NBC News correspondent Gadi Schwartz traveled to Nogales, Mexico, to talk with a mother whose deportation was protested Wednesday in Phoenix, and her kids about that this means for their family.
Lana Lokteff argues that every white country is being forced to “diversify” by importing millions of non-Europeans into their nation. Lana tells why she doesn’t want to become a White minority.
An interesting new piece from Jack Donovan.
I generally think that WN is to race and immigration what the religious right was to the sexual revolution and secularization of US society in the postwar era. It’s a backlash against prevailing currents that amounts to swimming against the tides. Only WNs are far less wealthy, numerous, popular, or influential than the religious right was in its heyday.
I think the core argument that guys like Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer make (“Should whites allows themselves to become a minority in their historic homelands surrounded by other populations with deep seated historical grudges against whites?”) is a valid one and one that should be heard without vilification of those making the argument. And Islamic immigration is an issue that transcends racial boundaries.
But I still think it’s a one-dimensional way of thinking.
The welfare state is a gravy train for ISIS.
If the welfare state doesn’t end in Europe, the welfare state will end Europe. And future historians will look back on the way the West ended and think we were all out of our goddamn minds.
As the dust is still clearing in Brussels and Pakistan (killing kids on Easter… stay classy, ISIS) and wherever else the nut jobs hit before this goes to press—as the Left signals their concern that all these dead bodies and raped orificia might feed an irrational fear of suicide bombers and rapists—the press is busy lecturing European security agencies about their incompetence. They could have stopped all these attacks somehow, if only they knew how to do their jobs!
You know what? I feel sorry for the security agencies, bumbling though they may allegedly be. From where I’m sitting, their job looks freakin’ impossible. According to Pew, over a third of French Muslims think suicide bombing is at least on occasion acceptable (and among the 18-30 crowd, it’s an eye-watering 42 percent).
How would you like it to be your job to root out terrorists when a third of the base population—of whose diversity and feelings you must always be respectful—would be happy to house and hide the assholes you’re looking for?
Meanwhile the media have kept stumping for not just bringing more of the terrorist-supporting population in, but feeding and housing them at the expense of the very government budget that must also fund security operations.
I know, only a bad person would ever suggest that you end welfare, and no educated European wants to be a bad person. But what you are accomplishing by being too nice is very bad indeed, Europe. Because if you do not end the welfare state, you’re going to have a violent genocide, one way or another.
U.S. immigration authorities rounded up hundreds of undocumented immigrants across six states in the last week, which begs the question — where do they go?
The detention centers maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are home to some of the most inhumane prison conditions in the entire country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, has very little accountability for the conditions of its detention centers, since the people being held are not U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, by default stripping away most of the Constitutional rights guaranteed for prisoners.
PressTV. Listen here.
Donald Trump’s immigration policies have proven that the US president acts without thinking first, an analyst in Virginia says.
Keith Preston, director of attackthesysten.com, made the remarks while discussing a slew of directives by Trump that have plunged the country’s immigration system into chaos.
In late January, Trump introduced a travel ban against people from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia Iraq and Libya. All refugee admissions, except for Syrian refugees who were banned indefinitely, were halted for three months under the executive order, which has been halted upon a federal judge’s order.
Trump has also signed a directive to begin the construction of a controversial wall on the border with Mexico, while hiring thousands of new enforcement agents to carry out more deportation raids.
Preston said the refugee crisis south of the American borders took place in the 1980s, when people tried to flee US-backed wars in Central America, including Guatemala and El Salvador.
The crisis deepened “in the 1990s, when NAFTA—the North American Free trade Agreement—was imposed,” he argued. “That had the impact of destroying Mexican agriculture and then that created mass unemployment among Mexican agriculture workers, so they started migrating north to the United States.”
Preston said Trump was more focused on the issue of crimes committed by immigrants rather than the economic impact of immigration on the US economy.
“There is a question of practicality,” he said. “One real issue that the Trump administration has demonstrated is that they often act before they think.”
“We saw that with the seven [Muslim] nation travel ban. That was an executive order that was issued very hastily, very rapidly, and was not crafted in such a way as to address serious problems that would come up naturally when trying to impose something like that,” he explained.
“There is also the question of who is actually going to be impacted by this? Is it only going to be convicted criminals, or is it going to be their families?”
