Peter Brimelow on the Invasion of America, Who’s Behind It, and How Long Until Total Collapse
Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right.
Paid partnerships with:
Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/Tucker
TCN: Watch 'Replacing Europe: Following the World's Deadliest Migration Route,' dropping January 20 only on https://TuckerCarlson.com
Last Country Supply: Real prep starts with the basics. Here’s what we keep stocked: https://lastcountrysupply.com
#TuckerCarlson #immigration #BenShapiro #identitypolitics #legalimmigration #DonaldTrump #donors #media #firstamendment #blacklist #subpoena #nationalism #news #politics #podcast
Chapters:
0:00 It's Time to Rethink Immigration
4:11 How William Buckley Jr. Stabbed Brimelow in the Back
13:44 Why Did Ben Shapiro Attack Brimelow?
14:05 Why Brimelow Was Pushed Out of National Review
21:27 Is Israel an ethnostate?
27:23 The Effort to Make America Less White
31:31 Why Letitia James Is Trying to Destroy Brimelow
46:08 Why Is the White Population Around the World Being Eliminated?
48:52 Brimelow's Experience With the Murdoch Family
56:55 The Ridiculous Lawsuit to Silence Brimelow
1:02:56 How Was Trump Able to Win Over the White Working Class?
1:06:33 What Does America's Future Look Like?
1:11:10 Will the Department of Justice Help Brimelow?
1:14:07 Is Brimelow Hopeful for the Future?
I don't know how much you follow X, but there were a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast.
Okay, so here's one.
This is a tweet from last week, less than a week ago, from a guy from basically an anonymous account, and I'm quoting.
If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered.
Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they're a majority over whites.
White solidarity is the only way to survive.
Okay, that's on the internet.
Elon Musk retweets it and says, 100%.
And then Elon Musk writes this.
If current trends continue, whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct.
Exclamation point.
All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true.
And I think most people know it.
But I read that and I thought, here's the world's richest man who owns this platform and a lot of other things saying this.
And Peter Brimlow, who I know, who's a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for that, than that.
So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.
I'm happy that the debate has moved in that direction.
And the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on vdair.com, which was my website, my birthright citizenship and so on, are now in the public debate.
On the other hand, you know, we've been ruined and we're facing personal ruin, of course, because of this attack on us by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James.
As nobody knows who I am, Tucker, I should say that, you know, I'm a long time, despite my accent.
I've been here for 55 years and I'm a longtime financial journalist.
I work for Forbes and Fortune and the Barons and so on.
And I work for National Review.
I wrote for National Review a lot.
And I wrote a piece on immigration in 1992 saying time to rethink immigration.
That's sometimes credit with kicking off the modern debate.
And there was a brief civil war within the conservative movement at that point, which we lost.
And Buckley bit the stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots.
And for the next while, the Wolf Journal editorial page was absolutely dominant and the crying out going on about the need for amnesty and there was no way to combat it.
So I set up a website, which I named VDARE.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child, not white child, as they always say, born in the New World.
And over a period of about 25 years, it built up into quite a force until about two years ago.
It was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who just basically subpoenaed us to death and has, in fact, now sued us personally as in the foundation and through the foundation.
So we're a bit like General Flynn, you know, no middle-class family can stand up to this.
General Flynn had to sell his house and we're going to face be driven into personal bankruptcy, I guess.
I've kept abreast of it through your wife, who texts me as a wonderful person.
And I know that you're a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need.
And I'm grateful to have.
So the whole thing is shocking and so revealing, but I'd like, if you don't mind, to start closer to the beginning of this story with your experience at National Review.
1992, you said you wrote this piece saying time to rethink immigration, which I remember well.
At the time, National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative.
So that was a significant piece at the time.
And then you said Bill Buckley, the then editor William F. Buckley Jr., stabbed you in the back.
I was never on staff at National Review, but I was what they called a senior editor, and I rolled for it a lot.
And in 1992, I wrote this very long cover story.
It's about 14,000 words.
Bill had retired as the editor then.
He was just circling around in the background.
But the then-editor John O'Sullivan went with this story.
And for about five years, we basically directly challenged the official conservative line, which was that immigration is good, more immigration is better, illegal immigration is very good.
That's what the Wall Street Journal said and is still saying, as far as I can tell.
Yes.
And then at the end of five years in 97, Bill, just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O'Sullivan and purged the magazine of immigration patriots and basically told us to shut up about it, told them all to shut up about immigration, which, of course, they all eagerly did.
He put the Washington Bureau in charge of Rich Lowry and Panuru and so on.
And so for them, for two or three years, you couldn't get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public.
Oh, because at that point, the neoconservatives, predominantly Jewish faction, they had this sort of Ellis Island view of America.
They wanted to be extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they feel as Jews that it will leave them out in the cold.
Despite the fact there's never been any real anti-Semitic movement in the United States, there's no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that they're white is a threat to Jews.
And I actually think there's a certain sort of jealousy there, you know.
They didn't like, I mean, if you look at ideas on the right in the recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism.
But here was a non-neoconservative fact.
We would have then described ourselves as perioconservatives, coming up with the whole idea and the whole issue.
Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when the Hart Seller Act kicked in until the early 90s.
There was no discussion of it at all.
I actually went through National Review's archives and I found that they hadn't discussed immigration at all between the passage of the 65 Act until the early 90s.
A whole generation of politicians had never thought about this issue.
And I include Ronald Reagan in that.
I mean, it simply wasn't an issue when he was growing up.
And that's why he was haunted while going by this Urka Amnesty in 1986.
He actually genuinely thought that the ruling of the permanent government would exchange amnesty for serious enforcement, whereas in fact, he just took the amnesty and didn't enforce the law against illegal immigration at all.
What I think now is, I think looking at National Review now, it's obviously donor-driven.
Oh, of course.
And we weren't aware of that in the 90s.
I wasn't even aware.
I didn't think about the donors' role in politics really until some years later than that.
We thought that people just got up and argued, and you just simply didn't realize how dominant how important the donors are.
I think now looking back at him, particularly given Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think, and he depended on National Review financially to a considerable extent.
his lifestyle to a considerable extent and I think he depended on the magazine yeah Yeah, yeah.
And it was, you know, I forget what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect and that sort of stuff.
He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration.
He just told them to stop covering it.
But the official line of the magazine was that immigration was questionable.
They just didn't do any journalism on it.
Which is how he was about drug legalization.
He was officially in favor of drug legalization, but he very rarely let the magazine write about him.
This news to me, that's what Ben Shapiro thinks is good about immigration.
I mean, just about five or six years ago in National Review, he called me a white supremacist basically for no other reason than advocating immigration reduction.
And those days, back in the early days, if you advocated immigration control, you immediately suspect that you immediately suspect of being anti-Semite, even though there's no direct connection at all.
And now they've changed their mind on this.
They've fallen back.
I mean, Norman, before he died, I was very friendly with Norman.
He didn't talk to me for the last 10 years of his life, but he died just a few weeks ago at the age of 95.
But just before he died, he gave an interview in which he said he changed his mind on immigration.
He thought there was a limit to how much immigration could be absorbed.
And he credited John O'Sullivan, the editor of National Review, for helping change his mind.
Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character and I deviated on the immigration issue.
And he suspected I had the habit of calling the National Review the Goldberg Review because at that stage, briefly, it was dominated by Jonah Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight.
And of course, was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration issue.
Yeah, well, the official line was John had resigned to write a book.
That was because John was very popular with the National View base and the immigration issue was very popular.
And so he didn't want to admit that he was dumping them both.
So he got really ruffled because he wasn't used to being challenged and said, he resigned to write a book and resigned to that book.
And we basically never really spoke to each other after that.
I mean, I was constructively dismissed from National Review.
I got a letter telling me I was no longer a senior editor, which was actually very important in the National Review world because it was run like a fraternity.
And if you were senior editor, you were automatically invited to all kinds of events and so on and to his dinners and all that kind of thing.
Well, Cartonette is a convert, of course, so he's probably very, you know, particularly ardent.
But the weird thing about this was that Cartinetti had actually written some quite sensible things on immigration, which is odd when you think who his father-in-law is.
He's moving it away from being classical liberalism.
The problem, of course, is that he's caught in this bind because he doesn't want to admit that Israel is an ethno-state because he doesn't want Americans to have ethno-state.
Well, you know, I've never been able to get him to explain how you cannot say that there's a racial component to Israel when the whole, when, of course, the Jewish religion is racially based.
I mean, that's why they have the matrilineal principle where you've got to have a Jewish mother.
And I've never seen him respond to that.
And I don't think he can, because he doesn't want to encourage straight-up white nationalism in America.
It's the biggest fact of this or any generation in a thousand years.
The replacement is real.
European governments aren't just tolerating mass migration.
They're encouraging it.
They're funding it.
They hate their populations and they want new populations.
We've got a new documentary on this called Replacing Europe, following the world's deadliest migration route.
Our filmmakers follow what nobody wants you to see.
They spoke directly with migrants, locals, officials who admit what the public has never told.
It's not ideological.
It's reality.
This is happening.
It's destroying the West.
And our cameras caught it.
Replacing Europe.
That's the doc, only on TCN now.
I just want to be clear about my own views, not that it matters, but just because I hold them sincerely, I have no problem with the fact that Israel is an ethno-state.
It's their country.
Have whatever state you want, as far as I'm concerned.
But it is an ethno-state by definition.
The people who founded it were not religious.
A lot of them were atheists.
And they identified as Jewish racially.
Again, I have no problem with that at all.
That's their country.
But to say it's not an ethnostate is not only a lie, but it's like a ludicrous lie.
And I'm not attacking Yormazoni at all, whom I like, but that's dishonest because Israel is an ethnostate and you should just tell the truth about, especially about obvious things, right?
I mean, of course, this is the profound question about the American Jewish role in the American immigration debate.
They're overwhelmingly pro-immigration.
However, having said that, you know, typically, if you know anything about Jewish intellectual life, you know they're going to be people on the other side and some people very hardly on those side.
I mean, I have a hunch that Stephen Miller, who of course is an aide to Trump, I think he's the deputy chief of staff or something, he's going to be the first Jewish president.
I say this because it horrifies people so much.
But he's like Disraeli in Britain.
Benjamin Disraeli, of course, was Jewish, but converted to Episcopalianism.
He was converted by his father at a very early age.
His father took the whole family over to being Episcopalians.
He basically invented the Conservative Party, reinvented the Conservative Party in the 19th century.
He came up with a complete grand strategy for it based on the empire and imperial patriotism and so on.
And that really carried the party through for the next 80 or 90 years.
A couple of generations because they partially in Britain was a nationalist party.
And because of being a nationalist party, it got a very substantial working class vote because it is the blue-collar workers who are patriots.
And the Conservative Party was able to tap into that.
Now, Miller's done the same thing.
He's invented a grand strategy for the Republican Party, which he desperately doesn't want to take up because it's run by cowards and fools.
But he thinks they should move towards restabilizing America's ethnic balance and basically eliminating this immigrant inflow, which is causing all kinds of problems with lower skilled workers and ultimately changing the racial balance.
And he's not afraid to admit that.
And not only that, but I don't think anyone is cunning to survive the Kushner White House.
No, I think those are all fair and true observations.
It's interesting, though, the degree to which the immigration project is a demographic project.
I mean, it has almost explicitly been an effort to make America less white.
They'll say that.
It's not controversial.
I mean, you could prove it on video or didn't even bother to, because I think most people watching this already know that.
Its architects, starting with Teddy Kennedy in 1965, basically just said, ultimately admitted, the whole point is to make America less white, a non-majority white country.
Why is it so hard for conservatives to say the same?
If Democrats are saying we want America to be non-white, why can't conservatives say that that's what their motive is?
I have to say that Kennedy didn't say that when he was the floor manager of the Heart Salary Act, he gave a very explicit assurance that you love to quote saying that this will not alter the racial balance of America, and it will not mean a million people here will be coming in, whereas in fact, a million people here are coming in.
And that's one of the reasons I bitterly regret not having V-Dare, even though I have my own peterbilmore.com substack.
That's not the same kind of voice, because we've got to get legal immigration to the debate here.
I think what Trump has done on illegal immigration is remarkable and more remarkable than people realize, but they're not doing anything on legal immigration.
But I'm sorry, that means I'm not answered your question.
Well, when I was writing the book I wrote on immigration, Alien Nation that flowed out of my cover, saw the 95 book, which Harper Garnes refused to reprint, I quoted a man called Earl Rob, who is a Jewish activist and so on.
And he explicitly said that the Jews were in favor of mass non-white immigration because it makes the rise of a he didn't use the term neo-Nazi, but that's what he meant, you know, party in America impossible.
But, you know, one of the reasons we know that the New York Attorney General's attack on us was basically instigated by the Anti-Defamation League because a journalist we know actually got the ADL to admit this, that they had gone to Letitia James and told her to take Vider out.
And we say to ourselves, why us, Jews?
What have we ever done to you?
You know, we have the Berkeley Springs Castle in West Virginia, which we bought as a conference venue because we're not allowed to have conference anywhere else.
The donor was Jewish.
We had all kinds of Jewish donors, all kinds of Jewish writers.
Well, that doesn't make any difference to the ideal partner.
So, what are you going to do when the power goes out?
Not theoretically, but actually in real life.
Most Americans used to think total power failure only happened in unstable countries, places without functioning governments, places you only went to on vacation.
This is the U.S. people would say that could never happen here.
You're running VDARE, and somehow Letitia James, who's the Attorney General, V-DARE is a 51c3 charity, and it was registered in New York in 1999 entirely because our then pro bono lawyer happened to be barred in New York and therefore it was convenient for him.
And this was when there was a Republican governor in New York and nobody ever heard of law affair and nobody heard the idea of law affair, this kind of exploitation of regulatory power never occurred to anybody at that point.
Well, because we registered in New York, even though we don't operate in New York, she was able to demand, we one day woke up and found we got these massive subpoenas, demanding all kinds of documents, including all our email going back to 2016.
Of course, that was a huge problem because if she got that, she would have the names of our donors and our anonymous pseudonymous writers.
And I had people writing for me whose career would have been ruined if they were filed.
And in some circumstances, if we were to set up another 501c3 and start operating out of that, she would claim that we were transferring assets and she could claim jurisdiction over that.
It's a huge mess.
And we had very expensive lawyers looking at it for a long time, even before she came along and hit us with this.
And when the Attorney General of a state you don't live or operate in can destroy you because she doesn't like your opinions, then we don't have a functioning legal system, period.
The wonderful, I mean, one of the wonderful things.
Let me back up a second.
One wonderful thing that has happened within the last year is that a very enterprising journalist actually dug up a speech made to the ADL.
They had a conference called Taking Hate to Court by Rick Sawyer, who is one of Letitia James operatives.
And he is the one who's leading the charge against us.
And he said to this conference that hate speech, that's us, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
But there are ways around that.
All you have to do, if it's a charity and you have jurisdiction, is to start issuing subpoenas.
He said it sucks to be sued.
Just subpoena them to death.
And of course, that's exactly what he's done to us.
They inflicted over a million, million, million and a half dollars in out-of-pocket costs for lawyers and so on, let alone the hundreds of hours that lady had to spend digging through documents and so on, which meant that she couldn't fundraise or do any of the work.
They just destroy you through the process of punishment.
They just destroy you that way.
So he's actually openly admitting this.
So when we saw this, we thought, oh, it's all over.
They've obviously admitted that what they're doing is not political.
It's not because of some regulatory concern.
But we've been totally unable to get the federal court to pay attention to this.
We're trying again now.
We have what they call a 1983 action against Letitia James and the operatives personally.
And we're trying to raise this First Amendment question there.
But the courts have been extremely resistant to looking at it.
I mean, if the attorney general and her staff are admitting they're destroying you because they disagree with your opinions, it seems to me that any federal court would take that up because that's a foundational question.
The first time we did it, the court simply dodged on a technical issue.
They came up with a technical excuse to dodge in.
And we have Troy trying again now, but we just have to hope for the best.
I think one of the things that is clear to me, I mean, is from looking at our litigation experience, which is now considerably, goes far beyond this situation.
Another case I'm aware of is that there seems to have been some message gone out from Judge Central that anything that's quote-unquote on a white nationalist has got to be suppressed by any means necessary.
In our case, the classic example is we had an hotel cancel on us in Colorado Springs.
And they are quarrels not with them because they paid up the liquidated damages like men, and it was a lot of money.
But they cancelled because the mayor of Colorado Springs, who was a rhino, John Sothers, had said he wouldn't extend police protection to the conference.
In other words, anti-faculty go in and he wouldn't extend police protection?
Now, this is an issue which has been extensively litigated in the civil rights era.
And the point was made very clear by the courts that the local authorities, the local governments, have to extend protection to people's First Amendment rights.
In other words, in those days, the black demonstrators would go into it, would have meetings in the city, and the local whites would be angry about it.
Well, those whites had to be kept away.
The blacks had to be allowed to have their meetings.
Well, we litigated this right up to the Supreme Court, which refused to take the issue up.
And the appeals court in Colorado rejected us.
And I believe it had at least one.
We had one good judge there who said this is obviously an attack on First Amendment rights.
But the other two, who I think were Republican appointees, to vote against us.
So we lost.
And we weren't able to.
Our initial lawyer, you know, civil rights litigation is extremely damaging if you're on the wrong side of it.
I mean, there's enormous damages involved.
So it would have been a huge victory, and we would have actually been made whole in a very dramatic way.
And our initial lawyer in Colorado Springs was so keen on this, it was so obvious open and shut case, that he took it on contingency, you know.
But as soon as he realized that the city was going to resist, he ran away and we had to start paying our paying lawyers to litigate him.
Well, anyway, subsequently, there was a case before the Supreme Court, New York, I guess the verse was Volo.
It's called the Volo case, V-U-L-L-O.
And this was a case where the communists in New York were putting pressure on insurance companies not to insure the NRA.
And the NRA fought it and it won.
And in the decision, Katenji Jackson says the NRA's case is strong, but it's essentially empowerful.
It's not as strong as Vida's case, where they were denied police, where the state agency basically discriminates against them on political grounds.
Well, it turns out that 16 attorneys general had signed an Amicus brief saying that the appeals court in Colorado had been wrong to reject our attempt to sue Colardo Springs on a civil rights theory, and that it was wrong for the following reasons.
And for that reason, the Supreme Court should take up the NRA's case against NRA versus Volo, I guess it was called.
And the Supreme Court did take it up and ruled against the state of New York 9-0, which of course does us absolutely no good whatever because we're out all that money and are forced to memorize they're not protected.
I mean, in other words, there's a real determination on the part of the NRA is apparently more palatable than we are.
I'm a little bit confused conceptually with the idea that white self-awareness is effectively illegal in the United States, whereas ethnic self-awareness in every other group is encouraged.
Like, doesn't make any sense.
Speak for myself, I'd rather live in a deracialized world where people think about it less because it does cause problems.
But as long as you're encouraging identity politics, why do whites not get to have it?
And the purpose of the project, like big picture, again, I keep going back to this, but I'm just, I am a little bit confused because this is the defining fact of our lives, is that whites around the world are being eliminated.
Well, Well, all of us benefit, white and non-white, benefit alike from systems created by whites because they're more humane, they're more just, they're more fair, and they're much more efficient and cleaner, obviously.
You know, I was looking at an interview, if I can interrupt you, I was looking at an interview.
Somebody sent me an interview I did for Forbes magazine with Milton Friedman.
And I asked him, are there cultural prerequisites for capitalism?
And he said, yes.
As you know, he's a very fire-breathing libertarian, but he actually thought about this question.
And he said that, you know, he said, capitalism has really only ever worked in English-speaking countries.
He said, I don't know why this is so, but the fact has to be admitted that there's some kind of a cultural underpinning for capitalism.
What economists call a meta-market framework operates.
So the question is, why are these capitalists bringing, you know, why is the Chamber of Commerce suing to keep the H-1B flow coming when it's obviously going to produce people who don't do it like Mandami, who don't support capitalism and, in fact, hate it?
What are the capitalists doing?
Well, they're doing what Lenin said.
They will sell us the rope with which we hang them.
Well, you know, I spent well over a year working for Rupert in, I think this 1990 on a Ghostinger's autobiography, which was never published for the various reasons.
He changed his mind about it.
But I have to say he was extraordinarily generous to me personally, and he continued to be extraordinarily generous until very recently when I guess I had been on the payroll quietly for a very long time and they dropped me when you came under attack because somebody looked into people on the payroll and they found that this thought criminal is on the payroll.
So at that point, I was dropped.
But he's personally been extraordinarily generous to me.
So essentially, I was a consultant for him, and he didn't consult me at all because, of course, I would have told him to do the exact opposite of what he was asking.
Yes, no, I just want to say out loud, I agree with you 100% through much experience, 25 years.
But it does raise the question, as it does with Bill Buckley, then, you know, Rupert has great personal decency, and I've seen it, but the editorial product is aggressively opposed to American basic American interests.
So like, what is that?
This guy likes America.
He treats people around him well.
There's a lot good to say about Rupert, but the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Harper Collins, like all of them are engaged in a very aggressive campaign against America's interests.
Well, I think he handed over the sort of intellectual, the thinking part of a news corporation or 21st century Fox, whatever it's called, whatever it's called now, to the neoconservatives.
And so he took on a lot of neoconservative baggage at that point.
I mean, they used to run an editorial every year saying there ought to be a constitutional amendment.
But that was then as it is now, and they just simply haven't made the transition.
But that's a major reason.
I know, so he's operating in New York, and he was under a lot of suspicion there and has been, you know, he had to show what he was, what Gore Vidal called once an okay guy.
And he's showing that.
It's genuine, though, with Rupert.
I remember once talking to him about why he was so pro the initial Iraq war, the Gulf War.
And he said, well, you know, it goes back to my father and Gallipoli.
You know, his father played a major role in discrediting the Gallipoli expedition, which was this attack orchestrated by Winston Churchill.
They're trying to break through the Dardanelles to get to Russia to help Russia join the war.
He said, so I'm just, I guess I'm just basically anti-Arab.
Somebody who spends all of his time looking at numbers.
He's a fantastic memory for numbers.
I can never remember any phone numbers.
He remembers every phone number he's ever dialed, you know.
And running an operation like his, it requires a tremendous attention to detail and a tremendous application to going over pages and pages and pages of figures.
And I don't know that he spends a great deal of time thinking about politics, except in a sporting sense.
I mean, he likes to be, he likes, you know, he likes to be backing winners and winning elections and that kind of thing.
The difficulty with this is that the Republicans believe the Democrat propaganda too, which is why they won't, for example, appeals to the white vote.
One of the things we did at VDARE is we discussed and documented what we call the Sailors Tragy, as opposed to the Rove Tragy.
In 2000, Karl Rove was saying that the Republicans have got to do outreach to minorities.
And it makes no sense statistically, because I think George Bush judge W. Bush got like 51% of the white vote.
It's appalling performance.
So Steve Saylor, who's one of our writers who we've had on, pointed out that if they could just increase that proportion of the white vote to what his father got, which is like 57, 58%, that would swamp and overwhelm any possible conceivable gain among minority voters.
So we were saying you should go for the white vote.
And now this caused a great deal of trouble for us.
I remember I got a letter from an email from Jude Winiske.
Do you remember Jude Winitsky?
He said, Peter, you've gone too far.
In other words, appealing to the white vote is not allowed.
And look, it's just a question of arithmetic.
You know, there's more of them than there are minorities.
In any case, to this day, the Republicans have still not done that.
Jude was a liberal, you know, and way back when he was a liberal Democrat and he still had a lot of these reflexes.
But it was just thought to be, people just got very emotional about it.
You know, they think it's somehow illegitimate and they still do think it's illegitimate.
For example, so we see in Virginia in this last election, you know, this young kid who's a complete cypher as far as a Wall Street cypher, as far as I can see, chooses has his success in the gubernatorial race.
A candidate who is one, an immigrant, two, a woman, and three, black.
So he's a black Jamaican immigrant.
And this is how he's going to appeal to the white vote.
They're going to get people in the halls of southwest Virginia out to vote for this black immigrant.
I mean, without ever doing anything to deserve it, the Republicans have become absolutely unbeatable in Virginia.
And you and I both remember that when the Democrats were unbeatable in Virginia, you know, I forget when the last Republican, I always keep forgetting when the last Republican Democrat to carry West Virginia was, but it might have been Clinton.
And now it's just the Democrats have ceased to exist in West Virginia, even though this is a very poor state.
Republicans prevailed simply by virtue of not being Democrats.
Now, of course, he did say, you know, when he came down the elevator and said just a few words about Mexico, about Mexican immigration, and never look back.
So he obviously struck a nerve there.
So he did enough to strike a nerve simply by raising immigration in this rather, you know, I'm sure it drives Stephen Miller crazy, incoherent and peculiar.
And if Carstaff forgets his lines and says the wrong thing way that Trump does talk about immigration.
But he did raise it.
And of course, until then, it's been driven out of Republican parties completely.
I know he wrote about it for you were fired over it, right?
There was almost no sign that any Republican would pick it up.
But then when he did, the damn broke.
And now, the big difference that I found, Tucker, is if you speak to grassroots Republicans, as opposed to elected Republicans, the consensus is overwhelming that immigration has got to be ended.
The consensus is overwhelming.
Whereas when I got involved in this in the early 90s, a lot of Republicans never heard of this question.
And they would assume, for example, that immigrants don't go on welfare to the same extent that native-born do, which is completely wrong.
It's completely reverse of the truth.
And it was back then.
It was obvious that they were going back into welfare in disproportionate numbers.
The big thing that has to, the next, if I was still running VDAR and on my own website, peterbrimmo.com now, what I'm interested in is legal immigration.
Legal immigration is still running at a million a year.
No, that puts the fact that the foreign-born population in the U.S. has fallen by two and a half million in the last, and just joined this year.
That's an absolute extraordinary number.
I used to track it VDAR, the foreign-born population, because it was a way of tracking the impact of immigration.
It very rarely goes negative.
It went negative briefly when Trump first got in because they were frightened of him and a lot of eagles left.
And then towards the end, before COVID, it was falling because of various technical executive action measures that Trump had taken, the administration taking to tighten up on both legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Now it's 2.5 million, going to form 2.5 million, the foreign-born population, even though we know a million legal immigrants have come in, 90% from colour, by the way, only about 10% white.
So what we really need is an immigration moratorium.
And I'm delighted to say there is a bill proposed by Chip Roy in the House, it's called the Paws Act, calling for a moratorium.
And there's several other very interesting bills, a very good bill on birthright citizenship.
And let me see if we look at my list here.
Secure the border.
I mean, in other words, they should set and codify Trump's activities, tighten up on the executive action, tighten up on the southern border, because we know that when the Democrats get in, they'll reverse it.
But they won't be able to do that if it's in the law.
They'll have to pass a law and have to admit what they're doing.
The problem is that the White House seems to be not pushing any of these bills.
And unless they do, I don't think that Speaker Johnson is going to raise anything.
He's just going to lie low.
And I don't know why the White House isn't pushing these bills.
Of course, it's got its hands full in Minnesota, where they clearly need to declare the Insurrection Act and that kind of thing.
And it keep going around blowing up foreign governments and stuff like that and sinking ships and stuff.
I mean, which must be very entertaining, but I would really rather than focus on ending this immigration disaster.
You know, it's whatever it is, 34 years now since I started writing about this in National Review.
I guess I am bitter at the Conservative movement, people in the Conservative movement, people I've known for 30 and 40 years who basically haven't helped us, haven't defended us.
The most prominent people who have defended us, Tokyo, are you and Laura Luma, your friend Laura Luma.
I have a gift saying goal, which I just launched before Christmas Friday to help us personally, because, of course, we're now facing tremendous legal costs personally.
We know that there are people in the Department of Justice who are not directly.
On the other hand, Trump can't stand Letitia James, quite rightly.
And they've made various attempts to bring her to book for various crimes.
For one thing, I mean, she's clearly guilty of massive mortgage fraud going back over.
But we know the obverse of lawfare run by Democrats is joint nullification by Democrats.
They've been unable to indict her because basically because judges keep disallowing the prosecutors and because the grand juries won't indict Democrats.
So I don't know where that stands.
They also have an investigation into her deprivation of Trump's civil rights in these scandalous cases and this Hush Money case and the fraud case and so on, which should never have been allowed to go to court.
The judges should have started.
But of course, the judges are on the other side.
And our judges just try to strike that down by disallowing the prosecutor.
I mean, what's happening is these Democrats, senators, not only have the power to veto judicial appointments, federal judicial appointments, but they also have the power, apparently, to veto prosecutors, federal prosecutors.
And they're apparently taking the position that they won't allow the appointment of a federal prosecutor if he's likely to prosecute Letitia James or any other Democrat.
And God knows there are enough Democrats out there that need prosecuting.
That's how they're protecting them.
Many respects, we're looking to slow-motion civil war here.
I mean, New York is essentially secede and Minnesota essentially seceded from the Union.
The whole legal systems are opposed to what the federal government is doing.
Jonathan Turley, who is a First Amendment specialist, wrote recently that New York is the land that law forgot because normal legal norms simply don't apply there.
What happens is what the Democrat operatives want.
And of course, this is not a government under law.
So in effect, New York is seceding from the Union.
And that's why I think ultimately we're going to have to go to the Insurrection Act and we're going to have to go to wholesale impeachment of judges.
All these judges brought in by Biden, I think he had one or two white men, both of whom were gay, something like that.
All the others are women and people of colour and so on.
And they're delivering the most extraordinary rulings, disregarding the plain letter of the law.
Ultimately, it's going to have to be purged of the judicial system.