this topic is:
https://www.oah.org/tah/august-2/how-should-historians-remember-the-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act/
THIS is from the Act itself:
To ”’NOT”’ “be discriminated”—–IS JEWISH MESSIANISM. Look at the mention of “race”, “nationality”, “place of birth”, or “place of residence”—is ALL JEWISH, … JEWISH IDEOLOGY.
THAT is about rebuilding the Tower of Babel. THAT IS ETHNIC DILUTION. That’s a CRIME!
Ref: The Jewish Ethic and the Spirit of Socialism, Weisberger
The 1965 Immigration Act IS about “restoring the original unity”. The 1965 Immigration Act is about GENOCIDING the Anglo-Saxon, and Northern European races of America. Race-mixing is an INTRINSIC Jewish goal!
Yes, the Act had a general quota per year, and Ted Kennedy greatly expanded the quotas and effects of this.
And then the Act says:
The basis of Law is the Common Good. Is Ethnic Dilution the Common Good of the Anglo-Saxon???
The Jews never take ‘No” for an answer.
The Jews never take responsibility for their evil ideas and actions.
We see this “never take responsibility” here in this thread.
Trump is NOT the problem—You and your people are. Any advocate of immigration, any, is guilty of genocide and Treason. The 1965 Immigration Act is PURE JUDAISM, …is PURE JEWISH desires.
Ohhh, where is this “Muh Constitution” and this Separation of Church and State–when the 1965 Immigration Act and “anti-discrimination” is RELIGIOUS!!! ….Is The Jewish RELIGION!
On this basis, is the 1965 Immigration legal????? NO! It is a RELIGIOUS LAW imposing the dictates of the Jewish religion on us! So your profession of allegiance to the “Constitution” is a lie.
An excerpt from my paper:
ref: The Evil of Normalizing Homosexuality, Resurrecting the Tower of Babel and Sodom & Gomorrah together Thru the anti-discrimination value of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. 3rd Rev
Anti-discrimination is pure Gnosticism. Syncretism. Compare and Contrast the 1924 Nationalities Act with the 1965 Immigration Act. The first one done by Europeans. The second one done by Jews and is a religious law! Gnosticism is a religion and the Jews are not only an ethnicity but their religious doctrine flows from their character.
Only racists of their own particular country can create Legitimate law because only racists have their Common Good in mind.
I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about with regard to the Hart-Cellar language. But the notion that Italians Greeks Poles Irish Germans and Spaniards of past migrations were basically comparable to Somalians, Puerto Ricans, Venezeulan Indios, Indian Hindus, Haitians, Congolese etc is a JOKE.
And with Asians…they went from less than 0.2% -mainly Japanese and Chinese, in California and NYC- to 10% of the population with no end in sight.
It’s an ethnic-racial reinvention of our nation in real time. And also a religious diminution. Whites are only 45% of the population, but non-black (non-tongue-speaking)Christians are still 70% or so?
This is why Christian Nationalism is appearing as an alternative to White Nationalism.
Sure, the harder-core WNs always point to Celler, partly because he was Jewish and partly he’d spent forty years in Congress trying to repeal the 1924 Immigration Act, which he’d opposed from the day it was passed. Throughout his entire political career, he’d been one of our most vigorous pro-immigration advocates.
But lots of the softer-core WNs are terrified about criticizing Jews, so they always instead point to Teddy Kennedy as the chief villain, even though he’d only just recently entered the Senate and had relatively little to do with the bill. Since American right-wingers have always hated Teddy Kennedy, he makes a perfect scapegoat on the issue.
Yes, that’s a very good summary of the facts, facts still fiercely denied by many of the agitated commenters on this thread. Here’s one of the crucial paragraphs:
LOL. It really does sound like you’re extremely eager to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act.
But if that happened then we’d be back to our previous “open borders” immigration policy with regard to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Lots of people were unhappy that Biden allowed 10 million immigrants to arrive during his four years in office, and that’s the main reason that Trump won in 2024.
But if you had your way, we’d probably soon be getting 10 million legal immigrants per year. I’d bet that almost the entire population of Haiti would move here within the first twelve months. All they’d need would be some plane tickets or some chartered ships, and I’m sure that George Soros would be glad to provide the funding.
The discussions on this very lightly moderated website attract all sorts of interesting people.
https://takimika.academia.edu/LindsayWheeler
Yes, I Am! And it is NOT a joke. To give context is this quote from 33rd Degree Mason Albert Pike who wrote the massive Freemasonic Morals and Dogma (over 780 pages).
Ref: Illustrious Albert Pike 33°. History and Evolution of Freemasonry, page 329. Delmar D. Darrah, The Charles T Powner Co. 1954.
The foundation of Freemasonry is Jewish Messianism. Many Europeans glammed unto the Utopian, race-mixing ideology of the Jews because by race-mixing all the Europeans together war would stop! So this meant, race-mixing the Welsh, the Scotts, the Irish, with the Anglo-Saxon and vice-a-versa. This ideology is the basis of Americanism and now the EU. Look at the US Seal; it is nothing but Masonic/Illuminati symbology and notice the phrases used, “Novus Ordo Seclorum” and “E pluribus unum”. “E pluribus unum” is about race-mixing all the Europeans together into “White”–“White” is a color–NOT a nation!
SO YES, Ethnic Dilution with Greeks, Italians, especially Poles (who are Slavic), Irish and Spaniards is STILL WRONG. It is SOFT Genocide. America is the product of NORTHERN Western Europeans, NOT Southern Europeans.
There is NO such thing as “White Nationalism” NOR “Christian Nationalism” Andrew Torba (Turkish name) is in error and he is full of shit. He knows NOTHING about God. Here is a Theological dissertation on Race and what the Christian response is:
The Tower of Babel, The Philosophy of Race and the Genocidal Ideology of Jewish Messianism
https://www.academia.edu/14904951/
Jesus said, “What God has joined—–Let NO man separate”.
The Opposite is ALSO TRUE!
“What God has Separated—-Let NO man join”.
God divided mankind into nations–they are NOT to be race-mixed, PERIOD. That is the WILL of God! Even the Irish are not to race-mix with the Scotts. The Welsh are NOT to race-mix. They are ALL to keep separate!
This is Catholic teaching forever: there are TWO Spheres, the Natural Order, and Religion. The Christian religion has NO power, NO authority over the Natural Order. The Natural Order is God’s Will. So, NO MORE Southern Europeans. Everybody is to be segregated BY KIND. RESPECT God’s Order–that is Christianity, NOT “Christian nationalism”! The Christian teaching is to RESPECT God’s ORDER and OBEY HIS WILL!
Does not follow. There is no Logic of A (direct) cause of B. First off, doing away with Hart Cellar does NOT mean getting 10 million a year, or the entire population of Haiti moves here. The ONLY valid law is the 1924 Nationalities Act. WE go back to that.
But we want ZERO immigration. ZERO. We can stop everybody at our ports and airports. I was kicked out of England one time and sent back to France by boat because I didn’t have any money on me. (I was hoping to get a job in England so I could return to America.) So it can be done, has been done. We accept no one else into this country.
What don’t you get??? The Tower of Babel is condemned. Race-mixing, miscegenation is condemned in the Bible! And it is not only Biblical, but the Greeks practiced that as well. Miscegenation was not allowed in Sparta.
You’re not going to win anyone over with these arguments, but my understanding is that assimilation = become “white” and/or Christian (preferably “and”). Italians and Greeks – who Stoddard said were not assimilable, basically assimilated and both Italians and their European mixed offspring became, and considered themselves to be, “white”.
Jews have always been considered white in America, though Jews themselves have often rejected the label.
White was a big tent category that helped assimilation.
The immigration since the 1960s has made a mockery of assimilation…particularly since the 90s.
Regardless of legislation history, we have a major problem now. How do we fix it?
Good idea.
Not just the root of West democracy but its effect on far away lands. Rightly or wrongly, immigration policies in some currently white dominated countries are affected by their gulity histories.
David Frum concluded his essay entitled “Against Guilty History: Settler-colonial should be a description, not an insult” with the following,
The question is how to expiate guilty history once and for all in a democracy.
Two principles. The Catholic Church teaches (not my opinion):
(1) Law, to be legitimate, must be about the Common Good.
The “Common Good” is ONLY tied to a Nation of homogeneity. Only races have a Common Good because they are all blood related, i.e. family. There is NO such thing as a “common good” of the White man and NO Jew has the Common Good of the European in mind. And what Common Sense tells and what follows from above:
(2) You can’t legalize Genocide.
to wit: Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is Ethnic Dilution which is SOFT Genocide.
Period. You can’t legalize Ethnic Dilution. The Hart-Cellar Act was Jewish inspired and pushed, and it is about Ethnic Dilution, race-mixing from ALL the countries of the world, i.e. rebuilding the Tower of Babel; it is an act of Genocide—hence—it is NOT valid law, never was and all the product of that law is null and void, the principle of “The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.
You can’t legalize SOFT Genocide.
Thank you, Mr. Wheeler! Ron Unz’s logic is plain unsound here. Look, Mr. Unz, it doesn’t really matter that, along with opening up the flood-gates to almost-all-non-White and highly-foreigns peoples, the Hart-Cellar Act did by what, making illegal immigration illegal? Is that what you say that portion of the Bill did?
What difference did that make when the southern border was not controlled. You think people should not be for repealing that law* because that would be LEGAL again to illegally cross our southern border? We disagree on the reasons, but the supply & demand were there, so long as nobody made the effort to simply control the border. (Is it THAT hard? No, wait, it’s under control right now, and Trump is a clown, right? So it can’t be that awfully difficult… never was…)
What I agree with you on is that lots of Americans didn’t use to and some still don’t realize how big the LEGAL immigration influx is and has been. That’s changing due to what they’ve (finally!) seen around them and the internet. Whether your average immigration patriot yet knows the names “Hart” and “Cellar” is a point, but see the previous sentence. People are finally wising up. However, Ted Kennedy had advertised the bill back in that day as keeping the country White, but he lied. (Yes, the right has plenty of reasons to hate him – I know a certain family up there in New England that would too.)
Mr. Wheeler, I’m not sure why the picture matters, butI can’t see how your face would indicate any weirdness. You look like a good guy. Is it the beard? Maybe Ron Unz is jealous he can’t grow one, I dunno…
.
* It’s far too late anyway, What President Trump’s people have been doing is the way to go. Deportations, ending the Bug-Out-Baby BS, ending “Diversity” lottery visas, ending family re-unification (a big one not discussed enough), ending H1B’s and a number of like visas, and here’s a BIGGIE. Exit Tracking must get serious. Visa Overstayers are a significant portion of illegal aliens entering.
Jesus didn’t win many people over either; He healed a man’s hand on a Sabbath and instead of worshipping Him, they decided to kill Him. I am a nomosphylactes, a “Guardian of the law”. I present the law as is and no amount of argumentation is going to change the rebellious. Gnostics are not going to be convinced by argument. St. Dominic found that out.
“My understanding”. It is not about our understanding, it is about:
~ Plutarch, priest of Apollo at the Doric Greek temple at Delphi.
That is what we are here for. What we think doesn’t matter. God created all the nations of the earth and that is HIS prerogative and if you mess with that–you can NOT possibly live with God. I’m a Christian, my duty is to God and my Fatherland. What God wants–God gets out of me. And what is it all about??? RESPECT. RESPECT His Order. Don’t mess with His stuff! We have our stuff, God has His, and don’t mess with His stuff–it’s NOT ours to mess with.
“Assimilation” is just race-mixing. America was founded as a Masonic republic which is about race-mixing, rebuilding the Tower of Babel. God destroyed that. Half of the FFofA were Masons. The Seal of the US is nothing but Masonic/Illuminati symbology and phrases (Masonic code words). My job is to protect God’s Order. I’m here to do His Will. America is a false construct; it is Masonic; it is part of the zeitgeist of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism; it is Gnostic; and it is a Failed state.
How many times must I say this, “White” is NOT a race–It’s a Color. “White” is NOT a nation”. White is a slang term. Science requires precision, attention to detail, and correct definition and demarction. “White” is NOT scientific. God Created the Irish, not “White”. God created the Welsh, not “White”. God created the Anglo-Saxon, not “White”, so-on, and-so-forth.
Either you comply to His Order, or you will be damned. God has no problem destroying reprobates. Obey, and blessings and Life unto you. Disobey, and you’re cursed.
What is to be done? Null and Void the 1965 Immigration Act. Mass Deportations of ALL Illegals. Stop ALL immigration into this country. No more Sports contracts for Central America or Africa. No more H1-Bs. No more Foreign Students in our colleges/universities. Since the 1965 Immigration Act is null and void in essence, all people naturalized under it are to have their voting rights taken away and they can NOT have government or military jobs, including the Reagan Amnesty. All Schools and Colleges, churches are to be ethnically based from now on, and the different races are to live amongst themselves in segregated areas as much as possible.
ALL 400+ Catholic bishops need to be arrested for Genocide and Treason and dealt with. All the assests of Catholic Charities need to be seized and their leaders tried for Genocide and Treason, as well. Any social leader that advocated Ethnic Dilution are to have their voting rights rescinded.
It is incredible how different the various interpretations of the 1965 Hart–Celler Act are. Since I respect both Ann Coulter and Ron Unz, I have long been curious about who is right. I’m not going to read the legislation myself, but the second best thing may be to read the long Wikipedia article about it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 . Below are some relevant excerpts from Wikipedia.
Certainly the conventional wisdom is that the Hart–Celler Act opened America’s borders to a flood of immigrants. And the timing supports this connection. The 1924 Immigration Act was proclaimed as anti-immigration, and the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was proclaimed as pro-immigration. And, in fact, there was hardly any immigration to America between 1924 and 1965. The current flood only began in the 1980s and it has been overwhelming ever since. So, Hart–Celler and massive immigration is an obvious connection to make. But, as is often said, “correlation is not causation.” Ron Unz, not surprisingly, reverses the conventional wisdom.
The Wikipedia article begins with the consensus narrative that the Hart–Celler Act opened the floodgates to non-White immigrants and the “browning” of America:
But then Wikipedia describes the details of the Act which present a much more complicated story.
For context, we have to understand the status quo before Hart–Celler which was established by the 1924 Immigration Act. And to do that, we have to understand the problems that the 1924 Act was written to solve. There had been a massive wave of immigration to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Much of that immigration came from Eastern and Southern Europe. Americans hated what those immigrants did to the country. They especially hated the Eastern European Jews whose business practices were so deeply dishonest that they shocked Americans. Americans were used to living with trustworthy neighbors and had no antibodies against the swindles perpetrated by Jewish businessmen. Americans also hated the recently arrived criminals from Italy especially Sicily. Again, Americans had no experience with Mafia tactics and no good way to protect themselves from them. The police were simply no match for the violence and intimidation perpetrated by ethnic gangs of Southern European criminals.
So, in 1924, Congress cut off almost all immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, limiting future immigrants to mainly Western and Northern Europeans. There was, at the time, very little immigration from Asia or Africa, so that really wasn’t an issue. But there was a great deal of (seasonal) migration from Latin America. The 1924 Immigration Act encouraged migration in and out of Latin America. This was seen as no problem at all because it consisted almost entirely of seasonal farm workers from Mexico coming to the US to do agricultural labor for part of the year, and then returning to Mexico when the work was done. In our current context of mass Hispanic immigration, it seems weird that the 1924 Immigration Act allowed infinity immigration from Latin America, but it did.
The 1965 Hart–Celler Act reversed essentially every aspect of previous American immigration law:
It eliminated all preferences for Whites.
It emphasized “family reunification.”
It eliminated the preference for Western and Northern Europeans.
It allowed pent-up immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe.
It allowed immigration from Asia and Africa. Compared to before 1965, these categories exploded, although from an extremely low base.
It capped immigration from Latin America for the first time in American history. This ended up having perverse effects, as explained below.
The last point is the crux of the matter in the context of the past 50 years of Hispanic immigration from Mexico and Central America.
Since the effect that Hart–Celler had on Latin American immigration is crucial to the disagreement between Ann Coulter (and everyone else opposed to mass immigration) and Ron Unz (and everyone in favor of mass immigration), I’ll quote extensively from Wikipedia on this subject:
Perhaps the best way to understand the effect of Hart–Celler is to look at the countries where immigration changed the most after the Act. Wikipedia has a handy table of immigration by country before and after 1965. Here are the biggest changes from 1965 to 1970:
Country 1965 1970
Germany 21,621 4,283
Greece 233 14,301
Italy 5,363 19,759
United Kingdom 29,923 15,133
China 134 11,639
India 99 9,712
Philippines 95 23,351
The immediate effects of Hart–Celler were:
Northern and Western Europe went down.
Southern and Eastern Europe went up.
Asia went way up (from a small base).
Africa went way up (from a small base).
Latin America was unaffected until the 1980s.
So, how can we reconcile the fact that Hart–Celler limited Latin American immigration for the first time ever with the conflicting fact that Latin American immigration surged after Hart–Celler?
Several important things happened after 1965. Some of these were not caused by Hart–Celler at all:
There was a population explosion in Latin America.
The US enjoyed massive economic growth, attracting more foreign workers.
The difference in standard of living between the US and Latin America widened, tempting more Latin American immigrants to our richer lifestyle.
The US adopted a Welfare State, attracting the poor from all over the world.
And some problems were caused by Hart–Celler:
The Hart–Celler Act imposed a 120,000 cap on immigration from the entire Western Hemisphere, and a 20,000 cap per country, including from Mexico. This was in spite of the fact that 400,000 Mexican farm laborers had been routinely crossing the border every year to work in the US, after which they had returned home to Mexico. The government couldn’t stop any of those Mexicans from crossing the border because agricultural interests wanted them, so the result was inevitable: The law was simply not enforced against Mexico. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, totaling millions within a few years, crossed the border illegally. But since the law went unenforced, that meant millions of immigration law violations were ignored from day one. Every year, 400,000 Mexican workers came and went, of which 20,000 were legal and 380,000 were illegal. The law immediately became a mockery.
To summarize the Hart–Celler Act on Latin American immigration:
Before Hart–Celler, the old law permitted unlimited immigration from Latin America.
After Hart–Celler, the new law restricted the number of immigrants from Latin America so tightly that huge numbers of legal immigrants simply became illegal immigrants.
Then, because of the family reunification provisions of the Hart–Celler Act (and because of birthright citizenship), those illegal aliens eventually became legal citizens.
Does this make the Hart–Celler Act good or bad for America? It’s complicated:
Converting millions of Mexican farm workers from legal immigrants into illegal immigrants had many bad effects:
It established the practice of massive law-breaking by Mexican immigrants.
It established the practice of massive law-ignoring by US immigration officials.
Making it more difficult to regularly cross the Mexican border encouraged farm laborers to remain in the US year-round rather than return to Mexico every year.
Millions of temporary legal workers (who would never have become citizens because they were seasonal) became millions of permanent illegal residents (who eventually did become citizens).
But in some ways, illegal immigration is less harmful than legal immigration because it is potentially less permanent. The Hart–Celler Act imposed unrealistic quotas for Mexican farm workers, so those quotas were ignored. The immigrants came anyway, just illegally rather than legally. But a mass of illegal immigrants is theoretically easier to get rid of than a mass of legal immigrants.
Unfortunately, the Hart–Celler Act also created new ways for those millions of illegal residents to become millions of legal citizens. Hart–Celler made family ties the #1 basis for legal immigration. Family reunification created a self‑reinforcing cycle of chain migration, with Hispanic naturalizations growing exponentially over time. Family reunification (and birthright citizenship) eventually converts all illegal residents into legal citizens which then become impossible to get rid of.
As Ann Coulter pointed out in her book ¡Adios, America!, entire Mexican villages simply uprooted themselves, moved to America, declared that they were all brothers and sisters, which no one bothered to check, and with one citizen relative living in the US, they all became US citizens. The law became a mockery.
And, of course, birthright citizenship would have eventually converted all of their descendants to legal citizens anyway.
We can only speculate about what would have happened without Hart–Celler. But assuming the continuation of the 1920s immigration law with no immigration quotas at all on Latin Americans, it seems likely that:
1. Total Latin American immigration would have been higher without Hart–Celler.
2. All of that Latin American immigration would have been legal, not illegal.
3. With all those legal immigrants voting and on government benefits, reducing immigration today would be even harder than it currently is.
Hart–Celler made millions of legal migrants into millions of illegal residents who then became millions of legal citizens. But, at least until they attain citizenship, illegal immigrants are less harmful to the country because they are not supposed to vote or to receive government benefits. It is “red-pilled” to point out that illegal immigrants sometimes vote and get benefits, but there are rules against this, no matter how little they may be enforced. The advantage of those rules is that any administration – such as Trump’s – which is interested in enforcing those rules can simply do so, quickly discouraging further illegal immigration. There is no such mechanism to disenfranchise legal immigrants. Legal immigrants vote and receive benefits, so they immediately become a political bloc that politicians pander to.
Overall, the Hart–Celler Act made everything worse, with the possible exception of Latin American immigration.
Only a true theocracy has a well defined and well accepted set of infallable “common good” as defined by God.
According to the same reasoning, brother and sister must marry each other else it is Family blood Dilution which is Soft Family Killing. No?
Edit: a lot of the places where I wrote “legal immigrant” I should have written “naturalized immigrant” instead. The Hart–Celler Act was largely about which foreign immigrants could become naturalized US citizens.
Straight Truth from Tucker Carlson:
https://twitter.com/thomassowell/status/2004912652066156715?s=46
“My main instinct is that the lesson of World War Two – for some people – was that White Christian countries are a threat to the world. And that’s just not a fact, at all.
Thats why they hate Russia. It’s probably going to be the only majority white-Christian country in the world, soon…and they hate it. That is why they hate it, by the way. Let’s just stop lying about. That’s why they hate it.”
-Tucker Carlson
So let me summarize:
1. Hart Cellar is responsible for the Asian, African, Caribbean, Indian subcontinent, and Middle Eastern immigration explosion.
2. The Latino explosion is the result of open Southern border and anchor babies.
3. Our short-term minded politicians are total idiots for allowing 1. and 2.
I actually went back and listened to Unz’s opening statement in this video, and its quite excellent. He stands up for American workers and seems very clear-minded on the downward wage pressure created by foreign workers.
The Indian guy who spoke after Unz is very weak in comparison. He says “there is open borders through the Internet”…okay, if true, then there’s no need for physical migration of people, and we can forgo the cultural costs and schisms that result from physical migration of workers into our country.
We’ve had 50 years of stagnant real wages and its time for an immigration moratorium. Businesses were offering sweet deals for workers during COVID-19 shutdowns in 2020 and early 2021 (when immigration dried up). Just anecdotally, it was obvious.
China doesn’t have a theocracy, yet it accomplishes the Common Good of the Chinese very well! Plato and Aristotle talk of the Common Good all the time and has nothing to do with religion. Look up “Common Good” at Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and there is NO mention of theocracy or a religion defining what the common good is.
What you are doing is that you don’t like what I said, and so you made up nonsense off the top of your head. Any group, as ‘group’, has a Common Good and they can select what their Common Good is without religion. The Rotary Club has a Common Good and it decides what is good for the Rotary Club.
One thing is for sure, the Common Good of the Anglo-Saxon is NOT to be exterminated thru race-mixing Yet it is the Catholic and Anglican Church that is not only silent and standing by to let it happen, but they are also happily engaged in race-mixing, immigration, miscegenation! “The Catholic Church is engaged in Soft Genocide; Giving lip-service to its own teachings.”
https://www.academia.edu/63037547/
If the Catholic and Anglican Churches adopted the multicultural agenda of the Jews, how can they act on the Common Good of the Anglo-Saxon??? Is the Common Good of the Anglo-Saxon to disappear off the face of the earth? That is the Jewish Agenda. That is the Jewish Desire, but that is NOT our desire.
DON’T ALL animals and herds have the Desire of Self-Preservation? Is not Self-Preservation a Plank of one’s Common Good? Is not the Perpetration of one’s kind the Common Good?
Given your obvious mental deficiencies that would seem to be the case in your location, but it doesn’t follow in the west. It’s just like your lame attempt at trolling, a non sequitur. You better work on it.
Thank you for the great summary, Mr. Kusmiak! Regarding:
Let me present the following from the Migration Policy Institute. This is not quite the same as legal immigration by year – it has a slight cumulative effect. However, the real cumulative effect and then births of foreign kids, is what did not really appear to most Americans until well into the 1980s. The first time I ever saw any Chinese people from mainland China, other than in NYC, was in the early 1980s. It was a big deal in our city. Indians were also few and far between, only noticeable to me by the mid 1990s.
On the latter, I doubt it helped one single bit. Anyone could pull up a graph, but Hispanic people in America other than in SoCal or Miami were only on the farm – very small numbers were actually residing until the 1980s.
Note that the number of legal permanent residents was at a super-low of 23,000 in 1943, in the middle of wartime. It ramped up still through the 1950s, and was set to level at about 300,000 yearly. Instead, due to Hart-Cellar, it went up linearly, at least, and then 1991 was a nutty year with 1.8 million. I need to remember there’s a lag in this, as it’s not quite the same as legal entry numbers. Even the very high (800,000 – 1 million) number seen through the 1990s, ’00s, and through ’15 don’t beat those from the big surge in the late 1800s through early 1900s as a proportion of the American population.
However, the numbers are only a part of the story, as (discussed in this thread lots already) it was the TYPE of immigrants that was changed drastically along with the numbers.
BTW, from history-dot-com, not known to be a bastion of aggressive* White Nationalistic argument, I quote the following:
(My bolding)
.
* For Ron Unz, an “aggressive” commenter is one who doesn’t agree with him enough.
How so?
Were there ethnic groups before tribes? And faimilies before tribes?
If Western scholars think differently, I am all ears.
Thanks for this helpful article. Hopefully Ron will respond.
I think it is surprising if Wikipedia gives a reliable discussion of such an ideologically charged topic.
The civil war wasn’t fought to free the slaves. Lincoln acquiesced as a candidate in an effort to make slavery permanent in the constitution as part of an effort to stop secession. It was called the Corwin amendment and it passed Congress and was sent to the states with the requisite supermajority vote meaning it was supported by both northern and southern states. Lincoln didn’t oppose it. It would have made the right to own slaves in the constitution unanendable. The war was fought to impose on the states an obligation to be bound in a Union in perpetuity though the constitution contained no such obligation. After kicking the Spanish and French off the northern part of the continent the ascendant Yankee power wanted no competitors.
Please take note that I specify “well defined,” “well accepted,” and “infallable.”
Without the above, common good would inevitably turn into common bad. Esle classic greek city states would be with us today. As for China, it has been failed multiple times. Vatican, however, survives the millenia. It is a theocracy.
Of course, you don’t have to agree. But please elaborate on your set of “common goods.” And to what extent they are well defined, well accepted, and infallible.
Pertaining to Confucianism, it is not about common good. It is more about common goal. Everyone should strive to be better person through learning/self-cultivation. For democracy, I guess the common goal is for everyone to be correctly informed, responsible citizens.
Thanks for explaining our predicament Eugenius, excellent post.
Best regards,
Old Stock American
Thank you for that powerful tweet, Anon59. (I just now got to it.)
I also agree with this comment of yours above.
One of the reasons that European immigration went down after the Hart–Celler Act was that the Europeans had established the European Economic Community (EEC) the forerunner to the European Union (EU). The Western European governments stopped promoting emigration to the United States (or anywhere else) and preferred to keep their citizens in Europe to build up their economies and to develop their own political union.
Tip O’Neill even said that all the Prime Minister of Ireland at the time (Sean Lemass) had to do was to pick up the phone and call him and he would have inserted an amendment into the act (Hart-Cellar) to facilitate Irish immigration into the United States. The Irish weren’t interested as they’d hitched their wagon to the Europeans.
We Chinese don’t celebrate Christmas.
I doubt if you grew up in a family where there was no father and only a mother. Clearly, your mother neglected your basic education.
I think in reality you are obviously a very low-level creature.
You should understand one thing: I have money, and you are trash. OK?
Please, you worthless scumbag who is hovering on the edge of death, commit suicide earlier, OK?
In this way, your body will be quickly sent for medical research. Maybe our research will use your body.
As Peak Stupidity readers have long read about, for the Chinese, Quality Control is not the proverbial Job 1. We have written quite a bit about the Cheap China-made Crap.
Your comment here is just another example. You have at least 3 grammar errors or fuck-ups in the translations that make your attempt at an insult of low quality. It got better at the end though!
Please spend more time on it next try.
@Ron Unz
Observing the progressive decline in globalization and US hegemony, an exceptional university prof once wrote several years ago: “we are entering an era as dangerous as the 1930s in Europe.” The words never left me, and every passing year they feel more true.
Unrelated (in the short term) to the above, but you touched on the of aging issue in demographics. To my knowledge you have not addressed this in depth yet. Understandable as there are clearly some much bigger fish to fry at the moment.
The more I have learned about the global sub-replacement birth rates and the coming population collapse, the more this appears to me as though it’s the great calamity heading for us that will define civilized life on Earth for the remainder of the century. I have been hoping to read your analysis on this subject. Not that I am asking you to do anything obviously – I just have a profound respect for your writings.
Cheers
It doesn’t matter to me.
Anyway, if I see you getting angry, I get happy.
嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻嘻
Sure, that’s absolutely correct from an anti-immigrationist perspective (except that Caribbean immigration was also sharply restricted under the 1965 Act). But since Latin American+Caribbean immigration has represented about 80-85% of the total, that’s obviously a gigantic exception.
Just as the sponsors claimed, the 1965 Act considerably loosened the 1924 immigration restrictions imposed upon Europe, Asia, and Africa, but for the first time imposed such restrictions upon Western Hemisphere immigration, including Latin American and Caribbean immigration. Since nobody at the time paid much attention to Western Hemisphere immigration, everyone focused solely upon the loosening rather than the tightening.
Indeed, from what I vaguely remember one of the ironic aspects of the 1965 Act was that the restrictions placed upon Latin American and Caribbean immigration were actually added to the bill by the pro-immigrationists as a very minor sop to the anti-immigrationists, but no one much cared one way or the other.
However, once Latin America (and the Caribbean) underwent a huge population explosion in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, those provisions expectedly became the most important elements of the 1965 Act.
As I emphasized, prior to the 1965 Act, we had an essentially “open borders” policy with regard to immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean, as this brief historical summary someone linked had mentioned:
https://www.oah.org/tah/august-2/how-should-historians-remember-the-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act/
For example, take a look at that excellent Pew population analysis I’ve linked in some of my articles:
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2015/09/28/appendix-c-population-tables-1965-2065/
During 1965-2015, immigration boosted our Asian population by almost 17M and our white population by 11M, and probably almost all of that immigration was due to the passage of the 1965 Act.
But anti-immigrationists always focus upon the huge growth of our Hispanic population during that period, of which immigration contributed 37M.
However, they’re totally confused about the role of the 1965 Act. They mistakenly assume it was responsible for that wave of Latin American immigration. But instead it severely restricted such immigration.
If the 1965 Act hadn’t been passed and our immigration policy were still been governed by the 1924 immigration law, we would have had UNLIMITED legal immigration from Latin America. By the 1980s or 1990s, we could have easily seen 5M Latin Americans arrive each year, all perfectly legally, and the same was true for Haiti, Jamaica, and all the other black countries of the Caribbean.
So while passage of the 1965 Act hugely increased Asian immigration, if it hadn’t been enacted, we would have probably seen 2x, 3x, or even 4x as much immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean as we actually did during that period.
Actually, Coulter is a lawyer by training and the legal issues in the 1965 Act are absolutely black-and-white, so I’m sure that she agrees with me about all these factual issues. The problem she faced when she wrote her 2015 immigration book (or her various columns) was that 99% of her extremely agitated readers were totally confused about the 1965 Act, getting its impact upon Latin America immigration backwards.
So if she’d tried to explain to them that the 1965 Act PREVENTED rather than ENABLED Latin American immigration, lots of her erstwhile fans would probably have denounced her as a traitor or a lunatic, or at the very least they wouldn’t have recommended her book to their friends.
Therefore, she chose her words shrewdly, generally being factually accurate but completely misleading. If you read her book very carefully, you’ll see that she endlessly denounces the post-1965 immigration and also denounces the 1965 Immigration Act, but never actually claims that the former was caused by the latter (because she knows perfectly well that the opposite was the case). The one exception was the large growth in Muslim immigration, which she correctly does explain was a consequence of the 1965 Act (because almost all the Muslims came from the Eastern Hemisphere).
So without the 1965 Act, we probably would have had 17M fewer Asian immigrants, but probably 50M or even 100M more Latin American and Caribbean immigrants. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is just an ideological matter, but that’s almost certainly what would have happened.
Look, you’re totally confused about the 1924 and 1965 Immigration Acts.
I’m sick of just endlessly repeating things, so I’ll give it one last try, in bold italics caps:
PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE 1965 IMMIGRATION ACT AMERICA ALLOWED ***UNLIMITED*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM MEXICO, THE REST OF LATIN AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN.
https://www.oah.org/tah/august-2/how-should-historians-remember-the-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act/
If the 1965 Act hadn’t been passed, America today would have 17M fewer Asians and several million fewer Middle Easterners, but probably something like 100 million more Hispanics and 10M more Caribbean blacks. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing obviously depends upon your personal preference and your ideology.
Of course Ann Coulter is entirely aware that all these facts I’m saying are correct. She’s a lawyer by training and can certainly read immigration law. There’s not the slightest ambiguity in the text or the history.
But she also knows that if she tried to explain the reality of the 1965 Immigration Act to her readership, angry imbeciles such as yourself would denounce her as a traitor and a sell-out and stop buying her books, so she’s smart enough to avoid doing that.
Your mention of VDARE is amusing. Back about 20 years ago, I pointed out the facts of the 1965 Immigration Act to them, they checked, realized that I was correct, and said OOPS!!! So for something like a decade or so, they stopped denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act in their new articles, but they obviously couldn’t take down the hundreds of previous articles they’d already published or admit that they’d been wrong for so many years.
And I think they eventually gave up on being factually accurate, and just went back to denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act, along with 99% of all the other anti-immigration activists on the Internet.
NOTE: I am posting this again, because during my great effort to write this on a dang touchscreen keyboard, I left out a space in my handle. Fixed here, to avoid delays and confusion, though there’ll unfortunately be a double comment.
.
.
I am absolutely NOT confusing the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act with the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act. I am familiar with whole subject. I believe you that you corrected someone from VDare on the clause to close up the official route from C/S America – 20 years ago. Nobody at VDare had anything but a very good grasp on the legalities of legal and illegal immigration – as a collective they knew much more than you. I read there from about that time.
Ann Coulter is indeed a legal type – she explained the legalities on why birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, BTW (beyond my pay grade) – but she is no liar or bullshitter either. I read Adios, America just after it came out. She concentrated on the Hispanic illegal immigration, granted. She and other immigration patriots have every reason to be against Hart-Cellar, because (now I’m gonna use bold – the italics didn’t help much in your case.):
So what?! Just because western hemisphere immigration had no cap that doesn’t mean it was or ever would be unlimited. You need an immigrant visa to immigrate. Right now, and much of this SINCE Hart-Cellar, there are various and sundry types of immigrant visas, the fiance visa, spouse visa, refugee visa, family reunification visa (started 1965, yes THAT 1965 and THAT bill), diversity visa (1990), and so on.
If anyone could come in from the south before Hart-Cellar, why were there even ANY illegal aliens, and why was there Operation Wetback in 1954, the deportation of 50,000 illegals, with 9x that many leaving under their own power? Because it’s not necessarily easy to immigrate, unless you come in an era when “they” want it to be.
Now, I understand the point that without the 20,000 cap, “they”, in this case Big Biz for cheap labor, would put in for 2 million immigrate work visas a year for Hispanics. They’d be a type of immigrant H1B* for the uneducated.
However, they’ve come in anyway, after all that “good” that Hart-Cellar did. I’ve hardly seen an American lawn care crew in years, and same with roofing, etc. They got what they wanted illegally, because that was LET TO happen. Instead, using the legal method (for the most part), it’s been Indians and Chinese at the higher levels and Somalians, Haitians, Laotians, you name it, at the lower ones.** With those many types of visas and a hundred nationalities, it’s been easy to slip by 40,000 Congolese “refugees”here, 300,000 more family- reunification visas here, the usual 70,000 diversity visas, 200,000 H1Bs getting naturalized… OTOH, were we seeing 2 million legal Hispanics being given immigrant visas a year, the gig would have long been up.
What it comes down to is, would we ever see FedGov pols that care what the people want wrt immigration, for both legal and illegal? When you’re talking population replacement, it doesn’t matter which. President Trump, this time around, is addressing BOTH.
One more thing, and I’ll quit. There’s no reason a Congress that cared enough to vote down Hart-Cellar couldn’t or wouldn’t have voted IN some official limits on W. Hemisphere legal immigration the next week or in a few years, if they saw a problem… oh, and still cared about America. The question is also, do YOU?
.
* …which is officially a non-immigrant visa but de-facto an immigrant visa.
** .. if you’re gonna replace much of the American population, I’d rather it BE those Hispanics at the low level, TBH. We shouldn’t have to make that choice.
My assessment is that it’s completely futile for you to try to explain the issue to someone like Newman.
In the words of our Chinese, “Playing the violin to a cow”.对牛弹琴
Newman was like a maggot in a cesspool, a cat whose brain had been removed.
What you said to him, he would always refute you.
Amerikans must realise they are a fake nation. Every principle upon which their fake nation is built upon is a lie. From the Jesus lie, to the dollar, . From Liberty., God, Christianity, to the negro raping Jefferson- all lies. Amerika is only stable because it is vast and empty. Even the Us military is crap ( in recent war games the Us marines lost 50;1 even against the Uk royal marines. The USA has never won a single war in its history- even against the British empire (they begged to rejoin in 1778.) . If all the worlds 8 billion moved to the USa it would only be as densly populated as Holland or the Uk. Amerikas value is free speech. ( If you cannot criticise soviet infallible Technology you get a Cherenobyl melt down making Europe uninhabitavle). Amereika must liberate Europe
Correction: “…is unconstitutional” should be “…. Is not proscribed by Amendment XIV.”
Thanks for taking out the 1st one.
>we are far beyond discussing these rules of asylum
What the fuck does that mean?
Here’s a recent (23 Dec 2025) story from CBS News:
Trump administration seeks to cancel thousands of asylum cases, saying applicants can be deported to third countries
I guess someone forgot to tell the Trump administration and the whole asylum industrial complex that ‘we are far beyond discussing these rules of asylum’ — because they seem to be ‘discussing these rules of asylum’ — in fact, it appears they’ve taken the ‘discussion’ so far that it’s being continued in court.
Related:
Judge rules Trump administration must allow court challenges for Venezuelan migrants sent to prison
Obviously if there are 3.6m asylum parolees already in the US (the number is likely higher), ‘thousands’ is only the tip of the iceberg, and trying to get rid of them portends a gruesome, lengthy legal nightmare — a lot of wrangling in court over ‘these rules of asylum’ — so please inform all parties involved that ‘we are far beyond discussing these rules of asylum.’
As I said in a number of comments: the Orban government in Hungary is the only one I know that is prepared to defy courts on the issue of asylum.
Pay attention to the conversation next time, and you”ll understand a little more quickly.
That was about the rules of seeking asylum in the nearest safe country. Nobody has seemed to even attempt that, as they come, for example, from Africa to Ecuador and up to the US. The basic idea has been so flaunted, that we don’t need to discuss that. Just send them home and ignore these purposefully destructive judges.. Most are not asylees from any war or persecution to begin with.
Sorry,EAH, It was I who wrote too quickly. My initial comment was to say we should go beyond all that and just plain ignore the judges and kick them out. Enough talk, IOW, You are right and your articles show that.
Yes, the numbers are huge. Many of those that came in under Brandon/Mayorkas used an app – they were never even interviewed.
It is MORAL, not ideological. Immigration is Ethnic Dilution, which is a form of SOFT genocide–yes, it has its roots in the religious Utopianism of the Jews, but it is also MORAL. A Kleptomaniac thinks that robbery is alright–but others think it immoral.
All Human action falls under Morality. It is judged Good or Evil. ALL. Saying something is ideological, doesn’t nullify Moral judgements on it! Marxism teaches that private property is theft–that is ideological, but to take property at anytime (unless the government has a need for it and then pays the owner), is theft which is immoral.
To conduct actions of Soft Genocide in order to rebuild the Tower of Babel is IMMORAL. To dissolve nations is IMMORAL. Other people may conduct such operations according to their ideology, to their religious dictates, but it is still IMMORAL.
Also, to conduct, preach, grease Ethnic Dilution from within a group is Treason. Ideological fantasies do not abrogate Morality, the morality of the actions!
“It is MORAL, not ideological. Immigration is Ethnic Dilution, which is a form of SOFT genocide”
Immigration involves the movement of people from one country or region to another, leading to the diversification of ethnic and cultural landscapes. The term “ethnic dilution” lacks a basis in social sciences or demographics, which recognize that societies evolve through migration, cultural exchange, and changing demographics over time.
“To conduct actions of Soft Genocide in order to rebuild the Tower of Babel is IMMORAL”
This is a bizarre and unfounded link. The original story is typically interpreted as an explanation for the diversity of human languages and cultures, not a mandate for their elimination. The premise that these two concepts are intertwined in any way is illogical and indefensible.
“Also, to conduct, preach, grease Ethnic Dilution from within a group is Treason”
According to your “logic”, the intermingling of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Celts, and Frisians would be deemed treason. Again, bizarre on your part.
The assertion that the Bible condemns “race-mixing” or miscegenation is not supported by a sound biblical interpretation; rather, the Scripture indicates that all humanity is of “one race” (the human race). The prohibitions found in the Old Testament against the Israelites marrying certain foreign nations were based on religious differences to prevent the worship of false gods, not on racial or ethnic distinctions.
You are a charlatan.
The belief that God divided humanity into distinct nations, forbidding race-mixing, is a theological viewpoint often rooted in interpretations of Old Testament passages like Deuteronomy 32:8, which speaks of God setting boundaries for peoples, and Ezra 9, which condemns Israel’s intermarriage with foreign nations, emphasizing the idea of a “holy race”.
However, other New Testament scriptures, particularly Galatians 3:28, emphasize unity in Christ, stating there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” suggesting spiritual oneness transcends physical distinctions and that God made all nations from one man (Acts 17:26).
I don’t know who you are, what your race is, what your religion is. You make a lot of judgements but from what basis. It sounds like you are a secret Jew. Did you click on the link in my original post in this thread? Because what I pronounce is all Biblically based, from a Trad Catholic perspective. I also use the Natural Law.
Otherwise you sound like a Gnostic.
Jesus said, “Man lives ON EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”. EVERY. The teachings of the Old Testament are still valid.
LXX, Ecclesiasticus 36: 10-15 Catholic/Orthodox scripture:
So this backs up the Tower of Babel story–the WILL of the Father is nations. PERMANENTLY.
And to your reference of Gal 3:28——-THAT IS RHETORIC. So St. Paul’s Rhetoric is the basis of deconstructing the Will of God???? Truth contradicts Truth? NO. Truth does NOT contradict Truth. It’s pretty bad that “Christians” are using RHETORIC as commands! …as prescriptions!
The Tower of Babel, The Philosophy of Race and the Genocidal Ideology of Jewish Messianism
https://www.academia.edu/14904951/
The Many Forms of Genocide: Hard and Soft. 8th Rev.
https://www.academia.edu/34936383/
The Janus Face of Gal. 3:28; “Does Christian identity supersede national identity: Does it sanction multiculturalism.” The Catholic Retort
https://www.academia.edu/119972229/
Jewish Messianism, America = Helter Skelter
https://www.academia.edu/144740984/
Either you are a Jew, an idolater, or a Gnostic Christian which is a heretic and an apostate. All of Christianity today, Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant (except a few churches) have adopted Jewish Messianism, the idea of race-mixing and so are Apostate. Before you comment again, please avail yourself of orthodox Christian teaching. You must have an account at academia.edu to access the articles. It’s free. I know what I’m talking about—your use of Gal 3:28 means that you are an idiot and a heretic and an adherent to Jewish Messianism, making you an Apostate. Either way, you are a Gnostic.
For those interested, here’s the Deep Research fact-checking run that I’ve finally managed to produce. For some reason, the previous runs I’d tried had been filled with hallucinations, but those have now gone away. Maybe the OpenAI guy in charge of the system got back from vacation and fixed something:
https://www.unz.com/factcheck/factcheck-donald-trump-and-his-immigration-policies/
I was very pleased that the ultra-powerful AI confirmed the accuracy of almost all of my factual claims. One of the few exceptions was that it criticized me for flatly describing Pete Hegseth as a “rapist” rather than more cautiously noting that while serving as a FoxNews contributor, Hegseth had paid a $50,000 financial settlement to a woman who accused him of rape.
I was especially pleased with its verification of my claims regarding birthright citizenship:
The AI even admitted that I had a point when I argued that any such birthright citizenship ruling would be similar to the one that discovered that for more than 200 years the U.S. Constitution had always guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage without anyone having ever noticed that fact.
“It sounds like you are a secret Jew.”
That is a typical rejoinder for a wolf in sheep’s clothing like yourself.
“please avail yourself of orthodox Christian teaching… I know what I’m talking about—your use of Gal 3:28 means that you are an idiot and a heretic and an adherent to Jewish Messianism”
That is but ONE way to worship, not THE way. Exactly why religious arguments remain at the forefront. God will ultimately judge us. You’re not God or His messenger for that matter. Just a zealot.
“Jesus said, “Man lives ON EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”.”
Right, man. Not white man.
“And to your reference of Gal 3:28——-THAT IS RHETORIC”
The verse highlights spiritual unity—all believers are equal and interconnected in Jesus, transcending earthly divisions. Faith in Christ makes all believers equal heirs to achieve salvation. This demonstrates God’s redemptive work in Christ to reunite diverse people from all backgrounds into a single, unified family of faith, fulfilling the original promise made to Abraham that “all the families of the earth shall be blessed”.
“the WILL of the Father is nations.”
Right, the establishment of nations as part of His broader plan for redemption and blessing, as seen later in the lineage leading to Jesus, who brings salvation to the WHOLE world, not the “white” world. Christians of different nations are under God’s domain, and they are commanded to spread the faith by way of marriage within nations of Christians of different races and ethnicities.
Your assertion the Bible condemns “race-mixing” or miscegenation is not supported by a sound biblical interpretation; rather, the Scripture indicates that all humanity is of “one race” (the human race). The prohibitions found in the Old Testament against the Israelites marrying certain foreign nations were based on religious differences to prevent the worship of false gods, not on racial or ethnic distinctions.
“Also, to conduct, preach, grease Ethnic Dilution from within a group is Treason”
Furthermore, according to your “logic”, the intermingling of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Celts, and Frisians would be deemed treason.
I point to Phillip Lee’s book, Against the Protestant Gnostics, where he describes ALL of American Protestantism is Gnostic. I agree!
Second, is Newman, Israel (1925) Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements. Columbia University Press; NY; where the Catholic reaction and insight is that Protestantism is Judaized. Protestants are actually Judaizers and here we see the confluence of Gnosticism. The Jews, as I have pointed on in my paper “Jewish Messianism, America = Helter Skelter”, are NATURAL Gnostics. Jewish Gnostics produced European Gnostics.
CORRECT! “My logic”????
This is what Jesus said, “What God has joined, let no man separate”. And THE LOGIC, is that the reverse is ALSO TRUE: “What God has separated, let NO man join”.
In the Our Father, is this request: “THY WILL be done!” God’s WILL—NOT YOURS, or your opinion.
Furthermore, there is none of this
Jesus said, “I AM THE WAY…” There is ONLY ONE Way!!!! There is ONE LOGOS. What you express is Syncretism–which is core Gnosticism!!! You’re a Gnostics on many levels!
“I point to Phillip Lee’s book, Against the Protestant Gnostics, where he describes ALL of American Protestantism is Gnostic. I agree!”
Faith is always shown as being more important.
Furthermore, you are avoiding the point I made. You claim that “conduct, preach, grease Ethnic Dilution from within a group is Treason”. So the mixing of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Celts, and Frisians—your apparent ancestors—would be deemed treason. Yes, YOUR “logic”. So you were technically the result of a treasonous union, the dilution of individual Germanic ethnic groups.
“This is what Jesus said, “What God has joined, let no man separate”. And THE LOGIC, is that the reverse is ALSO TRUE: “What God has separated, let NO man join”.
This is a clear diversion from what I stated. You are purposely going off on a tangent to avoid addressing my relevant points. It only reinforces the truth that you are a charlatan.
“Jesus said, “I AM THE WAY”
Indeed, for ALL of his followers, white and non-white. Jesus accepts anyone from any nation who fears Him and does what is Right. All believers become one in Him. Jesus’ command to make disciples of “all nations” reflects God’s plan for salvation for those who embrace Him in their hearts and mind.
The idea that the common good is restricted to racially homogeneous groups is a position not supported by the Word of God and is contrary to Natural Law.
The Bible consistently calls for followers to practice love, compassion, and charity toward all people, especially the vulnerable and the stranger. This universal moral obligation challenges the idea that responsibility and care should be limited only to one’s own “blood relatives” or nation.
You are a charlatan.
Only Law that is in conformity with the Common Good of true Nation is valid and legitimate.
America is NOT a true nation but a Masonic construct. It is ALL Fake and Gay. Masons, whose movement is founded on the ideals of Jewish Messianism, can NOT make legitimate law. America is a false construct; it’s FAKE. All of it. It was started as a Tower of Babel of “whites”. As George Washington said, its a “New Order”.
The Catholic Church taught that All Catholics belong to the Old Order. Have to live in the Old Order. The Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo is a false construct. So all this blather about birthright citizenship is just a mental hand-job.
Jews tell minorites to be racists, identity politics, so Europeans must also. America has collapsed just like Europe right now. Europe is in a state of war–America will be there soon. Your Jew New World Order is collapsing into camps–and it will all be racial camps. America is Trash. There is nothing legitimate about it. It is All Fake and Gay. It’s time to tear it all down!!!
“miscegenation was not allowed in Sparta.”
In times of population crisis (specifically during the First Messenian War when many men were away), the Spartan Senate actually decreed that Spartan women should have sexual relations with Perioikoi (free non-citizens) to produce offspring to maintain the population. These children, called Partheniai (children of virgins), were considered illegitimate but were still integrated into society, highlighting that the concern was the lack of citizens, rather than a strict prohibition of “race-mixing”.
History repeats ad nauseum.
A wicked and perverse generation it is. Such wickedness.
Race-mixing? lol, you conveniently left out the part that these children, called Partheniai (children of virgins) were Greeks themselves, but not Spartans.
Crucially, this was not about “race” — all parties were Greek — but about ensuring enough Greek people could eventually support the state and citizen population.
Ron Unz evidently has not spent anywhere near enough time as a federal “government worker” (classic oxymoron) to have even minimal understanding of the federal government. That accounts for his clownish takes.
Presidents are largely figure heads. The Elected Congressional figures are there only to make their fortunes; they play a Political Game to hide the fact the UniParty is only loyal to our billionaires, Israel, Ukraine and Somalia (the nations necessary to their corrupt self-enrichment; Venezuela will soon join their Corruption). The US is run by the federal bureaucrats. Well-entrenched, loyal to each other, the Democrats and the Establishment, in that order. Trump’s first term was the perfect example; since he was an outsider, an interloper, the bureaucrats ignored his Executive Orders (while insisting Obama’s Executive Orders– no longer legal– remain in place. DACA was just the most egregious example (and is still in force due to activist judges). They slow-walked, stonewalled and just discarded his orders as they saw fit, with no repercussions. They invented the fake Russiagate (somewhat related to the very real Chinagate, which majorly helped create the China power we have today). Biden was so deep in brain fog, that he was not a functional President, but was PERFECT for the Deep State/ Federal Bureaucracy (my favorite law THEY enacted was the Social Security Fairness Act which massively rewarded all retired government workers that had not paid FICA/ into Social Security such as Joe Biden, prior to 1983 when they were forced to move from their government pensions alone and pay FICA like real workers. The “Fairness” Act will deplete Social Security and cost taxpayers $233 billion. ntu.org/library/doclib/2024/12/The-Social-Security-Fairness-Acts-True-Cost-to-Taxpayers.pdf).
Of course, Unz and State Media still conflate LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. The first are people who generally assimilate, are productive, and proud Americans if they remain. The later are exploitable cheap labor for our billionaires and California plantations (they cannot mow their lawns, do simple home repairs, clean their toilets and raise their brats); they refuse to pay market value for labor (have to keep the profits moving upwards to the upper 1%). This is of course by design, the UniParty playing games for future votes. The illegal immigration could be largely made legal, as in all other countries, by day or seasonal VISAs with sponsors held legally liable for exploitative behavior (but that would defeat the purpose). The people who most deserve amnesty cannot afford the trip North (where did the REAL invaders make their money to immigrate?)
Off topic but why does Unz keep reposting his old material? Is there something seriously wrong with him? A concise summary and link is more than sufficient. He seems obsessed with word count.
Well, I strongly disagree with some of your substantive points. For example, there’s really almost no substantive difference between legal and illegal immigrants. But at the very end you raise a not unreasonable criticism:
The reason is that I generally prefer that my articles be self-contained, stand-alone pieces, and many of the elements that are part of the overall analysis were best stated in previous articles of mine. If I linked to those, few people would click the links and even if they did, the analysis I’m citing would generally be buried somewhere in a much longer articles.
If I’m quoting passages from other articles, it’s better for me to blockquote them. Anyway, if you or any other reader is already familiar with the material, it’s easy enough to just skip over the blockquotes.
“called Partheniai (children of virgins) were Greeks themselves, but not Spartans.”
To the Spartans, that WAS race mixing. They overlooked it because they needed soldiers.
Now, how did the Greeks become the Greeks? Through ethnic mixing—the Dorians, Aeolians, Achaeans, and Ionians were considered the four main, distinct ethnic groups of Ancient Greece. And your boy Wheeler says that’s treason.
Ah, yes, the obligatory quote from Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf.
No matter, in the end, you’re just a deranged man with a God complex. I thought Orthodox Christians like yourself are forbidden to worship idols.
While block quotes are reasonable in some cases, when you basically rewrite the same article, it makes sense to link and summarize. Your audience shrinks when you risk redundance and your point gets diluted by excess verbiage. You make many strong points (which I often disagree with like you with mine!) but better to have MORE shorter, more focused, more accessible articles.
Like Spartans, Athenians, Corinthians, and others were proud of their own civic identity, often claiming moral or cultural superiority. But when a foreign threat emerged, they could temporarily unite under shared Greek identity, though cooperation was often fragile and short-lived.
Bottom line: Spartans weren’t unique in separating civic pride from pan-Hellenic identity. All Greek city-states were hyper-competitive internally, yet most recognized a common Greek ethnicity when facing non-Greeks.
“Like Spartans, Athenians, Corinthians, and others were proud of their own civic identity, often claiming moral or cultural superiority.”
Similar to Orthodox white nationalists like Wheeler.
“But when a foreign threat emerged, they could temporarily unite under shared Greek identity,”
Similar to Americans.
“Bottom line: Spartans weren’t unique in separating civic pride from pan-Hellenic identity.”
Strawman. I never made this argument.
LOL, of course not. But, recall what you originally claimed:
I was simply pointing out that Spartans still retained a pan-Hellenic identity, which refutes your claim about Spartans willing to “race-mix.” They, in fact, rejected it.
“I was simply pointing out that Spartans still retained a pan-Hellenic identity, which refutes your claim about Spartans willing to “race-mix.””
The fact remains that Spartans viewed marrying non-Spartans as a form of race mixing. Call it a soft ban of you prefer, but a prohibition nonetheless. Their society and identity focused on being a Spartan first. This deep political rivalry (Athens vs. Sparta) and differing cultures made intermarriage rare, as city-states were often at war or hostile; Athens even had laws restricting citizen marriage to non-citizens, further discouraging such unions. Athens for Athenians, Sparta for Spartans.
To wrap up, Unz never bothered to answer the simple question of what ‘unauthorized’ means.
Another question: why didn’t Unz write an article with the title Joe Biden and His Immigration Policies? — perhaps part of the answer can be found in About Ron Unz, seen at the bottom of the first page of Unz’s archive here.
In fact, the vast number of authorized asylum parolees shows the maliciousness of the Biden administration — this created a years-long backlog of asylum application processing and subsequent court appearances, during which time the migrants can theoretically legally remain in the US — and even though the Trump DHS revoked the parole of CHNV migrants (from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, estimated to number over 500k), as a practical matter it will be very difficult, and take a long time, to find and remove them.
Or look at refugee admissions under Biden — per this report on Q1 of FY2024, a whopping 125k refugees were to be admitted that year under Biden (in contrast, Trump set the FY2026 number at 7.5k) — during Q1 of FY2024, refugees from Africa dominated those admitted, including over 5k from the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) just in Q1 — the DRC is home to some of the lowest quality human capital on the planet — for obvious reasons, the media never highlights data like this.
For the same obvious reasons, Unz ignores it too.
Y
Tldr
Ron as you havevrepsztedly pointed out in exhilarating detail our republics been dead for 80 ish years id argue since lincoln
Im again disappointed in trump but shame on me for thinking again political solutions might be possible
But assuming trump has an autonomous bone in his body how the fuck can you fault him for recognizing we have for decades lived in the law is what power says it is land
I mean at least for once in that 80 years its being exercised by the controlled right because we all know since that damned lincoln the other rule has been only the left decides