White Nationalist Position on Immigration

Or another words, what the lunatics want.
Via American Renaissance, the extreme moderate fringe of White nationalism. This is really scary. If this is what the moderates, my God, what do the hardcores want? This is their proposal, seriously (edited for illiteracy):

White Nationalists want:
1. 0 legal immigration.
2. 0 illegal immigration.
3. The deportation of 20 million illegal aliens.
4. The deportation of the fifth columns from Mexico, China, India, Korea and the Muslim world.
Either all three policies are implemented or Native Born White Americans will be reduced to an ever dwindling racial minority within the borders of America. Non-whites will be a majority in the military and police departments across the US. When this happens, Native Born White Americans will be history.
The Republican party is now openly hostile to Native Born White Males. If you continue to vote Republican, you are voting for the race-replacement of Native Born White American. It is all about race from here on in.

First of all, I will say that I agree with points 2 and 3. However, you will never end all illegal immigration. You can reduce the numbers to manageable levels though, as in the 1970’s, you can make it very painful for those that are here and the “American” traitors who hire and harbor them (two felonies almost never enforced in this insane nation).
As far as deporting the illegals, when do we start? It’s a waste of money? Not possible! We can’t afford it? You’re kidding. We can afford $700 billion, or $10 trillion, or whatever the figure is now, to bail out the most evil rich bankster scum slime in the nation, “people” who for the most part ought to be hanging from streetlamps, but we can’t afford the measly $70 billion or so to deport the illegals? Forget it.
Hell, I bet you would have a lot folks volunteering to drive those buses to the border! Seriously, people would do it for free!
Point is, yet a point always lost on the insane (by this I mean all White nationalists), that politics is the art of the possible. Right now, we can’t even stop the illegals. We can barely even deport the ones here. You practically have to murder someone to get your ass deported.
An illegal can walk into most police stations in the US, say, “Hi, I’m an illegal alien, what are you going to do about it?” and he will be laughed out of the office. Calls to ICE to deport the invader will produce laughter and hangups on ICE’s end. If you’re not a criminal other than breaking and entering a sovereign nation and mass identity theft, you’re home free in We Heart Illegals USA.
It seems obvious that any sane country would not even be having much of a discussion or argument about the illegals issue. In a sane country, maybe the 5% lunatic fringe not connected to illegals would support them. That’s the way it is in most sane places. There’s a few nuts in every crowd. Problem in the US now is the nuts are about half the crowd on many issues.
So bottom line, we can’t even deal with the illegals already here, though it’s a great idea. Obviously, we need to deal with illegals before we can even think about dealing with legals.
We get about 1 million legal immigrants to the US every year. That White nationalists want to reduce this number to zero just shows how insane these people and what total losers they are. Furthermore, I believe it’s dishonest. I’ve never heard of a White nationalist who wants to end all White immigration to the US. They only want to end non-White immigration.
In a recent poll, 58% of Americans said immigration to the US “is basically a good thing.” Elites were alarmed at this horrible figure because it’s the lowest immigrant-loving figure in some time. Obviously, the US continues to heart immigrants in a big fat way.
I don’t think any nation on Earth has reduced their legal immigration total to zero. If you find one, let me know. If you tell a White nationalist this, they all insist that the US, probably the most immigrant-loving nation on Earth, will be the first to take the plunge. Yeah right psychos.
Even Japan allows in 15,000 legal immigrants a year, plus a higher number of guest workers, plus lots of illegals sneak in, including huge numbers of Chinese smuggled in by “Snakehead” gangs.
Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Dominican Republic have lots of illegals. Residents of the poor SE Asian countries move all around between them. There are millions of illegals flooding India. The Persian Gulf is brimming with guest workers. North Africa is crawling with Black Africans, mostly illegals. Arabs move all around the Arab World. Muslims move all around the Muslim World. Latin Americans move all around Latin America.
It’s completely understandable why White nationalists want to reduce immigration (actually, non-White immigration) to zero. I’m not faulting them for that. I’m faulting them for living in a worse Wonderland than Alice herself concerning the practicality of the matter.
Considering that illegals have to be dealt with before we can even think of legals, we can forget about dealing with legal immigration for the time being. Reducing it to zero is undoable anyway even in the most favorable of circumstances.
On the other hand, what’s a good goal? I was comfortable in the 1970’s with legal immigration at 350-400,000/year. Reducing our immigration levels from 1 million currently to 1970’s levels would mean reducing legal immigration by over half to around 450,000/year. I’d be quite comfortable with that as a workable advancement. Truth is, according to current politics, reducing legal immigration by even 1 person/year is probably not even doable, much less thinkable.
Now to #4. I’m not even sure what this bit of insanity means. Does this mean:
1. Deport all legal immigrants from Mexico, China, India, Korea and the Muslim world?
2. Deport everyone, including citizens, born in Mexico, China, India, Korea and the Muslim world?
3. Deport all non-Whites with racial roots in Mexico, China, India, Korea and the Muslim world?
Who knows, and getting a straight answer out of a White nationalist lunatic is like pulling hen’s teeth. I suspect it might mean (3), and some evidence is here, but even (1) is undoable. Frankly, it’s more than that; it’s unthinkable.
However, I will agree with the last two paragraphs. They are definitely spot on. If you want to save the US as a White country, you’re going to need to take some wildly extreme steps.
Furthermore, the Republicans aren’t with these guys, and I don’t think they ever were. It’s an open question which party is more committed to flooding the US with countless legal and illegal immigrants. I actually think the Repubs and Dems are battling it out now for which one can turn the spigot up highest and turn the country into The Calcutta States of America quicker.
Which is why the US as a White country thing is headed out. The only way to save the US as a White country would probably be some sort of violence, either a revolution or some fascist-type coup. That’s a horrible thought, but I have some admiration for the radicals that promote this line. At least they are reasonable. These guys can never vote their way in. Give it up. Violence is the only way.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

