SHOWDOWN: 374 Years of Legal Precedent vs. A Silly Poem on the Statue of Liberty

According to the media, the “Give me your tired. . .” poem on the Statue of Liberty is the be-all, end-all of American immigration policy, so authoritative and unquestionable it might as well be part of the Constitution (even though the media doesn’t much care for the Constitution).

That’s why Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of the Citizenship and Immigration Office, recently got himself into trouble with CNN’s Erin Burnett–for daring to question the holy dogma of THE POEM establishing America as the world’s homeless shelter:

“Erin Burnett was not going to let Ken Cuccinelli off the hook for his despicable rewrite of Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty. Instead, she pinned him to the wall and watched him squirm like a worm on a hook.

There was a back and forth where he ultimately accused her of “twisting this like everybody else on the left has done all day today.” That accusation simply prompted her to bring receipts.

“You’re saying — it’s important — you’re saying it’s important to stand on your own two feet,” she said. Cuccinelli agreed with that.

Burnett then informed him (again) that the poem did not say that, and again he deflected, first blaming the NPR reporter for bringing it up (how dare they?) and then Burnett.”


“She was having no part of his little dance, coming back to bring her receipts, after repeating how he had bastardized the poem to be one for ugly xenophobes instead of an inspiring invitation.

“However it came up, you said, ‘Give me your tired and poor who can stand on their own two feet, not become a public charge,” she reiterated.

Again, he agreed, unapologetically.

“The poem reads, ‘give me your tired your poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’ Wretched refuse. That’s what the poem says America is supposed to stand for. So what do you think America stands for?” she asked.”

Replace the word “poem” with “Bible” and CNN’s Erin Burnett is no different from a religious zealot.

Cuccinelli’s response:

“Well, of course that poem referred back to people coming from Europe where they had class-based societies. Where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class. And it was introduced — it was written one year — one year after the first federal public charge rule was written that says — I’ll quote it — any person unable to take care of himself without becoming a public charge, unquote, would be inadmissible in the terms that my agency deals with, they can’t do what’s called adjusting status getting a green card becoming legal permanent residents. Same exact time, Erin, same exact time. And the year is went on the statue of liberty, 1903, another federal law was passed expanding the elements of public charge by Congress. This is a — this is a central part.”

Decent response by Cuccinelli, but he is under no obligation to try to interpret the poem in a way that bolsters his stance on immigration.

The poem is pro-open borders, period.

But that’s okay because we are not under any obligation to agree with it or live according to its message.

We don’t have to care what Emma Lazarus thinks about immigration.

Anytime we talk about immigration, open borders propagandists like Erin Burnett will screech “BUT THE POEM! THE POEM SAYS!”

But who cares? Not me.

The important thing Ken Cuccinelli brought up was the “Public Charge” law, enacted one year before Lazarus’ stupid poem was affixed to the Statue of Liberty, which denies immigration to Lazarus’ exalted “wretched refuse” of other countries–i.e. immigrants who can’t take care of themselves and who are a drain on taxpayers.

Cuccinelli, who is spearheading the Trump administration’s effort to, not even enact but merely resume enforcement of, the “public charge” laws already on the books, has real legal precedent on his side. Erin Burnett has a stupid poem on her’s.

In fact, Ken Cuccinelli and the Trump administration have 374 years of legal precedent on their side when it comes to public charge laws.

The first one was enacted in 1645 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony:

“The English colony of Massachusetts enacted the earliest American public charge laws in 1645. The arrival in the colonies of undesirables spurred other colonies to enact similar laws. “By the end of the seventeenth century American colonists were especially reluctant to extend a welcome to impoverished foreigners and the ‘Rogues and vagabonds’ that England had so graciously decided she could spare.” Many colonies protected themselves against public charges through such measures as mandatory reporting of ship passengers, immigrant screening and exclusion upon arrival of designated “undesirables,” and requiring bonds for potential public charges.

For example, a law enacted in colonial Massachusetts in 1700 kept out the infirm who had no security against becoming public charges. The law required ship captains to post bonds for “lame, impotent, or infirm” passengers who were “incapable of maintaining themselves.” The bond requirement sought to prevent the new arrival from becoming reliant on public relief. Without a bond from the captain, the vessel had to return the person to his home country.

