Immigration

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

Against Amnesty

/1 Comment/in , /by

A priority for “our” President and Congress is pushing forward competing visions of “immigration reform” — “reform” being required because our unenforced immigration laws are flouted, and no one will defend the interests of the White American majority.  These competing “reform” proposals will differ in some details, but they will offer amnesty — with citizenship — to the illegals, while increasing legal immigration, coupled to a pathetically transparent “fig-leaf” cover-lie of “increased enforcement.”  Without getting into the fine details of these alternative proposals, let’s look at the fundamental issues.

The idea of “strict enforcement” is a joke.  First, we have had experience with such lies with Reagan’s amnesty.  Second, enforcement, even if mildly attempted for show, will not last.  There’s a basic asymmetry between amnesty and enforcement, which should be obvious to all but the most dim.  Amnesty, once given, will not be taken back.  Once done, it’s done.  Enforcement, on the other hand, must be continuous; it must be on-going. Once the amnesty is done, what stops the Establishment from eventually reneging on enforcement?  Even if amnesty includes a long period of waiting for citizenship, I see no one in American politics with the political will to say, “Hey, the enforcement’s not taking place, so the amnesty is rescinded.”  That’s not going to happen.  Yes, I know the Senate proposal says no one gets citizenship if the “enforcement metrics” are not met.  If you really believe that, there’s a bridge in NYC linking Manhattan and Brooklyn that’s for sale. In reality, one can expect any period of “strict enforcement” to be relatively brief.  Once the attention of the American people is diverted elsewhere, immigration law will once again go unenforced, borders will be open, and a new illegal population will grow, waiting for the next mass amnesty, and the next empty promises of “strict enforcement.” 

Or, consider another likely alternative — over time, the Establishment may increase the legal immigration quotas to such an extent that illegal immigration per se will become superfluous.  After all, the easiest way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is to simply make all immigrants legal.  If the entire population of Mexico has the legal right to migrate to the USA, then the Establishment can honestly say that illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen to zero.  Now, that possibility is an indictment of the “I’m not racist” argument that “we’re not against immigration, only illegal immigration.”  When people paint themselves into a corner like that, it is only time before the Establishment calls their bluff, legalizes everyone, and then asks, “What’s the problem now?  They’re all legal!  You aren’t racist, are you?”  Read more

Surprise! Jewish Republicans want amnesty and gay marriage

/133 Comments/in , /by

Lots of soul-searching among Republicans on how best to proceed. And not much of a surprise on the direction advocated by the major Republican Jewish donors.

A number of Romney’s financial backers — including Fred Zeidman of Texas, Mel Sembler of Florida and Sheldon Adelson — are among the RJC’s leadership, and Brooks made clear that their voices would be heard.

“A lot of the major financial support the candidates received was from the members of this organization,” Brooks said. “There is a lot of weight behind their message on that.”

William Daroff, the Washington director of the Jewish Federations of North America and a former deputy to Brooks at the RJC, said Republican Jews would likely advise the party to moderate.

“The conventional wisdom is that the election will result in the shift of the Republican Party to the center, particularly on issues of immigration,” Daroff said. “To the extent that the party does shift, it would make Republican candidates more appealing to Jewish voters who may be inclined to vote Republican on foreign policy and homeland security issues but who have been turned off by conservative Republicans rigidity on social issues.

Some of the leading voices counseling moderation of hard-line Republican policies have been Jewish conservatives. One of the first post-election posts from Jennifer Rubin, who writes the Right Turn blog for the Washington Post, said it was time to stop opposing gay marriage in the political arena.

“Republicans for national office would do well to recognize reality,” Rubin said. “The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism. As with divorce, one need not favor it, but to run against it is folly, especially for national politicians who need to appeal to a diverse electorate.” (“On the morning after: Jewish Republicans Advise the Party“

See also John Graham on Jewish Republican donors on behalf of gay marriage: “New York gay marriage: Follow the Jewish money“). Read more

Letter from Sweden

/176 Comments/in , , /by

There is a rising tide of aggressive anti-Semitism in Europe. This primarily comes from Muslim youth. In cities like Malmo, Paris and London, Jewish religious life is coming under attack by Muslim youth. I do not think this is acute conflict, but at least Jews are not as well-protected as before.

The Jewish establishment have always pushed for new laws to protect their interests but now, when there millions of Muslims and Africans in Europe it is not as easy as before. Muslims and Africans are quite difficult to blame, because that would undermine the elitist notion that immigration is “always good and always provides economic and cultural value” to the West. The only way for the politicians to protect the society is to establish new departments that control public opinion and increase surveillance and law enforcement. Their hope is that the conflicts arising from multiculturalism are manageable. They will not change immigration policy.

Last night there was a large debate between the leaders of the eight parties in the Swedish Parliament. It was only the Swedish Democrats that wanted to lower the immigration levels (by 90 percent). The conservative, liberals and socialist parties wanted no change in policy and the Green Party said they wanted a policy of more open borders. The key argument from the establishment was “humanism”, “anti-racism”, “human rights” and that these immigrants will soon show that they are an asset to the Sweden. They also told stories about poor Somali children. It was quite extraordinary that they could not put forth any empirical argument, but relied instead on moral exhortations. Read more