1,831 words

The latest Homeland Institute poll corroborated mainstream polls showing that support for mass deportations of illegal immigrants is widespread. But support for legal immigration is still disturbingly high, even among young Republicans. Pundits and podcasters lampoon the centrist stance that illegal immigrants are bad but legal immigrants are great as a “boomer meme,” but almost 70% of white Republican voters aged 18-29 agreed with the statement that “Undocumented immigrants are a net negative, but legal immigrants are a net positive.” This was almost the same for Republicans as a whole. Additionally, far fewer young Republicans disagreed with the statement on the grounds that legal immigrants are a net negative, too.

This is puzzling, because the American youth are significantly more opposed to Zionism and sexual degeneracy. For example, a previous Homeland Institute poll apparently replicated findings that Jonathan Greenblatt had alluded to in a leaked audio recording in which he had remarked that declining support for Israel was a generational issue. And while support for LGBTQ degeneracy was previously high among the youth, they are now driving a large decline in national support.[1] Meanwhile, over in Europe, support for deporting migrants is surging, especially among the youth.

This is troubling, because legal immigrants are more deleterious since they can vote and access public welfare programs. So why are so many Americans, including even American youth, soft on legal immigration?

The first reason is probably sensitivity about being perceived as racist, especially by themselves. Differentiating between legal and illegal seemingly allows them to have their cake of a “nice white country” and eat it too without being racist. But this is delusional. The biological reality of race and the cultural implications which flow from it do not change based on labels.

Second, American culture is extremely focused on money, especially among Republicans. The Homeland Institute poll found that Republicans were strongly opposed to pro-immigration policies that would cost money, such as stipends and free housing. But despite all the mainstream conservative talk about the Constitution and principles, there was significantly less Republican opposition to hate-speech laws to make immigrants more welcome. Opposition to paying immigrants to repatriate themselves was likewise slightly higher among Republicans than Independents and Democrats, albeit probably for different reasons. Conservatives really only care about conserving their money. The establishment knows this, too, and easily manipulates Republicans by appealing to their greed.

Third, American culture is overly legalistic. America inherited a strong legal tradition from England that grew out of Anglo-Saxon common law. Legalism can be a strength in that it can help build a society possessing high efficiency and low corruption. But there can be too much of a good thing. By the time the Constitution was written, English legalism had already passed into decadence. Too much legalism leads to putting the method of the law above the goal of the public good, and valuing form over substance.

Fourth, there is a possibility that Americans, especially young Americans, are coming to accept multiculturalism as the “new normal.” For example, the diversity in the Top Gun sequel wasn’t artificial as in a lot of the diversity in entertainment and advertising. It was an accurate depiction of the United States military in the current year. In Europe, multiculturalism is still relatively new, while America has been undergoing a slow boil ever since the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, and much earlier in certain areas in terms of blacks. There is also a rising trend in America of whites assimilating into non-white culture more than vice versa.

How do we conquer these problems?

The quickest and easiest way is to debunk the lie that legal immigrants, who since the 1965 Hart-Celler Act are almost exclusively from the non-white world, are good for the economy. As explained by Ann Coulter in her aptly-named book ¡Adios, America!,, immigrants are an economic drain on society because they use social services and commit more crime than white Americans. Legal immigrants can more easily access public welfare and free or government-subsidized health insurance. Moreover, besides the direct economic damage that criminal immigrants cause, their legal proceedings are also costly for the US taxpayer. This is not to mention the fact that many immigrants send money back to their homelands rather than investing it in the US economy.

Additionally, an abundance of cheap labor has probably retarded the development of robotics and advanced computing for farm labor. This technology would likely have had other applications as well, just as the tech developed by NASA and the military oftentimes has civilian applications. Those who praise the free market fail to explain why economic incentives magically stop working whenever immigration is involved.

It is pathetic that Republicans are so fixated on money rather than identity and honor. This has opened them up to manipulation by cunning politicians who know that they will lap up almost any lie about legal immigrants being good for the economy, since they will want to believe it is true due to their greed.

But appealing to the Republicans’ base economic interests is a game we also can play. By showing with hard data that legal immigrants are a net economic negative, we can turn what has been the most effective argument for immigration into an argument against it. Whatever big business saves on cheap legal immigrant labor is clearly more than offset by their costs to the rest of society. Collecting hard data to prove this may be difficult, because it is not in the regime’s interest to make it easy to find, but it is not impossible. For example, it is known that 70% of the foreign-born population in Spain does not pay into the system.

Winning the economic argument is a good way to address the problem, but it is not enough by itself. The Homeland Institute poll also found that the Left has higher emotional investment in immigration. When a faction with high moral and emotional intensity collides with a faction that just wants to be left alone to enjoy their money, the more intense faction will win, all other factors being equal. This means we should also appeal to pathos.

We can do this by showing the general public that non-whites, including legal immigrants, disproportionately commit violent crimes. While most crime is intra-racial, whites are disproportionately the victims in inter-racial crime. Examples of this are numerous and well documented.

Reporting upon such matters can be depressing. But it is an essential task, because while we are overly acquainted with racial violence, the general public is still in the process of waking up to that fact, although recent years have seen major gains.

Using economic and emotional arguments is not contradictory. Immigration advocates frequently employ both types of arguments, and so should we. This is because different people respond to different arguments. The ears of staunch economic Republicans will prick up when we talk about money, and the hearts of soccer moms who are Independent voters will respond when we talk about the human costs of immigrant crime.

This flows into the fact that, in the long term, we must continue to fight the difficult fight of normalizing white identity politics and showing that it is inevitable, necessary, and moral. One of many ways we can do this is by showing that every other racial group acts in their self-interest, and that since non-whites will never relinquish their identity politics given that it goes against their interests, then we have no reasonable option other than to develop an identity politics of our own. The civic nationalist alternative of begging non-whites to abandon identity politics has proven ineffective, and is perhaps even counter-productive, because it makes whites look weak. Most people respect strength.

A major hurdle to the normalization of white identity politics is the fact that white people are highly sensitive when it comes to morality, and they have been indoctrinated into believing that racism is the ultimate sin. Swallowing our pride and welcoming friendly non-whites who advance white identity politics could be a useful tactic. The number of non-whites who are becoming interested in white identity politics on social media and elsewhere should be celebrated as a victory and a sign that we are going mainstream. Per the Diffusion of Innovations theory, we seem to be finally breaking out of the “innovators” phase to the “early adopters” phase of normalizing white identity politics.

Despite the obvious racial undertones, 53% of US Hispanic voters now support mass deportations of all illegal immigrants, and 42% support building a border wall.[2] This is important because the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy; it is a highly effective tactic. We can use this tactic, too. Normalizing mass deportations of illegal immigrants can serve as a first step toward normalizing repatriation and reducing legal immigration.

Another tactic is to dispel the false equivalency between modern-day immigrants and traditional American immigrants. Previous waves of immigrants were almost exclusively white. They are also better described as conquerors, settlers, and pioneers, because they built the country from scratch at a time when social safety nets were thin or non-existent. In fact, life in early America was so tough that many immigrants returned to Europe. To compare our ancestors to entitled waves of third-worlders who have been stirred up by non-governmental organizations is insulting.

Legalism is a tougher nut to crack, because like anti-racism, it is well ingrained in the culture — but unlike anti-racism, it is an ancient phenomenon. The problem is further compounded by the fact that fighting hyper-legalism is an intellectual task, and yet most people are not intellectually inclined and have an emotional attachment to legalism. The masses may have to learn Carl Schmitt’s differentiation between politics and policy and the friend-enemy distinction through lived experience rather than from us, but we can certainly educate rogue elites and the smarter segments of society about them. At some point, legalism will burn out of its own accord as society becomes more tribal, the legal system continues to delegitimize itself, and the false correlation between the US Constitution and success comes to an end.

The fact that the Homeland Institute poll found that only 7.2% of all white registered voters, 12.8% of Republicans, and 8.9% of young Republicans understand that legal immigrants are a net negative may seem like bad news. But it is actually a solid foundation on which to build. In terms of the Diffusion of Innovations theory, we are already out of the isolated innovators stage and are breaking into the early adopters phase. We might still be a small minority, but if we remain passionate, our ideas will inevitably break into the mainstream.

Notes

[1] Susan Miller, “The young are regarded as the most tolerant generation. That’s why results of this LGBTQ survey are ‘alarming’,” USA Today, June 24, 2019. See also Figure 15 in “Views on LGBTQ Rights in All 50 States: Findings from PRRI’s 2023 American Values Atlas,” PRRI, March 12, 2024.

[2] Khaleda Rahman, “Majority of Hispanics Now Favor Mass Deportation,” Newsweek, June 17, 2024. See also     Russell Contreras, “Exclusive poll: Latino support for border wall, deportations jumps,” Axios, April 11, 2024.