Michele Bachmann denounced immigration reform in her speech at CPAC today, warning that "Wall Street and big business" are "clamoring for amnesty" in order to turn the US into "a country of dependency and the welfare state."
Michele Bachmann denounced immigration reform in her speech at CPAC today, warning that "Wall Street and big business" are "clamoring for amnesty" in order to turn the US into "a country of dependency and the welfare state."
William Gheen of the anti-immigrant Americans For Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) sent out an email yesterday announcing that he has “acquired a premium new domain to use in the fight against illegal immigration, illegal immigrants, and any form of amnesty for illegals.”
It turns out that the new website, illegalimmigration.com, is a sort of wiki, inviting users to discuss (although it appears not to edit) articles on diverse subjects including “illegal immigration,” “illegal immigrants,” “immigrants,” and “Obama and illegal immigration.”
Gheen has stocked the site with some initial articles, which bear his trademark spotty punctuation and anti-immigrant hysteria. We’ve collected some nuggets of wisdom from this new encyclopedia of Gheen’s mind.
Illegal immigration refers to a criminal act that is willfully committed by someone who enters into a nation of which they are not a citizen in violation of the laws of that land. While illegal immigration occurs in most countries, the biggest problems with illegal immigration are occurring in America and Europe where illegal immigrants from very poor countries are entering more developed nations in an effort to obtain more jobs, money, healthcare, education, and taxpayer benefits.
Many people consider illegal immigration to be a form of invasion and a form of theft because illegal immigrants come and take things such as jobs, taxpayer resources, and healthcare that are not theirs but belong to others.
Many American pundits have expressed the opinion that Barack Obama should be impeached for encouraging illegal immigration, illegal immigrants, and amnesty by decree!
Illegal immigrants are people just like the rest of us. They have feelings, emotions, they love, they hate, they make mistakes like we all do.
Unlike the vast majority of American citizens though, illegal immigrants have made a decision to break numerous important American laws. Illegal immigrants have put their own desires and well being ahead of the needs and desires of American citizens.
Immigrants is a term that should be reserved for legal immigrants only!
Those that support the costly and deadly illegal immigrant invasion of America and amnesty for illegal aliens are constantly trying to refer to the invaders by the noble name of 'immigrant'.
The Dream Act is Orwellian language used to try to sell a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants and illegal aliens. The word Dream is used as a reference to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech which in fact has no real relationship to the plight of illegal aliens.
The Dream Act is also a political lever designed to play on the sympathies of American citizens and lawmakers to get them to allow an amnesty for younger illegal aliens under 35 that claim they were brought into the United States as Children.
The problem with the American global media is that every major news network is now biased in favor of illegal immigrants and immigration reform amnesty after Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch joined with super liberal NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to try to pass amnesty.
Anyone trying to get accurate news about illegal immigration has to learn to read between the lines and locate alternative news publications and agregate websites because the damages and deaths caused by illegal immigrants are censored on a regular basis.
In a video address to the alternative CPAC conferenced hosted by Breitbart News today, Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian claimed that Democrats support higher levels of immigration so that they can “import voters” and “create the conditions, such as increased poverty, increased lack of health insurance, that lead even non-immigrant voters to be more receptive to big government solutions” and to vote Democratic.
Speaking at today’s “Homeland Threats” national security summit, an alternative to CPAC hosted by Brietbart News and moderated by Frank Gaffney, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) compared immigration enforcement on the southern border to recreational fishing.
He told a story about going out with border patrol agents who would “catch and release” immigrants like a recreational fisher because they “like their jobs” and want to keep them.
Later in the speech, King said that when Reagan signed an immigration reform bill in 1986, he was so angry that he “kicked my filing cabinet.” If immigration reform passes again, King warned, “we won’t be able to restore the rule of law within the lifetime of this republic.”
Yesterday, Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach suffered a double setback when the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals of decisions striking down two local anti-immigrant ordinances that Kobach had written and shepherded through the courts. Now, both towns are facing the possibility of paying legal fees for opponents on top of years of legal costs that they had already incurred.
Kobach was behind an ordinance in Farmers Branch, Texas, that required people to prove they were in the country legally in order to rent a home and one in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, that would have penalized people who rent to or employ undocumented immigrants. Both ordinances were struck down by federal courts, and neither town succeeded in appealing those decisions to the Supreme Court.
In August, the Dallas Morning News reported that Farmers Branch, a town of 29,000 people, had already spent $6 million defending the law since it was first passed in 2006, and expected to pay $2 million in legal fees for its opponents if it lost in the courts. The town has already been forced to cut back in other areas of its budget in order to keep up with the costs of defending the ordinance, despite a $500,000 contribution from real estate heir Trammell Crow.
Meanwhile, Hazleton reported last year that it had spent nearly $500,000 on legal fees since 2006, financed mostly from donations from an online fundraising campaign, along with a $50,000 gift from Crow. But the Hazleton Standard Speaker reports today that the city’s legal defense fund has dried up and it’s facing the possibility of paying millions of dollars in legal fees for civil rights groups that challenged the law. The town of 25,000 faces these costs on top of a pension fund deficit of over $28 million.
Even Kobach-backed ordinances that fare better in the courts can still present huge costs for cities that take up his anti-immigrant crusade. Residents of Fremont, Nebraska, voted last month to keep a similar Kobach-written anti-immigrant ordinance after it was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the ordinance was first passed in 2010, the town raised its property taxes in order to set aside $1.5 million to pay legal fees and implementation costs; the town also risks losing millions of dollars in future federal grants.
While Kobach uses small cities to push his anti-immigrant experiments, those cities are forced to foot the bill as they work through the courts. The cities sometimes even pay for Kobach's services. The Southern Poverty Law Center noted in 2011 that "Kobach has said that he normally charges about $50,000 a year to defend his ordinances against legal challenges. He described that rate as under market and said he wants to ensure 'the cities can afford it.'"
States that push Kobach's harsh anti-immigrant laws have also faced enormous costs. Arizona spent millions of dollars defending SB1070 before it was ultimately largely struck down by the Supreme Court, and lost an estimated $23 million in tax revenue and $350 in direct spending from a resulting economic boycott.
Kobach’s home state is hardly immune from this either – state election officials are now facing the possibility of having to set up a dual elections system in which 15,000 voters caught up in Kobach’s voter ID plan will be allowed to vote only in federal elections – a costly bureaucratic nightmare.
Georgia Republican congressman and Senate candidate Paul Broun has been trying to out-extreme his opponents on the issue of immigration reform, announcing in a debate this weekend that the only immigration law he wants is one “that makes English the official language of America.” In an interview with Tea Party Express earlier this month, Broun made the same policy recommendation, claiming that comprehensive immigration reform would be “disastrous for Republicans” and “disastrous for anybody who is freedom-loving.”
Later in the interview, Broun claimed that “both political parties today are domestic enemies to the Constitution” and that he is a “freedom-fighter” who is “fighting those people.”
I think if John Boehner were to press on with comprehensive immigration reform, it will be disastrous for Republicans, not only in this election, but for decades to come. And it would be disastrous for anybody who is freedom-loving and wants to reduce the size of government. I introduced the “No Amnesty” resolution, which says, “no amnesty for anyone with any immigration reform.” And we should not have amnesty. We should be a nation that is directed under the rule of law.
Until we secure the borders, nothing else matters. And then we have to start enforcing the laws that are on the books. There’s only one new law I would like to see passed. One, and only one. And that’s one to make English the official language of America.
We’ve got to go back to the limited government as our founding fathers meant it, and that means by golly we’ve got to go back to the Constitution. When I was sworn into the Marine Corps, when I was sworn into Congress, I swore to uphold the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. Both political parties today are domestic enemies to the Constitution. I’m fighting those people. I’m a freedom fighter. I’m fighting for liberty and freedom.
The Family Research Council is deeply troubled that Democrats have the gall to try to win elections in the state of Texas. On Washington Watch yesterday, FRC senior fellow Kenneth Blackwell said that President Obama is “trying to keep the border of Texas very open and porous” to allow undocumented immigrants to enter the state so they can vote Democratic, even though they are not US citizens and therefore cannot vote.
Blackwell even tied this “very disturbing” Democratic conspiracy to the lawsuit against the Texas voter ID law, a measure that would bar the 1.4 million Texas voters who lack a photo ID from voting.
“There’s a confluence of events and activities that taken as a group paints a very disturbing picture,” Blackwell told host Tony Perkins.
“Think about Texas and think about how the left is now trying to keep the border of Texas very open and porous and so you look at the number of illegals who are crossing the lines and now you have folks trying to make it easier—they’re fighting Texas in court to make voter ID illegal in Texas -- all of the sudden you see non-registered, non-legal citizens coming over the border, you see this effort by field organizers to get data on folks, making it very easy for them to mobilize those voters on Election Day.”
Of course, Blackwell’s argument is completely bogus. The Texas voter ID law would do extremely little to curtail voter fraud. The Dallas Morning News found last year that of the mere 66 people in Texas charged with voting irregularities since 2004, just “four cases involved someone illegally casting a ballot at a polling place where a picture ID would have prevented it.”
Blackwell also made a patently false claim about Obama’s handling of the US-Mexico border, as the number of border patrol agents on the southern border has grown to record highs since Obama came into office:
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
This week, we learn that NFL prospect Michael Sam helped usher in the reign of the Antichrist by coming out of the closet, although apparently the Devil already controls the United Nations.
5. Satan Behind United Nations
The United Nations released a report this month that is heavily critical of the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of sex abuse cases. Church spokesmen were outraged by the scope of the study. “The range of the report appeared to infuriate the Vatican,” the Washington Post reported. “In blunt language, the committee took particular aim at church stances on sexual orientation, reproductive health and gender equality.”
Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) blamed Satan for the investigation. “Only the Devil could tell children they have a right to sex and abortion,” Ruse said in a message to C-FAM members.
“This committee has basically said that children have a right under this treaty to have sex, to use condoms and to get abortions. And that Church opposition to this is a violation of human rights,” Ruse said. “This Committee actually told the Church that its teaching on homosexuality has caused violence against the same-sex attracted.”
“What these radicals need a good shaking.”
4. Immigrants Will Turn Us Into Slaves
Phyllis Schlafly has been making the rounds on right-wing media to push her claim that Latino immigrants don’t share American values because they are less likely to vote Republican and back a right-wing political agenda. InfoWars host Alex Jones strongly agreed with Schlafly, and warned that immigrants will team up with George Soros to “support literally making those of us that produce their slaves.”
“This takes us back to a democracy where two wolves can vote to eat the sheep for dinner,” Jones said.
3. Michael Sam Helping The Gay Antichrist
McKissic is especially concerned that the likely NFL draft pick will “become the face of the ‘gay rights’ movement that takes us down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah at a record setting pace.” America’s transformation into Sodom, McKissic warns, will bring about the coming of the Antichrist, who he thinks will probably be gay.
2. Google, Gawker Are Persecuting WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily insists that Google is unjustly threatening it for violating the company’s ad policy regarding the use of “derogatory racial or ethnic slurs to refer to an individual or group.” Adam Weinstein at Gawker noted that the right-wing website has published 670 stories on “black mob” violence, while WND editor Joseph Farah offered a less-than-convincing defense of WND’s handling of race issues.
Now Farah is striking back, arguing that Gawker has pretty much ruined the Internet with its “venomous, personal, ad hominem, groundless attack” against him.
“It’s mean-spirited. It’s irresponsible. It’s childish and immature,” Farah writes in an editorial today. “You can see it for yourself, but I would caution you the coarse, vulgar language and name-calling is pretty rough. Don’t blame me. I’m just the target. Visitor beware.” Thanks to Gawker, this “early Internet entrepreneur and pioneer” is “starting to hate the Internet.”
Farah added: “I wonder if people like this Gawker guy would allow his children to read his posts – if he has children or knows any. I guess it would be even more disturbing if he would or does. What are their standards? Do they have any? Is it supposed to be funny?”
1. Gay Marriage Leads To Parent-Child Marriage
Mitch McConnell’s GOP primary challenger Matt Bevin is doing the best he can to link the incumbent senator to a recent federal court ruling that struck down part of Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage. The Tea Party-backed candidate told a Religious Right talk show host this week that if same-sex marriage becomes legal, soon parents will be able to marry their children.
Bevin’s campaign spokesman defended his remarks and accused Right Wing Watch of “gross misrepresentation” of the candidate’s comments…which we merely quoted verbatim.
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King set off a political firestorm last year when he claimed that for every valedictorian who would benefit from the DREAM Act, “there’s another hundred out there who they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
King’s remarks drew heated criticism from progressives, but also from members of his own party, including House Speaker John Boehner, who reportedly called King an “asshole.” This criticism in turn caused King to become hilariously self-righteous, accusing Boehner of making “hateful or ignorant comments” and using “indelicate language.”
In an interview with the Spencer, Iowa, Daily Reporter posted on YouTube today, King continued to lash out at his critics, saying, “they cannot make a point about anything I said that was anything other than true.” He added that his detractors just “call names and criticize the utilization of the language.”
In fact, King claimed that his infamous “cantaloupes” comment was actually an intentional and successful policy move. “Sometimes, I’ve made the point for years and they weren’t listening, so I’ve found another way to get them to pay attention,” he said. “For example, Dick Durbin, as far as I know, no longer describes the DREAMers as ‘valedictorians.’ We’ve corrected that major flaw and sometimes we have to, otherwise it distorts the public’s understand.”
“When they start calling names, they’ve lost the debate,” he said.
King also illustrated his point with a long story about how he doesn’t want the U.S. to be like the Netherlands.
Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt has a new theory that support for immigration reform is the position “that’s actually racist.”
In a column Tuesday, Hurt accused Democrats of staging a “deviously racist” “brown-face minstrel show routine” when it comes to immigration reform, because, he says, Democrats want “millions more” to “become addicted to the pitiful, slow-drip government teat” and turn into “another plantation of impoverished, enslaved voters”:
When Democrats “fight” for illegals, they talk about wanting to grant them amnesty for their crimes, welfare for not working and free health care. This way, Democrats presume, millions more will become addicted to the pitiful, slow-drip government teat and the party will enjoy another plantation of impoverished, enslaved voters for decades to come.
If Republicans are smart and genuinely serious about addressing the scourge of illegal immigration, they will reject these Democratic assumptions that illegals are intent on nothing more than being lazy deadbeat scofflaws and denounce Democrats for such a deviously racist portrayal.
Hurt elaborated on his argument in an interview with Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg yesterday, in which he insisted that “the Democratic position is the one that’s actually racist because they keep pandering to immigrants and illegal immigrants and say the only thing they care about is being granted amnesty for their crimes and being given welfare and being given free medical care.”
He claimed that Democrats think that "all these illegals...aspire to do is be sort of deadbeat criminals."
“The truth of the matter,” Hurt said, is that undocumented immigrants are “looking to work” and to be “lawful citizens.”
Hurt seems to have missed that the whole point of immigration reform is to allow undocumented immigrants to work and become lawful citizens.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has been busy peddling her new anti-immigration report to conservative media, and yesterday took her case to Infowars, where she chatted about immigration with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Schlafly repeated her frequent claim that most of “the Hispanics coming in” don’t “even understand or want a smaller government” and therefore will ultimately end “freedom and prosperity” in America. “They’re not voting for amnesty, they’re voting for handouts by the government and they get that by going Democratic,” she said.
Jones wholeheartedly agreed, adding that new immigrants will then “support literally making those of us that produce they’re slaves.”
“It would be a joke if it weren’t so really tragic,” Schlafly concurred.
Conservative pundit Pat Buchanan today praised a successful anti-immigration referendum in Switzerland as a boon for the larger “patriotic, populist and nationalist right.” He hailed “patriot parties” such as the National Front of France, Freedom Party of the Netherlands, Northern League of Italy and Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) of Belgium as models for right-wing activists in the US.
So what drives the far-right parties that Buchanan sees as inspirations?
Buchanan adds that Americans, taking a page from the Swiss, should “vote on a timeout on all immigration.”
Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, is praising the “great courage” of the Swiss and has launched a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot in France.
“Similar calls have come from the Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, who is ahead in several recent polls; the Austrian Freedom Party, which showed strong gains in September’s national elections; the Danish People’s Party … and Sweden’s Democratic Party,” writes the Financial Times.
Though the parties of the patriotic, populist and nationalist right have been notoriously independent of one another, three months ago, Le Pen’s National Front and Wilders’ Freedom Party joined forces for the May elections. They have invited like-minded allies, such as Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Italy’s Northern League, to join them.
First, there is the desire in each country involved to retain its own ethnic, cultural and national identity and to halt immigration that would alter its character, especially from the Islamic world and the Third World.
Second, there is the desire for sovereignty and liberty we Americans, above all, should understand. French, Dutch, British, Italians and Germans do not want to be ruled by the European Commission in Brussels any more than Thomas Jefferson’s generation wanted to be ruled by the king across the sea whom Jefferson described in his declaration in Philadelphia.
Third, unlike transnationalists and multiculturalists, the patriot parties hold their countries to be the largest entities to which they can give love and loyalty. And they do not worship at the altar of economic efficiency or measure happiness by the gross domestic product.
What has all this to do with us?
The ethnonationalism roiling Europe is not unique to Europe. It is roiling the world. And it is not absent from the hearts of Americans.
If the May elections for the European Parliament turn into a sweeping rejection of the EU, what is happening there will find an echo here.
How would Americans vote on a timeout on all immigration? How would Americans vote, if given a chance, to repudiate our entire political elite?
Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly released a report earlier this month that summarizes her argument that Republicans shouldn’t support immigration reform because she thinks Latino and Asian-American immigrants are inherently Democratic-leaning. Schlafly elaborated on the report in an interview Friday with Dove TV, claiming that immigrants will always vote Democratic because they “don’t even know what you’re talking about when you talk about limited government.”
“These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic,” she said.
Schlafly added that a “good example” of liberal-leaning immigrants were the Boston Marathon bombers, who she said came into the country through “the asylum gimmick” and proceeded to collect welfare. “So we don’t want to just bring in more people to enhance the Democratic vote,” she concluded.
Schlafly added that President Obama is supporting immigration reform because he “wants to spread the power around” because “he thinks it isn’t fair that we’re richer and more powerful than other countries and he wants to bring us down to the level of other people.”
On Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Frank Gaffney invited Phyllis Schlafly to discuss her new Eagle Forum report making the case that Republicans should oppose immigration reform because immigrants will always vote Democratic.
Schlafly repeated her usual talking points that people from other countries don’t “understand the concept of limited government” so expanding legal immigration would be “suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican party.”
Gaffney agreed, adding that if immigration reform “dooms” the Republican Party it also “dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.”
As you know, the freedom of America is based on limited government --“Bind him down from mischief,” as Jefferson said – and the conservative movement believes in government’s too big and too expensive. And the people coming in will just vote the other way. And that’s why I think the Democrats are so eager to bring them up, they see millions of Democratic votes coming in through this amnesty.
It’s of course not just people who are not in this country and will come in if there’s an amnesty and the borders remain open, it’s also the numbers of undocumented people already here – it seems to be 11 million, but God only knows what it actually is.
Well, that’s right, it’s the people who are already here, and they come from countries -- well, America is not only exceptional, it’s unique in that we believe in limited government and cutting down on government spending, and there’s just a large bloc of the world that has other experiences and doesn’t even understand the concept of limited government. So, when they come in they will vote Democratic, which is what they showed. And this is also true of the Asians who are coming in, although not in as large numbers as the Hispanics, and that is because that’s all they know and they think government should be big in their life, and conservatives don’t feel that way. So I think that the amnesty, which would bring in millions of legal and illegal immigrants would just be suicide for the conservative movement and the Repbulican party.
Gaffney: I want to commend you again and urge everyone to check out at eagleforum.org ‘How Mass Legal Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party,’ and I would argue – and I think you would too, Phyllis Schlafly, dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.
According to Coulter, immigration is destroying the GOP and thus America itself, because apparently only "real Americans" vote Republican. She's particularly offended that immigration means she has to "hear about soccer all the time."
"We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving!," she writes.
Coulter also lashes out at proponents of the DREAM Act, claiming that their arguments would also protect rapists, murderers and suicide bombers.
If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven – insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.
How do you think kids feel when their father has to “live in the shadows” because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?
With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.
Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”
(I thought only liberals couldn’t do analogies.)
Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.
Why shouldn’t Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)
Immigration is the “single issue” that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn’t have to hear about soccer all the time.
We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya – I could have moved to those places, too.
(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)
I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which tries to style itself as the moderate think tank of the anti-immigrant movement, has undermined this image by embracing the theory, first put forward by a white nationalist thinker , that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to win back Latino voters and should instead focus exclusively on turning out white voters. Not only is this strategy doomed to failure, its implicit assumption is that Republicans should turn out white voters by stirring up racial resentment against Latinos.
This has emerged as a popular message among anti-immigrant activists and politicians. Phyllis Schlafly and Michele Bachmann have both argued that Republicans should drop Latino outreach efforts because, in their minds, Latino immigrants are inherently unable to understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. CIS figures have likewise claimed that Latino immigrants have an inherent antipathy to the Republican Party because they lack “strong family values” and have large numbers of “illegitimate” children .
CIS research director Steven Camarota repeated this theme in an interview yesterday on the Chuck Morse Speaks radio program, where he said that Democrats are “the party of minorities” and are backing immigration reform because they “would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens.”
On the Democratic side, it’s coalition politics. The Democratic Party is the party that tends to draw a lot of support from Hispanics and Asians now as well, so they’re the party of minorities. And so, since a very large fraction – you know, about 80 percent of illegal immigrants, in particular – would be Hispanic, based on government statistics, and probably another ten, 12 percent are Asian, so the party would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens. But just in the existing citizen population of people of recent immigrant origin, they’re hoping to draw a lot of support. So there’s a political reason there. So, if you had to sum it up in a bumper sticker, the Democrats are looking for votes and the Republicans are looking for cheap labor.
Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian tries to come across as a more reasonable voice in the movement against immigration reform, but today Krikiorian undermined this well-crafted image when he cited the work of a prominent white nationalist.
In his latest column for the National Review Online, Krikorian responds to a New York Times report this weekend that President Obama’s DACA order has created a backlog of immediate family members of U.S. citizens who are now separated from their families as they wait an unconscionably long time for visas.
Krikorian, of course, sees this not as an administrative failure that might be fixed by White House attention or a comprehensive immigration reform package, but as an indictment of the very concept of immigration reform. To back up his case, he cites a term, “anarcho-tyranny,” coined by white nationalist Sam Francis in his fight against multiculturalism and “ the transformation of American society by millions of aliens .”
“I wasn’t a fan of Sam Francis,” Krikorian writes, “but his concept of ‘ anarcho-tyranny’ describes this perfectly.”
We’re glad to learn that Krikorian “wasn’t a fan” of Francis, who edited a white supremacist journal and wanted to seal the border and impose “fertility controls on nonwhites.”
But the fact that Krikorian even cites Francis’ work and applauds his phrase, “anarcho-tyranny” – which Francis defined as “we refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny)” – is disturbing. And it’s an important reminder that the intellectual foundation of today’s anti-immigrant movement was laid in large party by white nationalists.
As we mentioned earlier, anti-immigrant activist William Gheen appeared on VCY America last week to denounce immigrants as cancerous tumors that need to be locked away in prisons. But the Nativist leader of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) didn’t stop there. He went on to say that immigration reform represents a “national rape.”
Gheen warned that a reform law would give voting rights to well over “20 million illegal immigrants voting in elections, backed up by the next 10-20 million that are going to pour through our ripped-open borders right after that,” undermining the political clout of “center-right Americans.”
“Immigration reform, it sounds so pleasant, but the truth of the matter is that people that have no regard and in some cases antipathy towards the citizens of the United States are controlling these mediums and their way of dealing with us, instead of using tanks or bombs, is to flood this country with people that will replace us in our jobs, homes and ballot boxes,” he said.
The truth, in my opinion after studying this for nine years, is that the purpose of the amnesty is to permanently destroy the borders of the United States, to permanently destroy the type of, what they would call, Nativist or nationalistic tendency for us to want to have borders and to protect those borders or for the American public and American workers and American taxpayers to have any say on the numbers of people that are coming into the country or what role they will have. I call it a national rape and I’m not being flippant about that, I really see it as that.
If illegal immigrants are ever rewarded in any form or fashion with citizenship and voting rights, it is all over. There is no way that you, me and the rest of the center-right Americans can ever compete with 20 million illegal immigrants voting in elections, backed up by the next 10-20 million that are going to pour through our ripped-open borders right after that. You don’t have to be a soothsayer or some type of clairvoyant to be able to tell the future here people, we have the past which has led us to this point.
There are groups that are supporting this that look really legitimate because you turn on the TV and it’s John Boehner and it’s the president, walking out for the State of the Union, everybody is clapping, the cameras are running, the show is going and it all looks real legitimate as the president walks about the surrender of the United States. Immigration reform, it sounds so pleasant, but the truth of the matter is that people that have no regard and in some cases antipathy towards the citizens of the United States are controlling these mediums and their way of dealing with us, instead of using tanks or bombs, is to flood this country with people that will replace us in our jobs, homes and ballot boxes.
Just to be clear about what he meant, Gheen threw in additional racially coded language, arguing that “traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation” as a result of immigration reform.
He even made the utterly baseless claims that thousands of Americans are killed by undocumented immigrants each year and that such immigrants are responsible for nine million lost jobs.
Illegal immigration is leading to many thousands of Americans dead each year that are killed by drunk driving illegal immigrants, gang member illegal immigrants; illegal immigrants engaged in other types of activities end up killing Americans that would be alive today if our border were secured and our immigration laws were adequately enforced as Americans expect them to be and other countries do that. Then we have over nine million jobs lost and billions of dollars’ worth of wage depreciation.
We’ve got billionaires like George Soros and the US Chamber of Commerce and Chinese and Saudi national wealth funds all driving this plan to merge the United States with the broader powers at be around us in a way that is outside the Constitution, in defiance of existing federal law, costing the lives of thousands of Americans, ruining the lives of millions of Americans and eventually will lead to a situation where traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation. Apparently we don’t now since we have these existing immigration laws that are not being enforced.
Last week, William Gheen of Americans of Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) spoke to Jim Schneider of VCY America, where he recommended that the government treat undocumented immigrants in the same way that doctors fight a cancerous tumor.
We believe that the first thing we do is like when somebody has cancer. Not to dehumanize illegal immigrants, but a lot of times doctors will start to shrink the tumor before they start operating. So we need to shrink the tumor. We need to make it to a point where people start leaving the country and they go back to Mexico and they go back to Brazil and they say ‘you know what, I tried to break into the United States like all the other guys did, but I couldn’t get a job, I couldn’t get a license, I couldn’t get food stamps, so I came back.’ That is what turns off the flow.
Later in the broadcast, a caller insisted that President Obama “should order them all [undocumented immigrants] to be put into a prison camp and fed oatmeal for breakfast, lunch and supper, and water, and that’s all until they want to go home; anybody coming across the border be shot as soon as they cross the border, as soon as they cross the border they’ll be shot.”
Gheen said that he disagreed with shooting immigrants, but noted “a lot of people want lethal force authorized at the border.” He did, however, agree with her other suggestion: “Locking up illegal immigrants for a while and feeding them some oatmeal before you can get them back home? Yeah, we’re for that.”
Tea Party Unity Founder Rick Scarborough and Washington Times columnist Robert Knight are warming that comprehensive immigration reform will cause “millions of Mexicans and Central Americans” to “storm…the border,” add millions to “welfare rolls and Democratic voter lists” and spell “the end of two-party politics, and the end of national elections in which any conservative could win the presidency.”
In the latest Tea Party Unity newsletter, the two write:
With ObamaCare killing the economic “recovery,” and millions of Americans added weekly to the toll of those devastated by pink slips, higher insurance premiums and the loss of their doctors, the GOP should be able to ride the issue right into the voting booths in November.
However, never underestimate the GOP’s capacity for self-destruction. The party leadership is working on the one issue that could divide the party and depress turnout of the party’s base: immigration amnesty. Never mind that polls say Americans are not remotely interested in that issue right now.
House Speaker John Boehner is telling his troops that the GOP will come up with some kind of compromise that will allow the more than 11 million illegals to stay in the United States. Nobody is talking about what kind of signal that would send south of the border.
After the 1986 immigration amnesty, millions of Mexicans and Central Americans stormed the border, confident that they, too, would achieve legal status at some point. So forget the 11 million figure and ratchet it up to, oh, 20 to 30 million over the next few years.
Republicans insist they will produce a “good” bill that stresses border enforcement. There are two things wrong with this. One, this promise is always broken. Two, any bill that the House sends to Harry Reid’s Senate will come back stuffed with liberal schemes designed to put Republicans in deer-caught-in-the-headlights mode.
It will also include a thinly-veiled “path to citizenship,” so that millions can be added to welfare rolls and Democrat voter lists. In Texas, that would mean the end of two-party politics, and the end of national elections in which any conservative could win the presidency.
The newsletter also shares a Washington Times column by Thomas Sowell, in which he compares undocumented immigrants to embezzlers and burglars hiding from the law, and dismisses the idea that children of undocumented immigrants who grew up the United States should be allowed to stay:
What about embezzlers or burglars who are “living in the shadows” for fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not “reform” the laws against embezzlement or burglary, so that such people can also come out of the shadows?
Almost everyone seems to think that we need to solve the problem of the children of illegal immigrants because these children are here “through no fault of their own.”
Do people who say that have any idea how many millions of children are living in dire poverty in India, Africa or other places “through no fault of their own,” and would be better off living in the United States?