New York adopted a law in 1691 that required an immigrant to have “a visible Estate” or “a manual occupation” or “give sufficient surety, that he shall not be a burden or charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit.” Delaware in 1740 sought to exclude potential public charges, including “any such infant, lunatick [sic], aged, maimed, impotent or vagrant person;” the colony thus enacted a law whose title was to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons [from] being Imported.” Following American independence, states either automatically continued to enforce colonial-era public charge laws or reaffirmed those laws.”

Since the very beginning of this country, we have sought to avoid being saddled with unproductive burdens via immigration.

We don’t want immigrants coming here to take advantage of our public services.

It is not our side who are the radicals attempting to go against the American tradition on immigration.

It is instead the open borders globalists of the past 20-30 years who have decided to reverse centuries of American immigration policy in order to flood the country with poor third-worlders.

We are under no obligation to care what their stupid poem says.

Can You Guess the Mystery Country Where 6 in 10 say “Migrants Are a Burden”?

Is it the US, with its Evil Nazi Dictator in the White House and its Institutionalized Racism™?


Is it the evil white colonialists of Britain?


Give up?

The answer is. . .


“More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States.

Those findings defy the perception that Mexico—a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances—is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”

Who knew Mexicans were so Racist™?


“What should Mexico do with the Central American migrants who cross our country trying to reach the United States?   Offer them residence in Mexico, give them temporary asylum while the United States decides if they will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?

The answers: Offer them residence in Mexico 7%, Give them temporary asylum 33%, Deport them to their countries of origin 55%.

So a majority wants to deport them, 33% only want temporary asylum, with only 7% favoring permanent residence.”

Apparently, Mexicans are getting a sick of all the Central Americans coming up through their country in massive caravans trying to get into the US.

Notorious Xenophobic Racist Barack Obama: Just Because You Come From a Poor, Crime-Riddled Country Doesn’t Mean You’re Entitled to Asylum in the U.S.

Obama in 2014:

“Typically, refugee status is not granted just because of economic need, or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood, or poverty.”

Today’s Democratic Party, led by Ocasio-Cortez and her radical, open borders pals, are basically claiming that anyone who wants to immigrate to America is a refugee and must be allowed in.

Kinda crazy to think that just five years ago the Democrats were in favor of some form of restriction on immigration.

These nutcases today make Obama look like a right-winger.

Cher Accidentally Realizes She Opposes Sanctuary Cities

The modern Democratic Party requires its members to exist in a state of constant self-delusion and ignorance of its many contradictions.

For example, the Democratic Party is the party of Yay Islam! but also the party of Gay Rights and Feminism. You must perform what George Orwell called “Doublethink” to be able to hold both views.

This is because the Democratic Party is the Diversity coalition and includes many groups that compete with one another culturally. Their interests often contradict, but the whole thing is tied together by Hatred Of Whitey. As long as the contradicting factions of the Democratic Party are all focused on hating white people, they won’t have time to think about the fact that they actually hate each other.

Cher, the loopy singer and leftwing activist today most known for her weirdly written tweets, broke from the Doublethink script accidentally thought for herself on the matter of illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities, and blurted this out:

Shorter version: “America First.”

Wait a minute. How are we supposed to take care of all these poor, hungry foreigners when we can’t even take care of our own poor and hungry?

This is what happens when Democrats actually take time to think about all the lies they are required to believe.

Somebody is going to have to break it to her that she’s not allowed to say that.

And how perfect is it that Cher herself, back in 2017, tweeted this:

Until yesterday, she had existed in a state of blissful ignorance holding two contradictory ideas at the same time: America has failed in its duty to take care of its poor and hungry, yet we are perfectly capable of welcoming with open arms every illegal immigrant that wants to come here.

It’s no surprise that Cher only took this opportunity to think for herself when faced with the prospect of several thousand “Dreamers” being dumped in her own backyard.

She was all about the “Dreamers” and the sanctuary cities back when it was an abstract concept that required no personal sacrifice or changes to her way of life.

But now that it’s actually time to live up to all that “Sanctuary Cities” and “No Human Being Is Illegal” and “Refugees Welcome” virtue signaling, she wants nothing to do with her prior statements.

“Wait a minute, this doesn’t make any sense at all!”

This is what happens when Democrats–specifically older, white Democrats–are forced to back up their talk with action.


“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morally while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forger it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself–that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink.”

-1984, George Orwell

Trump to Funnel Illegals to Sanctuary Cities, Democrats are. . . Opposed?

A brilliant plan:

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 10.48.41 AM.png

This is a plan that even Trump’s fiercest enemies could love. Because libs have told us the following about illegal immigrants:

  1. No human being is illegal.
  2. Borders are immoral and ours should be erased.
  3. Immigrants commit fewer crimes, work harder and are just all-around better people than Americans.
  4. No immigrant in the history of this country has ever been a net-negative for the American taxpayer as it pertains to welfare, healthcare or other government aid.
  5. Republicans and Republican-controlled places are extremely racist against brown immigrants and would mistreat them.
  6. We need to massively increase the flow of immigration because immigrants are so awesome.
  7. Diversity Is Our Strength™.

Democrats are going to love Trump’s plan. This is right up their alley. Now they get to show us all how compassionate and welcoming and loving and eager for Cultural Enrichment™ they are. I’m sure they will be ecstatic!

Wait a sec:

Sick and twisted? I really don’t understand why.

The Extremely Conservative™ David French of the formerly-great National Review:

Gavin Newsom:

“Journalist” Don Lemon:

“Punish”? Punish how?

He’s rewarding them with more of their cherished illegals!

Don’t Democrats want more immigrants around?

Don’t they want to enjoy the innumerable benefits of Diversity?

I thought the whole reason cities designate themselves as “Sanctuary Cities” is because they love illegal immigrants and want to be surrounded by them?

The only reason Democrats could possibly object to Trump’s plan to hand-deliver all the illegals right to heavily-Democratic areas is if some or all of the above Democratic claims about immigrants are actually lies.

But that can’t be true, can it?

Everyone Loves Refugees–Until They’re Asked to Take Them into Their Homes





Just not in my home:

This is priceless.

A guy goes around in Sweden asking people if they support letting in “refugees.” They all answer affirmatively.

Then he asks them if, hypothetically, they’d be willing to take a refugee into their own home. They all answer affirmatively again.

But then he brings out Ali, a young Middle Eastern guy, and asks the Swedes if they’d be willing to let Ali come home and live with them right there on the spot.

Would they be willing to back up their compassionate rhetoric with actual compassion?

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that no, no they would not be willing to do that.

Not a single one says yes. They’ve all got some excuse for why they can’t.

I don’t get it. Diversity is supposed to be our strength, and yet none of these Swedes want to make their households stronger through diversity.

What gives?!

We must expose and humiliate these virtue signaling white liberals who demand we take in a limitless amount of refugees but then want nothing to do with the refugees once they are actually here.

Is America a “Nation of Immigrants”?

We hear it all the time. “You can’t favor reduced immigration (legal or illegal, the Uniparty elites don’t even distinguish between the two anymore) levels today because that’s not fair, America is a nation of immigrants; it always has been and always must be, so you can’t shut the door behind you. Your family came here as Immigrants one day in the past so all present and future immigration is Good.”

It’s a compelling argument, and one I fell for myself at one point.

But it’s total bullshit when you scrutinize it.

The first question to ask is, were the Founding Fathers immigrants?

Simply thinking about the matter rationally for more than a minute reveals the answer: of course not.

Just because the United States as an independent political entity did not exist until 1776 (technically, 1781, the end of the Revolutionary War, or even 1789, the year the Constitution was ratified and George Washington became the first President of the United States) does not mean America didn’t exist before then. Sure, the thirteen colonies were property of Britain prior to 1776 but that doesn’t mean we weren’t always our own unique nation. After all, we had a whole ocean separating us from Britain, and it took months to get even a letter across it back then. America developed and matriculated on its own, not under the close tutelage and supervision of Britain.

Think about it: Britain owned a multitude of different nations around the world, but those nations certainly had their own separate identities independent of Britain. Did India only begin existing in 1947? Of course not. India (and Pakistan, because Pakistan was a part of British India and only split apart into its own country after Britain relinquished India) only gained its independence from Britain in 1947. It didn’t become a place after gaining independence.

Of course, Britain is inextricably a part of our national identity. No one can deny this. But that doesn’t mean America WAS simply Britain until 1776. If that were the case then they did England itself not rebel against the British crown when we did? And why are we different today? The American colonies were their own nation, despite being owned and heavily influenced by Britain.

The fact is, America as we know it was settled over 150 years before the Declaration of Independence. The Pilgrims arrived in 1620 and the British settled Jamestown as early as 1607. And of course we trace the earliest settlements in America back to Christopher Columbus in 1492, which we recognize as essentially the year America was first discovered by our precursors. I understand the Indians were here way before 1492 but virtually none of us descend from them and therefore we claim 1492 as our moment of origin. The earliest European settlers in America did not “immigrate” to an established country owned by the Indians, they moved here and established their own settlement, and eventually a country, on the same land.

The Great Samuel P. Huntington explains in his book “Who We Are”:

“Immigrants are people who leave one country, one society, and move to another society. But there has to be a recipient society to which the immigrants move. In our case, the recipient society was created by the settlers who came here in the 17th and 18th centuries. … They came in groups to create new societies up and down the Atlantic seaboard. They weren’t immigrating to some existing society”

The first Americans were not immigrants. What country was there for them to immigrate to? What government did they have to petition for entry?

The answer is obvious: they didn’t arrive in any country. They founded their own country upon arriving here.

America existed way before 1776. The time between the Declaration of Independence and the settlement of Jamestown was a period of 169 years. Back to the Mayflower was 156 years. In today’s terms, 156 years prior to 2019 would be 1863, the year of the battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. Think of how far back in time that feels. That’s how far back in time the Mayflower was to our Founding Fathers in 1776.

By 1776, America had been a country for as long a period of time as the battle of Gettysburg is from us today in 2019. By 1776, America had been a country for 156 years, or only 87 fewer years (the span of one human lifetime) shorter than we have been a country to this date. That would be equivalent 1776-1932. Was America not fully its own unique nation by 1932? Of course it was. And it was its own fully unique nation by the time 1776 rolled around.

And as for the Founding Fathers themselves, how many were actually immigrants? It shouldn’t surprise you (though it will given the level of “NATION OF IMMIGRANTS!” indoctrination that has taken root in this country) to learn that only a tiny minority of our Founding Fathers were anything less than full-blooded Americans in 1776.

In her fantastic book “Adios America,” Ann Coulter notes that 48 of 56 of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence were American-born (pp. 52).

Let’s take a look at the major names from the Founding Generation:

George Washington was a third generation American. He never visited Europe in his entire life. The furthest he ever traveled from his home in Virginia was the Caribbean.

John Adams, our second President, was a fourth-generation American. His great grandfather moved from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which would become Boston) back in 1638.

Thomas Jefferson was at least a third generation American. His great-grandfather was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in the 1650s.

James Madison, our fourth President and the architect of the Constitution, was a fourth generation American.

Benjamin Franklin’s father Josiah was British-born and moved to America in 1683 with his first wife, who died shortly after. Josiah remarried in 1689 and Benjamin was born in 1705. However, Ben Franklin’s mother Abiah Folger was born in Nantucket. Her family arrived in America in 1635.

John Jay was a third-generation American. Samuel Adams was at least a third-generation American.

Alexander Hamilton is the only one of the eight main Founding Fathers who was not American-born.

This country was not founded by immigrants. It was founded by Americans who simply wanted to gain autonomy and independence from the British empire.

Again: yes the American identity is inextricably tied up with British identity and our two nations share many common traits, but that doesn’t mean that we *were* British until 1776. Canada, too, has a ton in common with Britain but nobody says Canada *was* Britain until it gained its independence in 1867.

More from Coulter:

“Contrary to PC nonsense about America being a ‘diverse’ melting pot, America has never been a ‘nation of immigrants.’ Most Americans have always been born here. Even as late as 1990–a quarter century into Teddy Kennedy’s scheme to remake the nation–half of the American population traced its roots to the black and white populace of 1790. Nearly the entire white population of America from 1600-1970 came from a geographic area of the world about twice the size of Texas [Western Europe]. The entire black population came from an area of West Africa about the size of Florida.

Until Teddy Kennedy struck, America was never less than 99% white Western European and West African black. That’s ‘bi-racial,’ not ‘diverse.’

America only became a “diverse” country–a “melting pot”–after Ted Kennedy’s disastrous 1965 immigration reform.

This is all to say that anyone who tells you America is not a unique nation with clear and definable characteristics is lying to you. America is—well, was, thanks to the disastrous 1965 immigration reform—a predominantly white Anglo-Saxon protestant nation. That’s simply a fact. It’s not racist to say this, it’s simply the truth.

You can’t claim that America isn’t a white nation. You can’t say it wasn’t settled by white people. Those things are simply immutable and undeniable facts of history.

What about the second wave of European immigrants, the ones who came across the Atlantic to Ellis Island around the turn of the century? Don’t they prove that America is a “nation of immigrants”?


“The entire time it was processing immigrants from 1892 until 1954, Ellis Island only received 12 million immigrants. Please stop weeping about your grandfather arriving at Ellis Island. It’s irritating. And it bears absolutely no relationship to immigration today. Earlier immigrants proved their heartiness by vomiting all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to get here. There was no welfare, and certainly no welcoming committees of ethnic grievance groups.”

More the point, the “second wave” of European immigrants were genetically similar to those who comprised the first wave (i.e. the British and Dutch colonists). Below is a DNA map showing the dominant DNA haplogroups of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa:


The second wave of immigrants came from largely the same genetic stock as the first, the red R1b group.

Now, none of this changes the fact that a sizable contingent in this country that’s trying (and succeeding) to change America from a predominantly white Western European-descended nation to a ‘diverse’ one, but they do so by lying to you and telling you America isn’t an inherently white nation.

While I disagree with people who want to demographically remake this country, I would at least have a tiny bit of respect for them intellectually if they simply admitted what they’re trying to do. I can appreciate intellectual honesty.

But we have a political and cultural elite that is trying (and succeeding) to change our country into something it has not been traditionally or historically, and all the while is lying about what it’s doing. They will not admit they’re trying to change America from a white country into a nonwhite one; they will always lie and gaslight you and say America is a nation of immigrants or that we’ve always been multicultural, or more often they’ll just scream “RAAAAAACIST!!!!” at anyone who has the audacity to claim that America is and has always been a white country.

To say America is a white country is no more controversial than to say Canada traditionally is a white country. Or Britain, or France, or Germany, or Sweden, or even Spain and Italy. To say America is a white country is no more controversial than saying China is an Asian country.

America is and has traditionally been a white country. It’s simply a fact.

Yet we’ve been raised and taught to purge this thought from our minds as if it were an unthinkable evil to even acknowledge.

It’s not.

If you would like to change that fact, then simply admit it: “I want to change America from a white country to a nonwhite one.”

Don’t try to obscure your intentions and pretend to be SO OUTRAGED and SO INFURIATED over anyone pointing out the glaringly obvious and undeniable fact that America is and has traditionally been a white country.

It’s not RAAACIST to say America is a white country, just as it’s not RAAAACIST to say Japan is an Asian country, or that Botswana is a Black Country.

Based Rush Limbaugh

This man has always kept it real. He’s been around for almost 30 years and has never shilled for the Establishment or virtue signaled for the approval of the left.

Rush Limbaugh simply gets it. Always has, always will. This is because he actually values the input of his listeners. He never allowed himself to get too big to the point where he stopped caring about what the Regular Americans who listen to him think.

Rush is the biggest name in Republican politics outside of Donald J. Trump and the reason Rush is still deeply in-tune with the Party Base. Because Rush actually respects them and cares about what they care about.

Look at what Rush said this weekend:

“On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Donald Trump was right to declare a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border to build a wall.

Limbaugh, “We have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?”

He added, “It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”

Importantly, Rush sees the “big picture” on immigration: it’s not just about crime and drugs. It’s about preserving American culture. It’s about keeping America American.

He knows that the real national emergency is the demographic transformation of America into a third-world, Elysium-style hellhole.

Legal Immigration Will Be the Death of the GOP

It’s not complicated. From Breitbart the headline:Democrats Winning 90% Congressional Districts with Large Foreign-Born Populations“:

“Mass legal immigration is driving Democrats towards full electoral dominance, with left-wing politicians winning nearly 90 percent of congressional districts with larger than average foreign-born populations, analysis finds.

The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein analyzed Census Bureau statistics for the 2018 midterm elections, finding that the country’s admission of more than a million legal immigrants every year is set to hand over electoral dominance to House and Senate Democrats.