The human resources required to arrest immigrants and the due process during their detention were some of the other matters that Trump had not taken into consideration, according to Preston.
“I suspect that the more the Trump administration tries to ratchet up these kinds of actions the more political conflict there is going to be,” the analyst concluded.
A number of people have for my views on the so-called “Muslim travel ban” imposed by the Trump administration. Here goes:
Statistically, the evidence shows that right-wing terrorists have been slightly more violent in the years since 9-11 than Islamists, at least in the US obviously. But the meaning I take from this data is that the neocons and other hawks are blowing the Islamic terrorism threat way out of proportion, while liberals and the Left blow the right-wing terrorism threat out of proportion. Both groups need these false narratives to be true for ideological reasons.
The neocons and other hawks want a permanent war against Islam and the Left wants a permanent war against whitey, so there always has to be some looming threat on the horizon. The real violence is the US comes mostly from inner city gangs that murder each other over drug dealing disputes, from fights and domestic violence that spirals out of control, and from the mentally ill or lone nuts like Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, or Omar Mateen.
September 11, 2001 was a singular but spectacular incident that has predictably kept plenty of people up in arms ever since. The OKC bombing in ’95, which killed about 150, had the same impact on the Left. I remember how after OKC the Left was saying many more such acts were just around the corner. But over 20 years later there’s been no such thing. The same thing happened with 9-11. I remember people talking about how there was going to be nuclear destruction of US cities and terrorism with bioweapons and all kinds of stuff. But 15 years later there’s only been a handful of incidents like Orlando, San Bernardino, and Ft. Hood that were perpetrated by lone nuts or small groups of friends acting as freelancers.
Press TV. Listen here.
US President Donald Trump’s plans to reduce Washington’s foreign interventionism and focus on issues like immigration are part of a foreign policy plan that seeks to separate Russia from China and Iran, says an American analyst.
Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.org, made the remarks while discussing Trump’s directives to curb immigration.
On Wednesday, the new president signed executive orders to begin the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico and to crack down on states that harbor immigrants.
Following his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from entering America, Trump is also expected to sign another executive order which blocks the entry of Syrian refugees and suspends the entry of any immigrants from Syria and other Muslim countries like Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yemen.
“He is apparently going to follow through with many things he said he was going to do on the campaign trail and I think primarily what he is aiming to do right now is to establish his own credibility,” Preston told Press TV on Wednesday..
In this episode of Head to Head, Mehdi Hasan challenges Sir Paul Collier, the former head of Development Research at the World Bank, author of Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism, and professor at Oxford University, on the costs and benefits of migration.
In the face of a particularly pitiful election selection, Ann Sterzinger makes the case for giving oneself the first and final vote.
Personally, were I American, I’d either just stay home or turn up only to draw a cock on the ballot paper, in line with my anti-democratic precedent (#Brexit exempted). Still, I suppose voting for oneself, or “no confidence”, works as another way to inoculate oneself from the pozz of the team-sport/herd-animal mentality undergirding electoral politics.
Also: Hurhur…she said “minge”….
By Katrina Gulliver
The American Conservative
Then as now, revolutionary violence sparks calls for immigration restrictions.
Today, revolutionary anarchists seem archaic, almost quaint. But for around 50 years, from the 1880s to the 1930s, anarchists carried out terror attacks all over the world. Buildings blew up; world leaders and random civilians alike were killed.
The parallels between then and now, when we face the threat of ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups, are many. During the decades of anarchist terrorism, it seemed like each week we heard of another incident carried out by an immigrant from a politically unstable region of the globe, and some prominent public figures called for banning all immigration from these regions. Anarchists were decentralized and self-defined (“self-radicalized” as the media puts it today). Also like ISIS—and unlike nationalist terror groups—anarchists did not have a clear political goal that could be a starting point for negotiations. This is what makes decentralized terror groups particularly dangerous: they have no demands with which we could comply or offer to discuss, even if we wanted to.
An interesting take on immigration, economics, and US-Mexican relations from a Mexican nationalist.
The economic analysis he gave was quite good. I wish these identitarian folks would emphasize that more. Often they sound like ordinary Republicans grousing about “colored folks on welfare.” He didn’t say anything Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky would disagree with in that area.
His description of Latin America as a European civilization is pretty much in line with my own thinking. We’re descended from Northern Europe and they from Southern Europe. We’re historically Protestant and they Catholic. We speak English and they Spanish. But it’s still derivative of the West, and we both have native indigenous and black minorities as well.It’s not like Islam or Southern or Eastern Asian which is a whole different civilization.
Fernando Cortés, a long-time Mexican nationalist and identitarian, offers his perspective on immigration to the United States at the 2016 American Renaissance conference. He argues that the Mexican regime could be accused of almost intentional mismanagement of the economy so as to keep Mexicans poor and provide cheap labor for Americans. Mr. Cortés acknowledges the damage that massive Mexican immigration does to American identity, and says that, at the same time, the present system is bad for Mexico, which loses important workers, even as corruption and civil decay creep north. He speaks of his happiness in finding identitarians in America because, “for me, the US is Mordor—the only place where the ring can be destroyed.” We will always be neighbors, he says, and “two nations can live side by side with true, separate identities.” However, this can be successful only when “each nation has its own folk, territory, and independence.”
Brussels: Déjà vu
By Keir Martland
I remember watching with horror on the night of the 13th November 2015 as the news of the Paris atrocities came through. RT, the BBC, and Sky were all of them thoroughly confused by the events and yet I stayed up until the small hours of the morning. When I woke up, the death toll was well over a hundred. It made me, and countless others, almost physically ill. It also made me very angry.
This morning, I sat down with my breakfast and switched on the television set with the intention of getting my 5-10 minutes of BBC propaganda. Instead, I was very nearly late for college. Just as in November, I was glued to the screen, only this time I don’t feel the same anger. Yes, I am repulsed. I would hope that the very idea that any one of us could be blown to smithereens by some lunatic while on the way to work or waiting for our luggage – in our own country – would repulse any sensible person. But I am incapable of reproducing the emotions of last year.Instead, what I mostly feel is déjà vu.
Here’s the transcript.
Great interview with Augustus by Lana Lokteff. Listen here.
Augustus Invictus is an attorney and community leader in Orlando, Florida who is a candidate in the 2016 US Senate election. Best known as a radical philosopher and infamous social critic, he is Managing Partner of Imperium, P.A., the law firm he founded in 2013. As an attorney, Augustus has worked to defend those who have become collateral damage of America’s two longest-running wars: the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
Augustus begins with an explanation of the name he has chosen to identify with, along with the mystical path that led him to study law and eventually pursue politics. He talks about his affiliation with the Libertarian Party (LP) and the problems he sees with its watered down, mainstream message. Augustus describes the main issues he aspires to tackle as Senator: the drug war, foreign policy, and the financial crisis. We get into the customary LP stances on open borders, immigration and equality, and we look at how these key concerns have been muddled with leftist contention. Augustus shares his view on the problems that will ensue for Libertarian ideals if non-Westerners continue to flood into America, and he also speaks to the Marxist degeneracy that has infected pop culture and the educational system. Then, we discuss the absence of natural law and hierarchy in the current US government system, along with the tyrannical forces pushing oppressive mandatory regulations, censorship and hate speech laws. At the end, Augustus sums up the actions he is taking to tackle the looney left’s war on White men and inspire a resurrection of the American front.
It is understandable that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have been able to garner a tremendous amount of support among many who are inclined to think ill of the system (which is rapidly becoming a majority of the U.S. population).
Both men are a refreshing alternative to the scripted politicians that comprise the “mainstream” presidential candidates, and both are raising topics of interest that many people find compelling but which the establishment candidates will not touch for obvious reasons.
Bernie Sanders is essentially a single-issue candidate, and his issue is the widening class divisions that have appeared in the United States in the era of globalization, and which are now the greatest at any point in the past century. Trump is essentially addressing the same issue, albeit from a different implicit ideological perspective.
By Bryan Caplan
David Card has a new study arguing that immigration has basically no effect on the wages of domestic low-skilled workers. This confirms his earlier results on the famed Mariel boatlift, when Castro freed 125,000 Cubans to flee to Miami.
Is this result theoretically possible? How can the supply of labor increase, but leave wages unchanged? Card has little patience for these questions:
As the evidence has accumulated over the past two decades that local labor market outcomes are only weakly correlated with immigrant densities, some analysts have argued that the cross-city research design is inherently compromised by intercity mobility of people, goods, and services. Underlying this argument is the belief that labor market competition posed by immigration has to affect native opportunities, so if we don’t find an impact, the research design must be flawed.
A better answer, though, would have been to go to the blackboard. Card’s results are theoretically possible. All that is necessary, as Figure 1 shows, is that labor demand be infinitely elastic, i.e., horizontal.
Figure 1: Infinitely Elastic Labor Demand
Notice: When the Supply curve shifts out, the quantity of labor sold increases, and wages stay the same.
But this gets me thinking. Card is of course the co-author, with Alan Krueger, of the legendary study of the fast food industry in Pennsylvania and New Jersey showing that the minimum wage does not reduce employment. Their book goes further, debunking earlier studies that found the opposite.
Is this result theoretically possible? How can the minimum price of labor increase, but leave employment unchanged? Let’s go back to the blackboard.
In turns out that Card and Krueger’s results are theoretically possible too. All that is necessary, as Figure 2 shows, is that labor demand be infinitely inelastic, i.e., vertical. (The thick horizontal line between S and D at the controlled price is a labor surplus, but note that the quantity of labor purchased remains unchanged).
A leading immigration economist argues that immigration has a wage suppression effect on the lower income socioeconomic sectors.
By George Borjas
Center for Immigration Studies
George J. Borjas has been described by both Business Week and the Wall Street Journal as “America’s leading immigration economist”. He is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the recipient of the 2011 IZA Prize in Labor Economics. Professor Borjas is also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a Research Fellow at IZA. Professor Borjas is the author of several books, including Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton University Press, 1999), and the widely used textbook Labor Economics (McGraw-Hill, 2012), now in its sixth edition. He has published over125 articles in books and scholarly journals. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1975.
At current levels of around one million immigrants per year, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) significantly larger, with almost all of this increase in GDP accruing to the immigrants themselves as a payment for their labor services.
For American workers, immigration is primarily a redistributive policy. Economic theory predicts that immigration will redistribute income by lowering the wages of competing American workers and increasing the wages of complementary American workers as well as profits for business owners and other “users” of immigrant labor. Although the overall net impact on the native-born is small, the loss or gain for particular groups of the population can be substantial.
The best empirical research that tries to examine what has actually happened in the U.S. labor market aligns well with economy theory: An increase in the number of workers leads to lower wages. This report focuses on the labor market impact of immigration.
Immigration also has a fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. The fiscal impact is a separate question from the labor market impact. This report does not address the size of the fiscal impact.
More than you might wanna inhale!
How to deal with the sexual assaults in Cologne and Hamburg by Musa Okwonga
Why We Can’t Stay Silent on Germany’s Mass Sex Assaults by Maajid Nawaz
The solution to Germany’s migrant problem is simple. But not easy. by Janet Bloomfield a.k.a JudgyBitch
We need to talk about Cologne by Greek Forum of Refugees (et al)
The false dilemma of the rapacious Muslim narrative by Hannah Wallen
Cologne and the ‘sexism of the other’: Why tougher migration policies won’t solve sexual abuse by Anne Jenichen
A reply to Anne Jenichen on the link between immigration and sexual violence by Daniel Falkiner
Is Europe Choosing to Self-Destruct? by Judith Bergman
After Cologne, Feminism is Dead by Phillip Mark McGough
Europa: When Feminism is Silent by NM Phoenix
Lie Back and Think of Brussels by Ann Sterzinger and Jamie Mason
International Business Times: Cologne sex attacks: Syrian refugees take to streets to condemn mass assaults by migrants on New Year’s Eve
Liberty from a Beginner: Selected Essays (Second Edition)
Twenty Five Essays with an Introductory Overview
By Keir Martland
Foreword by Sean Gabb
FROM THE REVIEWS
“[these essays] break out of the dead end that British libertarianism – and much American – has found itself in since about 1980.” – Sean Gabb (Libertarian Alliance)
“Keir Martland provides a perspective that synthesizes Rothbardian libertarianism with cultural traditionalism to offer insights that are as penetrating as they are rare.” – Keith Preston (Attack the System)
Another year is over and as exactly one year ago to this day I wrote a review of 2014, I shall do the same today for 2015.
The General Election
The first political event to spring to mind is of course the May 2015 General Election. A longer campaign than usual, it was perhaps more overtly leftist in its tone than any of the twenty first century. UKIP, itself having veered to the left to accommodate new Old Labour members, proved no counter-weight to the leftism of the other parties.