My head is still spinning from Jacob Hornberger’s reply to my post on the Founders and immigration. In my intitial post, I countered his assertion that the Founders embraced open immigration with a reference to the 1790 law restricting American citizenship to whites. Here’s his rebuttal – (better brace yourselves.)
Archive for the 'Immigration' Category
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has a new article that nicely rips up the pro-war talking point that says the US must invade other countries to stop dictators from killing innocent people. That argument overlooks the obvious fact that the “liberating” forces will necessarily take out even more innocent folks to get to the dictator.
So far, so good. But then Hornberger tosses in a jarring speed bump:
“Under what authority did FDR refuse German Jews’ entry into the United States? By this time, the United States had abandoned the concept of open immigration on which our country was founded…”
Mr. Hornberger and I have corresponded before about the desirability of open borders, and I do not intend to re-open that debate. But the passage he wrote above is simply wrong.
The Founders did not intend to create a multicultural proposition nation. Instead, they sought to protect and preserve their traditional English rights.
The Founders viewed themselves as the inheritors of traditional British institutions, which they intended to keep. That’s why, rather than allowing any and all into their communities, the Founders restricted immigration. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalized citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”
That act, by the way, was the first order of business of the new Congress. So to assert the US was founded on open immigration is a factual error.
I admire Hornberger’s anti-imperial articles, and agree with most of what he writes. But it’s a puzzle how such an obviously intelligent man does not wonder why the evil regime in DC should be supported in its efforts to impose demographic revolution at home. DC’s “liberation” projects abroad dovetail with its “liberation” projects at home – both are intended to boost the power of the central government and its cronies. Just think – after all these wars of liberation and all the civil rights mandates, are we any more secure, or more free? No – but DC is clearly in control of more of our property and lives.
That’s why we should judge government by its deeds, rather than by its press releases.
French rightist, Professor of History, Dominique Venner, shot himself in the head at the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris on May 21.
His last blog post details one who confronted the reality of both the legal acceptance of “gay marriage” and the other notion, that soon Islamic dominance in France will do away with such a thing (i.e. learn to love the bomb). Staring the nightmare in the face, he pursued an act of theater to encourage his positions.
Revilo Oliver, a veteran Far Rightist (a professor at the University of Illinois and in Bill Buck’s wedding party) died by his own hand in the nascent Internet Age, where as Mssr. Venner was able to provide a blog post (and apparently a more traditional written note) in a more grandiose final act.
As fewer Rightists, for a variety of reasons, are given the opportunity to exist as a Professor, a fact Mssr. Venner surely understood, consider his performance as something we might not see again.
Sean objects to the “nationalization” of the immigration debate, a point he has made many time before. But immigration is one of the few issues that really is and ought to be national. The Constitution specifically grants to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States.” While I certainly don’t object to states like Arizona adopting measures that attempt to enforce Federal rules, that immigration is a state issue seems silly to me. Does Sean really believe that California could have lax immigration laws and Alabama very restrictive immigration laws and that would be just fine? Once my state and some of my neighboring states have seceded, then I’ll be less concerned with how California wants to conduct its immigration business, but until then, we are all in this together.
Sean also implies that the demographic change we are concerned about is already a fait accompli. Well, to some degree it is, but that is why this debate is so urgent. We must halt the current trends as soon as possible before the numbers really do pass a tipping point. Maybe that point has already passed, but I’m not sure what the utility is in throwing up our hands. Let’s not stand around with our thumbs up our rears as the situation gets even worse even faster.
Sean also suggest that we are powerless because we don’t pay Heritage’s bills. I am keenly aware of how little power we paleos have, but what is the point in wallowing in that? I’ll just keep banging away on my keyboard in the blogosphere trying to help wake people up.
Various encounters with the better parts of internet punditry, have led me to conclude that Benghazi was a take down of Hillary Clinton from the neocons–though I’ll dispute and say from the Biden faction of the DNC, and secondly, the release of the IRS “scandal” info, from the Hillary supporters (the Trilats) and hence the defections from Liberal Media (e.g. Chris Matthews.)
So then why (he asked in a 101 sort of way) would the House Republicans pick a Friday to cave on the Amnesty Bill, with the President at his weakest?
It’s such a self-evident fact that all races are interchangeable that there’s no need to rebut Richwine’s methodology or logic.
