Letter to The Wall Street Journal re Jewish Involvement in Immigration Policy

The Wall Street Journal published my reply to Abraham Miller’s op-ed critical of my work on Jewish involvement in immigration policy. They had a very limited maximum word count (272) and removed the references. I previously posted a longer version on this site.

In dismissing my argument that Jewish organizations have been disproportionately influential in U.S. immigration policy, Abraham Miller fails to confront the data compiled in my 1998 book “The Culture of Critique,” which also describes changes in academic attitudes on race critical to passage of the 1965 Immigration Act (“The Theory Behind That Charlottesville Slogan,” op-ed, April 3). It was absolutely understood by both restrictionists and antirestrictionists in Congress that Jewish organizations spearheaded opposition against the 1924 law’s national origins, despite little public support. Jewish organizations also organized, funded and performed most of the work of a variety of umbrella organizations aimed at combating the 1924 law. The 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism.

Rep. Michael Feighan did indeed shape family based immigration in the 1965 law. But family based, rather than skills-based immigration, had been advocated by Jewish organizations since at least the 1920s. Feighan would be horrified at the results given his long record of support for the 1924 law (see NPR.org: “In 1965 A Conservative Tried to Keep America White. His Plan Backfired”). He may well have been deceived by the 1965 reform’s proponents, who insisted it wouldn’t change the ethnic balance of the U.S. by dramatically increasing non-European immigration.

Far from being unusual, my view of the role of Jewish organizations is shared by, e.g., University of California, Santa Barbara historian Otis Graham and Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham.

Em. Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Calif. State University, Long Beach

5 replies
  1. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Most-reviled of all is the prophet of an idea whose time was delayed by the powerful.

    And Jews delayed awareness about immigration and race as long as they could without basically putting a fully loaded double barrel shotgun in their collective mouth and pulling both triggers.

  2. JimB
    JimB says:

    Even though I do realize that the (((Spielberg))) film Schindler’s List was a work of ridiculous fiction and slander, this back-and-forth between Mr. MacDonald and his detractors bring to mind one of the few gems from the movie, namely Goeth’s admonition to one of his NS underlings: “We’re not going to have arguments with these people.”

    Wise words, those, even if they did come from a (((Hollywood Nazi))).

  3. Brent G
    Brent G says:

    Clowns like Feighan and Ted Kennedy were just used as fronts and weaponized against their own race. All the enemy needed was another vain Irish politician with a victim complex. Jews are masters of manipulation.

    Feighan was brought into the unDemocratic Corrupt Party to replace Martin Sweeney, a more patriotic Irishman, who was against involvement in WWII.

  4. Ed
    Ed says:

    These Jews. Removing references that they can’t refute. Their lies of omission never end. These pathetic rats always have to cheat to get what they want. It is obvious why our ancestors had to use physical force to remove them, as they are proving that an attempt at an honest dialogue is impossible.

  5. T
    T says:

    Frank and fascinating real time testimony about the effects of the importation of Chinese as wage slaves (ie ‘cheap labor’) into California made to the state senate and recorded during a couple of weeks in April, 1876, almost exactly one hundred and forty-two years ago. The Chinese were often being paid as much as two thirds below the prevailing local cost of labor, the rail roads having been largely responsible for bringing them in…ie Mr Stanford of California fame. The Chinese government did not advocate or support the immigration. Almost all the Chinese imported in were single young males, several thousand Chinese women prostitutes being imported in as well as more or less sex slaves. They, like their male counter-parts, also did their ‘work’ well below the local prevailing rates, which had the effect of creating a veneral disease epidemic amongst White school boys in their early teens, whom unlike before could now afford these services. It was also noted the European in origin prostitutes wouldn’t ‘service’ males that young anyhow. Opium too comes up in the testimony, which prior to the importation by diktat of the Chinese had generally been unknown in the US, but by the early 1870’s had resulted in an estimated six thousand White men and women being addicted across the US, the greatest number being in the Western states. While most of the names of those taking part in the testimony seem to be Anglo-Saxon or of a Celtic origin, there are a few names which might well be of a Jewish origin, ie Morgenthau, Cohen, etc.

    The big mistake specifically regarding the Chinese was after the passing of the Chinese Exclusion act in 1882 that the 135 thousand approximately in California predominantly, the vast majority unsettled and unmarried, were not directed to return to China which they could easily have done. My guess is they were allowed to stay as they provided a regular supply of ‘cheap labor’ for industry. By not having them leave, these Chinese simply acted as a beach head for the self-described ‘progressives’ of the future (the same whose direct political and spiritual forebears had ran the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and whom are now heavily involved in the far more profitable wage slavery system) to use and manipulate for their own ends.


Comments are closed.