Among Brownstein’s findings is that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This concludes that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.”

The key word is legal immigration.

It’s not just illegal immigration that benefits the Democratic Party–their greatest boon actually comes from legal immigration.

This is why it’s utterly asinine for Republicans–Trump included–to say “We love legal immigration.” Legal immigration is destroying your party, Republicans.

Don’t try to tell us otherwise. We now have concrete data proving that legal immigration is a major boon to the Democrats, and thus a major detriment to Republicans.

“It is not just congressional districts that are being driven towards Democrats through mass legal immigration. Entire states have been transformed, not only demographically, but electorally by the country’s current legal immigration levels.

For example, Brownstein finds that Republicans hold about 30 Senate seats in the 20 U.S. states with the smallest foreign-born populations. Meanwhile, Democrats control 32 Senate seats in the 20 U.S. states with the largest share of foreign-born residents.

Brownstein expects Democrats to largely target the remaining Senate Republicans in states with large foreign-born populations in the 2020 elections.

“Several of the remaining Republican Senate seats in that grouping (including Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and perhaps Texas) will be among the top Democratic targets next year,” Brownstein writes.

Even the New York Times admits that continued legal immigration at its current rate of importing more than 1.2 million residents a year will transform the U.S. towards electoral dominance for Democrats.

They’re coming in droves each year and voting overwhelmingly Democrat.

This is most recently evident in Orange County, California — once a Republican stronghold — that has become entirely controlled by Democrats. The dominance of Democrats in Orange County has coincided with the county’s booming foreign-born population.”

The New York Times has a graphic showing how immigration has flipped Orange County from deep-red to pale blue:


And Axios shows the correlation in Congressional districts between high foreign-born populations and Democrat control:


The scale of it all:

“Currently, the U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration.”

This spells doom for the Republican Party and thus the country. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won foreign-born voters 64-31% over Trump. Trump took US-born voters 49-45:


It cannot possibly be clearer. Democrats intend to import a whole new electorate and secure a permanent national majority.

And all Republicans will say is, “Only if they do it legally!”

That’s the GOP’s epitaph.

The Left is Ready to Stop Pretending to Oppose Open Borders

This is how it goes. First, the right accuses the left of wanting some policy goal (say, gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment) which the left pretty obvious wants. The left, however, knowing that said policy goal is wildly unpopular with the American people, vehemently denies they want the policy.

However, before long, the left will inevitably come out in favor of the policy goal they previously spent a good deal of energy denying they wanted.

Leftists in 2012: “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

Leftists in 2018: “Repeal the Second Amendment, and we’re coming for your guns”


This guy is definitely gonna wrestle your guns away from you:

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 4.52.05 PM.png

Or maybe that’s a girl. I genuinely can’t tell.

At any rate, today, “We are coming for your guns” is the mainstream consensus position of the Democratic Party, even though several years back they vigorously denied it and claimed they supported and respected the Second Amendment.

When did they change their minds? Never: they’ve always wanted to confiscate all the guns and repeal the Second Amendment. The only difference now is that they feel safe showing their true colors.

It was the same thing with gay marriage: prominent Democrats insisted right up until the 2012 election that they opposed gay marriage and believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Then they all publicly came out in favor of gay marriage. They were always privately in favor it, and we on the right knew it all along, but by 2012 they felt as if it was politically safe for them to come out and admit it.

Socialism is another thing Democrats have always pretended to be against while privately being in favor. Then the proud and open socialist Bernie Sanders ran for President in 2016 and was quite popular, proving once and for all that, yes, Democrats are socialists. The party’s new face is Congresspersyn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is proud to be a “democratic socialist”. Democrats are socialists. They’ve always been socialists, of course, but now they’re comfortable with admitting it.

And the Uniparty “media” claims we’re the ones who have taken an extreme turn.

The latest issue the Democrats are about to stop pretending to oppose is open borders. Someone named Farhad Manjoo wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled, “There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders.” Remember the day January 16, 2019, because that’s the moment the Democratic Party took the first step toward formally and publicly supporting open borders (“formally and publicly” being the key words, because they’ve always been for open borders privately):

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 5.21.30 PM.png

Here’s an excerpt:

“The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers.

Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.”

Fantastic reasoning: it’s “unfair” that most of the world was not born in America, the greatest country on earth. So let’s just let everyone in the world move to America!

This is how it starts. First an Op-Ed in the New York Times, then the rest of the Democratic Party elite will come out in favor of open borders. Right now, GOP virtue signalers and cucks are pushing back against the claim that the New York Times itself has formally come out for open borders, pointing out that it’s only an op-ed writer who has come out for open borders and he doesn’t necessarily speak for the NYT overall:

Come on. Stop denying what we all know to be true. I know Guy Benson and the rest of the Fake Republicans dream of one day writing for the New York Times, but this is just ridiculous.

Manjoo’s op-ed was the NYT testing the waters to see what kind of response it would get. If the response was negative, they could say, “Hey, it’s just an op-ed. Doesn’t mean it’s the official position of this newspaper. That’s one guy’s opinion. We just published it.”

But we all know better. Nobody publishes an op-ed unless they more or less agree with it. Outlets only provide platforms to those views which they seek to promote. Only a fool would believe otherwise. I know the disclaimer at the bottom of every op-ed says “this does not necessarily reflect the views of the paper at large,” but we all know what’s going on. The NYT very seldom runs op-eds by people who go against Uniparty dogma.

Eventually the NYTimes editorial board will formally announce the paper’s support of open borders. We all know it’s coming.

More to the point, we all know the left has always wanted open borders. 

Now, they’re finally audacious enough to admit it.

What could be the next issue the left “evolves” on? Pedophilia. I’m serious. You don’t have to look very hard to find SJWs and freaks on Twitter trying to argue that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia. And Twitter isn’t exactly doing much about it, either.

If you think it’s ridiculous that pedophilia could one day in the future (10-15 years down the road) come to be openly embraced by the left, consider that in 1985 it was also pretty inconceivable to think that the Democrats would in just under 30 years make support for gay marriage their party’s official stance.

Summed up, the process for Democratic “evolution” on issues is as follows:

  1. “That’s ridiculous. Nobody wants x.”
  2. “Okay, maybe some of us want x.”
  3. “The Democratic Party now officially endorses x.”
  4. “Anyone who opposes is evil.”

Open borders is the next x. They’re about to go from, “You’re crazy. We don’t want open borders.” To: “Anyone who opposes open borders is racist.”

What will follow? It’s anyone’s guess. There are a number of contenders, including polygamy and pedophilia.

There’s also free healthcare and welfare for illegals (already happening in California and New York City), as well as voting rights for illegals, but I would say open borders automatically includes healthcare, welfare and voting for foreigners, no?

Another contender would be the War on Traditional Masculinity, but the American Psychological Association has already formalized the left’s opposition to that.

Perhaps they’ll come out in open support of white genocide next? “War on White People? Pfft. That’s absurd. White people have the most privilege!” Eventually, “Actually, the War on White People is Good and anyone who opposes it is Evil.”

The bottom line is that anything you suspect leftists truly want, they probably do, no matter how much they deny it.


Also, I keep seeing all this talk about how we need millions of foreign immigrants (presumably low-skilled ones) to combat our “population crisis” and ensure that we remain a nation with a steadily increasing population. From the Manjoo piece:

“Economically and strategically, open borders isn’t just a good plan — it’s the only chance we’ve got. America is an aging nation with a stagnant population. We have ample land to house lots more people, but we are increasingly short of workers. And on the global stage, we face two colossi — India and China — which, with their billions, are projected to outstrip American economic hegemony within two decades.”

Oh, no! Our GDP might not increase as much! Why is GDP the be-all, end-all? Why is GDP the measure of a nation’s worth.

Don’t get me wrong, to a large extent, GDP does tell you a good deal about the state of a given nation, but you can’t boil everything down to GDP.

“More people = more workers = more production = higher GDP = Everything Awesome” is how the globalist elite thinks.

We have a depraved culture of sex and hedonism, a crisis of masculinity, an opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, a spiritual and emotional void caused by superficial consumerism and obsession with entertainment, eroding family values and families themselves, and we are balkanizing into self-segregation along ethnic and racial lines.

And our elites think all we need is more immigrants to boost GDP.

On a related note, Britain apparently never got the memo that immigrants boost GDP. Britain’s GDP per capita (the measure that matters the most) declined by almost 20% in just four years primarily due to increased migration: