Immigration

What the Immigration Debate Really Should Be About

/7 Comments/in , , , /by

Editor’s note: It strikes me that until we talk explicitly about racial/ethnic genetic interests, we cannot win. The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was based on an explicit assertion of an ethnic status quo which assumed that each group currently in the country had an interest in maintaining their ethnic representation. The Boasian attack on the concept of race, continuing now as an article of faith among all elites in the West, is the most powerful weapon against White interests and the continuation of the West as anything remotely resembling the civilization of a particular people. This consensus against mentioning White racial interests is vigorously policed in the media, the political arena, and even in most positions of employment.  Ted Sallis argues that, as the result of losing this battle, conservatives launch a host of arguments, many of which are likely veiled attempts to retain White demographic predominance; but these arguments will inevitably fail.  When conservatives bewail what has happened while at the same they time reject Darwinism, they should realize that it was the successful attack on Darwinism that is the greatest intellectual disaster for Whites and their civilization. Kevin MacDonald

I have previously written about the ongoing immigration amnesty travesty.  Since that essay, there have been some stirrings of rebellion against the Establishment’s promotion of immigrant interests vs. that of native White Americans.  These stirrings have not yet been particularly effective.  However, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding this legislation, I note that the arguments on both sides strictly hold to aracial concerns.  It seems that no one is “getting it.”  Let’s take a look at some of the common immigration arguments, particularly from the anti-amnesty side, and evaluate why they ultimately miss the point. Read more

Jason Richwine on IQ and Immigration

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

The Jason Richwine saga is a critical barometer of the political climate of our times. As everyone knows by now, he resigned from his position at the Heritage Foundation after his involvement in a report on the economic costs of immigration (since strongly endorsed by Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, writing in National Review Online). As Richwine said in his interview with the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, his Ph.D. research on how IQ affects the social and economic costs of immigration had nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation report.

This is nothing more than a guilt by association smear campaign aimed at putting yet another nail in the coffin of White America. It is an index of the power of the left that they need not dispute the economic effects of the Schumer-Rubio bill; nor do they need to rebut the data and conclusions of Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis. They simply need to make the linkage between Richwine and taboo findings—that IQ predicts economic success, underclass behavior, and use of government services so that importing low-IQ immigrants is a very bad idea. Having made these associations, they can indulge in smug sociopathic satisfaction because a young man with a wife and two young children is suddenly out of work and with much diminished prospects in life.

Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis was approved by a Harvard committee, but it’s clear that the real force behind it was Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. In the Acknowledgements section of his thesis, Richwine describes Murray as a “childhood hero”; Murray seems to have been his de facto thesis advisor at  Harvard:

The substance of my work was positively influenced by many people, but no one was more influential than Charles Murray, whose detailed editing and relentless constructive criticism have made the final draft vastly superior to the first. I could not have asked for a better primary advisor.

So it’s not surprising that Richwine’s thesis takes seriously the work of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen—the main figures in academic research on race and IQ. Although he also considers criticisms that have been leveled against them, it’s clear that Richwine sees this body of  work as basically correct.
Read more

Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

/8 Comments/in , , , /by

Gates of Vienna has an article showing just how unfathomably bad things are in Norway as a result of immigration and multiculturalism (“Everything You Have Learned in School Is Wrong“). The main story is the familiar one throughout the West: elites encourage immigration and are able to avoid the costs. As noted in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech,  the costs are paid by those who can’t flee the areas impacted by immigration.  In Norway

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women). Read more

The new immigration assault on White America: The hostile elite on steroids

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of  Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority. Read more

Peter Hitchens’s Show of Guilt: Enoch Powell Was Right

/1 Comment/in , /by

Now that Britain has been utterly transformed to the point that turning back the muilticultural assault and reclaiming the traditional British nation would be cataclysmic, we are treated to some hand-wringing in the mainstream media. In his “How I am partly to blame for mass immigration” Peter Hitchens writes that when he was a Trotskyite supporting as much immigration as possible,

it wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.  Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.  If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London). We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins. But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients – not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives. When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as ‘racists’.What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

Read more

Jewish groups endorse immigration amnesty/surge

/4 Comments/in /by

The fact that Jewish groups are in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants is about as newsworthy as a report that the sun rose in the east today. But the wording of a letter organized by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and sent by over 100 Jewish organizations to President Obama and Congress bears mentioning.

Specifically, it notes that “American Jews know too well the impact of restrictive immigration policies.”

The Immigration Restriction act of 1924 is etched in Jewish memory more than any other single event in American history. Jewish activists routinely blame the law for Jews dying in the Holocaust — never mind that it was enacted long before the war.

One of the things that struck me in reviewing Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy  was that his father “would go speechless with rage if someone suggested that Jews were morally required to support a porous border with Latin America because a ship of German Jews had not been allowed into the U.S. in 1940.” This attitude, which is utterly commonplace in the Jewish community, shows no concern for the interests of other Americans. Only Jewish interests matter. Old historical grudges, no matter how unreasonable, must never be forgotten. Why not focus on the good aspects of the Jewish experience in America—the dramatic decline in anti-Semitism after World War II, and the rise of Jews to elite status all the important areas of American society?

The main theme of my review is the hostility of Jews toward the traditional people and culture of America. Several examples of such hostility are noted in the review. They are easy to come by and are entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community.  Needless to say, however, the letter is phrased in terms of the loftiest moral sentiments: “Our views are shaped by our Jewish religious and ethical traditions, as well as our own history in this country and by core American values. The commandment to ‘welcome the stranger’ is mentioned 36 times throughout the Torah, more than any other commandment.” While these same organizations would doubtless endorse the idea that Israel’s immigration laws must ensure that Israel remain a Jewish state (e.g., by not allowing displaced Palestinians the right to return to their land), they have no sympathy for the idea that America’s immigration laws should reflect the interests of its White, Christian majority (see also “Jewish groups oppose Arizona-type immigration laws except Israel“).

Besides hatreds fueled by historical grudges, the other emotion fueling Jews is fear that White Americans would assert their ethnic interests:

American Jews know too well the impact of restrictive immigration policies [again the historical grudge], and we have seen how the immigration issue can become a flashpoint for xenophobia. We are concerned the failure of national leaders to fix the broken immigration system has fueled racist, nativist, and extremist groups who blame immigrants for our country’s problems, and has been a central factor in the spread of state and local policies and laws that legalize discrimination against immigrants.

The cure for xenophobia is legalizing illegals? It’s far more likely that the massive invasion—legal and illegal — feeds xenophobia and that the cure would be an immigration moratorium. But for these Jewish organizations, the way to fix the fears of White Americans that they are being displaced and squeezed out of the labor market is to bring in yet more immigrants.

The letter closes with a plea for expanding legal immigration and shortening the path to full citizenship. It also emphasizes family reunification and admitting more refugees and asylum seekers. These points emphasize two aspects of the traditional Jewish attitude on immigration to the U.S.:

  • Maximize the total number of immigrants; in the immediate after math of the passage of the 1965 law that removed the bias toward Western Europe, Jewish immigration activists switched to focus on maximizing total numbers.  (See here, p. 291)
  • Promote the idea that immigrants not be chosen for their ability to make an economic contribution to the U.S. The assumption is that, apart from those who are “dangerous or a threat to national security,” all immigrants in whatever numbers have a positive impact on the society as a whole  (see previous link, p. 277-278). Family reunification, which has been a bedrock Jewish attitude at least since the 1940s (see previous link, p. 277-278)  is the basis of chain migration which has been one of the main reasons why numbers of immigrants has skyrocketed.

It’s apparent that despite the lofty rhetoric, the entire organized Jewish community sees liberal immigration policy as a Jewish ethnic interest. This is ethnic hardball, pure and simple, motivated by fear and loathing of White America. Such policies are a consensus view among American Jews. Their position has been the same for 100 years, and there is not one Jewish organization that opposes these policies.

And given the effectiveness with which Jews as a wealthy, intelligent, and highly organized group have pursued their interests in the U.S. (see above link), the results have been disastrous for the traditional people and culture of America.

Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in the Dispossession of White, Christian America

/5 Comments/in , , , /by

Lawrence Auster is one of those rare Jews (Paul Gottfried is another) who seems to have an appreciation for the traditional people and culture of America and an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession — not that Auster and I haven’t had our disagreements (“Lawrence Auster gets unhinged”). 

Auster recently posted a chapter originally written in 1998 on the role of Jews in the multicultural transformation of the U.S. and the decline of White America (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”). He hits pretty much all the right notes. Auster often has a way of phrasing things and choosing quotations from prominent Jews that cut to the heart of the matter—almost like painting pictures that are worth a thousand words.

His dissection of Alan Dershowitz is classic—the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of Dershowitz’s fanatic ethnocentrism that is entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Dershowitz unabashedly gives Jews the right to alter America in the direction of multiculturalism to suit their interests, as well as to disregard the Constitution and the attitudes and interests of White America; Dershowitz simultaneously condemns the ethnocentrism and group feelings of non-Jewish Whites while supporting Jewish ethnocentrism, endogamy, and sense of group interests in America as well as the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. To say that Jews like Dershowitz have no respect for the traditional people and culture of America is a gross understatement; they see the world from a completely Jewish perspective in which the rights, culture, and traditions of non-Jews at best count for nothing. At worst, they are the appropriate target of hatred, scorn, and ultimately, one fears, far worse; indeed, Auster describes Dershowitz as “openly hostile to America’s historic civilization.”

Dershowitz is an example of extreme ethnocentrism where it is impossible to see the world except in terms of Jewish interests. Here’s Auster on  Dershowitz excoriating WASP law firms for not hiring ethnically obsessed Jews like Desrhowitz:

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this!” [Auster’s emphasis]

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America. And because of the elite status of American Jews, this is very important indeed. Jews matter. Read more