Steve Sailer writes:
In reality, a centrist, effective President like Eisenhower presided over a mass deportation of illegal aliens to Mexico with barely any controversy. The 1965 immigration act was sold to Congress explicitly as having minimal impact on diversity. The 1986 amnesty was sold as a one-time deal that would impose harsh employer penalties that would eliminate future illegal immigration. Bill Clinton appointed a black lesbian civil rights leader, Barbara Jordan, to chair an immigration commission, and Jordan reported back that America should crack down hard on illegal immigration and significantly cut legal immigration. The New York Times editorialized strongly against amnesty as recently as 2000 for the same reasons that Donald Trump and Ann Coulter give today: it’s bad for Americans’ wages.
Instead, the long-term impact of the drip-drip-drip of demographic change has been denied and hushed up as nothing to worry about. Only in the last few years when the negative effects have become obvious has the tune been changed to: Americans and Europeans have _always_ favored massive demographic inundation from abroad. That’s who we are.
But this is a rewrite of history.
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* He who controls the present controls the past. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
* I noticed in the early 90s that economics professors were starting to get more respect & media adulation, remarkable for what had been considered a singularly dull specialty (cf. Rodney Dangerfield or “Bueller? Bueller?”). By the standards of the subject Louis Rukeyser was considered like a really funny cat. But gradually they got younger and more telegenic… It had to do with their contemporaneous perfuming association with Getting Rich of course, and so before long the fad of “economists” (or “economic gurus,” “rock-star economists,” “Freakonomists,” ad nauseam) was inflicted upon us, and you started reading these jerks’ opinions in the paper every day. Didn’t need to be Nobel material. The term was equally valid describing a Congressman or a producer of pump-and-dump infomercials on Saturday morning TV.
The economists were attuned to their patrons’ best interests & grabbed the no-borders/liquidate-everybody scam while it was hot, at a point when unearned academic prestige still lingered around the field. Lately thanks to the post-2008 unpleasantness parts of the public were hipped to it, with many accustomed to view economists as basically whores, spin doctors, etc. But I doubt it’s one of those fake new professions that will die suddenly. As collateral damage they’ve debauched the academic side of it, if social science/academe in general needed any help to achieve broad-based self-humiliation– any modern faculty member not teaching something patently musty like chemical engineering or Latin is automatically suspect or taken for a meretricious fraud dedicated to shillsearch on behalf of jeans/hoodie-wearing globo-tycoons. Reagan had to joke about drunken sailors, whereas today any AM talk host can profitably mine the local university brass for a punch-line. Far off from the old-fashioned beer commercial parody of tweed-jacketed prof w/ pipe; now it’s the exact opposite complaint, I think.
* The change in opinions of the elites of both parties on immigration seems to be the result of their complete surrender to Wall Street interests, with Bill Clinton/Al Gore leading the way on the Democratic side and George H. W. Bush and his son leading the way on the Republican side.
George H. W. Bush, elected during the implementation of the 1986 amnesty, helped to gut many of its enforcement provisions, and George W. Bush and Jack Kemp continued the push. On the Democratic side, Clinton/Gore seem to have come around to the same position by 1996, when they worked hard to increase immigrant naturalization numbers in order so they could vote.
It’s interesting to note that as recently as the 1970s we had a mostly Democratic Texas state legislature that was willing to pass a bill banning children of illegal immigrants from attending public schools, and which was only overturned by a (yet to be Reaganized) U.S. Supreme Court by the margin of one vote. And in 1994, of course, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny all state benefits to illegal immigrants.
The capture of so many U.S. institutions by the open borders lobby is of only very recent vintage. In part, I suspect it’s due to them losing concern over the socialist consequences of a land full of huddled, diverse masses, and their realization at how effective diversity can be at dividing opposition to plutocratic elites. Black voters are voting overwhelmingly for Hedge Fund Hillary, while Obama has been more than happy to let the perpetrators of the 2008 economic collapse go Scot free (in exchange for being paid, one can safely assume, in board appointments and “speaking fees” after leaving office). Ironically, it only seems to be many of the “rich Republican” voters who have caught on to this Wall Street scam.
Perhaps the biggest reason immigration policy has moved so far to the left over the last 20 years is that Wall Street has perfected the art of legalized bribery.
* “Open Borders has always been a very, very tough sell, so it’s perhaps truer to say that the case for Open Borders has seldom been seriously argued because it was so obviously weak.”
Yes! Then we must ask why now there is such a concerted effort from all directions to stop the one American presidential candidate who at least professes consistently to want to stop the open borders insanity.
The Powers-That-Be are doing everything they can to disinform you and steal the nomination from Donald Trump, that odd, orange man. From where do they get all their power? Why now do they feel so confident as to to openly conspire to prevent American Republicans from selecting a nationalist candidate?
Yes, Open Borders has always been a hard sell, so this now blatent hard selling makes it clear that our elite do not fear any consequences. They are not afraid that we will shut the door on their face, as any good homeowner would do to an unwelcome salesman.
* The remarkable thing about talk regarding immigration is the sheer vacuity of argument for the position that it is a great good, and that, more bizarrely, opposition to it can be based only on vile motives.
One of our borders notoriously allows people to enter illegally, perhaps by the millions, and is the major avenue whereby illegal drugs — recognized by all to be a great scourge — enter our country. Yet, today, the idea of building a wall to prevent this is held to be so far beyond the pale that proposing it demonstrates one’s unfitness to be President — or indeed any political or prominent private office.
How did we ever get talked into this madness?
* “skilled immigration should continue.”
In your country, not mine.
A) I want those high skilled jobs for *my* kids and grandkids, not some foreigners. We have a ton of kids graduating college–even kids who actually *belong* in college by any standard, not just the new “everyone goes to college” idea–who can’t find jobs. This actually hits some of our smartest kids–our own STEM grads–hard, because those fields are flooded with foreigners.
B) Importing smart but hostile\alienated people is a recipe for disaster. The worse thing in the world is to be *ruled* by people who don’t really feel that the population they rule is “us”, but rather see it as “them”. (That’s a big part of why we’re in this mess.)
This idea that America–or any white nation–is lacking in people with the IQ to be successful is ridiculous. We did nuclear weapons and power, digital computers, jet aircraft, launched the Internet and personal computers and went to the moon with pasty faced white people.
Africa no doubt could use a lot of high skill immigration. But all that’s required in any white (or East Asian) nation is a closed border and culture and incentives for eugenic fertility. Get smart women to have larger families and restrict the stupid, the screwups, the welfare cases to have zero or “one and done”.