Any idea or person that goes against leftist ideology is automatically “racist,” and therefore universally regarded as bad. And stupid. Here are a few examples:
Here’s Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs on Richwine’s refusal to apologize for his heresy:
Of course he doesn’t apologize; that’s the standard posture when right wing racists are exposed. They always double down and insist they were just “telling un-PC truths.”
And check out columnist Mary Sanchez, who condemns Richwine for “toxic views” and “pathetic scholarship” that are clearly “offensive and wrong.” Then she tosses this “fact” into the bonfire:
Immigrants have lower rates of criminal conduct than native-born people. And a new study shows that Hispanic high school graduates have now overtaken white students in rates of enrollment into college.
So, it’s “offensive and wrong” to state that Whites have a higher IQ than Hispanics, but there’s nothing wrong with asserting that immigrants make better citizens and scholars than native-born Americans. Viva la Raza superior!
But this statement signed by minority and leftist student groups at Harvard is so full of righteous outrage, it sounds like a satire of political correctness:
“We condemn in unequivocal terms these racist claims as unfit for Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard University as a whole. Granting permission for such a dissertation to be published debases all of our degrees and hurts the University’s reputation.”
See? Just lob that “racist” label at something or someone, and they’re automatically beyond discussion. No counter-argument needed. The Harvard fatwa, by the way, was signed by 24 groups, including all the usual suspects, such as the Latino Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. But it also brought together the LGBTQ Caucus and Arab Caucus, as well as both the Israel and Palestine Caucuses. And people accused Richwine of being devisive!
In 2010 Jason Richwine wrote two articles that were published by Alternative Right. (They have republished one of them here.) They were in response to Ron Unz’s controversial Hispanic article . Richwine’s “connection” to Alternative Right came up during the PC hysteria over Richwine’s crimethink. Alternative Right, Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute (NPI) were all mentioned prominently in a Rachel Maddow MSNBC feigned outrage segment. (All PC outrage is feigned except by the most simple-minded. Someone as bright as Rachel Maddow undoubtedly knows that Richwine’s assertions are more or less accurate.)
Spencer addresses the issue here
Here is Peter Brimelow on Heritage’s Shame. It is the first part of a fund raising appeal. Consider giving them a donation. VDARE is doing good work.
The firing of Jason Richwine by the Heritage Foundation is the most depressing thing that has happened in American politics for many years—and that’s a very hot competition. Heritage was in an impregnable position:
*Richwine’s PhD was from Harvard University, and had been approved by the three of the most eminent scholars in the U.S. Anyone arguing with him on his specialty was going to lose.
*However, Richwine’s quantitative work on The Heritage Foundation’s Rector Report, on the fiscal cost of the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill, had nothing whatever to do with his Ph.D. dissertation and efforts to link them were clearly unsustainable smears;
*The Heritage Foundation, with a reported budget of well over $80 million in 2010, was simply not subject to the boycotts, faculty hiss fits etc. that enforce totalitarian Political Correctness in the corporate and academic world. It could afford to stand its ground.
Heritage could have honorably rebuffed efforts to smear it and insisted on focusing on its fiscal study—or it could have unleashed Richwine and started the debate about IQ, immigration and other social policies which the American Left has been struggling to suppress since the publication of The Bell Curve nearly twenty year ago. Either way, Cultural Marxism was headed for a major defeat.
Instead, ignominiously and inexplicably, Heritage caved—undercutting its own fiscal study and threatening the entire patriotic resistance to Amnesty/ Immigration surge.
More from Brimelow on Heritage’s shame.
James Kirkpatrick on the “Cowardice of Conservatism, Inc.”
Jason Richwine has just resigned from the Heritage Foundation – a purely voluntary move I’m sure. The usual suspects have begun their gloating – but what really needs to be discussed is what the Heritage Foundation thinks it is gaining from all of this.
Interestingly, before this resignation, there were real signs of resistance within the Conservative Movement to the usual PC bullying. Michelle Malkin contributed a typically gutsy column enthusiastically defending Richwine. Ann Coulter slammed the anti-science left. Most importantly, Rush Limbaugh launched an extended discourse defending Richwine and his work and criticizing the “RINO’s” calling for his resignation.
However, the Heritage Foundation itself ran shrieking for cover from the moment it began. It embarrassingly searched for public relations flacks to help them explain away the controversy. It refused to clarify whether it had actually read Richwine’s dissertation before it hired him – which at the least suggests utterly incompetent human relations policies. Finally, it stuck its head in the ground regarding the resignation itself, muttering tersely that they don’t comment on internal personnel policies.
