All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 24, 2015 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
23:03
Donald Trump: A Call for Deportation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is Jared Taylor.
My guest today is Peter Brimelow, known to many of us as the founding father and presiding genius of VDARE.com.
VDARE builds itself as America's premier news outlet for patriotic immigration reform.
And I'd say that hits the nail right on the head.
Today I'd like to speak to Mr.
Brimelow about Donald Trump's program for immigration reform.
There are more and more reasons to take his program seriously, because it's more and more likely that Mr.
Trump could actually win the Republican nomination.
According to the very latest polls, he's increased his lead over his competitors for the nomination, and now no fewer than 32% of probable Republican voters say he's their top choice.
Jeb Bush is trailing with just half that number, 16%.
In any case, earlier this week, Mr.
Trump formally issued his policies on immigration reform.
So, Mr. Brimelow, tell me, what do you think of his policies?
Well, Mr.
Taylor, they're stunning.
They were stunning. I've been following this Subject now since 1992 when I wrote that National Review cover story that evolved into alienation.
And this is the most explicit any presidential candidate has ever been.
I think Pat Buchanan was very good, but he never really put this kind of emphasis on it.
And the really extraordinary thing is that we thought Trump was just playing this game of illegal bad legal good, which is a very common Way in which Republican politicians get out of it.
And there's still a sign that he was doing that until he suddenly comes forward and issues this statement.
If you read it carefully, you see for example that he's implying that he would go for a moratorium.
He would withhold green card until the employment situation improves.
That's a moratorium. He doesn't say so in so many words.
Yes, yes. He seems to be saying that until every American who wants a job gets one, he's just going to stop letting people come in legally.
Now he's waffled on that, subsequently.
And one of the really strong bloggers in this area, Noam Matloff, who follows the H1B question, is angry with Trump because of this.
But you know, he also waffled on the question of illegal immigration.
I don't think it's really fair to judge Trump In the way in which you would judge any other candidate.
I mean, he doesn't have focus groups and carefully evolved positions.
He just shoots from the hip.
But his hips need to move in a very good direction.
Yes, and I think most Americans rather admire the fact that he doesn't have focus groups.
He doesn't have to lick his finger and put it up in the air to decide what position to take.
He really says what he feels like.
I agree. You know, Ann Kulder, who I have a tremendous admiration for, and I really think her book, Adios America, is quite excellent.
She thinks that Trump is popular because of the immigration issue.
And generally speaking, I guess that's true.
But I think there's something also, in some ways, deeper and non-political about his appeal.
There's just something about his personality.
John Darwish just wrote recently saying, you have to read the Golden Bough to understand American politics.
There's something deeply Youngin about his masculine, king-like appearance.
Well, I agree 100%.
I think as far as policy is concerned, ordinary Americans are absolutely thrilled to find somebody like Donald Trump.
But at the same time, I believe it's correct that he's at least been touting polls that say Hispanics like him better than any of the Republicans.
And I think that reflects a kind of macho charisma on his part.
Right. But back to his positions on immigration.
I agree that at the end of his official position, it does seem to sound as though he's asking for a moratorium.
But aside from that, what are the aspects of his postings there that you think are the most promising and encouraging?
Well, for us, the most, Vida.com, the thing that delighted most, of course, in the proposal we made last Sunday, is A reform in birthright citizenship.
Closing the anchor baby loophole.
One of our favorite subjects we've been writing about for 15 years.
All by itself. What that would basically do is defang the political incentive to have To have illegal immigration.
Because these people, the Democrats would no longer be importing undocumented Democrats.
And that's of course why they're there responding with such unbridled hysteria is the idea.
We've calculated on VDAIR.com about, must be four or five years ago, Ed Rubinstein ran the numbers and we figured that it would all by itself, ending birthright citizenship, would halve The speed of the Republican drift into minority status.
This isn't because, by the way, I particularly care about the Republican Party.
But we have this concept of GAP as opposed to GOP, you know, the generic American Party.
They are the party of the American majority.
Yes. Perforce and by default, without doing anything in particular, they deserve it.
Anyway, all by itself, birthright citizenship would give them many more years as a dominant party.
By the way, Jared, looking at your remarks on an American Renaissance, I guess it was two days ago, I don't think this is the last election that whites can elect A champion, a white-oriented party.
We've run numbers on that too, and it can be done.
They could do it even without an immigration moratorium, well into the middle of this century, but they would just simply have to mobilize the base.
They would have to start to get all American whites voting like they do in the South, 80-90% of the Republican Party.
Yes, yes, I'm sure that's absolutely true.
It seems that from one presidential year to another, the white percentage of the electorate goes down maybe something on the order of 2%, 2.5%.
You mean of votes cast?
Well, of the electorate, yes.
See, the problem in that...
What we've seen in the last two presidential election cycles is that white turnout has fallen sharply, both for McCain and for Romney.
So it's not simply a question of the Republicans not getting a particularly good share nationally, which they don't.
They barely get, I think Romney got about 57, 58%, which is just not enough.
But the actual turnout, the raw numbers are down.
Now having said that, by the way, the Hispanic turnout was down too.
Hispanic turnout is absolutely atrocious.
It's in the 20s somewhere. They don't care about American politics.
Well, I think certainly the last two times around, white people who really care about their country didn't feel as though they really had a candidate that mattered.
I think, but in any case, no, I think, yes, you're right, it would take mobilization of white voters, but do you think that the GOP has the backbone to realize that and act on that?
I mean, the short answer is no.
But the longer answer is, The medium-term answer is that politicians are quite adroit about, moderately adroit, about doing things that ensure their own survival.
The classic example, of course, being Pete Wilson in California, latching onto Proposition 187, and that got him re-elected, even though he'd raised taxes and done all kinds of very unconservative things, which annoyed the Republican base.
And the long-term answer is, you know, It doesn't really matter in some respects.
There's a question of this implicit community now.
Just by not being Obama, the Republicans are going to get votes.
Well, you know, I was just speaking with a friend today, and he said that that is an enormous part of Trump's appeal, that he is absolutely the mirror image opposite of Barack Obama.
Everything about Barack Obama, turn on its head, and you get Donald Trump.
And I think he's right about that.
Is he raising questions about Obama's sexuality?
He has, yes.
I'm not sure I buy that, but...
No, in fact, this friend of mine is a blogger in his own right who's looked into this question about the rumors that were circulating among the gay bars in Chicago.
I don't know what to make about that myself, but the theory is that once he's out of office, then tongues will begin to wag.
Well, I think once he's out of office, we'll probably find out he was born on Mars, but the mainstream media will cover it on.
I mean, it's been one of the...
One of the really interesting things I think about American politics and American media politics that's become clear over the 15 years I've been doing Vidair.com is the extent to which the mainstream media is coordinated.
It's coordinating itself.
The Internet is a two-edged sword.
On the one hand, it allows us to get our point of view out.
On the other hand, it allows them to coordinate much better.
I think that they've been coordinating for a long time, though, and would even without the internet.
They have that kind of hive mentality or the cathedral, as some of the dark enlightenment people refer to it.
Yeah, but it's more efficient now.
Yes, yes, that's certainly true.
Well, you said that eliminating birthright citizenship would reduce a lot of the demand or the desire for illegal immigration.
I'm not convinced so much of that.
No, John, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the demand for legal immigration because these people would still be here.
What you would do is reduce the political impact, the voting impact.
I misunderstood.
Actually, it's what Ted Cruz occasionally insinuates, he wants, which is, you know, the Republican donors are not actually all that committed to having these people as citizens.
They would just like them here as helots, you know, as non-voting slaves.
And that's particularly true, for example, for this awful woman, Helen Creeble, who runs, she's the Loctite heiress, and she runs horse farms in Colorado, and she puts a lot of money up.
During the last Bush amnesty attempt to try and get some kind of a compromise, what she called a pink card or something.
A red card, which was people who could live here legally but not be citizens.
She flat out says she doesn't want to see these people naturalized.
She's not interested at all in them naturalizing.
All she's interested in is cheap labor.
Of course, that means that there's a tremendous division in the No Good Nick Coalition here because the Chamber of Commerce people really don't care about these people voting.
They just want them to work.
Yes, yes. I think that if that attitude were really widespread and dominant, there could be a way to import labor that was basically hermetically sealed from the rest of society.
But I just don't think that Americans have it in them to maintain that kind of hermetic seal.
And once they start coming in, then they will drift through the seal and will have to educate them and will have to pay for their courtroom interpreters and all that sort of thing.
Well, this goes towards the sort of non-proposal parts of what Trump has been saying.
As you know, in the Meet the Press interview he gave, he just flat out said they have to go.
And he doesn't say that in his actual position paper.
But, of course, it's good news.
And, of course, he's right. They should go.
All of them. Well, what do you think the prospects are of actually getting them all to leave?
All the illegals, I mean.
I mean, it would be a relatively simple thing to do.
I was just looking at this idiot George Will column that came out in the Post a couple of days ago saying that the Party of Liberty can't be in favor of mass deportation.
But why the devil was the Party of Liberty when Eisenhower implemented Operation Wehrpac?
They threw a million and a half people out of the country in 1952.
And they did it, by the way, they didn't actually deport a million and a half.
What they did was they deported a hundred thousand or a couple hundred thousand or something.
And that sent the message to the rest and they left.
And that's what would happen now.
Well, I agree.
I think, first of all, if Donald Trump really does implement E-Verify, so it is difficult for people to be employed in anything but cash under the table kind of jobs, that would send a lot of them scurrying home just by itself.
On top of that, just a few high-profile deportations of utterly unoffending, deep roots in the community type of admirable Mexicans, if the Trump administration had the backbone to do that, that's all it would take.
The word would get out. Either you decide when to go, or ICE is going to decide when you go.
And given that choice, I think the vast majority would clear out.
I mean, there's two issues.
One is, you know, enforcement through attrition.
Attrition through enforcement, I'm sorry, which is what Mitt Romney calls self-deportation.
But the other thing is what we call strategic deportation, which is you go to somebody like this Vargas character, this Puerto Rican, this Filipino who worked for the Washington Post and everything, or some illegal valedictorian, all three of them, and you throw them out.
You know, you look, you grab a bunch that have occupied some congressman's office and deport them.
And that's a big and very loud message.
But of course, you know, Jared, it's not illegal immigration that's really important.
It's legal immigration. That's the really wonderful thing about what Trump's done here.
He seems to have brought the whole Sessions, Jeff Sessions thesis, that we have to run legal immigration in the interests of the American workers.
Less of it. Reduce workforce competition.
Yes, I find it startlingly refreshing to find a major politician saying that immigration policy should be in the service of Americans rather than foreigners.
Unheard of, isn't it? Although having said that, you know, one of the good things about this current crop of candidates is that there are several of them now, or a few of them now, saying that.
Santorum, of course, and also Scott Walker in a fumbling sort of way.
So it's glacial progress is what it comes down to.
It's glacial progress everywhere else except for Trump, which is dramatic.
But is not the glacial progress really due to Trump having really set fire to this issue, to mix metaphors?
Well, no, it isn't because Santorum, you know, Santorum actually said this last time he ran.
He hasn't emphasized it, but he has started to say it again.
Scott Walker announced that he changed his mind on immigration and said he was influenced by Sessions, I think, before Trump even declared.
But the issue is on fire because of Trump.
Yes, yes.
The other thing that the Trump phenomenon has set me to musing about is the possibility that a Trump administration, and that's no longer the realm of pure fantasy now, it seems to me that given the bully pulpit effect not only of the presidency but cabinet and appointed political appointees, He could change the way Americans speak, not only about immigration, but about a whole host of subjects.
Do you not agree? Absolutely, yeah.
I mean, one thing that's very clear about what he's clearly shown is that the, you know, the sort of establishment consensus about what can be said and what can be done is very brittle.
We always knew that, you know, it was very clear from opinion polls that Americans didn't agree with it.
But it turns out that it's much less enforceable than they thought.
Yes, and back to something you said earlier, that the one thing American politicians seem to be good at is survival.
Now, I can think of certain exceptions in which candidates had opportunities to take a poke at, oh, a non-white opponent and refrained to do so and then lost.
But if it is evident, and I believe it is, that Trump's policies on immigration are part of his popularity, I'm sure that they will be adopted by others.
Not necessarily, it wouldn't have to be this time around, but they will become part of the armature of people who are seeking political office.
You know, under normal calculations about politics, I would say that.
But, you know, studying this immigration issue over the last 20 odd years, I've become aware of the fact that there's almost like an occult force in American politics which prevents politicians from doing things which are obviously popular.
I mean, of course, it's absurd on its face that the Republican Party, a Republican president, has three times tried to push through amnesty.
Twice through amnesty.
And then, of course, there was this Gang of Eight bill, which is obviously suicidal for the party.
It's completely suicidal for the party.
Why are they trying to do this?
I think you have to look to the...
There are a number of factors, one of which of course is the influence of the big donors.
But is it not really at root a question of race?
It seems to me that if current immigration were exactly as it is in terms of professional and criminal and welfare use profile, but we're all white, then wouldn't it be so much easier to say, throw the baggage out?
I.e., the immigrants out?
Yes. Oh, yeah, sure.
There would be no hesitation. Also, for example, as people often say, if these people come in across the southern border voting Republican, there would have been a cutoff years ago.
Yes. You know, not supposed to be on the border herself.
That's right. No, I do think that the blindness of the Republicans is one that's forced upon them by all of the illusions we have about race and ethnicity in the United States.
But, well, if you were going to take the Trump position and put a cherry on top and improve it to the point of perfection, what's the cherry that you would add?
But let's assume that the Trump position includes he's actually serious about deportation.
And let's assume that he's serious about reducing the numbers of illegal immigrants.
That is to say that's what he means in this.
He implies it, but he doesn't actually say it in this statement.
And let's assume that he actually cuts off the refugee racket, abolishes the refugee racket, which brings about like 100,000 a year at the moment.
It should be completely cut off.
I would... I would like to have a flat out immigration moratorium indefinitely until the situation is resolved.
I think I would like to see some type of official English legislation to make it illegal for employers to require people to speak Spanish and that kind of thing, modeled of course on what's happening in Quebec.
I think official English is something which has simply not been mentioned yet in the campaign and should be.
I'd obviously like to throw Puerto Rico out of any relationship with the U.S. at all.
We should be compelled to be independent.
Going wider field, I think we should simply invade Cuba and overthrow the communist regime and then maybe the Americans could have Miami back.
But I would actually like to see a retroactive application of the birthright citizenship or abolition.
I think they should go and strip citizenship from people who are the children of illegal immigrants.
It's a radical proposal, of course, but it has been done.
People both in the American South and in South Africa Citizenship was stripped basically from blacks in South Africa after the Boers got control, the Afrikaners got control of South Africa in the early 1900s.
Of course this is going to be denounced as racist and the examples that they've given are racial.
But, you know, in both cases there are examples of nations trying to emerge from trying to define themselves and trying to exist and get control of their political institutions.
And that's really what's going on here.
Well, yes, and I agree.
The question of stripping American citizens of citizenship that they got in ways that are now considered to be illegitimate, that would be a matter of law and not a matter of race.
Of course, the others would argue that it has a disparate impact, which makes it therefore contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or some such rubbish as that.
That's next, that's next, that's next.
Yes. Well, the other aspect of this that I think could conceivably be very important, and this may be the subject on which we'll close, I think that if the United States were to take a healthy and vigorous view to guarding its borders and turfing out the people who break the law to get in here, it would be a tremendous and encouraging good example for the Europeans.
Right. And their crisis now has suddenly become more acute than the U.S. crisis.
Although, of course, no more acute than the Israeli crisis.
They're in the situations the Israelis would have been if the Israelis hadn't actually cut off their inflow and thrown these people out and built a fence and all this kind of thing.
Yes. No, I'm very concerned about what's happening in Europe, and although there are brief stirrings of resistance against what the French are increasingly calling the Great Replacement, it's not nearly enough.
It's a slow-motion version of the Camp of the Saints, it seems to me.
Right. Not all that slow.
Yes, yes.
Well, Mr.
Brimelow, I very much appreciate your taking the time to talk to me about these matters, and perhaps as the campaign proceeds, we'll have you on again to share your insights with American Renaissance.
Thanks so much for being part of this program.
That's great. I look forward to it, Mr.
▲
Export Selection