46 thoughts on “White Nationalist Position on Immigration”

  1. Many countries have damn near zero legal immigration. Look at places like China and Japan, for instance.
    You keep saying that zero legal immigration is impossible, yet you haven’t said why. What’s so difficult about just shutting off immigration? It’s simple.

    1. Nope, China and Japan both have lots of immigration. In the case of China, LOTS. Thing is, for the most part it’s really hard to become a citizen in either country. But you can immigrate for sure.
      You keep saying that zero legal immigration is impossible, yet you haven’t said why.
      Well, for starters, 58% of Americans say that immigration is a good thing! And the elites are panicking because that’s the lowest level in 7 years. How’s about you characters get that, “We love immigration!” statistic down below 50% at least, and keep it there for more than a year, then maybe we can talk?
      While you are at it, commission a survey about how many Americans want to reduce legal immigration to zero. You guys are hilarious. You keep insisting you have tons of support on this or that question, but when we ask for a poll, we get all this weird hem-hawing and “We don’t believe in polls” stuff. Conduct a poll, show us your support, then we talk. Meantime, you’re barking dogs.
      What’s so difficult about just shutting off immigration? It’s simple.
      Well, for starters, I am not sure if there is one country on the face of the Earth that’s done it. And strike two, the US is one of the most immigrant-loving places on Earth.
      Ok, two strikes. Now what?

    2. The average Americans doesn’t understand that mass unskilled immigration cost them money with all the public services immigrants consume.
      The irony is that the liberal agenda for such things as universal health care (which I am leaning towards supporting) will be what wakes up people to the true cost of bringing in unskilled immigrants.

  2. Dear Robert
    I agree with you that, as long as so many Americans believe that the US can’t prosper without immigration and that diversity is a blessing, two grossly absurd beliefs, then bringing immigration down to zero, or nearly zero, will be impossible. However, there is nothing intrinsically impossible about it.
    If I were an American, I would allow 200 000 foreigners to enter the country as immigrants per year. Then that number would be allocated among refugees, foreign spouses, foreign babies and others. You start by having a cap. Of course, the probability of that happening soon is virtually nil.
    One argument that is often neglected in the immigration debate is that in a world of dwindling non-renewable resources, finite land and water and environmental vulnerability, there is no advantage at all in having a larger population. At current rates of growth, the American population will be at least 700 million in 2100. That means that each American will own only 3/7 of the land water that he owns now.
    In the dream world of neoliberal economists, there are only two resources: capital and labor. However, ultimately all wealth is natural wealth. If there are no fish in the oceans, then the best fishers and the most sophisticated fishing boats can’t produce fish. Capital and labor may be substitutes, but capital and labor on the one hand and natural resources on the other are complements.
    As population increases, each person becomes poorer in terms of natural wealth. If the US had not taken in any immigrants since 1840, its population today might be 120 million and it would still self-sufficient in oil.
    Regards. James

  3. “Which is why the US as a White country thing is headed out. The only way to save the US as a White country would probably be some sort of violence, either a revolution or some fascist-type coup.”
    Lol, you are forgetting that when Muslims are a majority in France, Holland, and England all the white Europeans are going to want to escape sharia law to the US. I think white America is going to be around for long then you think.
    Lets not forget either that there are tons of white majority states like North Dakota and Vermont that are not going to change much.
    In the meantime I think that racial conflict is going to erupt in California. In part Prop 13 was basically white California saying we don’t want to pay public services (public schooling) for all these poor Mexicans and their big families. This was the late 70s when the amount of Mexicans in CA wasn’t even that high. Today it is even worse and the state can’t cope.
    I know you hear this all the time but CA is going to start looking like Rio. Rich white people in gated communities. The slums filled with darker poor people and lots of crime.

    1. I’m not a white nationalist. However, I would be lying if I said that “I don’t see race.”
      I actually support bringing in Christians Arabs in to the US. The same goes for Christians in the Caucasus.
      I go by cold hard facts above all else. There is no country on the face of this earth that is multiracial, multiethnic, and/or multilingual that is stable. The bottom line is that different types of people have a very hard time living together.

    2. I’m not a white nationalist.
      Ok, but you sound just like one. I guess that means you are not a White separatist then?
      I actually support bringing in Christians Arabs in to the US. The same goes for Christians in the Caucasus.
      I guess you are not then.
      There is no country on the face of this earth that is multiracial, multiethnic, and/or multilingual that is stable.
      I guess you need to define stable then. You see, this is one of the lies of the White nationalists. One of their standard lies. Yet the vast majority of nations on Earth are multiethnic, multiracial and/or multilingual. So I guess you have to say that the vast majority of nations on Earth are unstable, is that what you are saying?
      The bottom line is that different types of people have a very hard time living together.
      This is another one of their wacky lies. Truth is that people have been doing just that in most parts of the world for a very long time now. And now that we don’t live in tribal villages anymore, ethnic uniformity is almost impossible. Truth is, people are pretty much ok with it, since that’s the way urban folks have been living forever in the world, but as a place gets more and more diverse, the diversity does tend to destabilize things sometimes.
      What happens is that the ethnic groups fight once in a while. If things are really bad, they fight all the time. It’s just natural human competition. People don’t mind living with other groups, but then the groups tend to compete and conflict at times. This is the human story.

    3. Yet the vast majority of nations on Earth are multiethnic, multiracial and/or multilingual.
      Yes in a limited sense, but all of those countries still have one dominate group. I’m talking about countries that don’t have one large grouping keeping the whole country together.
      By your definition Russia is multiethnic and multilingual. The reality is that Russians are like 80% of the population and they totally dominate the smaller groups. What do you think Russia would be like if it was only 40% Russian?
      Even prosperous Singapore which holds itself up as a diverse and tolerant society has its problems. The vast majority of the people are ethnically Chinese; imagine if Singapore had no dominant group and was like 33% Indian, 33% Chinese, and 33% Malay. It would be on the brink!
      “Truth is, people are pretty much ok with it, since that’s the way urban folks have been living forever in the world, but as a place gets more and more diverse, the diversity does tend to destabilize things sometimes.”
      People are not OK with it. White flight in the US wouldn’t exists if people were OK with it. Hindus and Muslims in India wouldn’t be killing each other if they were OK with each other. There would still be Armenians and Greeks in Turkey if everybody could just get along.

    4. That’s just the way it goes, Tom. People tend to live in multiethnic states to one degree or another. Pakistan still has all sorts of ethnic groups living there who speak all sorts of different languages. Muslims don’t really like to live with non-Muslims. Anywhere you have Muslims living with non-Muslims, the Muslims fight with them. Every single state on Earth just about is a multiethnic state to one degree or another, and typically has been since statehood. It’s a normal thing. People deal with it, and yeah, in general, they are ok with it. Despite the fact that ethnic groups fight from time to time.
      I really don’t see mass uprisings all over the planet of people who demand to live in a state with a single race, ethnicity or religion (except Muslims, because they can’t get along with non-Muslims).
      The only people who want to do this are some insane people called White nationalists who insist that everyone on Earth is an ethnic nationalist like them and wants to live in some monoethnic state. You’re crazy. You’re projecting. Most people don’t want that at all. Sure, people fight, but the multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious state is very common to the point where it’s pretty much normal.
      The only people who try to create monoethnic, monoracial or monoreligious states are fascists of one type or another. The fascists are responsible for the massacres you discuss. You know, your heroes. All you racists love fascists, and it’s the fascists who cause all the race problems.

    5. Wow, I must have hit a soft spot since I’m getting called names when I haven’t been disrespectful to you at all.
      Pakistan was part of British India. The reason India and Pakistan split up in the late 40s was because Hindus and Muslims couldn’t live with each other!
      As you know multiracial India has had a strict caste system for most of its history so I suppose you could call that multiracial “harmony.”
      The Ottoman Empire had a millet system where Christians and other minorities were second class citizens. Is that the kind of multiethnic society you speak of?
      “Every single state on Earth just about is a multiethnic state to one degree or another, and typically has been since statehood.”
      The key phrase is “to one degree or another.” Technically Romania is a multiethnic state because some Turks and Roma live there. But the point is that it is numerically dominated by ethnic Romanians. Everyone else is sidelined!
      I am talking about states that don’t have a single dominate group! That is what I mean when I say multi ethnic/racial/lingual. Please name some countries that do not have a single dominate group and are stable.
      I’ll start by naming some countries that have broke away from a former dominate country for racial, ethnic, and or linguistic reasons (It’ll be in a separate post).
      BTW: You should read “World on Fire” by Amy Chua.

    6. I’m not going to list countries that broke away from a former colonial power. I’ll list countries or unrecognized territories that broke away (or tried very hard to break away) from a neighboring state.
      Eritrea broke away from neighboring Ethiopia.
      East Timor broke away from Indonesia.
      Nagorno-Karabakh broke off of Azerbaijan.
      Adjara, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have all broken off Georgia. Adjara was forced back into Georgia.
      Chechnya has tried to separate from Russia; it hasn’t worked.
      The Kurdish areas have all tried to split off of Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.
      Southern Sudan fought a 20 year civil war to try to break away from the rest of Sudan.
      Ireland broke away from the UK and a civil war had gone on in Northern Ireland up until the last 10 years or so.
      Norway broke from a Sweden 100 years ago.
      Czechoslovakia peacefully split in two.
      Yugoslavia is no more.
      Kosovo split off of Serbia.
      Montenegro split off Serbia.
      Egypt and Syria tried uniting as a unified Arab republic. It only lasted a couple of years.
      Rebels in Western Sahara have fought to rid themselves of Moroccan rule.
      The PLO and Jordan fought a civil war in Jordan.
      The island of Cypress is divided into two.
      India and Pakistan have fought forever over a worthless piece of land called Kashmir.
      Quebec has tried to leave Canada in a peaceful way and it just barely failed because anglos in Quebec voted to stay.
      Transnistria has broken away from Moldova.
      Lebanon fought a 15 year bloody civil war.
      I’ve left out the Ottoman Empire, the USSR, and all the European colonial powers.

    7. All of Africa is multiethnic states. It’s mostly pretty stable and wars are not effecting most states. There are only a tiny few separatist rebellions in Africa. Sure, Indonesia is dominated by “Indonesians”, but there are like hundreds of ethnic groups in there. Papua New Guinea has no dominant ethnic group. Most Latin American countries have no dominant ethnic group as they are mixed with mestizos, Whites, mulattos, Blacks, etc. Most are pretty stable, and there are no separatist rebellions.
      Caste exists all over the world, even in monoethnic and monoreligious societies. Nothing new there. Sure, most states are somewhat fascist in that a dominant ethnic group lords it over everyone else and sidelines the minorities, as you put it. That’s classic fascism, and I can see right here that you support it.
      You’re never going to create your dream monoethnic states the world over, no matter if they are more stable or not. Just get over it. The trend is going in the other direction.
      Sure there are separatists. We Leftists support them. The monoethnic statist crowd you love tends to hate them and smash them every chance they get. They are all about “national consolidation.”

    8. I don’t really understand what you are getting at here. Sure in some cases, you have ethnic separatism. We Leftists support that and we believe in the right to self-determination. Most of those groups you list are led by Leftist movements. The wars in Ottoman Empire and European colonialism were anti-colonial rebellions.
      The USSR and Czechoslovakia only broke up peacefully because of decades of Communism that weakened nationalism.

    9. Most of those Africans countries are held together by a strong man! That is what it takes to keep tribal BS from flaring up.
      I wouldn’t call Indonesia stable. Indonesia is dominated by Javanese and had some pretty nasty pogroms against ethnic Chinese about 10 years ago.
      I’ll admit that I don’t know much about Papua New Guinea.
      “The wars in Ottoman Empire and European colonialism were anti-colonial rebellions.”
      That is why I didn’t list them.
      “The USSR and Czechoslovakia only broke up peacefully because of decades of Communism that weakened nationalism.”
      Yea, but they don’t want to live with each other or else they would still be together.
      “That’s classic fascism, and I can see right here that you support it.”
      Um, how do you know I support fascism? That is a big accusation.
      “Most Latin American countries have no dominant ethnic group as they are mixed with mestizos, Whites, mulattos, Blacks, etc. Most are pretty stable, and there are no separatist rebellions.”
      Um, are you sure? There is kidnappings all the time and crime is out of control in all of those diverse Latin American countries. I wouldn’t call Latin America stable. BTW: Mexico has an indigenous separatist movement.

    10. Tom, in addition to Chinese, there are like 200-300 different types of so-called “Indonesians.” They’re not all one group at all. They mostly get along, but there is one secessionist movement that’s really an anti-colonialist movement against Indonesia. And in Aceh there was a similar movement. But of the 200 or go groups, most of em get along pretty good.
      Yea, but they don’t want to live with each other or else they would still be together.
      Yes there is a tendency for actual nations to support national liberation and self-determination, sure, we support that.
      Um, how do you know I support fascism? That is a big accusation.
      Fascists want a monoethnic, monoracial and/or monoreligious state and reject plurality. Left supports more multicultural autonomy.
      Um, are you sure? There is kidnappings all the time and crime is out of control in all of those diverse Latin American countries. I wouldn’t call Latin America stable. BTW: Mexico has an indigenous separatist movement.
      There’s a lot of crime in some places, but it has nothing to do with race. There is extreme inequality in the region (which you support) and that drives the crime and whatnot. There are also revolutionary movements due to extreme inequality. There is no separatist movement in Mexico or any serious one anywhere in Latin America and there never will be.

    11. How have come two neighbouring European peoples, such as Czechs and Slovacs, to be considered totally irreconciliable, but White Americans, coming from all the corners of Europe and therefore bringing wildly differing cultural traditions, AND developing clearly recognizable regional cultures across the States, are to be regarded authomagically as a single ethnic group that deserves a separate nation of its own? that baffles me. And BTW, Switzerland is a clear example of a stable and succesful multiethnic. Swiss Germans are mayority but they don’t really run things there.

    12. How have come two neighbouring European peoples, such as Czechs and Slovaks, to be considered totally irreconcilable, but White Americans, coming from all the corners of Europe and therefore bringing wildly differing cultural traditions, AND developing clearly recognizable regional cultures across the States, are to be regarded automagically as a single ethnic group that deserves a separate nation of its own?
      Good point, that doesn’t make sense at all.
      Also Hawaii is quite stable and it’s ethnic soup over there.

    13. Switzerland isn’t really a “nation” by most standards. It is a very decentralized confederation. A canton can leave if it so pleases.
      Hawaii has a racial hierarchy. Lighter skinned people like White Americans and Japanese are at the top. Filipinos are further down and Native Hawaiians are at the bottom.
      “Tom, in addition to Chinese, there are like 200-300 different types of so-called “Indonesians.” They’re not all one group at all.”
      Indonesia is dominated by the Javanese.
      “There’s a lot of crime in some places, but it has nothing to do with race.”
      The kidnappings are race related in a lot of cases.
      So much crime happens because the governments are weak. Weak and ineffective governments are in part the byproduct of multiracial societies.

    14. I am not sure where you are trying to go with this conversation, Tom. Sure, racial hierarchies form in multiethnic states, what else is new? Racial hierarchies exist between states too. They exist the world over.
      What point are you trying to make here? That every nation on Earth should be some monoethnic state or something? Well, that’s an interesting idea. And you are correct that as places get increasingly diverse, increased diversity tends to cause increased instability.
      But most of the time folks just get along and every now and then different groups fight. That’s the nature of mankind, and I would think that you rightwingers would support inter-ethnic conflict and competition. After all, it’s we socialists who argue for solidarity.
      Sure, monoethnic states would probably be more stable, except that monoethnic states also have a tendency to become insanely racist and supremacist and to launch wild imperialistic war against “inferiors.” The fascist monoethnic states of the 1930’s being a prime example.
      I’m not sure what your point is. People are going to keep on creating increasingly diverse and multiracial, multiethnic and multireligous states, whether it causes instability or not. People are not going to move towards monoethnic states. Things are moving in the opposite direction. So what is your point?
      The kidnappings in Latin America have nothing to do with race at all only in that a lot of the rich victims tend to be White, because Whites are more likely to be rich.

    15. “That’s the nature of mankind, and I would think that you rightwingers would support inter-ethnic conflict and competition.”
      How do you know I’m a right winger? I already said I am leaning towards supporting health care reform in a previous post.
      And implying that I support inter-ethnic conflict like the Armenian Genocide for example is a disgusting accusation to make.
      However, I will admit that I have little sympathy for overpopulated countries like India because I feel they brought their problems on themselves. This doesn’t mean that I actually take pleasure in their misery though.

    16. I don’t know what you are, Tom.
      I still can’t figure you out. You’re a White racialist and a White racist, but beyond that, I can’t categorize you. I’ll take your word you’re not a White nationalist, which means you don’t want a separatist state.

  4. I know you hear this all the time but CA is going to start looking like Rio. Rich white people in gated communities. The slums filled with darker poor people and lots of crime.
    “Going” to start looking that way?
    It’s been getting more and more like that for a good 20 years or more now.

  5. Nope, China and Japan both have lots of immigration. In the case of China, LOTS. Thing is, for the most part it’s really hard to become a citizen in either country. But you can immigrate for sure.
    Sources please. I know that Japan is over 99% ethnically Japanese. Obviously they aren’t taking many immigrants. In the case of China – what immigrants and from where? What are you talking about?

    1. You can definitely immigrate to Japan, but it’s almost impossible to become a citizen. Those figures must be lies, or they are only counting citizens. Japan is full of Filipinos and there are vast numbers of Chinese illegal aliens flooding the place, brought in by snakehead gangs.
      I know a Black guy who is living there right now with his Japanese wife. I think they check immigrants really carefully though.
      There are lots of Korean immigrants in China. For some reason, there are lots of African immigrants too. And mainly, there are all sorts of White people living there, mostly doing business or teaching English. It’s not a problem at all. I believe I was offered a job there myself teaching English in Anhui Province. It’s not like they keep people out of there.
      But I think they make it hard to become a citizen. Places that allow immigration but make it hard to be a citizen, well, immigrants don’t tend to stick around all that long.
      As you well know, Jared Taylor grew up in Japan. Japan is kind of a drag for immigrants though because the Japanese are so racist and they make you feel so unwelcome.

  6. I’m not talking about expats who live there temporarily. I’m talking about *immigrants* – people who come to stay permanently. There are damn near zero legal immigrants in China, Japan, or in most countries not populated by white people (also Latin America).

    1. You’re crazy. Tons of people immigrate to Latin America, they immigrate to India, they immigrate all over the place in Africa, they immigrate in the Middle East. I don’t know what you are talking about, really. People immigrate all over SE Asia too. It’s just a normal thing. Plus Muslims immigrate all over the Muslim World. In particular, the Gulf is full of immigrants, mostly from East India and the Philippines.
      And I don’t understand this bit about someone “living there temporarily” and an “immigrant” to the US, who comes to live “permanently.” The only reason they come to live permanently is because we offer to make them into citizens.
      Immigration flows tend to run from poorer countries to richer ones and not the other way around, but people move around the poor countries a lot too.
      China is full of Korean immigrants, and Japan is swarming with Chinese illegals.
      An immigrant is an immigrant. I’ll grant you one point. A lot of places make it hard to become a citizen. We don’t. The White West is a bit different in that we make it easy for immigrants to become citizens. Maybe that’s why people come here to stay.
      But you’re insane to think that the only immigration flows on Earth are “towards White countries.”

    2. LOL, Reader- you are a fucking idiot. There are a lot of white people in Japan too, you dumb ass..
      Because I have met many of them In Japan..They always cry about the racism they face in Japan..

    3. “In particular, the Gulf is full of immigrants, mostly from East India and the Philippines.”
      Those aren’t immigrants; they are modern day slaves. All those people are treated like shit and are forced to leave after a certain time.
      True, people are migrating all over the world but the number of immigrants per capita is by far the highest in the white countries.
      100,000 Africans in China (a country of over 1 billion people) isn’t the same as 100,000 Africans immigrating to Canada (a country of just 30 million people).

    4. What the Hell are you talking about, man? Are you saying they are guest workers?
      True, people are migrating all over the world but the number of immigrants per capita is by far the highest in the white countries.
      You may have a point there, I’m not sure. There are vast immigration flows towards Singapore, the Gulf and Hong Kong. There is a serious immigrant problem in Mexico and Dominican Republic. North Africa is full of Black African immigrants. There are lots of immigrants now in South Korea.
      The reason so many come here is because we are rich. People move from poor countries to rich. Also, we do let a lot in. Many other countries will hardly let you immigrate there, but people do it anyway if it’s a rich country.
      It mostly has to do with wealth, plus White countries make it real easy for an immigrant to become a citizen, and that’s a magnet. Also a lot of other countries don’t let immigrants receive any benefits. We are awful generous to our immigrants, so they flood here.

    5. “What the Hell are you talking about, man? Are you saying they are guest workers? ”
      I think you are talking about the south asians in the gulf right? Yes, they are guest workers. They are forced to live packed into dormitories. I heard that they even take away their passports but I’m not sure this is true. The authorities kick them out after a couple of years and bring in fresh blood.
      Even with the educated westerners if you don’t have a job you can’t stay; unless you are rich.

  7. Immigration is supposed to be a two way street. The host country provides resources and opportunities to succeed to potential immigrants that they otherwise won’t have in their homelands. At the same time immigrants should have something to offer to the host. An immigrant needs to have some basic aptitude that allows him/her to assimilate and contribute to the growth of the host country. Countries such as Canada have developed a points system that insists on knowledge of English among other things. I advocate somewhat more stringent requirements that immigrants must fulfill for a permanent residency permit (green card):
    1. Knowledge of English demonstrated by a score of at least 250 on the TOEFL.
    2. A 75th percentile score in the SAT general or a similar aptitude test. This ensures proficiency in basic logic and arithmetic.
    3. A 60th percentile score on one of the SAT subject test. This will ensure that the immigrant can demonstrate basic understanding of at least one discipline.
    In other words, if you are good enough to be admitted into one of the more decent universities in the US, then you have at least the basic aptitude to succeed. Any person meeting these 3 requirements will likely contribute to the development of the country and will be less inclined to become a parasite (welfare) or criminal.

    1. A huge issue is chain migration. Even smart Indian doctors who immigrate to the US eventually sponsor their whole extended family and the American taxpayer gets screwed no matter what.
      I personally know someone who’s family sponsored the grandparent so that grandparent could come here and get social security in the US. It is unbelievable.

    2. Technically, immigrants may be allowed to bring their immediate family but those individuals should not be provided taxpayer sponsored services until they meet the above mentioned requirements. That is, they should be treated as legal aliens with temporary residence permits and should not be entitled to social security/medicare benefits. The immigrants should bear the families’ financial responsibility and provide proof to the government every year. If they cannot afford to pay for their dependents, they should send them back.
      Also, there should be a restriction on receiving social security. The immigrant should have worked for at least 10 years and paid into the system before they become eligible for benefits.

    3. ” Even smart Indian doctors who immigrate to the US eventually sponsor their whole extended family and the American taxpayer gets screwed no matter what.” Smart Indian MDs and PhDs come to the US and pay higher taxes than the average citizen, have private health insurance, and their children go on to elite programs at magnet or private schools. Just how does the taxpayer get screwed?
      “I personally know someone who’s family sponsored the grandparent so that grandparent could come here and get social security in the US. It is unbelievable.” Huh? You only get paid Social Security if you pay into the system. US citizens do not het Social Security if they have not paid into the system.

    4. “US citizens do not get Social Security if they have not paid into the system.”
      I was not aware of this when I advocated this position in my post above. Is there an official link where we can confirm this?

    5. “Huh? You only get paid Social Security if you pay into the system. US citizens do not het Social Security if they have not paid into the system.”
      Any citizen or green card holder over 62 years old can get social security and medicare.

  8. Another illegal immigration issue that Jared Taylor frequently sites is that poll results suggest a majority of Mexican immigrants believe the land acquired in the 1846 war should be ceeded to Mexico, and that most of them settle in that part of the US. Hence, they’re an actual national security issue, not just an economic/diversity/assimilation problem.

  9. Where can I immigrate to? I want to escape this dumbed down race dumpster run by misguided white haired Ted Kennedy types. Where would be a good place for a creative American WN to relocate to? Some culture in the form of older (pre-Soviet) architecture would be nice if it’s East Europe. I’ve heard Zagreb and Montenegro aren’t over run with Muslims and Africans yet. Help!

  10. A little like FPY saying because of the low qualititative level of the American (People) (see Imperium for why People is in caps) all hope is gone-but he even included revolutionary hope, until after an economic or military collapse.

  11. And I don’t understand this bit about someone “living there temporarily” and an “immigrant” to the US, who comes to live “permanently.” The only reason they come to live permanently is because we offer to make them into citizens.
    Yeah, the fact that they aren’t made into citizens and also AREN’T STAYING PERMANENTLY and EVENTUALLY GOING HOME are huge distinctions. They are on visas and as soon as their job or whatever is finished, they get the boot. If they have kids while they’re there (with other expats), the kids don’t get citizenship. The demographics of their country is not permanently altered. It’s NOT immigration. You are misusing the term immigration. China and Japan have basically ZERO legal immigration.

  12. I noticed a few bloggers having a little disagreement about whether it is possible to draw money out of Social Security without having paid into the system. To get money out of Social Security proper, either you have to have paid in or you have to be a dependent of somebody who paid in.
    People who say immigrants (or anybody else) can get money out of the system without having paid in are probably conflating Social Security with Supplemental Security Income. To get SSI payments, you merely have to (a) have few assets and very low income and (b) be 65 or older, blind, or disabled (any one of the three). Details are at this web site: http://mhawestchester.org/benefits/ssi.asp.
    The Supplemental Security Income program is administered by the Social Security Administration, but payments are made from US Treasury general funds (not Social Security trust funds). One needn’t have paid a red cent into Social Security to qualify for SSI.
    Large numbers of immigrants appear to be bringing their elderly parents over and arranging for them to get Supplemental Security Income; see this link: http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/retirement-home.html. VDARE.com’s Joe Guzzardi remarked that “SSI is the ne plus ultra of immigration scams.” It’s a “scam” because the children are required to promise the immigration authorities that their parents won’t become “public charges” as a condition of bringing them over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *