All Episodes
Nov. 26, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
59:14
Immigration and National Security - Sam Francis
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
...is probably the best known of our speakers in this audience, Samuel Francis.
He has spoken at every single American those not to talk.
So that makes us his fifth appearance before this audience.
And it's only proper that we invite him back every year because he is the one who has paid a great price for speaking at once after the 1994 conference in Atlanta.
He was fired from his job as a staff columnist at the Washington Times for the extremely sensible and irreproachable remarks he made at that conference in 1994.
Since then, of course, he has continued to do a great many things.
He is a nationally syndicated columnist in New States, all over the country.
He writes what is unquestionably the most popular column in Chronicles 19, Principles, Principalities, and Powers.
His work appears frequently on the PDA web page, but he is a featured columnist.
He is the editor of the Citizens Informer, and he also left the newspaper for the Council of the Citizens, and he is likewise the book editor of the Occidental Informer.
So, despite having left the time, as you can see, he keeps quite busy, and the subject this morning will be Immigration and National Security.
Please welcome Senator Bound.
Thank you very much, Gary.
At a recent conference
on immigration on Capitol Hill that I'll speak about in more detail later.
Congressman Tom Pencredo, let's see.
Congressman Pencredo of California or Colorado is actually probably the best Congressman on the immigration issue in Congress today.
In his March, he said that there were a couple of metaphors, as he called them, that he came so appropriate to describe the entire operating system that they have in this country.
And one, as he said, is probably the best metaphor, is a question that you were asked on the application for a non-influenced visa to come into this country.
And the question for
Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in subversive or terrorist activities?
Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in any unlawful purpose?
Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization, as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State?
Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany?
Or have you ever participated in genocide?
There's a little asterisk at the bottom of the page.
that says a yes answer does not automatically signify ineligibility for a visa
I hesitate to speak to the American Renaissance Conference on the subject of immigration and national security because I think most of you, many of you, probably already know a good deal about the general subject and the main theme that I'm going to talk about.
Which is mainly that immigration, and especially Middle Eastern immigration into the United States, is now a major national security concern, especially since September 11th, obviously.
I'm well aware, and I know many of you are as well, that the attacks of September 11th have their immediate roots in our foreign policy in the Middle East, and especially in our war against Iraq, I've written columns about that aspect of the September 11th attacks.
But be that as it may, there is still a profound racial, religious, and civilizational conflict going on between the Arabic Muslim world and the white Christian West that provides deeper background.
To the terrorist attacks.
That conflict is essentially an extension and a part of what Lothrop Stoddard called in 1917 the rising tide of color against white world supremacy and the title of his well-known book published in that year.
One of the major if least recognized books of the 20th century if the century had actually had the wits to understand it.
If you haven't read Stoddard's book, I would urge you to do so because most of what he talked about nearly 100 years ago now has either come true or is in the process of coming true today.
In that book, Stoddard quotes a British Orientalist of the 19th century named W.L. Palgrave who wrote about Islam, that Islam is even now an enormous power full of self-sustaining vitality,
With a surplus for aggression and a struggle with its combined energies would be deadly indeed.
The Mohammedan peoples of the East have awakened to the manifold strength and skill of their Western Christian rivals, and this awakening, at first productive of respect and fear, not unmixed with admiration, now wears the type of antagonistic dislike and even of intelligent hate.
No more zealous Muslims are to be found in all the ranks of Islam than they who have sojourned longest in Europe and acquired the most intimate knowledge of its sciences and ways.
Mohammedans are keenly alive to the ever-shifting uncertainties and divisions that distract the Christianity of today and to the woeful instability of modern European institutions.
From their own point of view, Muslims are as men standing on a secure rock, and they contrast the quiet fixity of their own position with the unsettled and insecure restlessness of all else.
Palgrave wrote that passage in 1872, and it could have been written last month.
But if you don't want to believe Palgrave or Lothrop Stoddard, consider also what Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in his book The clash of civilizations in 1996, even though Huntington, of course, does not express it in explicitly racial terms.
The early years of the 21st century, Huntington wrote, are likely to see an ongoing resurgence of non-Western power and culture and the clash of the peoples of non-Western civilization with the West and with each other.
And while Huntington was not specifically speaking of Islamic civilization in that passage, it comes at the end of his chapter on the Islamic resurgence and clearly includes it.
Nor should we imagine that what Huntington calls the resurgence, dare we call it a rising tide, is confined to Islam and the Arabic world.
In discussing the non-Western reactions to the 1991 Gulf War, Huntington writes: The Gulf War began as a war between Iraq and Kuwait, then became a war between Iraq and the West,
then one between Islam and the West, and eventually came to be viewed by many non-Westerners as a war of East versus West,"a white man's war, a new outbreak of old-fashioned imperialism," as he quotes a non-white writer writing.
So despite the immediate roots of the September 11th attack in our foreign policy, I think the deeper roots lie in the racial and civilizational conflict that has been going on between the European peoples and the Middle Eastern peoples since at least the time of Mohammed,
if not indeed since the time of Xerxes and Darius and the Persian invasions of ancient Greece.
Most of you know that the original Arabic conquests under the Muslims took place against the territories of the Byzantine Empire in the 7th century A.D., and that they continued to invade and conquer the white, Christian, and Western lands until they were halted at tours by Charles Martel in 732.
More than a thousand years later, in 1683, the Muslim advance into Europe reached its greatest extent With the invasion of Austria that year and the siege of Vienna, an attack on the Holy Roman Empire.
The Emperor, Leopold, was among the first to flee from Vienna with his court.
And Pope Innocent XI appealed to Louis XIV of France, who was then the most powerful monarch in Europe and had the title of the eldest son of the Church.
to come to the aid of the Empire and to resist the Muslim invasion of Christendom.
Louis' reply was that he would happily refrain from attacking the western frontiers of the Empire itself if the Pope could guarantee that Louis' heir could become the heir of the Holy Roman Emperor.
I mention this anecdote merely to suggest that racial and civilizational renegades are not confined to the 20th century, and that the eagerness to exploit the racial and civilizational crises of the West are by no means confined to people like Kim Philby and Alger Hiss.
It's hard to get any farther to the right than Louis XIV.
In any case, the only man in Europe who did come to the aid of Vienna and of Europe was the King of Poland, John Sobieski, who advanced to the rescue with his army and reached Vienna,
then besieged by the Turks, on the interesting date of September 11, 1683.
And the Battle of Vienna that followed on the next day was what historian David Og called One of the few really significant battles in world history, a smashing defeat of the Ottoman army that effectively ended the Muslim threat to Europe for good, or at least until a new generation of racial renegades decided that mass immigration into the West would be a really good way to reinvigorate family values and revive American cities.
At least Louis XIV could come up with more plausible rationalizations for his own greed and treachery.
Well, in place of John Sobieski, today, of course, we have George W. Bush.
And as frightening as that is, we should remember that a direct or conventional military invasion of the West, such as Sobieski defeated, is today not really the problem.
Indeed, the problem is even more frightening because in the 17th century, everyone recognized the Muslim invasion as a threat.
Today, no one but xenophobes, nativists, and racists like us recognizes an invasion when we see it.
Nevertheless, the point I want to come to is simply this: that despite the rising tide of color, the clash of civilizations, the world's historic conflict between West and East, white and non-white, Christian and Muslim, or however we wish to frame it and describe it,
there is no real danger to the West or to America From the Muslim world, apart from the mass immigration that we ourselves have allowed to take place.
The Muslims may hate our guts, perhaps they even have good reason to hate our guts, but there is virtually nothing they can do to us as long as they are in the lands they conquered a thousand years ago and we are in our lands that we have.
It is only when we admit them into our own territories that they can become a danger to us.
In the United States, there are not yet enough Muslims to create the kind of cultural and political danger that they have already become very clearly in places like Great Britain and several European countries.
The exact number of Muslims and Arabs in the United States is not entirely clear because the Census Bureau does not count by religion.
But I've seen estimates ranging from 4 to 8 million for Muslims in the United States.
And three million for Arabs, which are, of course, not the same thing.
Between 1968 and 1998, two million immigrants from mainly Muslim countries entered the United States.
And according to one estimate, 78% of Muslims in the United States are said to have been born abroad.
22% obviously were born here.
And American blacks make up some 24% of U.S. Muslims.
Daniel Pipes, who's a very strong Zionist whose conclusions are not perhaps to be taken without a grain of salt, estimates that there are some two million Muslims in the United States and that 10 to 15 percent of them are enthusiastic about militant Islam.
That is actually close to what Barry Cosman of the University of Southampton in Great Britain estimates.
He is the co-editor of a project called the American Religious Identification Survey.
And he estimates that about 300,000 American Muslims might support the Al-Qaeda network of Bin Laden.
He also notes that Muslims are the youngest of all religious groups in the United States, with a median age of 28, compared to 42 for Roman Catholics and 51 for Jews.
John Daly at the Middle East Institute in Washington notes that many Muslims in the United States For many Muslims in the United States, the American dream is a nightmare.
Their religion is on the fringe and stereotyped.
Their old values are a source of comfort and solidarity.
Radical clerics exploit that isolation.
The point is that Muslims in America do not assimilate readily.
They remain estranged from American and Western society, and they tend to be of an age that is susceptible to recruitment for terrorism.
Some of you may know that in a previous career, actually I think it was two careers ago, I worked in the U.S. Senate for a few years as a legislative aide, and what I mainly worked on at that time was terrorism, both domestic and international,
and actually wrote a number of articles and a monograph about it.
The main book to read back then in the early 1980s was by a woman journalist, now dead, named Claire Sterling, entitled The Terror Network.
Sterling was an especially expert on Italian terrorism, and one of the key concepts in the book that I recall was the development in Northern Italy of what she called, or what was actually, what was perhaps called by the Italians themselves,
a second society.
What we would probably call a counterculture.
The idea was that immigrants from southern Italy, mainly working class and very, very different culturally from the northern Italians, would come north and establish subcultures characterized by poverty,
lack of education, and alienation.
And it was in these very areas that the middle-class terrorists of the Red Brigades and similar groups found sanctuary and sympathy and support.
It is, in fact, very difficult to establish a successful or long-lasting terrorist movement without some such second society that is alienated from and, in many respects, hidden from the main society.
That is exactly what we have created in the United States with mass immigration.
Take, for example, the city of Patterson, New Jersey, which was the subject of a New York Times article soon after September 11th, on September 27th, actually.
Four of the hijackers of September 11th had actually lived in Patterson for a few months.
And the Times wrote,"In this neighborhood of Latinos, African Americans, and recent immigrants speaking dozens of languages..." The handful of young Arab men who came and went drew almost no notice.
In their apartment above a bodega, they did not play loud music.
They appeared not to speak English.
Patterson, according to the Times, was one of several East Coast staging areas for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
And the hijackers' stay here also shows how, in an area that speaks many languages and keeps absorbing emigrants, a few young men with no apparent means of support and no furniture can settle in for months without drawing attention.
There are some 72 different nationalities living in Patterson, according to its mayor, a man named Bob Grant, presumably not related to the radio show host.
Patterson, however, is by no means alone in providing a kind of second society in which Arab or any other foreign terrorists can hide, live, work, and plan.
Patterson is simply a more or less anonymous area where a few questions are asked, but there are others in which Muslims actually gain sympathy.
In Laurel, Maryland, where some of the hijackers also lived, there is a somewhat similar community.
Notable especially because it was in Laurel that a man named Muataz al-Halak, an ally of Osama bin Laden, lived and taught at an Islamic school in nearby College Park, and who has been questioned by the FBI previously for his supposed ties to terrorist attacks on American targets abroad.
There are similar linkages with the domestic black Muslim group, al-Fukra.
Led by a Pakistani Muslim named Sheikh Saeed Mubarak Ali Gilani and connected to the organization called Muslims of the Americas.
Communes centered around Gilani exist in several American cities, including California, South Carolina, Virginia, and New York State.
The FBI recently closed down a school at one of the centers in California.
Sheikh Abdul Rahman, also a friend of bin Laden, was active in the United States for some years, collecting funds and preaching anti-American religious views, and was prominent in the Jersey City Muslim community in northern New Jersey and New York.
Two of his sons are actually members of bin Laden's organization, and Rahman worked throughout the United States building a domestic version of it.
His trial in 1995 convicted him of directing others to commit bombings and acts of arson in New York and showed him to be a central figure in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and bombings of U.S. embassies abroad in Kenya and Tanzania.
He's now serving a life sentence, but his disciples are still active, and his sermons are still used as texts by al-Qaeda, and he himself, as the Washington Post reports, Remains an influential figure in Al-Qaeda.
My purpose is not to document an exhaustive case for the domestic security threats that Muslims and Arabs represent, but simply to illustrate the extent of the problem.
What President Bush has told us, that Islam is peace, that the terrorism of September 11th does not represent real Islam, and that American Muslims are not a danger, is simply untrue.
I do not say that all or most American Muslims are a danger, but some clearly are.
Some do everything they can to recruit others into becoming dangerous, and many who are not actually dangerous are still sympathetic to them and are willing to lend them various degrees of support, ranging from mere sympathy and vocal support to monetary assistance to full-scale collaboration in the planning of terrorist activities.
If there are indeed something like 300,000 such people in this country, then we have a little problem on our hands.
The way to fix that problem seems simple:
round them up and ship them out.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple because we have almost no way of locating or identifying them, and even today we certainly have no will to do so among our national leaders.
The federal government has been looking for something like more than 300,000 immigrants whose visas have expired and are still in this country ever since September 11th, but it is virtually impossible to locate them.
President Bush himself has noted that some 40 percent of the illegal aliens in this country are here on expired visas.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service, since the Clinton administration, no longer engages in internal enforcement at all, which means that if you're not caught at the border coming across, then you're home free.
The Border Patrol remains understaffed.
Before September 11th, and even now as far as I know, there was no computerized system for tracking those whose visas had expired, and Senator Spencer Abraham, to the cheers of the The pro-immigration lobby at the Wall Street Journal and other conservative outlets helped hold up legislation that would have implemented such a tracking system.
No one has suggested that Abraham, now Energy Secretary, should be expelled from public life.
There is no way to track immigrant students who are supposed to be attending American universities to see if they really are attending, or what they are studying, or whether they are attending classes.
Colleges and universities themselves have opposed such tracking systems as too intrusive and too expensive.
Yet at least 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11th came here on business or student visas.
If September 11th accomplished anything, however, it may have helped wake many Americans up to the dangers of mass immigration.
Opinion polls have long shown that a majority of Americans oppose more immigration and want less.
But a Zogby poll after September 11th showed that some 77% of the public wanted less immigration, a good deal more than had been saying so in recent years.
The House Immigration Caucus suddenly grew from a mere 10 or 11 members before September 11th to more than 60 members today.
And it is precisely because of such public demands and such possible congressional action against immigration That there has suddenly appeared a small movement on the political radar screen that, while ostensibly seeking immigration reform and control,
is really, in my opinion, aimed at smothering serious and effective immigration restriction in their cradles.
On October 5th, the New York Times in an editorial commented that there was every reason to enhance visa security, border security, and monitoring foreign visitors.
Visiting foreigners.
But to go further, it said, and suggest that the attack calls for a drastic reduction in the number of immigrants and foreign visitors would be irrational and counterproductive.
That is essentially the line that both liberal and neoconservative reformers have been taking ever since.
Linda Chavez, who might be called the first lady of the open borders lobby, A lady I once called the Chiquita Banana of the Republican Party wrote exactly the same thing in both the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.
"Don't seal the borders" was her headline in the latter.
So did her disciple and one-time colleague at National Review, John Miller.
"By all means, we need to tighten border security," they say,"crack down on expired visas, track foreign students, etc." But by no means should we abandon what is now claimed to be the essence of our national identity, namely, open borders and limitless immigration.
There are signs that, partly out of genuine concern over the terrorist threat that mass immigration really does represent, but more largely, I think, out of concern that public awareness of the danger could lead to really effective immigration control and restriction.
There are signs that there is now a full-scale movement among neoconservatives to co-opt immigration control as a movement, denounce experienced and knowledgeable immigration critics like Peter Bremelow, for example, and indeed Pat Buchanan as racist,
steer the movement away from such goals as a moratorium or a cessation of immigration, and assuage public concern by enacting new measures that neither effectively protect us from terrorism or actually control immigration.
Many of you may be aware of the speech by a man named Stephen Steinlight of the American Jewish Committee last fall, urging fellow Jews to abandon their support for immigration and consider at least some restrictions, mainly because unlimited immigration is no longer good for Jewish interests,
as Mr. Steinlight very bluntly argued.
Mr. Steinleit went out of his way to say that, quote, the white Christian supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration, like Peter Bremelow, whom he explicitly named, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change.
Steinleit went on to recommend such reforms as ending bilingual education Already pushed in California by Ron Unz in his Proposition 209 a couple of years ago, and to recommend what he called patriotic assimilation of immigrants already here,
as well as what is by now the usual litany of beefing up the Border Patrol, cracking down on document fraud, tracking foreign students, and monitoring visa security.
Earlier this month, Very similar proposals were discussed at a conference on Capitol Hill hosted by David Horowitz of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and funded by major neoconservative donors and featuring Ed Meese,
that well-known immigration expert, and a bevy of speakers whose credentials as immigration writers or experts were and remain unknown.
But all of whom endorsed and argued for the same milquetoastish agenda, including what was explicitly called, following Steinlight, patriotic assimilation.
The main feature of the Horowitz Conference was not who was there so much as it was who was not there.
Peter Bremelow, Wayne Lutton, Glenn Spencer, Paul Craig Roberts, Dan Stein of Thayer, Not to mention such enlightened luminaries of immigration reform as Jared Taylor or,
at the risk of immodesty, me.
Horowitz told a friend of mine, a mutual friend, that the purpose of the conference was, as he put it, to put a more palatable face on immigration control.
That is essentially neocon speak for co-opting the immigration movement.
These gentlemen were, these people that I've mentioned were excluded and not invited, presumably because their faces are not all that palatable.
I can't speak for my own face.
I invite you to look at...
David Horowitz's face on his website and tell me who's more palatable.
But apparently the people who were not invited were not invited because they're all what Mr. Steinleig called the white Christian supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration.
You bet.
That's exactly what most of them are and exactly what they would have called for.
and exactly what needs to be done.
But you won't be hearing it from Steinleit and Horowitz or the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times.
It was at the Horowitz conference that Congressman Tancredo made the remarks from which I quoted at the start of this speech.
And indeed, he was one of its brighter lights.
The burden of his...
The remarks at that conference was, essentially, don't believe what you're hearing today, nothing is going to happen, because the Open Borders lobby has not changed its beliefs, and it's not changed its goals of maintaining virtually limitless immigration.
What you're being told here is simply eyewash to make you think that serious immigration control is on its way, but it's not.
Tancredo himself has called for a moratorium on immigration, and that is at least the first step in dealing with the problem and the danger.
A second step would be not only to stop immigration, but as I said, to round them up and ship them out.
Thank you.
If the born-again reformers do actually endorse and work for a moratorium, that's fine.
But don't hold your breath.
Regardless of what three-fourths of the American people want, regardless of what national security now obviously demands, and what the survival of the racial and cultural identity of the American people requires, my bet is that what we will get will be the immigration reform eyewash that will do nothing to address the real problems,
and that neither the new reformers nor the political leadership of the country is going to do anything that is necessary to control and restrict immigration unless the people of the United States, including people like us, make them do it.
Thank you for listening.
Dr. Francis, at present,
Is it a federal crime to enter the United States illegally?
If so, what's the penalty?
Is it a federal crime to overstay one's visa?
And if so, what is the penalty?
Well, it is illegal, and I'm sure there is a penalty for entering the country illegally.
There may be a law book penalty for it, but it's virtually never enforced.
It's simply rounded up and shipped back or escorted back over the border.
The vast bulk of illegal immigrants come across the Mexican border.
I ask because if there's no penalty, an illegal immigrant is not risking anything by coming here.
Absolutely not, no.
There are some physical dangers in coming across the Mexican border if you're not prepared for it, if you're not trained in desert survival or if you're...
A lot of people do die in that because they get lost and exhausted and run out of food and water and that sort of thing.
Do you think it would be better to put illegal immigrants, if they're found here, to put them in jail for a while before deporting them?
I wouldn't want to do that.
I don't want to support them.
Send them back.
I mean, what they ought to do, and there is some indication that they're thinking about doing this to some extent, put the army on the border.
Take the army out of Rwanda and NATO.
The country is not only being invaded, it is being colonized by Mexico.
Mexico uses illegal immigration to get rid of unwanted people, people they don't want.
That's why they don't have a revolution in Mexico, because it's a safety valve for them.
But they now have dual citizenship.
They can vote in Mexican elections.
Mexican presidential candidates actually campaign in the United States for the votes of Mexican Americans living here.
You know, they openly interfere in our political system.
They interfered on the vote on NAFTA, on Proposition 187.
They constantly interfere on Mexican criminal convicts and trying to avoid the death penalty for them.
And it's essentially a reconquest of America that they're carrying out.
I didn't mean to get into a lecture.
I quite agree with you.
All right, all right.
Yes, sir.
I just wanted one comment before I get to my question.
I disagree with you on your notion of this Islamic militancy that's facing this country.
I think it has its roots.
And our support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and our support for this whole notion of destabilizing Central Asia.
It's certainly not our Middle East policies or our Iraqi policies, because what then explains the situation in Chechnya or Kashmir or the southern Philippines, on and on and on, or the Balkans, where Bin Laden's been active in the early'80s.
So I disagree.
I think this whole notion that it's our foreign policy that somehow brings this Islamic militancy to our doorstep.
I mean, the CIA supported, up until fairly recently, I know the MI6 and SAS was training the Chechen rebels.
The FSB reported in'98 they were supporting the Chechen rebels.
But my other question is this: When we see Islam really just overtaking Europe, I mean, dramatic.
I don't know if you've been to Europe recently, but you can see it's clearly this Islamic tide is so evident.
Won't Hispanic immigration in this country offset a lot of the complete third worldization that's going to go on and that's going to rip Europe apart?
This Islamic militancy that's going to rip Europe apart in the next 20 years?
You mean will Hispanic immigrants serve as kind of balance to Islamic?
With Hispanic immigration, the percentage of Christians in this country is going to grow, as opposed to Europe, where clearly you've got your choice between secular atheism and Islam.
I don't see that that will have that much effect, to tell the truth, as far as helping us.
Would you say that many Hispanics do have European Christian culture to some extent?
You know, it's...
As opposed to, you know, Algerian Islamic type of culture?
They may be more Christian than Muslims.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, there are now more Muslims than Episcopalians in this country.
And frankly, the Muslims are probably closer to Christianity, to tell the truth, than the Episcopalians.
But the –
I don't see how...
The Spanish are going to help them.
I just don't want to be part of Mexico, is the thing.
I don't care whether it's...
But just one other point.
Where Islam exists and advances, you have nothing but death, war, bloodshed, poverty, misogyny.
You see that wherever it advances.
What's the difference between that and Latin America?
You've had three questions.
The question you just heard was more about foreign policy than anything else.
This is a domestic question.
I believe, from my wife's experience and from what I've seen in the newspapers, that Muslims have to some extent been brought into this country to serve the black communities.
I read the crime reports in our local newspaper.
Very often, it's Egyptians, Middle Eastern people, etc., who are the victims of black crimes at groceries, service stations, etc., in their neighborhood.
My wife worked in Harvey, Illinois, which is a terrible place.
It had a population of 30,000.
It had 30 murders in one year.
Black initiated.
This was two or three years ago.
Anyhow, she was in the cardiology lab.
Out of the eight doctors there, five were Middle Eastern.
Five were Middle Eastern.
There were also many Indians.
I know Indians are involved in these sorts of things, too.
But I believe that someone at a higher level, to some extent, is bringing these Muslims into the country to serve the black community.
And I am a xenophobic person, so it possibly originates from that.
Have you noticed any of this thing?
I'm not sure what you mean by serve them.
What I mean is to work at their hospitals, to work on the people that come in for Medicaid.
It was a hospital in Harvey, Illinois.
Many of the patients were not white.
You know, I don't think that there is a particular plot to bring in a particular group of people.
I think we just have-- we've fallen-- our leadership, our elites in this country have fallen for this idea.
That we are a nation of immigrants and we should have open borders.
You saw this after the September 11th attack.
We were all told we should be prepared to restrict our constitutional freedoms and everything, except for restricting immigration.
We can have trials for...
Without juries, there's secret trials, and Alan Dershowitz says we should have torture or something, but we can't give up immigration.
We can't limit immigration, you see.
That's the essence of our national identity now.
And there's a powerful vested interest in bringing in cheap labor and, I think, in breaking down national borders.
All that sort of thing.
I think that's an ideology and a set of interests.
I don't really see it as a plot.
They do have that effect.
I didn't mean it that way.
What I meant was this is what has come about.
The hospital where she worked would have had great trouble getting doctors to work in that lab if they hadn't been able to recruit foreigners to do it.
That's all I meant to say.
OK. All right.
Yes. Well, I have a little--
A different kind of question.
You pointed out the consequences of this September disaster, at least two positive ones: the growth of public support for mass immigration control and the expansion of the caucus in the House.
Now, how can we take advantage of the temporary weakening of the open borders coalition or lobby to break through these barriers that have excluded us from,
you might say, the mainstream and influencing policy.
Do you see any particular things we can do now or in the near future to build a movement?
Well, yeah, I think generally we have an excellent opportunity here to say repeatedly and very strongly, we told you so.
I was writing that after the September 11th attack in my columns, and gleefully so.
Morris Dees says the far right is now exploiting September 11th to promote immigration control, you bet.
You know, you exploit it like Franklin Roosevelt exploited the depression or something.
That's what you do in politics.
We need to be deluging the congressmen and the White House with the message that immigration is out of control.
It has now already resulted in the biggest act of mass murder in history.
And that it needs to be stopped.
It's simply incredible that you could have a terrorist attack carried out by immigrants who entered this country legally that murdered 3,000 people, and they don't close the borders the next day.
It's incredible that that has not been done.
And all you get...
All you get is like this editorial from the New York Times I read, don't go too far, Islam is peace, immigration is our essence, we cut it off, we'd be just like the terrorists, all the rest of the crap.
You just have to deluge these people.
That's why the 60 people joined the immigration caucus, because people are writing in those letters, and we need to do more of that and make our presence and our beliefs known.
Yes, I have a question.
Well, I know a lot of Muslims, and a lot of what they object to about Western culture, from the Zionist domination of Western foreign policy to cultural and decadence in the West, is a lot of what I object to about some of the things happening in our country.
Now, I also know that the head of Wahhabi Islam in the United States is a white guy who converted.
He used to be a Catholic priest.
I met him the other day.
And the question is, Is attacking Islam the wrong target?
Is it just a continuation?
I mean, the neoconservatives are attacking Muslim immigration because they want to continue Zionist policies in the United States.
That's right.
Is Muslim immigration the wrong target?
I mean, there are certainly immigration problems that need to be addressed, but are you just playing into the hands of people who've been breaking down culture?
Well, we should be careful to avoid that.
I don't care about Islam so much.
I don't mean to attack Islam.
I mean, it's not my religion.
There are pluses and minuses and all that.
I just don't want them here.
It's not an Islamic country.
I mean, you know, Muslims have their own countries.
They conquered a lot of our countries in the 7th century, and we've let them keep them.
We couldn't get them back.
We tried in the Crusades, but it didn't work.
So they can live there, and they can have that.
But I don't see why they have to come to my country.
First of all, I'd like to remind everybody that there is an historical example for what you're talking about, which was Switzerland, which actually put this up for referendum.
I think it was in the early'70s, if I recall correctly, in which the Swiss decided to return all the guest workers back to Yugoslavia and elsewhere.
They voted on it nationally and they did the thing, and I suspect that there are some very powerful lessons to be learned if one were to go over that experience.
Practical political lessons, which gets to the question here, is anybody who's been in the United States for a while and has traveled around knows how dependent our economy is on immigrant labor.
I mean, there are parts of North Chicago that I'm familiar with where everything wall-to-wall, every hotel, every McDonald's, every restaurant, save, interestingly enough, Mexican restaurants are run by Mexicans and maybe a few Chinese restaurants on the side.
But you go to Silicon Valley, everywhere.
Now, what you're proposing...
Is a benefit.
If we get rid of immigrants, we'll save the culture, we'll reduce the odds of terrorism and everything else like that.
But what you're also suggesting is a dramatic, huge cost in everyday standard of living for most Americans.
Now, how would you sell that as a political...
What happened in Switzerland, for example, was the average number of hours worked per week went up dramatically.
Switzerland went on to a 48-hour work...
Workweek after they left immigrants.
Prices shot up in restaurants, hotels, places like that.
In many ways, Switzerland has yet to recover from that rather expensive increase in the cost of living in Switzerland.
Now, if you were selling your program, okay, you say, okay, I have costs on this side, okay, and these costs are huge.
You know, what are we going to do about all the people who work in Silicon Valley, McDonald's, the kebab houses, and things like that?
In Switzerland, If I recall, it was sold mainly on a crime issue.
So how would you sell it?
There are several answers.
First of all, Donald Huddle of Rice University has done repeated estimates of this, showing that there's a cost, that immigrants actually cost us money in terms of taxes, welfare, that sort of thing.
Secondly, If you look at, I think it's in the paperback edition of Bremelow's Alien Nation in the preface, he talks about a National Academy of Sciences study that shows that, I can't quote the exact figures,
but there's not a significant amount that immigrants bring to the economy.
It's more or less consistent with Bremelow's main argument in the main body of his book that they may help the economy, but not that much.
Okay, so we don't have kebab houses.
I can live with that.
We don't have Taco Bell.
Well, that's probably an American thing anyway.
Very few Mexicans have Taco Bell.
Right, I would guess.
I don't think it would be that much of a problem to tell the truth.
Well, nobody seems to be doing it.
I mean, I've read many studies, too.
I'm familiar with the economics literature on that.
And it's an argument you don't see in public.
No, you don't.
Well, you don't see any argument in public.
Yes, sir.
Well, Sam, here's a little anecdote for you and the folks in the room.
In a perfect world, it should be as difficult to enter our country as it was for East Germans to leave their country prior to 1989.
And surely some of you people remember how difficult and dangerous it was to exit East Germany.
They had quite a military presence.
They had a physical wall.
The other thing, the first gentleman who stepped up to the mic said, what is the legal impediment or what laws do people break trying to enter our country?
Essentially, there's not much.
It was written in American Renaissance recently in the newsletter that in the wonderful country of Singapore that they actually cane illegal aliens.
The gruesome details are they cane them on the first try, trying to get in three times, and they also cane any Singaporeans who are smuggling them in three times.
One gentleman, I think, got his butt smacked 18 times for trying to smuggle in six.
I would love to see Bill Gates and all these other creepy New World Order capitalists.
They wouldn't have a rear end left.
That's a good suggestion.
I saw an article recently, I think it may have been in the Christian Science Monitor, on Hispanics that some of them are actually becoming Muslims in this country.
I don't know if it's that many of them.
I have not heard that.
If it's in the Christian Science Monitor, it must be true.
I believe everything I read in the newspapers.
That may well be true.
I don't know.
They're probably Muslims.
It's not just Mexicans or Latin Americans who come across the Mexican border.
There's a huge industry smuggling people from Africa and Asia into Mexico, and then they can come in here, and also in Canada.
I have a concern with the attitudes of people who are white racialists or white racial nationalists on the question of Israel.
I think that the problem I see with it is that there can be an attitude that is conducive to the kind of Manichean paradigm, racial paradigm.
In other words, if one is opposed to Zionism in some way, that one would be...
Look favorably on the on the Palestinians side in a biased way So so in other words, I think that kind of sensibility would be would actually be conducive to It would mean that that white racialists are actually cultivating the kind of Manichaean racial paradigm that would that could actually work against themselves.
I know there is that mentality among some people who are racially conscious that there are You know, anti-Zionist, anyway, that they perhaps romanticize Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims or something like that.
I think that's what you're talking about.
Well, they shouldn't do that.
Well, my concern is that it would – it's conducive to that kind of – to the very kind of Manichean sensibility which has so hurt white people.
It may be conducive, but people should resist that temptation not to do that.
So I agree with you.
Yes, sir.
Yes. I'd like to ask you a question about the views of Professor Kevin MacDonald.
Professor MacDonald has written quite extensively on immigration, especially immigration into the United States since 1965.
And he proposes that immigration policy has been basically dominated by the political power of American Jews, that the other Americans have not had much interest, and that Jews perceive their self-interest in the balkanization of the United States.
That is that anti-Semitism has been most dangerous when Gentiles are homogeneous.
For example, medieval Spain or Nazi Germany.
But if the Gentile world were divided, then this would make Jews more secure.
An example, MacDonald quotes the Stephen Steinleit article as an example of a Jew who sees immigration in terms of what is good for Jews rather than what is good for the United States.
And my question is, what do you think of Professor McDonald's views on immigration?
I read his article on that, and I read his books, and I think he makes a very, very powerful case for it, a very well-documented case.
I don't think there's any question about it.
And Steinleit, in his speech, says essentially the same thing in many respects, that American Jews have been very pro-immigration for generations.
and the the the
He's in the process of changing his mind, but not very much.
Steinleit's argument as to why Jews have done that is a little different from MacDonald.
MacDonald is arguing that Jews have used that as a weapon against Gentile society to break down the homogeneity of the society.
Steinleit says that they are mainly doing it because Jews were refugees themselves and immigrants, and either they are promoting Jewish immigration from persecution,
like in Russia or Middle East or something, or they're simply out of sympathy for other refugees.
I think it's probably a little of both among many American Jews, to tell the truth.
I, um...
We're not always conscious of exactly why we do things.
I don't think it's contradictory to say that there are several different reasons why Jews do that.
I think it's also true there are lots of people and lots of institutions in this country today.
That support mass immigration and have a vested interest in it.
Big business is one of the main ones for cheap labor and for labor bargaining because it depresses the price of labor.
Churches support it, I think, partly out of humanitarian and theological reasons, but also because people don't attend church and they can fill up their churches with people.
Labor unions are now supporting it for the first time in their history.
Because they can fill up labor unions.
It's a declining institution.
Teachers. We don't reproduce ourselves, and so there aren't that many kids going to school, and without the kids, teachers don't have a job, there aren't any schools, so they want more immigrants to come in, more things for them to teach.
Social workers.
You know, you can go on and on.
Politicians who want votes in both parties now.
The big thing is whether the Republicans can, as they like to put it, lure Hispanics into the Republican Party.
But there are many institutions now.
The Catholic Church, when I was at the Washington Times, the most outspoken defenders of immigration were Catholic conservatives at the Times.
Dan Stein, who is the Executive Director of FAIR, told me, I think I can quote him to this effect, Ten years ago, he was on Buckley's show, Firing Line, on immigration.
And he asked Buckley privately before the show, you know, we did a search of your columns, and we realized that you have not written on the immigration issue for about ten years.
And he said, why is that?
And Buckley said, well, it's partly because of the pressure of the church, of the Catholic Church.
They want Hispanics.
In the country because they're Catholic.
A lot of them are now Pentecostal.
There are all sorts of motivations for all sorts of different groups to bring in different people.
Okay. Yeah, first a comment, if I may, concerning the gentleman who seemed like an apologist for immigration, I'd like him to ask himself, what is the cost?
Of a nuclear bomb being set off by Islamic terrorists in the United States.
Is that factored into the immigration economic projections?
Or if smallpox is released by Islamic terrorists in the United States, is that factored into your economic projections on immigration and the benefits we get from immigration?
I don't know.
I didn't say that.
I'd just like to remind the people out there.
I'd just like to remind the people out there.
Also, if you really need such cheap, like...
Labor in your restaurant, why not make a bag lunch and bring it to work instead?
And, you know, keep the nation for Americans.
And my last comment, and this is a question, Osama bin Laden made three demands, at least what I saw publicly, and that was, one, to pull the troops out of American troops out of Saudi Arabia, two, to stop the embargo of Iraq,
and three, to stop the American support for Israel.
Do you think that's that unreasonable?
No. Same with me.
I think it's pretty reasonable.
And I think it would be a good way to placate the tension between Islam and the West by doing those three things.
Export Selection