As Talleyrand said, it’s worse than a crime – it’s a blunder. Forcing or even allowing Richwine to resign is an admission of guilt. Tactically speaking, not only should Jason Richwine not have been pressured to resign, he should have been forbidden to resign.
Remember the speculation that Jim DeMint might make Heritage more conservative? Well I guess not. DeMint has proven himself to be just another spineless member of Conservative Inc. who takes his marching orders from the PC though police. First Heritage scurried to distance itself from Jason Richwine at the first sign that the PC rightthink enforcement crew was unhappy. Now Richwine has “resigned.”
Sorry we are late covering this story. I’ll make a separate post tomorrow compiling important links.
Posted under Immigration
NumbersUSA Petition: Petition Opposing ‘Gang of Eight’ Amnesty
Stand up, and be counted. Over 280 thousand have already signed. Hopefully we can increase that number into the millions.
Operation Wetback was a success in returning illegal aliens to Mexico, over 1 million apprehensions made in 1954 alone. Amnesty has been tried before. It only encourages more illegals to enter, since they assume a future amnesty will once again grant citizenship.
The recent failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both which true conservatives opposed, combined only cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion (possibly an inflated estimate).
What’s in the Gang of Eight Bill? Take the Amnesty Quiz at: www.AmnestyQuiz.com
Unless native Britons take a stand, that could well be the UK’s future. It makes little difference whether the year is pushed back to 2080 or even 2100 if the result is the same. In order for the United Kingdom to survive, these trends must not merely be halted but reversed.
And if South Africa, the much heralded “Rainbow Republic”, is any indication: Affirmative action and other special rights will continue to exist in the UK for nonwhites well after native Brits have become a minority.
The Scottish Sun writes:
— 2050: Britain will be most ethnically diverse nation
— 2066: White Britons will be in the minority in UK
BRITAIN will be the world’s most ethnically diverse Western nation after 2050, a bombshell study has found.
A massive influx of immigrants has given the UK the fastest-rising percentage of ethnic minority and foreign-born populations.
Continue Reading »
I don’t like Representative Peter King of New York. But then, he doesn’t like me, or any other Southerner. King is a pro-Empire bully who thinks the good ol’ U.S. of A. is justified in doing whatever it wants. He once sponsored a bill that would empower the federal government to deny gun rights to anyone it merely suspected of having “terrorist connections.”
So King’s latest proposal should be scrutinized with suspicion. He now demands “increased surveillance” of all Muslims in the US. With the understandable public anger at the two Muslims behind the Boston bombing, King’s proposal might just gain traction.
All the more reason to resist it. Notice he doesn’t offer a direct, simple solution, such as repealing the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. No, that’s unthinkable. Remember, with the federal government, solutions are never the answer. Instead, the answer to every problem is to increase the power and scope of government.
We all know what will happen next. Someone will say it’s not right that the government pick on one ethnic group, so the government should spy on EVERYONE. That’s fair.
And that’s how freedom is lost.
American Committee for Peace in Chechnya was founded in 2004–it’s gone now– by the usual suspects, Right and Left–Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen–we have done this drill so often it gets boring, that same old cast of those who contrived a case for Republicans to support invading Iraq, as Saddam done 9/11 dontchaknow?
At the time, the Guardian’s John Laughland noted that the war on terror stopped in Chechnya for this crowd of the usual suspects. The purpose, as always, was to use a force to destabilize Russia, just as they had used radical Islamists in Afghanistan against the then Soviet Russia many years prior.
It goes hand in hand with CIA or Pentagon intervention abroad, that the United States receives a boat load of refugees from said country, be it Hmong, Somalian, Iraqi, or…Chechnya.
There are certainly more angles to pursue, especially, on-going, bipartisan support (e.g. Obama/Clinton/Kerry, McCain, Graham, Rubio) from the usual suspects, to work with jihadists in Syria (including those from Chechnya as reported March 6).
Lone-wolf street theater, or some actor in the Black Arts will be the subject of speculation for the while, but in the coming days of analysis, let it sink in that the members of the ACPC will sleep uninterrupted tonight.
For additional reading: Sibel Edmonds on the Neocons & Chechnya.
Horrific casualties are being reported in the Boston Marathon terror bombing, and police have made an arrest:
Investigators have a suspect — a Saudi Arabian national — in the horrific Boston Marathon bombings, The Post has learned.
Law enforcement sources said the 20-year-old suspect was under guard at an undisclosed Boston hospital.
It was not immediately clear why the man was hospitalized and whether he was injured in the attack or in his apprehension.
The man was caught less than two hours after the 2:50 p.m. bombing on the finish line of the race, in the heart of Boston.
I’m afraid the inescapable lesson of this is that we cannot have a free society with open borders. Our handlers aren’t about to adopt sane immigration policies, so we’re stuck with the nightmarish combination of an increasingly diverse, alienated population and a police state to impose order.
Let’s cut to the chase: The real distinction between the two is the question of what man is and what political arrangement suits him best.
The answer to that question determines everything else. For example, if you believe man is a peaceful, sharing creature, and that all people are equal, then the inequality you see all around MUST be evil and artificial. You would then be acting consistently with your basic belief to advocate an all-powerful government that nationalized all private property for the good of all. That government would be doing good by destroying traditional society and forcing people to live according to your ideals. And you don’t have to imagine the consequences: It’s been tried.
Wow! Finally a Republican consultant who can do math. I’m shocked.
“You can support immigration reform for moral reasons, for philosophical reasons, or for economic reasons. But if you are a Republican and supporting it for political reasons, you are an idiot who cannot read or understand survey data.” ~ Mike McKenna
Sorry this is a little delinquent, but I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to get this post up. Most of you probably already know that Rand Paul stirred up a bit of a hornests’ nest when he spoke to a Hispanic organization on Tuesday where he endorsed a path to legal residence. The speech was typical pro-immigration cliches and platitudes. Intially it was reported that he had endorsed a path to citizenship, but Rand protested and said he hadn’t. What he had actually endorsed was a path to legal residence which is only marginally better. So this generation of illegals won’t get to vote for bigger government, but their birthright citizen children will. Great, we get to put off our electoral irrelevance for a few more years.
I really do not believe that Rand Paul is the master political operator many seem to think he is. The filibuster was a masterstroke of political theater, but I’m not convinced he didn’t just bumble into it. There is no way he could have anticipated what happened. I think he was primarily trying to throw a bone to his libertarian base that he had pissed off with his hamhanded handling of the Hagel nomination.
On immigration, Rand doesn’t seem to know what he has gotten himself into. The best thing he could have done politically would have been to either keep his mouth shut on the issue and let his past campaign statements stand or repeat simple secure the borders boilerplate. He should have let Rubio and the rest of his potential rivals step out in front on amnesty, then in the end (2016) he could have said he was the only one still holding the line. It seems to me that he didn’t want Rubio and company to get too far out in front of him, but at the same time wanted to split the difference. Hence, a path to legal residence vs. a path to citizenship. (A path to legal residence was actually the position that Jeb Bush endorsed in his book then fell all over himself to reject once it was published.)
There are a bunch of articles I could link to since his flip-flop has been so much discussed. VDARE in particular is ripping into him. Here are a few of the better ones.
Michael Thompson at WND documents that this is, in fact, a flip-flop for Rand.
John Derbyshire takes Rand to task, and praises Ann Coulter.
Washington Watcher isn’t pleased either.
If CPAC is any indication, maybe so. (Link to the always insightful James Kirkpatrick.)
Ann Coulter distinguished herself from the Conservative Inc. herd at CPAC by declaring herself a single-issue amnesty voter. (Link to the always solid Ilana Mercer.)
“What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative way, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?
Amnesty for illegal aliens.
Half of the elected Republicans support it, most conservative talk radio and TV hosts support it: You want the Republican establishment? That’s the Republican establishment.
There are many negative consequences to amnesty. The one that I think ought to concern this crowd is: If amnesty goes forward, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election [IM: that goes for libertarian candidates too].
As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican.
I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why are Marco Rubio and the endless Bushes supporting it? [IM: that should be obvious.]
We cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles…”
What is so frustrating is how obvious this should be to any remotely thinking Republican.
Update: Here’s more from VDARE.
And to give credit where credit is due, Rush Limbaugh remains solid on immigration.
There is so much CPAP info out there in the conservative blogosphere, this is just a summary of some things that caught my attention.
From the Palmetto Patriot’s Facebook page: “I have it on good authority that CPAC is going to be covered with ‘secede’ stickers. We shall see if the ‘respectable conservatives’ there mention it.”
The consensus seems to be that Rand Paul wowed them.
The Daily Beast: “Rand Paul is so Hot Right Now”
And here are a couple of stories from VDARE. (VDARE has been on fire lately.)
James Kirkpatrick on the CPAC immigration panel.