Wake up! Stopping amnesty is not going to save America!

November 13, 2008
Lawrence Auster

Consider my mantra, adapted from something Howard Phillips said years ago: Democrats will take us over the cliff at 90 miles an hour. Republicans stay within the speed limit, but they will still take us over the cliff. That is the single most succinct account of modern politics. Now apply the same idea to immigration. Illegal immigration will take us over the cliff at 90 miles an hour. Legal immigration stays within the speed limit, but it will still take us over the cliff. Yet the energy of conservatives is focused almost exclusively on illegal immigration, and if you try to bring up legal immigration, you're told, with annoyance, that the country is not ready to deal with that issue, we must focus only on illegal. And it's true that there would not have been the hundreds of thousands of callers to Congress stopping the immigration bill in 2007, if the issue had been legal immigration. People are able to grasp violations of law--it doesn't make them "racist" to oppose violations of law. But to oppose turning our country into a Hispanic country, well, that seems racist, or at least it's something they don't feel comfortable discussing.

When it comes to immigration and national survival, race is the supreme issue, the issue on which all others hang. On one side, our country is steadily being changed into a different country by the immigration of people of different race. On the other side, we are letting this happen because, controlled by liberalism, we are morally incapable of saying that we should not allow our country to be re-populated and transformed into a different country by people of other races. So: racially diverse mass immigration is undoing us, and our irrational, immoral, and cowardly fear of being "racist" makes us incapable of stopping that racially diverse mass immigration.

It all comes down to race. You may not want to think about race, but race is thinking about you.

Obama wants more black immigration

3 August 2008

Obama ... wants the current huge level of immigration to be continued - but he does want change!

He wants to make it blacker – specifically Haitian.

According to Matt Schofield, posting on the Penn Station blog maintained by the Kansas City Star:

Have you ever wondered exactly what Sen. Barack Obama's stance on legal and illegal immigration is?

At the Unity: Journalists of Color convention last week in Chicago, Obama laid much of it out in detail.

And as far as the senator is concerned, there's nothing wrong with the large numbers of people around the world wanting to immigrate to the United States. The problem is America has an illegal immigration system that runs parallel to a legal one, he said.

As a result, Obama is a major proponent of sweeping immigration reform.

"We are a nation of immigrants and we are nation of laws," Obama told the audience of journalists. "The problem that I see isn't the number of immigrants that are coming. We are actually advantaged by the number of immigrants coming. The fact that we're getting people who still want to come to this country and live out the American dream, that's all good."

But Obama said reforming the immigration process and making it more fair is a must.

"That means cracking down on employers who are hiring undocumented workers and only paying them minimum wage and not paying them overtime," Obama said. "We need adequate border security. We need to provide a pathway for citizenship for those undocumented workers who are here who have put down roots. We need to get them out of the shadows. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to learn English. But let's give them an avenue to become fully part of the American society."

Any comprehensive immigration reform also must examine and reform the legal system, he said.

"We have to make sure we have a realistic approach," Obama said. "Frankly, we are probably underrepresented when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world. It's harder for Haitians to immigrate than it is for persons from other countries in some cases. That's something we need to prevent."

So: No inflow reduction. Amnesty. More Haitians/Africans. (Since Latin Americans and Asians are currently heavily over represented, and Obama cites Haiti, this seems to be the correct inference. He could mean boosting immigration from the British Isles, the founding population source of the American nation, now only supplying a minute trickle – but I doubt it.)

Why, Americans in general might ask, does the country need more of a people who have spectacularly failed to make anything of their own countries, many with extremly alien habits, who will instantly qualify for Affirmative Action benefits at the expense of the majority?

Perhaps because Obama is determined to overthrow that majority.

Does McCain love the US and want to preserve it?

November 01, 2008
Lawrence Auster to Andrew McCarthy:

Andy,

You write:

"McCain, moreover, is an authentic American hero who loves our country as it is and would essentially preserve it." [Italics added.]

Really? The man who said that what makes America great is its putative lack of any heritage or culture inherited from the past? Here's my Number One McCain quote, which I've posted many times, from a speech he gave to the Al Smith Dinner in October 2005:

[O]ur one shared faith is the belief that a nation conceived in an idea--in liberty--will prove stronger, more enduring and better than any nation ... made from a common race culture or to preserve traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity.

The man sees any tradition of a people, whether that people is conceived in ethnic or even just in cultural terms, as a bad, inferior thing. Andy, not that long ago mainstream conservatives and neoconservative were making the preservation and defense of America's common culture one of their main causes. McCain doesn't believe in that. To the extent that we have a common culture, he would want us to get rid of it. For him the highest, supreme value, perhaps the only value, is an "idea of liberty." But if liberty is the unqualified and highest value, then the liberty of other people to come to our country and change it into their image and their culture must be the inevitable result. So McCain's idea of liberty means the extinction of our culture.

And it's not just I who say this. He made the consequences of his attack on our culture explicit when he said to a Hispanic group in May '06, during one of the big immigration debates:

This [is] one of the defining moments in American history that really does define what kind of nation we are.

If there was ever such a thing as a noble cause, it is the one we are embarked on now. Anyone who is afraid that somehow our culture will be anything but enriched by fresh blood and culture, in my view, has a distorted view of history and has a pessimistic view of our future.

So, on one hand, he's against our having a long-lived national heritage based on culture, and on the other hand he looks forward to our country being "refreshed," i.e., transformed into a different culture, by the "blood" and culture of Hispanics. Their invading culture is good and to be welcomed. Our historical culture is trash, consisting of "traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity," and is to be cast aside.

Do you still say that McCain loves our country as it is and would essentially preserve it?

Larry

Video: the nation of Aztlan

Apr 11, 2006



Californians for Population Stabilisation

Palin echoes McCain's pro-amnesty

October 22, 2008
Lawrence Auster

In an interview on Univision, the Spanish language TV station, Gov. Palin sticks—loyally and incoherently—to the McCain line on amnesty. So loyally that she implicitly echoes McCain's damaging lie that the only alternative to deporting 12 million illegal aliens is to legalize all of them, or, she makes clear, almost all of them...

But none of this matters to the conservatives. All of this is just great with the conservatives—because (drum roll) Sarah is pro-America.

Immigration and the pending white minority

August 24, 2008
Craig Nelsen (director of Project USA)

... let's start by assuming that white Americans share with all peoples throughout the world at all times throughout history the characteristic that being disempowered as a group is a negative--like being conquered, or being subjugated.

Let's assume that it is the same disaster for whites that whites consider it to be for everyone else.

Let's assume there is nothing magical about being white that permits whites the luxury of indifference to this disempowerment--this permanent disempowerment.

Let's assume whites are not so superior that they can ignore gritty, bloody reality--that they can ignore, as if he were a precocious child, Willie Brown, the black former speaker of the California Assembly, when he says, "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else."

Let's assume the United States is a nation not so exceptional that Americans of any color can opt out of the destiny that demography is.

If we make these assumptions--assumptions future generations will curse us for not making--then the new Census Bureau projections plainly demand an immediate and radical change in public policy, and an all out effort to accomplish this change.

In particular, the projections demand an immediate time-out on mass immigration like the 40-year time-out the nation wisely implemented in 1924 at the peak of the last great wave of immigration....

In September 1920, a bomb one-twelfth the size of the Oklahoma City bomb exploded in front of 23 Wall Street in New York City, capping years of rising concern over the threat to the domestic order posed by the massive influx of foreigners.

As James Fulford writes at VDARE.com, "Wall Street support for immigration takes a sudden drop" and within four years the great time-out had begun--30 years after organized efforts to restrict immigration had begun.

It wasn't until the corrupting influence of the profiteers was sidelined that 1924 America could implement the necessary time-out.

The question we face now, then, is: must we wait for another bombing on Wall Street or its equivalent before the corporate profiteers will again loosen their grip on the nation's future and stop driving the country headlong into demographic meltdown for their own selfish benefit?

Or can we retake control of immigration policy before that happens?

Lawrence Auster

When I met Craig Nelsen years ago, around the time he was getting started with ProjectUSA, and talked immigration with him, he was focused on the negative effects of immigration-caused population growth. He eschewed any concern about the effect of immigration on the racial and cultural character of our society, let alone on the white race as the white race. He's traveled some distance since then.

There is no issue before us more important than the weakening, marginalization and dispossession of the white West.

Project USA

ProjectUSA is an immigration restrictionist organization whose slogan is: "For a moderate and democratic immigration policy." It advocates: "ending illegal immigration;" "reducing legal immigration to traditional, sustainable levels;" and "a ten-year time-out while the country reassesses immigration in terms of the long-term consequences of the present policy."

"We believe a modern immigration policy will be one that places more importance on the long-term consequences of current policy on our grandchildren, and less importance on the mythologized nation of our grandparents."

While some restrictionist groups insist that immigration flows harm the U.S. economy by taking jobs, lowering wages, and sapping tax revenues, ProjectUSA has adopted a more nationalistic and socially conservative approach. According to ProjectUSA, "We believe the United States is a country, not a market, and we believe a country should do its own work. We believe that it is possible to advocate a moderate immigration policy without being anti-immigrant in the same way it is possible to be on a budget without being anti-money. We believe the advocacy of mass immigration on economic grounds is inherently evil: humans are not packaged goods."

Craig Nelsen questions Governor George Bush about immigration issues, 2000


Ditto Australia.

Video: Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

September 2008

Some quotes from a YouTube interview with Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness...

PR: President Bush on September 17th in 2001 said "Islam is peace".

AM: Sorry. Wrong. Nope, he's wrong...

PR (20:30): So is it true to say that even as you were successfully prosecuting Sheik Rahman in 1995 you were thinking to yourself "this is not the way to go about dealing with such people"?

AM: I wish I was prescient enough ... to say I realised that in 1993 at the beginning of the process, but by the end of the process, when you see the way it works every day, when you realise that this is really more of a war than a crime, and you realise that by complying with our due process rules that we are basically edifying the enemy about our intelligence, about our methods and sources of collecting intelligence while they are trying to kill us. I don't think that you could get a front row seat like I had for two years and not at the end of it come out of it and say "this is nuts"...

PR (22:20): I see your point and I see it vividly: criminal prosecution will not work on terrorists.

McCarthy's experience in terrorism prosecution...

RUSH: ... What was your role in the trial against the Blind Sheik?

MCCARTHY: Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and that informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and he was my witness, so I spent, you know, quite a bit of time studying what he had done and also, you know, having to do the other odds and ends that you do when you do a case like this, one of which was to try to get prepared in the event the Blind Sheik decided to testify, which, you know, ultimately he didn't do but that didn't mean we didn't have to prepare for it. And that was an eye-opener. In fact, the whole experience in watching the dynamic of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me. I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he basically perverted who was otherwise a peaceful doctrine. But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.

RUSH: So you went in thinking this guy might be a fringe little kooky and perverting Islam, and you were stunned to find out that everything he said or proclaimed had a root basis?

MCCARTHY: That's correct. There's no other way of putting it. And it shouldn't have been a surprise. I mean, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Egypt. Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would is beyond me now that I look back on it, but back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said that he was basically perverting the doctrine.

And finally McCarthy, a terrorism prosecutor, actually admits that immigration has a role to play...

... Immigrants presumably come to a new place because it is attractive to them as is, not because they seek to reform it. More desirable would be real gate-keeping immigration policies that admitted only those of a mind to assimilate to the home culture, not the other way around. If that means people who would otherwise emigrate end up remaining in their home countries, is that such a bad thing?

And this thinking logically ends with (cue Lawrence Auster)...

McCarthy is making two distinct and correct assertions: that Islam is indeed the problem; and that Islam is not just a reaction against American freedom (as the president imagines) but is a coherent belief system with a billion followers, most of whom are passionately devoted to it...

I would suggest that McCarthy is touching on a contradiction in his own thought process that will eventually move him toward the logic I have been enunciating for the last few years:

1. Islam is the problem.
2. However, we do not have the ability to destroy Islam.
3. Nor do we have the ability to democratize Islam.
4. Nor do we have the ability to assimilate Islam.
5. Therefore, the only solution is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Because ...

If advocacy of and/or belief in sharia are grounds for barring an individual from the United States, then, given the fact that all Muslims are commanded by their religion to live under sharia and to expand sharia to non-Muslim lands when possible, and given that there is no way we can determine which Muslims will actually advocate sharia once they are here, or, for that matter, whether their children will advocate sharia once they are grown, isn't it the case that by the logic of this law all Muslims should be kept from immigrating into the United States?

Pew Poll: widespread concern about immigration

April 2007

The publics of the world broadly embrace key tenets of economic globalization but fear the disruptions and downsides of participating in the global economy. In rich countries as well as poor ones, most people endorse free trade, multinational corporations and free markets. However, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey of more than 45,000 people finds they are concerned about inequality, threats to their culture, threats to the environment and threats posed by immigration. Together, these results reveal an evolving world view on globalization that is nuanced, ambivalent, and sometimes inherently contradictory.

There are signs that enthusiasm for economic globalization is waning in the West -- Americans and Western Europeans are less supportive of international trade and multinational companies than they were five years ago. In contrast, there is near universal approval of global trade among the publics of rising Asian economic powers China and India...

In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed express the view that there should be greater restriction of immigration and tighter control of their country's borders...

Amnesty within six months of McCain presidency

Sept 19, 2008

The editors of a pro-open borders, immigration-law website called Immigration Daily argue that McCain will be better for the the open-borders cause than Obama. Here is their reasoning. If Obama is elected, he and the Democratic Congress will have four big, complex prioritities higher than immigration that will consume their attention, so immigration will not be addressed for a long time if at all. If McCain is elected, he and the Democratic Congress will be at loggerheads on most issues. The only major area on which they will agree and be able to accomplish anything will be comprehensive immigration reform. Therefore, the editors conclude, "We expect to see almost all of the original McCain-Kennedy bill become law during the first six months of a McCain Presidency."

Videos: Jared Taylor

Prospects for the New Century, 2000



Here be Dragons, 1996


More at AmRenVideo

Auster: Palin to help McCain legalise millions of aliens

September 05, 2008

And for all you Sarah Palin fans out there, who see her as such a wonderful breath of fresh air and great representative of the "real" America, please understand that your gal Palin will be using her formidable political gifts, including her charisma, her striking female good looks, and her self-advertised pit bull aggressiveness, to help her boss legalize all illegal aliens in the U.S. Is that what you really want?

In a Generation, Minorities May Be the U.S. Majority

August 13, 2008

Ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation’s population in a little more than a generation, according to new Census Bureau projections, a transformation that is occurring faster than anticipated just a few years ago.

The census calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Four years ago, officials had projected the shift would come in 2050.

The main reason for the accelerating change is significantly higher birthrates among immigrants. Another factor is the influx of foreigners, rising from about 1.3 million annually today to more than 2 million a year by midcentury, according to projections based on current immigration policies.

“No other country has experienced such rapid racial and ethnic change,” said Mark Mather, a demographer with the Population Reference Bureau, a research organization in Washington.

Listen to related mp3 story.

Fate of asylum seekers may depend on a judge's gender

August 5, 2008

WINNING asylum is like a game of roulette, but the chips will be in your favour if you have legal representation and a judge who is a woman or has not worked in the immigration bureaucracy, a study of US asylum decisions has found.

Beyond the initial issue of the asylum seeker's credibility, these factors have a huge impact on whether a person will be granted asylum. An Australian law specialist said a study of asylum decisions in Australia would probably yield similar biases.

In other words, neither judge has a clue. So your safety and security is a lottery.

Diversity: not in my neighborhood - USA

July 31, 2008, Frosty Wooldridge

We inject ourselves with more and unworkable ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’, which doesn’t work, won’t work, and given enough time and population overload, degrades into civil confrontation. You can see it in race riots in Los Angeles schools today. You can see it with Americans moving out of Mexican strongholds in major cities. You can see it in daily rapes of 12 year old girls by Mexican immigrants (it’s normal in their culture), honor killings by Muslims here in America (two in the last week) and a dozen other examples. It proved unfair and unworkable to the Native Americans whom we invaded, it proves unfair and unworkable to the French who now stand in the crosshairs of cultural/linguistic destruction, and most other first world countries that allow unending incompatible immigration...

We cannot sustain unending millions of people added our country—environmentally or culturally, as well as food and water! If we do continue--out of the next added 100 million people into America in three decades—over 70 million will be from third world countries. Do you want that for your children?

I'm with Frosty.

Video: 300 Mexicans

Fitzgerald: No more Muslim refugees

July 23, 2008

In general, Western countries should not make refugee status available to
Muslims who continue to identify themselves as Muslims ...

Start making policy that is based on a clear understanding that adherents of Islam are bearers of an alien and a hostile creed, and that the more such adherents there are, the more difficult -- automatically -- life becomes for the indigenous Infidels, and for other, non-Muslim immigrants, as well.

Somali Muslims who settle in the non-Muslim Western world (especially Italy and the United States) inevitably add to the demographic problem, even if they were hard-working blahblahblah. All immigration from Somalia should be barred, permanently. We owe Somalis, Iraqis, and others absolutely nothing. Let them stay in their own countries, or move to other Muslim countries, where since they share the supremely defining feature of Muslims -- that is, their belief-system -- they may join fellow members of the Umma al-Islamiyya among whom, by the way, are many of the recipients of the most fabulous transfer of wealth in human history.